Has any Bible translation other than the New World Translation removed all brackets from words added to MS?

Question

Has any Bible translation other than the New World Translation removed all brackets from words added to MS?

Answer 1

Greetings,



This is an illogical question on many levels. I was not going to respond but I am compelled because of the extreme ignorance demonstrated in many of the answers.





First, ALL translations add words that are not in the original language texts. It is impossible to do so in translating from one language to the other and have a clear rendering. The reason the NWT adds words is for the same reasons ALL other translations (even interlinears) add them.



The use of brackets, italics or other devices is NOT a translation issue but a technical one. They have no bearing on whether the version is accurate or not. Why the words were added is a translation issue and it has been proved many times even on this forum that the bracketed words in the NWT were ALWAYS legitimately added in full accord with meaning of the original text and according to valid translation principles.





Second, *other* translations use a different technical method to note words added to the original texts to make the meaning clear. For example the KJV uses italics the NIV uses half brackets.





Third, many other translations have NEVER used any method to notify where they added words to the text or they are VERY inconsistent in doing so. So criticism of the NWT for removing them is hypocritical and dishonestly selective.





Fourth, the use of brackets in the Bible for this purpose is not original to the NWT but goes at least as far back as the 1500's! And even many Scholars’ Greek texts use brackets (or some other method) to notify the reader of added words.





“Cader” is correct when he says “Brackets interfere with reading, they interrupt the reader's perceptual flow more than more subtle effects like italicisation.” But it also can be equally said that “italics interfere with reading...more than not using them at all.” And this is one of the reasons why the NWT has removed them in the readers edition!



The primary reason for removing them was because the added words in the NWT were always inherent in the original text. That is, they were just added to make the original sense clear so it is unnecessary for the normal Bible reader to be distracted. The only need for them is for those interested in deeper translational research. That is why so many translations do not use any such technical devices in their popular versions. Normally people must buy a “Scholar’s” or “Study” edition for such notations.



Therefore the NWT cannot properly be criticized for removing the brackets in their readers edition (they remain in the study edition).





Now to address some specific assertions which require us readers to be grossly ignorant:



Claiming that the reason the NWT adds the definite article “the” to 1Pt.1:1 was because they wanted to “overcome an obvious Greek construction that identifies Jesus as God” requires us to be very ignorant of the Greek grammar and other translations. For example is this the reason that the ASV also added the definite article to 1Pt.1:1 just like the NWT?!! See also the NRSV, NAB and Translator's New Testament footnotes).





Saying that removing the brackets from where the NWT added the word “other” “would make their translation completely untruthful” is also just as ignorant of a statement. Does it make other translations “completely untruthful” when they add the word “other” (and/or similar words) and do not place them in italics or brackets?!! (See Lk. 11:42; 21:29 in TEV, NAB, NIV).



Is it “scholastic dishonesty” for a literal translation to add words without letting the reader know? What about the NRSV which is an acclaimed literal version? Is it dishonest when it adds the word “other” to Lk.13:4 and 2Cor.9:13 without letting the reader know?!!!





Next, comparing the NWT to the KJV and saying that it has “changed or removed many scriptures” is an exceptionally uneducated statement. Claiming that this was a case of “trying to deceive” is ludicrous. Are almost ALL modern translations “trying to deceive” when they do not read the same as the KJV?!! Such a “KJV Only” outlook is devoid of common logic and knowledge.





The personal opinion that the NWT is not an accurate translation has been disproved many times even on this forum! If anyone cared to cite a specific example instead of just giving their biased opinions they would find that in EVERY case the NWT has been proved to be accurate. In fact, in most cases other non-Witness translations have translated them exactly the same way! Are these other translators also trying to defend the Witness doctrines?!!!





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.





Yours,



BAR-ANERGES



EDIT:

Stay on topic; were talking about words *added* in translation which are NOT found in the source language. The first two links I posted give evidence that "other" is inherently understood by the grammar and context.

Answer 2

Yes. I make liberal use of the Revised English Bible and the English Standard Version, neither of which uses brackets or italics. I am sure there are others as well.



The use of such devices may depend on the purpose of the edition. A popular edition for general use or distribution, like the NWT 2006 printing, may see no need for brackets or italics, inasmuch as the NWT text, as a translation, does not add or detract anything from the Greek text, but merely expresses it in standard, modern English.



However, as noted, the 2006 printing is not a revision of the NWT of 1984. It is the same Bible, and the 1984 NWT Reference Bible is still the standard NWT, with brackets and footnotes.



The funny thing is that certain people complained when the NWT added brackets, now they complain about the printing that has no brackets,



The conclusion is that people with a bias toward the NWT or Jehovah's Witnesses will always find something to complain about, but they have been successful in refuting nothing at all. Everything in the NWT can be substantiated by honest and unbiased scholarship.

Answer 3

Not all translators use brackets at all.

The aim is to convey the sense (not necessarily the words) of the original.

