Question:
The New World Translation of the Bible...?
Snowflake
2009-09-13 17:58:34 UTC
What is so wrong with it? (it only has 3 stars on Amazon!)

Who translated it and from what?

Does anyone other than JWs read it?

Is it really more inaccurate than any other translation?

And if we're comparing translations, which would you say was the most accurate version?
Eighteen answers:
2009-09-13 19:07:52 UTC
I would like to suggest you reference: "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT"



A book authored by Jason David BeDuhn. He has been the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington.



He compared nine different translations in his book:



-The King James Version

-The Amplified Bible

-The Living Bible

-Th New American Bible

-The New American Standard Bible

-The New International Version

-The New World Translation

-The (New) Revised Standard Version

-Todays English Version



After completion of his work, he summized in great favor of the New World Translation. I will share an excerpt with you...



Summary: "...it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared...the translators managed to works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produced by single indivduals." ...
2009-09-14 17:12:12 UTC
1) What is so wrong with it? (it only has 3 stars on Amazon!)



Well, in my opinion the thing most "wrong" with it (I use that term loosely) is the clear sectarian bias. It is *very* strongly biased. That is *not* the same as inaccurate! Read my full review (which is not based on a complete reading - I've only finished about half the NWT)

http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/nwt.htm





2) Who translated it and from what?



Jehovah's Witnesses translated it from Westcott & Hort's critical text - essentially the first critical text, more than 100 years old now (though only about 60 years old when the NWT was first produced). There were much more up-to-date (superior in content and scholarship) critical texts available at the time - I don't know why they went with W&H, but they certainly could have done worse.





3) Does anyone other than JWs read it?



Well, me (very slowly) and some others interested, yes.





4) Is it really more inaccurate than any other translation?



I really think that it is NOT. What it IS is much more biased than most other translations. There are some mistranslations that can be found in it - but that is true of any bible. I (an amateur) have found as many mistranslations in the NASB as in the NWT - but not nearly the degree of sectarian bias can be found in the NASB.





5) And if we're comparing translations, which would you say was the most accurate version?



In my opinion (an enthusiastic amateur who has read several different versions), the New Jerusalem Bible is the most accurate English translation currently available. Some links



why I like the NJB (this is dated - there are even more reasons now)

http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/njb.htm



Determining Accuracy

http://www.bible-reviews.com/topics_accuracy.html

http://www.bible-reviews.com/topics_accuracy_words.html



Jim
Tears of Oberon (Pack of One)
2009-09-13 19:42:21 UTC
You will be hard pressed to find any objective opinions of the NWT here. If you want to know about the reliability of the New World Translation from a real objective, "unbiased one way or the other" scholar, then get this book by Dr. Jason Beduhn:



http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Translation-Accuracy-Translations-Testament/dp/0761825568



It has accumulated an amazing 44 five star and 11 four star out of 58 total reviews on Amazon, and is among the best books out their today for examining accuracy of the NWT and other popular translations (including the KJV)



As one reviewer of the book said:

"This welcome treatise might appropriately be subtitled: "To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before," as it takes a hard, objective look at the accuracy of our popular New Testament Bibles in a way that hasn't been done before (at least any time recently, to my knowledge - and I've been looking for a long time)."



Or, you could just visit some of the sites on my profile page, under the "Translation" heading. There are also quite a few good articles at



http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/index.htm

http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/advantages.htm



From a manuscript point of view, the Witnesses give the main source paths for the NWT on pages 308 and 309 of the book, “All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial.”



Sources for the Text of the New World Translation: Hebrew Scriptures



Original Hebrew Writings and Early copies => Hebrew Consonantal Text => Masoretic Text => Codex Leningrad B 19A => Biblia Hebraica (BHK), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) => New World Translation



Sources for the Text of the New World Translation: Christian Greek Scriptures



Original Greek Writings and Early Copies => Early Greek Uncial MSS. (Vatican 1209 B, Sinaitic, Alexandrine A, Ephraemi Syri rescriptus C, Bezae D) => Westcott and Hort Greek Text => New World Translation.



In Summary: The main manuscript authority for the Christian Greek Scriptures of the NWT (and essentially ALL modern Bible’s) is the Westcott and Hort Greek text. The main manuscript authority for the Hebrew Scriptures of the NWT are the BHK and BHS Hebrew texts.



As a comparison, the major manuscript authority for the Christian Greek Scriptures of the King James Version is the (now outdated and essentially useless) Textus Receptus.



Aga'pe,

TOOPOO
I tell you whut!
2009-09-13 19:16:21 UTC
In 2003 Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, published a 200-page study of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world,” including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version. His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, where “bias is most likely to interfere with translation”. For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn states that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NWT) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NWT as a literal, conservative translation.” While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that it emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared,” calling it a “remarkably good” translation.



