Can the Jehovah Witness prove that the New World Translation is the Holy Scriptures?

Question

I say not.

Answer 1

Most of the instances where scriptures from the Bible have been altered in the NWT refer to the person of Jesus. Because they do not believe that Jesus was divine, they have added to and taken away from the word of God in an attempt to make the Bible conform to their anti-Trinitarian bias. Perhaps the most contentious verse in the entire Bible is John 1:1 where the NWT says that the Word “was a god” and not “God.” The following link shows how the NWT has changed scriptures to justify their interpretation of John 1:1: http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/bad-translations-jehovahs-witness-bible-new-world-translation



This link shows what Bible scholars really think about the NWT translation of John 1:1: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm



This link takes a critical look at the NWT and gives more examples of changes made: http://www.ukapologetics.net/newworld.html



The following link contains far too much information to copy and paste, but I recommend you open it up and print a copy for your own use. Misleading Revisions in the New World Translation by Andy Bjorklund : Compares 50 verses in the New International Version with the NWT and gives a brief explanation on the theological significance of the changes: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/misleading_revisions_jw_bible.htm



Here is another excellent link which shows why and how the NWT Translation Committee saw fit to alter the word of God, especially with regard to the person of Jesus: http://www.gotquestions.org/new-world-translation.html



This link gives the names of the NWT Translation Committee (not one of them having any scholastic qualifications, not even in Hebrew or Greek), and exposes their anti-Trinitarian bias: http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html



Oh, and in Luke 23:46, the NWT moves a comma to change the meaning. To find out why, go to http://www.gotquestions.org/today-paradise.html

Answer 2

Terry and Bagsure gave you great answers from impartial sources whereas Grey uses Trinity biased links to support her argument. Of course, Trinitarians won't agree with the NWT as it holds truest to what the original manuscripts read, there is only one God and it's Jehovah. Proof Trinitarians like to twist scripture? How about adding onto 1 John 5:7? How is it the last part can be added but all you hear is "Oh the NWT did blah blah blah"? It's called bias and the only weapon Trinitarians have any more.

Answer 3

Mr.F your problem like many others have is that you seem to be using the KJV as some sort of glorified benchmark, when it is not one, many may feel the KJV's actual age of translation is what determines why it should be trusted, then why are you not putting your trust in the nearly 100 year older Martin Luther Translation which is notably different in some substantial areas?



The simple truth is that the KJV is simply another translation which would need to be checked for accuracy against what the now oldest manuscripts say, therein lies the problem as the KJV is not a translation which is based on the most ancient manuscripts which helps us to account for why the problem exists.



If someone decides to use a crooked stick as a precise straight rule to measure things from, the result may seem fine without that straight rule around but in reality it will always produce a crooked line, especially when the straight rule it placed near by.



The King James Bible has also reportedly undergone over 100,000 changes during its so called four “revisions/editions”, so really how sure can a person be that the current version is now the correct one?



I strongly suggest that an individual digs a little beyond the 400 year KJV to enable themselves to recognise why it is in fact a misleading translation by today's standards, heavily influenced by textural tradition and by 47 over zealous trinitarian biased translators.



The KJV alone is certainly not one to base anything from if we wish to find the truth of God's word.



.

Answer 4

Most Greek scholars laugh at the way Trinitarians try to use John 1:1 to support the trinity !



Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like "our a or an".



Trinitarian Moffatt's highly acclaimed New Translation of the Bible and (2) trinitarian Smith-Goodspeed's An American Translation both say that the Word "was divine.



Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: "a god was the Word". - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.



Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is "and a God[2] (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - p. 54, (`New Covenant' section), Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean "the Word was the true God" if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.



Highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, `the Word was a god,' but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that "context" will not allow such an interpretation! - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.



Professor Jason David BeDuhn tells us, “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (‘interlinear’) translation of the controversial clause would read: ‘And the Word was a god.’ A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation….” - p. 132, Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.



Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."



Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."



Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"



Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"



Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"



Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"



Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”



J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"



Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"



Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"



Paul Wernle, Professor of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God"



Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"



Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"



Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"



If they (trinitarian translators) had honestly believed that John was saying that Jesus is God, they certainly would not have hesitated to say "the Word was God." Why, then, did some Trinitarian translators of Christendom, some of the best Bible scholars and translators in the world, choose the word "divine" or the word was a god?





