Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?

Question

This website says No.
http://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html

But how accurate is the information there?

Answer 1

"Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the anonymity is in place so that the credit for the work will go to God. Of course this has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability for their errors, and prevents real scholars from checking their academic credentials."



As if non-scholars couldn't check the credentials. However, Bible scholars don't check translation accuracy by the credentials of the translators, but by comparing the translation with the original texts.



"The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine."



A statement pulled out of a hat, for all the evidence it's based on. It's just as logical to claim the NWT was produced by examining bowls of alphabet soup. Since the NWT translators are anonymous, then how does this website known their motivation?



"The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs."



Rather, JWs found other translations to not match the meaning of the original texts, so they produced their own translation. This is allowed. Catholics and Protestants have all created their respective Bible translations - and all can be accused of allowing their bias to dictate translation.



"The [New American Standard Bible Translation Committee] went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with [Evangelical] theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as new editions to the [NASB] were published, additional changes were made to the biblical text."



See how lousy the logic is?



"As biblical Christians continued to point out, Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ (for example), the Watchtower Society would publish a new edition of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed. Following are some of the more prominent examples of intentional revisions."



No examples. Because their aren't any. Probably Hebrews 1:6 could be cited, but only if JW's interpretation of the verse was ignored.



"The New World Translation renders the Greek term word "staurós" ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words “sheol,” "hades,” "gehenna," and "tartarus," as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word “parousia” because JW’s believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900’s."



Yet, the NWT is not inaccurate when using any of these terms.



"In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other” despite it being completely absent from the original Greek text."



So what? This is unremarkable. Bible translations add words all the time. It is required to complete the sense in the target language. The critics would have to show that Col 1:16 *cannot* take "other" - that it would be a genuine mistranslation. So far, I've only heard Trinitarian apologists use the "added words" kindergarten line of reasoning.



"So any use of an indefinite article in the English translation must be added in by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable in English, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text."



LOL. By "does not change the meaning of the text," they mean, "does not change the meaning of what we want the text to mean."



Their whole discussion of John 1:1 is inaccurate, especially since they're arguing for a *definite* translation "the Word was God," but most biblical scholars view John 1:1 as *qualitative* in meaning "the Word was divine." But determining which noun is the subject of a sentence has *no bearing* on the definite/indefiniteness of the other noun.



They then go on to use kindergarten grammar rules to show other instances of "god" without the article in Greek. However this sheds no light on the issue, since the tables can be flipped around on them (Acts 28:4, 6), or the syntax of the cited verses is different.

Answer 2

Utter bias.



The website states:



1. “The New World Translation renders the Greek term word "staurós" ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross.”



This is false. Jehovah’s Witnesses stopped believing it was a cross when they learned the correct meaning of “staurós” before publishing the NWT.



2. “The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words “sheol,” "hades,” "gehenna," and "tartarus," as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell.”



False premise. The NWT is not the only version that does not translates these words as “hell” in all instances. We do not believe in a fiery “hell” because the bible does not teach this.



3. “The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word “parousia” because JW’s believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900’s.”



The NWT is not the only version to translate “parousía” correctly, such as The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, The Emphasised Bible by J. B. Rotherham, and El Nuevo Testamento by Pablo Besson.



3. “In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other” despite it being completely absent from the original Greek text.”



I have found at least four different Spanish Bible versions that translate this verse with the rendering “the other things”, and “the rest”.



In The Watchtower of April 15th, 1970, p.255 states:

We might begin here that it is not unusual for words to be 'added,' 'supplied,' or 'inserted', whatever way you like to describe it, by the translator, so as bring out in an English translation the proper sense that the original meaning had and that the readers of it in the Hebrew and/or Greek languages of the 1st century would naturally have understood it. One only has to pick up a copy of the King James Version and see that they have indicated where they have done so by putting their "additions" in italics. Indeed, this 'practice' occurs hundreds of times. In fact one can see it happening in this very chapter in Colossians with many modern English translations such as the New International Version and The New Revised Standard Version(please examine the English texts of these translations with that of the original N.T. text). Of course, they do not 'use' the English word "other" at v.15. However, as will be shown, the word "other" can be part of the Greek word under discussion here. So it could correctly be said that the word "other" has not been "added." "Supplied for the correct sense" would be a better description to use.

Answer 3

Interesting, but bias.





Jason BeDuhn: "While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NW[T] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared."

-Greek Scholar in his book: "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"



Steven T. Byington: Of the NWT, "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines."

-Christian Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures"



Frederick Danker: "Not to be snubbed is the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rendered from the Original by the New World Bible Translation Committee."

-"Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study"



Alan S. Duthie: The "Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT,...is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines'...even though a few aberrations can be found...but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected... does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'.

-"How To Choose Your Bible Wisely"



Rolf Furuli: "I read the English text of the NWT against the Hebrew text, word for word...the translators of the NWT have been extremely faithful both to their own translation principles and to the Hebrew text."

-Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Oslo University



S. Maclean Gilmore: "The New Testament edition was made by a committee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek."

-Andover Newton Quarterly



Edgar Goodspeed: "I am...much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."

-Scholar and Bible Translator



Samuel Haas: "This work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship."

-Bible Scholar in "Journal of Biblical Literature"



C. Houtman: "The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism."

-"Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift", [Dutch Theological Magazines]



Benjamin Kedar: "I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that [the OT] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible....Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language...I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

-Professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has a Ph'd from Yale



Robert M. McCoy: "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation."

-"Andover Newton Quarterly"



Dr. Bruce Metzger: "On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators."

-Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Scholar in Greek, OT Studies and NT Studies in "The Bible Translator"



James Parkinson: "The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation offers a relatively accurate translation from a different theological perspective."

-Author of "How To Choose a Bible Translation"



J. D Phillips: "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an owner. You have done a marvelous work...but you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!"

-J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister who knew Hebrew and Koine Greek



Charles Francis Potter: In "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen."

-The Faith Men Live By



Alexander Thomson: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing."

-in "The Differentiator" (a private, published journal)



Allen Wikgren: It is "independent reading of merit."

-Scholar on the NRSV committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text



Thomas N. Winter: "The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate...In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order."

-Professor of Koine Greek at the University of Nebraska.



... I like the above, and I'm familiar with the Greek and Hebrew interlinear.