Greetings,
As usual, any criticism of the NWT demands an ignorance from hearers of the Greek words, grammar, and semantics according to standard Greek Lexicons and Dictionaries.
People who claim that we needed to translate "our own bible" in order to support our beliefs are being misled. Most of JW's beliefs had been long established before the NWT ever came into existence and they used the KJV and the ASV.
The fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses have not changed the original meaning of the Bible. Witnesses also will use almost any modern translations when they study with others, while at the same time they realize that some translations are better overall than others.
The NWT inserts the Name Jehovah in the NT because textual and translation principles demand it. Many other translators have acknowledged these principles and placed "Jehovah" in the NT, and most other translators have acknowledged these principles because they have capitalized the word LORD in the NT which ALWAYS denotes Jehovah.
For example, look also at Ac.2:34 in the KJV where we have one "Lord" speaking to another "Lord." A translator's job is to make clear what the text is saying and so several modern versions such as the NKJV make it known that KURIOS here is Jehovah by capitalizing it as "LORD (Cf. Mt.22:44; Mk.12:36,).
So these translators are actually doing exactly what the NWT does. Now, it can be claimed that there is absolutely no Greek textual support for these translators to use this device, but this claim is simply based on theological bias and not translation principles.
In other cases we have a nonsensical meaning or an outright contradiction when we do not identify Jehovah as the "Lord." A good example of this is 1Cor. 2:16 where most bibles cause a contradiction. How can it say we do NOT know the mind of the "Lord" but then say we do know the mind of Christ?!! Other examples include: Mt.22:44; Mk.11:9; 12:35-36; Lk.19:38; Jn.12:13; Ac.2:34; 3:19,20; 4:26,29,30; 1Cor.2:16; 2Tim.1:18; Heb.2:13; Js.5:10.
In the above places "Lord" is textually accurate, though factually incorrect.
Translation principles requiring the rendering of KURIOS as "Jehovah" can be summarized as follows:
First, a translator's prime concern is with transmitting the meaning of the original writer. So if the original writer directly quoted from the O.T. the absolute semantic equivalence of KURIOS in the target language must be "Jehovah" (e.g.; Mk.12:25-36; Ac.2:21, 33-34; Rom.10:13) (see Girdlestone's Synonyms of the Old Testament; 43).
All the original N.T. writers quoted and referenced the Hebrew and Greek LXX; both which contained the Divine Name Jehovah. The word KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton is nonexistent before the second century CE. Since the original inspired writers would recognize the sacredness of the Name, it would be unbelievable for them to have removed or ignored it when quoting the O.T. in writing the N.T.
McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible states: "The use of kyrios in the Synoptic Gospels...is also a designation of God in quotations from the LXX or as a substitute for the name of God." p. 517
Second, where the N.T. writer refers to what Jehovah did or said in the O.T. it would be understood that "God" or "Lord" was speaking of Jehovah. To carry out his prime concern the translator would have to make sure that this meaning was distinctly transmitted to the target audience (Mt.22:44).
"In the NT, likewise, KURIOS, when used as a name of God...most usually corresponds to hwhy Jehovah, and in this sense is applied." --A Greek and English Lexicon to the NT, by J. Parkhurst
Third, where standardized O.T. phrases such as "the angel of the Lord" or "word of the Lord" occur we would reasonably understand the reference would be to YHWH and not KURIOS.
Fourth, there are the occurrences of the tautological "Lord God" (KURIOS hO THEOS) which provide strong evidence indicating the original N.T. text used the divine name. This is proved by the LXX where "Lord God" everywhere signals where "Jehovah God" was replaced. (Mat.4:7,10; 22:37; Mk.12:29,30; Lk.1:16,32,68; 4:8,12; 10:27; 20:37; Acts 2:39; 3:22; Rev.1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 19:6; 21:22; 22:5,6).
A fifth reason would be if the context demanded that the word KURIOS be understood to mean "Jehovah" as we pointed out above at 1Cor. 2:16. We would have a nonsensical meaning or an outright contradiction if we did not somehow identify Jehovah as the "Lord" who's mind we don't know as contrasted with the Lord who's mind we do have.
Principles such as these cover all the places where the NWT and others have restored Jehovah to the text of the N.T. Wherever the divine name is rendered, there is no reason for doubt as to which "lord" is indicated. It is the Lord of heaven and earth, Jehovah, whose name is sanctified by being kept unique and distinct in the *New World* *Translation* of the Holy Scriptures.
Also, other scholars besides Witnesses have recognized the evidence that the extant Greek N.T. manuscripts were altered and the Divine Name was removed in the second or third centuries.
First, it is a fact that the Divine Name Jehovah was used in the Hebrew Scriptures. And manuscript evidence proves that it appeared in the Greek translation of the O.T. (LXX) through the first century C.E. This proves without a doubt that copyists of the 2nd and 3rd centuries C.E. replaced the Divine Name Jehovah in the LXX with "KURIOS." By logical deduction, and the evidence outlined above, we can safely conclude the same thing occurred for the N.T. texts.
Professor George Howard observed: "The writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations".--Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14.
George Howard also says: "This removal of the Tetragram created a confusion in the minds of the early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the "Lord God" and the "Lord Christ" which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself."
"Toward the end of the first century Gentile Christians, lacking a motive for retaining the Hebrew name for God, substituted the words [kyrios] and [theos] for the Tetragram....Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments. Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church altogether except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates."--The Tetragram And The New Testament, Journal of Biblical Literature 96/1 (1977) 63-83
For the Christian, the most important evidence, even above textual, logical, grammatical or historical, is the evidence from Scripture, even within the N.T. itself.
The N.T. repeatedly tells us how important God's name is (Mt.6:9,10; Jn.12:28; 17:6, 26; Rom.2:24; Ac.15:14-17; Rev.3:12- 13; 14:1). It is inconceivable that the Christian Scriptures would stress the importance of this name and yet not mention that Name. This is internal evidence that the original manuscripts must have included the Divine Name.
God made it clear that Jehovah would be his Eternal Name, so it would be unreasonable to assume that the Divine Name was replaced at God's direction (Ex. 3:15, Mic. 4:5; Jer.23:27).
Christ specifically stated that his determination was to make Jehovah's name known to Christians (Jn. 17:6, 26 (Cf. Jn. 12:28; 17:4, 26; Rev. 1:5). Not inserting that NAME in the NT would be a failure to follow Christ–a denial of being Christian.
Leaving the most holy name unrestored in the N.T. would be falling into the purpose of those who hate that Name. These are the same ones who have removed the divine name from the O.T., thereby receiving God's condemnation (Rev.21:19).
All these facts give corroborating evidence to every reasonable person that Jehovah must have been included in the original N.T. books.
Hope that enlightens,
BAR-ANERGES
EDIT:
No one knows who the translators of the NWT were or how many. Those that claim to have identified them have absolutely no evidence for their claims --other than *their* own opinion. And the individuals originating these claims are those who were booted out of the organization for wanting to promote themselves and their ideas as somehow better than anyone else. Then these ones began to make money by selling books attacking Witnesses. Hardly ones who can be trusted.
The accuracy of the translation is proven by the facts. Even on this forum this has been proven repeatedly. The fact that critics rarely provide an example of where the NWT is inaccurate demonstrates that they know how weak their criticisms really are. When they offer an example of what they claim is a mistranslation it is immediately proven to be an invalid and illogical complaint.
So they repeatedly have to resort to prejudicial complaints and irrelevant ad hominem attacks regarding the supposed translators.