Wikipedia.
A LIFELONG Student
2009-09-13 18:20:08 UTC
Publications on Amazon are rated by individual random

readers, I believe.



Many, other than Jehovah's Witnesses read this translation.

Just as many Jehovah's Witnesses read other translations.

For instance, I read Douay-Rheims & New Jerusalem

quite a bit.

NOTE: It would seem that everyone on Yahoo Answers in

the R/S section reads it, because they are all "experts"

at commentary and critique on it.



IMO, It is the most accurate translation because it stays

faithful to the original languages and thoughts of the

scriptures. Also, it is written in modern-day language.





Also the following answers some of your questions.



Reasoning From The Scriptures p 276-78

On what is the “New World Translation” based?

As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.



Who were the translators?

When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures.

Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.”



Is it really a scholarly translation?

Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.

What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.

Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally find that some other translators have also seen the need to express the matter in a similar manner.
Scott S
2009-09-14 13:49:53 UTC
The New World Translation was created by the JW's Watchtower society to support some of their unorthodox teaching. Whereas the translation committees for most other Bibles include a wide range of Christian denominations as a check against bias.



There are many trustworthy Bibles: NASB (New American Standard Bible), ESV (English Standard Version), HCSB (Holeman Christian Standard Bible), and NET (New English Translation.) These are essentially literal Bibles for which there is a wide range Christian endorsement for. They are roughly in order of ease of reading.



The ESV and NASB are revisions of old translations and phrasing is similar to traditional Bibles. The HCSB and NET are fresh translations.



If one needs a very easy to read translation, the NLT (New Living Translation) is a paraphrase that has wide Christian support.



I recommend getting the translation of your choice with study bible notes. The questions new readers have of the Bible are well-known and covered in concise notes at the bottom of the page in study bibles.



There are other good bibles too, but those above have the widest Christian endorsement for reliability.



Regarding the NWT:

While it may seem weighty to cite a book on Bible translation written by a PhD. that favors the unusual renderings in New World Translation (NWT) -- but if one looks deeper there is a surprise.



Jason David BeDuhn Phd is a religious studies expert, not a linguist. Dr. BeDuhn knows about the characteristics of different religions, he is not a specialist in Greek and Hebrew, the languages the Bible was originally written in. How do we know this?



Dr. BeDuhn’s CV (Curriculum Vitae is detail list of one’s life work) does not indicate training and years of work in translation and linguistics . There are no technical papers, translation work, etc., that show acceptance of his work by other linguist experts. But instead, the CV shows his experience is in religious history and comparison. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.h…



Dr. BeDuhn’s CV indicates knowledge of several languages including Greek, but not Hebrew. Lots of people have some knowledge of the Greek language. However, one must be a top expert in Greek and Hebrew to argue that All Bible translations are biased and inferior to the NWT.



Dr. BeDuhn does not qualify as an expert in translation of the Bible and therefore lacks the necessary expertise to comment authoritatively about Bible translations. He simply is another guy with an opinion.
Mr_Dees_65
2009-09-13 21:38:46 UTC
The consistency of the New World Translation has won many a technical Bible discussion in the field. For example, some years ago, a society of freethinkers in New York asked the Watch Tower Society to send two speakers to address their group on Biblical matters, which request was granted. These learned men held to a Latin maxim, falsum in uno falsum in toto, meaning that an argument proved false in one point is totally false. During the discussion, one man challenged Jehovah’s Witnesses on the reliability of the Bible. He asked that Genesis 1:3 be read to the audience, and this was done, from the New World Translation: “And God proceeded to say: ‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light.” Confidently, he next called for Genesis 1:14, and this also was read from the New World Translation: “And God went on to say: ‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens.’” “Stop,” he said, “what are you reading? My Bible says God made light on the first day, and again on the fourth day, and that is inconsistent.” Though he claimed to know Hebrew, it had to be pointed out to him that the Hebrew word translated “light” in verse 3 was ’ohr, whereas the word in verse 14 was different, being ma‧’ohr′, which refers to a luminary, or source of light. The learned man sat down defeated. The faithful consistency of the New World Translation had won the point, upholding the Bible as reliable and beneficial.



Some, like certain apostates today, are disloyally working as Satan’s agents to undermine the faith of newly associated members of the Christian congregation. (2 Corinthians 11:13) Rather than simply use the Bible as the basis for true teachings, they concentrate on trying to discredit the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, as if Jehovah’s Witnesses were wholly dependent on it for support. But this is not so. For the best part of a century, the Witnesses used primarily the King James Version, the Roman Catholic Douay Version, or whatever versions were available in their language, to learn the truth about Jehovah and his purposes. And they used these older versions in proclaiming the truth about the condition of the dead, the relationship between God and his Son, and why only a little flock go to heaven. Informed persons are also aware that Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to use many translations of the Bible in their worldwide evangelizing work. Since 1961, however, they have additionally enjoyed the use of the New World Translation, with its updated, accurate translation and fine readability.