Please do your homework before you come onto Yahoo, it will save you a lot of time if you educate yourself!

Answer 5

Salutations!



Assertions like these are ridiculous. They are based on religious bias and ignorance. The NWT is indeed a translation, and it's actually a fairly literal, conservative translation. There are a few "peculiarities," at least from certain theological perspectives. But these are few and far between and are readily recognizable by those holding opposing views. I'd say if you sampled 100 random verses from the NWT, it would be basically equivalent to any of the most popular English translations, excepting perhaps translations that actually are paraphrase translations, like The Message Bible.



Yours,



Abernathy the Dull

Answer 6

Here's what I will prove.





Because the context can affect the way a word is translated, the New World Translation uses nearly 16,000 English expressions to translate some 5,500 Biblical Greek terms, and it uses over 27,000 English expressions to translate about 8,500 Hebrew terms. Why this variety in the way words are translated? The translation committee judged that to render the best sense of these words according to the context was more important than to produce a strictly literal translation. Even so, the New World Translation is as consistent as possible in rendering Hebrew and Greek words into the target language.-5/1/08 WT pg 21



Rather than simply use the Bible as the basis for true teachings, they (apostates and opposers) 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. 8/15/90 WT pg 16,17 par.6







In this 20th century, the New World Translation has also been charged with falsification. Why? Because it departs from the traditional rendering of many verses and stresses the use of God’s name, Jehovah. Hence, it is unconventional. But does this make it false? No. It was produced with much care and attention to detail, and what may appear unfamiliar represents a sincere effort to represent carefully the nuances of the original languages. Theologian C. Houtman explains the reason for the unorthodoxy of the New World Translation: “Various traditional translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded, apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding.” 3/1/91 WT pg.26







As for verses missing-Those verses, found in some translations, are not in the oldest available Bible manuscripts. Comparison with other modern translations, such as The New English Bible and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, shows that other translators have also recognized that the verses in question do not belong in the Bible. In some instances, they were taken from another part of the Bible and added to the text being copied by a scribe.











Your Bible, the KJV, has done what you accuse JW's of doing. Here are links not associated with JW's.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations



Why are these verses in the KJV when they haven't been proven to even exist?





Here's another site that puts the KJV into prospective.



http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today





So, can you discredit what I provided? Prove the KJV is the Holy Scriptures with readable links or sources like I provided.





Edit: @Been there, ask your own question and we will answer. I won't address it here since it's not part of the askers question. I will show him that much respect to not spam up his question replying to something you posted.







Don't know who Phooey is but I notice you have nothing but words. You fail to see how these were added, something you love railing against others. So now that the onus has been put on you to produce valid proof, you can't. Read the part where it says these do not appear in ORIGINAL manuscripts. Is that not adding? You haven't proved the KJV is the word either.





"Just you dont agree with the word of God, doesn't make the word of God, any the less,

the word of God." I say the same to you about the NWT. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's not the Word.





Edit:Your reply is oatmeal since you can't back anything up. Why am I not surprised. Seems to be a trend with you Trinitarians. Accuse people, demand answers and can't support your beliefs with any evidence at all. So basically, you weren't looking for an answer, just wanted to rant.



I have never questioned the Word once in this whole question. I have read it and don't cherry pick the verses that suit me. You say you question but when given reasonable answers, you attack people. Try being more tactful, will help you.

Answer 7

Where are the ORIGINAL SCROLLS- Sir? They perished thousands of years ago... that is why it was necessary to have Scribes and copyist make copies to keep the word of God alive..



Every bible in existence today is a translation- just because you comfortable with one translation does not mean yours is right.

You seem to think that the JKV came down from heaven. You quote John 1:1...some modern translators disagree with the King James Version’s rendering of that text. Why? Because in the expression “the Word was God” in the original Greek, the word for “God” does not have the definite article “the.” In the earlier expression “the Word was with God,” the word for “God” is definite, that is, it does have the definite article. This makes it unlikely that the two words have the same significance.

Educate yourself..

Answer 8

Well, they say it is a translation from the Greek text; I even have one of their interlinear Greek/English New Testaments. The question is, how faithful is their translation to the Greek text. I say, not very. There is a great deal of working in their doctrines which has no basis in the Greek text.