Often the NWT does neither

Answer 4

sorry.



put in a very detailed answer, and the brainiacs at yahoo 'burped' it up & out. can not even find the saved copy. I have pretty much given up on yahoo doing anything right,



if you want more info, contact your local congregation of Jehovah's witnesses.

or



www.watchtower.org



hey jimbo, i can not go thru this insanity with yahoo messing things up.

i have REAL people who really want answers. maybe we can 'open up ' the

debate room again. think about it.



len



==============



couple things to note.



1- i think you do NOT have a printing from 2006. If you actually do,

please send a photocopy of the copyright page.



2- we did NOT print a NWT in 1884. we used the KJ and the ASV back then.



3- brackets were removed in the ON LINE version for mechanical reasons.



reason? because they found it necessary. Feel free to write them & ask for specifics.

they will answer in due time.



later guys.

Answer 5

The KJV has added whole verses what is going to happen to people who use this bible? When comparing the NIV, KJV, NASB & NWT translations of Col 1:15-19. only the NIV 'added words that changed the meaning of the original. per Jason BeDuhn. Concerning the NIV: Bruce Metzger: (NIV) "It is surprising that translators who profess to have 'a high view of scripture" should take liberties with text by omitting words or, more often, by adding words that are not in the manuscripts." Why don't people complain about the NIV? Because most don't know better, and it also agrees with their theology. What is going to happen to those who use this bible? .

Answer 6

As far as I know they might be the only one. I know for years they have not had the brackets from bracketed verses in their books and magazines. This is thus a logical next step. everyone needs to get a copy of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation IF it is still available. This will be where you can show the added words and then ask why they are not marked as such in the NWT.

Answer 7

Check 2 Peter 1:1. They add brackets around the second definite article ("God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ"). This is done to overcome an obvious Greek construction that identifies Jesus as God in that verse.



But there are other translations that don't add brackets, the KJV for instance. But this is because the manuscripts it is translated from contain those verses that are not found in the older and more reliable manuscripts. Incidentally, those Bibles that ARE translated from the older manuscripts (NASB, NIV, NET especially) do contain brackets and/or textual footnotes.

Answer 8

You ask "what is to be gained from removing brackets" The answer is simple. The brackets drew attention. It was a red flag, a tip off that the word had been added and was not found in the manuscripts. Many verses that had the brackets hold an entirely different meaning when read without the added word. If nothing else, it made one think and consider, well, what if? removing the brackets removes the tip off.



It is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, for Jehovah's Witnesses to claim that these words were added solely to help in understanding the literal greek. Anyone who takes a foreign language (ANY foreign language) will know that it is sometimes necessary to add words in english to convey the translation correctly in a grammatical sense. I am in Korea right now and sometimes Koreans who speak english well will still be searching for a particular word saying "it doesn't translate well into English" and vise versa of English translating well into Korean. But if you add a word in brackets as the NWT does so often not found in the original text that completely changes the entire MEANING of the sentence you begin to create problems. For a modern day example, the Korean sentence "Mull, chuseyo" literally means "water, give me". So while "chuseyo" literally translated means give me it contextually means "please" so when one would be translating it into English it would be translated as "Water, please" Used in another context "chogiyo, chuseyo" literally means "there, give me" but the context translates it to "take me there please" So "take me there please" is an acceptable translation, and the words added in english do not change the meaning of the sentence but only serve to make the translation to another language smoother. But say I were to write the sentence "take me there [tomorrow] please" that would be an addition not vital to understanding the original sentence grammatically and also changes the whole meaning of the sentence. I would be inserting an english word into the translated text whose Korean counterpart was not found in the original text. There is a korean word for "tomorrow" but it was not included originally because that is not what the original text was supposed to mean. By adding the bracketed [tomorrow] I am dishonestly changing the meaning of the sentence and could claim it was only for grammatical understanding with you none the wiser. The NWT is full of these types of situations where the addition of the bracketed word is unwarranted or inconsistently applied, meaning the Watchtower adds the word in one instance while failing to add it in another with the same circumstances. There are many instances where, had the bible writers wanted to convey the message the bracketed words suggest they wanted to, there was a word in the original language they could have used and did use in other verses. The logical conclusion would be that the bible writers intentionally did not include the word and so the meaning is properly conveyed. But to Jehovah's Witnesses, it just means the bible writers forgot a few things and need their help filling in the blanks.



"clarifying words" is another point of dishonesty. The words Jehovah's Witnesses add to the bible do not "clarify" anything and have little or nothing to do with linguistics or grammer; they change the meaning based on what Jehovah's Witnesses think the bible should say. Its like spell check changing words or the long list that pops up in the google search bar telling you what you were intending to type.



If you really want a good bible study, get a copy of an interlinear a literal word for word translation and compare it to other bible translations. Look at the way the literal greek renders it and see if the translations are true to the sense. Whenever an added word pops up ask yourself if the added word was vital to the understanding of the sentence grammatically and how the sentence would be changed without the added word...

Answer 9

Brackets are a poor style of markup presentationally for this. My KJV and another version I use, when they have extra English in to help with understanding of some Greek (which can be very terse and so harder to read if translated literally), use italics. Brackets interfere with reading, they interrupt the reader's perceptual flow more than more subtle effects like italicisation. Mind you I think the NWT is not an accurate translation due the doctrinal desire of the JWs to want Jesus to be just a human/archangel Michael.