Jesus said he would disown many who profess faith in him. He acknowledged that they might prophesy, expel demons, and “perform many powerful works” in his name. Still, he identifies these as works of “lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:21-23) Why? Because they are not doing the will of his heavenly Father and are worthless as far as Jehovah God is concerned. Unusual, even seemingly miraculous, works today can still originate with the archdeceiver, Satan. The apostle John, writing his first general letter over 60 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, counseled that Christians should “not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God.” We need to do the same.—1 John 4:1.
NMB
2009-09-13 19:20:06 UTC
1) There is nothing wrong with it.



2) A translation committee.



3) The New World Translation has been left with many households.



4) No it's not inaccurate.
g'kar
2009-09-15 04:21:26 UTC
yes the NWT is the most accurate of bible's. whenever ppl "have a go" at the translation they do it on a bias. the NWT is not biased and this can be proved quite easy.

as for other good translations the catholic NJB is a good one, it does make one wonder how the catholics come about their teachings when reading it. the ASV is also a good translation but it's hard to find these days.
taffygirl
2009-09-14 01:45:31 UTC
My husband is a former JW & was under the impression that they only use the NWT, that the elders don't allow any other Bible. Others who are not JW's might take a look, but most Witnesses are too paranoid to step out of the box & look at another translation, for fear that an elder might see them reading something not approved of..



Of course most JW's are going to tell you that it is the most accurate. My husband & our pastor prefer the NKJV; I prefer the NLT.

I don't know who did the vote tally, but how can you say it's the most accurate when they claim Michael the archangel & Jesus are the same person?? They don't acknowledge the Holy Spirit or the Trinity, & they think Jesus was a fallen angel & prophet, not the Son of God..



Let's face it: JW's have been trying to predict the last days & the day of judgment. They truly believe that only they were given this information. Not even the Holy Spirit or Jesus himself know when He is to return: Only God will tell him. He hasn't revealed that to HIs own son, so why would a JW know & not even Jesus?! JW's have gotten it wrong year after year. How many times are they going to get it wrong?

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over & over again & expecting a different result.
angelmusic
2009-09-13 19:09:11 UTC
I use the New World Translation and enjoy it for study and personal reading.



What I would encourage you to do is go out on www.watchtower.org and pull up the NWT and while reading it, have a couple other translations in front of you. Make a verse for verse comparison and see for yourself.



We offer to share this translation to the public and many who are not Witnesses have copies because they enjoy the feature of the use of Jehovah's name and the easy to understand English.



There are 150,000,000 copies of the NWT in print. Since there are only 7 million Witnesses world-wide, there would seem to be a few extra copies floating around out there being enjoyed by many.
Smiling JW™
2009-09-13 18:01:56 UTC
I enjoy the NWT. It uses Jehovah's personal name which makes reading it more personal to me also just as reading Jesus's name in his accounts that draw me closer to him, I likewise am drawn closer to God by using his personal name too, Jehovah.

Some scholars choose to slate it for the more traditional translations like the KJV some scholars support the NWT as being of good accuracy.



To Polemistis of course only used selected paragraphs from the Wikipedia article. There is more he carefully omitted because it shows positive viewpoints of the NWT.



"Dr. Jason BeDuhn, states of the NWT that its “translation of John 1:1 is superior to” the other translations he considered. He continues, “It may well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek. ... The NW translation of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing. I do not think it is the best possible translation for a modern English reader; but at least it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work.”
Vöt Änårж
2009-09-13 19:05:40 UTC
Nothing is wrong with it. Are the stars on Amazon anything like the stars on Yahoo Answers? xD



The NWT Translation Committee, from ancient manuscripts.



Yes.



You check that for yourself and see.



For me personally, it's the NWT.
"T"
2009-09-13 18:15:27 UTC
It is actually one of the best translations. That was a question on Jeopardy that no one could answer. It uses God's name, Jehovah. It is not on sale in stores and that is probably why it has a low rating. They can't make money off of it. The printing work is supported by donations. The actual names of people are not mentioned.
conundrum
2009-09-13 18:36:49 UTC
...What is so wrong with it? (it only has 3 stars on Amazon!)

( Acts 4:13)
2009-09-13 18:33:21 UTC
It is the more accurate



NWT



Don't believe me??



Compare the two greeks bible with NWT



http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/Library/BIBLES/diagltt/Diaglott.pdf



http://www.thedcl.org/bible/diaglott-nt/index.html
2009-09-13 18:04:40 UTC
The NWT was translated from original Greek and Hebrew. And in some cases it's quite accurate. Even more accurate than those before it. But it was translated with a particular interpretation in mind so it's tainted.
Rud_E
2009-09-13 18:06:06 UTC
What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:



Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, called the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." He also states, "the Jehovah's Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)



Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."



British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."



Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"



"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)



"Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...