One example. and I've made it a little more readable to English readers, the Greek text of Colossians 1:16, 17 says, "because in him [that is, Jesus] was created everything in the heavens and upon the earth, both visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or governments, or authorites; everything through him and to him has been created; and he is before all things and in him everything has stood together."



The JW translation, in another column, reads, "because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist." Note the markings setting off the word "other." They are honest in this, showing that they have added the word, because there is no word for "other" in the Greek text.



This may seem like a little thing, but it isn't. It's one thing to say that Jesus created EVERYTHING, as the Greek text does. It's quite another to say that Jesus created EVERYTHING ELSE, which is the JW doctrine.



@Terry: JWs are noted for quoting scholarly references out of context. Notice all the ...s (I don't remember what they're called.) Further, you don't give complete references, like page numbers. If, in fact, these convey an accurate impression of the various scholars' viewpoints on the NWT, which I seriously doubt, then modern Christianity is in a whole lot worse shape than I thought. Besides, isn't "appeal to authority" a logical fallacy?



edit 3 hrs. later; I notice no one has yet (or have they ever) addressed the issue I raised in my post. I stand by it until someone can answer it without referring me to some JW website or the Watchtower.



@abernathy the dull: It isn't the"hundred random verses" 'that are the problem. It's the ones like Colossians 1:16, 17. If someone put a few drops of cyanide in a glass of water, would you still drink it because only a few "random" molecules were poison?

Answer 9

I studied with a JW, and he showed me the differences between the NWT, and the NRSV that I was using (with the NIV as a backup). The differences are pretty small in facts. 6 or 7 small changes. I also have there Greek Interlinear to see exactly why their wording is slightly different.



The thing is, that while the differences are very slight, they place HUGE amounts of doctrine on them. E.g., instead of Jesus is God, they have Jesus is a God. From that, they reject the entire Trinity, and make Jesus the God of the Earth to come, when 144,000 people (that's it) go to Heaven.



There is a lot of stuff like that. Their Bible is only a bit different, but, they sure take those differences to some odd places.

Answer 10

You have to compare others scriptures to. Your premise is so flawed. Consider this verse Consequently Jehovah stated to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Phar´aoh, and Aaron your possess brother will come to be your prophet (Exodus 7:one million). Moses used to be defined as a God. Doesn't imply he's a fake god? No. THe phrase could also be used to explain prime role. Also become aware of Mark 10:18, Jesus stated..Why do you name me well? Nobody is well, besides one, God. Does it imply each person is unhealthy? You must increase your knowledge and browse different elements of the bible to set up a well premise and arrive at a valid end. :-)

Answer 11

Can the Jehovah Witness prove that the New World Translation is the Holy Scriptures?



Can you prove your bible is the Holy Scriptures? How many times does YHWH appear in the OT? NONE! What's in place of YHWH? LORD/GOD. So who's adding and taking away over 6000 times?

Who's compiling to suit their own beliefs?

Answer 12

The New World Translation is one of the most easy to understand and the most accurate.....



Here is a independent accuracy chart that compares most bibles with the "critical text" see which ones come out on top:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040602211507/http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm



You might think it biased for saying that the NWT is one of the best, so why not listen to what some of the leading translators and Greek sholars say:



In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work., Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:



Jason BeDuhn associate professor of religious studies in his book compares nine translations including the KJ, "the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available”



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"



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."- professor of Greek at the University of Chicago.

-

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

On the NWT -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, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.



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"



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!"



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



William Carey Taylor: The NT of the NWT contains "considerable scholarship."

-"The New Bible Pro and Con"



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



You can read it online and now with "audio format" so you can listen to it too!

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/genesis/1



EDIT.....Listen, if you do not want to hear the TRUTH about the NWT that is up to you, the info you present is just BIASED at best, all the above comments are by respected translators and experts without AN AGENDA ! It is the translation that you use that is biased and is a corrupt translations, the KJV is the most corrupt of all with 1,000s of errors in just the gospels account. The proof of the pudding is in the eating !



John 1:1 is not even used as an argument by serious scholars any more, so educate yourself and see for yourself if you dare :

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/john-11.html