Answer 10

First, it's essential to know whether you are dealing with a translation that purports to be a literal, word-for-word translation from the original languages, or if it's a"contemporary language" work (such as 'The Message'). Contemporary language Bibles do not need square brackets anywhere because they are not out to give an exact translation of every single word. Please note also that it must be [Square Brackets] and not ordinary parenthesis, (...) to indicate where a word has been added that is not in the Bible manuscripts being used.



In literal translations (such as the NWT claims to be) to add a word that is not in the Bible MSS, without letting the reader know of the addition, is scholastic dishonesty. It's no use pleading, "Oh, it's there to make the meaning clearer," because the translators could be biased (for all we know) and trying to 'swing' the meaning round to their prefered interpretation. An example would be adding the word 'other' several times in the NWT rendition of Colossians 1 - "...all [other] things were created..." If you don't have that added word, the meaning is totally different to the NWT. The NWT wants you to think that Jesus was, himself, created, so he could only create "all [other] things" - other than himself, you see. But the Greek MSS wants us to realises that Jesus is not a created creature - he is the Creator - of EVERYTHING, and this accords with John 1 verse 3. The NWT has correctly translated that verse in John 1, and so all JWs should realise that their Colossians 1 does not harmonise with John 1:3. If the added words are removed, then - hey presto! - John 1:3 corroborates Colossians 1, instead of those two passages being at odds with each other in the NWT.



The exclusion clause in the NWT "Some mechanical adjustments have been made on this printing" shows that adding words with square brackets is mechanical - i.e. not natural - and very few NWT readers would ever know that it refers to square brackets around added words. The NWT may read more smoothly but it can no longer claim to be a literal, word-for-word translation. It is in process of being changed to a contemporary language work, without that being admitted to.



Lots of other literal translations still retain square brackets around added words but I don't have these Bibles to hand so I cannot cite examples. Bear in mind that those added words are very rare.



Finally, I'm sorry to tell you, but giving £5 for your copy of the NWT did not spare the JW from being out of pocket. The lady would have been expected to pay for it before taking it out of the Kingdom Hall, and she would also have been expected to hand over your £5 donation as well. She, and all other JWs are absolutely out of pocket yet their Society frequently gets double the amount for their literature. When JWs give literature away free, they obviously also remain out of pocket, but their Society has at least been paid once for it.



EDIT - Anybody can claim that their preferred translation has added words that are inherently understood by the grammar and context of the original language MSS. But if no other translations agree with them, then we can question whether vested interests are coming into play. If the vast majority of translations do NOT understand 'other' to be inherently appropriate, then it's time the people who have been told that it is, do a bit of double-checking, and consult those who disagree.

Answer 11

Hello Grey Tower,



Glad you asked this one because my Old King James (not the 1611 version), has always put the words added for 'flow' in ITALICS, and it is widely realised and accepted that this is a good practise. However I have noticed that the King James version that JWs will gladly open in order to discuss scripture with someone who believes in The Old King James Version, is not the same at all - there are so many scriptures changed, and some deleted all together, whether or not it is in italics in the original. I certainly do NOT condemn JWs, but I do believe it to be a very dangerous practise to either add to or remove actual scripture that has been diligently translated from the original languages the script was written in. I used to think that this practise was only warned about in the Book Of Revelation (incidentally I know they love to discuss that particular book); but, I've also seen this warning in The Old Testament ( Revelation 22:18; Cannot find the other reference, which is in the Old Testament, but I know I've read it).



A direct answer to your question is that every translation that uses the 'minority text' which issued forth from Alexandria where the Mystics taught in error of God's Word (and that's most of today's modern translations), removes a great deal from the original, and changes the whole meaning.



There are no excuses for removing or adding to God's Word, except there is of course the reason of trying to deceive.

Answer 12

The many passages where they added the words "other" in relation to Christ crating all things and "torture" in relation to their false understanding of the cross would become an actual translation if the brackets were removed and therefore would make their translation completely untruthful.



They say Christ died on a (torture) stake. Why they would ever feel the need to add the word "Torture" to make it clearer is beyond anyone that can imagine how bad it would be to die nailed to a timber structure of any kind. Then as you say to remove the brackets, thereby implying that the word "Torture" is a direct translation is a deliberate attempt to mislead.



You call the NWT a bible translation, yet none of the people that wrote the NWT were even capable of reading any Hebrew, let alone Greek to be able to translate the bible. It is just a book of fiction written to try to support their false teachings.

Answer 13

Not to my knowledge.



What kind of change can alter the clear meaning of the original Greek.



Perhaps this illustrates:



The tomcat killed the rabbit.



The (other) tomcat killed the (other) hare.



or



the NWT version?



The other tom killed the other bunny.

_______



The NWT is a translation based on eisegesis of the Watch Tower's governing body

or

The other nwt is based on the other eisegesis of the other watch tower