Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: Is the New World Translation Accurate?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    888
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 149 Times in 117 Posts

    Question Is the New World Translation Accurate?

    Accurate or approximately what the WT want people to believe? https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witne...tion-accurate/

    Faithfulness. The New World Translation strives to convey faithfully the original message that was inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16) Many translations of the Bible sacrifice faithfulness to God’s message in favor of following human traditions, for instance by replacing God’s personal name, Jehovah, with titles such as Lord or God.
    Would a translator have any right to restore the name, in view of the fact that existing manuscripts do not have it? Yes, he would have that right. Most Greek lexicons recognize that often the word "Lord" in the Bible refers to Jehovah. For example, in its section under the Greek word Kyrios, Robinson's A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament says that it means "God as the Supreme Lord and sovereign of the universe, usually in Septuagint for Hebrew Jehovah." Hence, in places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote the earlier Hebrew Scriptures, the translator has the right to render the word Kyrios as "Jehovah" wherever the divine name appeared in the Hebrew original. - The Divine Name, p. 26, 27 [Emphasis added]
    "Jehovah" was not there originally?

    One translation that boldly restores God's name with good authority is the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This version, currently available in 11 modern languages, including English, has restored God's name every time that a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures containing it is quoted in the Greek Scriptures. Altogether, the name appears with a sound basis 237 times in that translation of the Greek Scriptures. The Divine Name, p. 27 [Emphasis added]

    "Restore" what wasn't there to begin with?

    Literalness. Unlike paraphrased translations, the New World Translation renders words literally as long as doing so does not result in awkward wording or hide the thought of the original writings. Translations that paraphrase the Bible’s original text may insert human opinions or omit important details.
    John 1:1 In [the] beginning+ the Word*+ was, and the Word was with God,*+ and the Word was a god.(NWT)

    Missing verses. Some translations add verses and phrases that are not in the oldest available Bible manuscripts, but the New World Translation excludes such added material. Many modern translations either omit those later additions or acknowledge that those additions lack support from the most authoritative sources.
    Phil. 2:6 who, although he was existing in God’s form,+ gave no consideration to a seizure,* namely, that he should be equal to God. (NWT)

    Different wording. Occasionally, word-for-word translations are unclear or misleading. For example, Jesus’ statement at Matthew 5:3 is often translated: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (English Standard Version; King James Version; New International Version) Many find the literal rendering “poor in spirit” to be obscure, while some think that Jesus was highlighting the value of humility or poverty. However, Jesus’ point was that true happiness comes from recognizing the need for God’s guidance. The New World Translation accurately conveys his meaning with the words “those conscious of their spiritual need.”—Matthew 5:3.
    John 8:24 Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOURsins.+ For if YOU do not believe that I am [he], YOU will die in YOUR sins. (NWT,1984)

    John 8:24 That is why I said to you: You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins.” (NWT,2013)

    Phil. 2:9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position+ and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name..(NWT, 1984)

    Phil.2:9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position+ and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name..(NWT, 2013)
    Those who talk much, hear little, learn nothing.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to str8tawk vs heresy For This Useful Post:

    JohnB (02-11-2017), Samson (02-11-2017)

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,908
    Thanks
    1,206
    Thanked 2,800 Times in 2,205 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by str8tawk vs heresy View Post




    "Jehovah" was not there originally?

    You deny God's name was in the Hebrew scriptures being quoted?
    Agape,
    TBax

  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    931
    Thanks
    88
    Thanked 231 Times in 191 Posts

    Default

    What seems ironic to me is that they place enough value on "non-witness" scholars to use their quotes when it is favorable to them, while the average JW is conditioned to ignore or argue against any scholar that presents evidence against their (WT) claims.

    Also of note, the quotes from those scholars they listed are mostly pre-1970- and all prior to the latest revision. I wonder what they would say about it now?

    Some things to consider from this informative link on the NWT: http://www.spiritwatch.org/jwnwt.htm

    "Translations produced by one individual or one sect should always be approached with caution."

    "Numerous qualified Greek scholars of international renown have voiced serious reservations about the New World Translation....it [the New World Translation] must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest"


    Toward the end of the article there are JW arguments in defense of their Translation and Refutations.
    "Beware of "organization." It is wholly un-necessary. The Bible will be the only rules you need. Do not seek to bind other consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours." CT Russell

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    931
    Thanks
    88
    Thanked 231 Times in 191 Posts

    Default

    If anyone wishes to read an in depth review on WT claims about translating the Divine Name, a referenced publication was made: "Witnessing the Name" https://archive.org/details/WitnessingTheName

    I recommend reading pages 18,19. If you find that worthwhile, start from the beginning and check it all out.

    It helps get past the juvenile JW apologetic arguments and brings to light greater details.
    "Beware of "organization." It is wholly un-necessary. The Bible will be the only rules you need. Do not seek to bind other consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours." CT Russell

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to -Beowulf For This Useful Post:

    JohnB (02-16-2017)

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    1,752
    Thanks
    652
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 650 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Beowulf View Post
    "Numerous qualified Greek scholars of international renown have voiced serious reservations about the New World Translation....it [the New World Translation] must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest"
    Has it been noticed by everyone reading these threads that the N.W.T. largely is quite a good and literal translation when compared with the original languages, or should I say 'work copy of various sources' (rather than translation.)

    That is until it touches verses that describe the deity and identity of Jesus Christ. Then it becomes nothing more than the rest of their extrabiblical processed literature; a dishonest and unfaithful manipulative tool for recruitment to their theology.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Samson For This Useful Post:

    -Beowulf (02-11-2017)

  9. #6
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    931
    Thanks
    88
    Thanked 231 Times in 191 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samson View Post
    Has it been noticed by everyone reading these threads that the N.W.T. largely is quite a good and literal translation when compared with the original languages, or should I say 'work copy of various sources' (rather than translation.)

    That is until it touches verses that describe the deity and identity of Jesus Christ. Then it becomes nothing more than the rest of their extrabiblical processed literature; a dishonest and unfaithful manipulative tool for recruitment to their theology.
    That is EXACTLY what it is a "work copy of various sources." From there they simply made changes, both subtle and not so subtle, to fit their theology. And as their theology changes their revisions change.
    "Beware of "organization." It is wholly un-necessary. The Bible will be the only rules you need. Do not seek to bind other consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours." CT Russell

  10. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    1,752
    Thanks
    652
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 650 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Beowulf View Post
    That is EXACTLY what it is a "work copy of various sources." From there they simply made changes, both subtle and not so subtle, to fit their theology. And as their theology changes their revisions change.
    Beowulf it is so nice to meet someone who agrees with so much of what I have spent years pondering over with what I hope is decency and honesty.

    And:

    Originally posted by Samson:

    Has it been noticed by everyone reading these threads that the N.W.T. largely is quite a good and literal translation when compared with the original languages, or should I say 'work copy of various sources' (rather than translation.)

    That is until it touches verses that describe the deity and identity of Jesus Christ.
    Isn't there something terribly sinister about that?

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    888
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 149 Times in 117 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBax View Post
    You deny God's name was in the Hebrew scriptures being quoted?
    Is it "accurate" to use "Jehovah" as the WT do? How "accurate" to add words in the NWT not found in the manuscripts by their own admission? Why are the words in brackets in the 1984 NWT not in brackets in the 2013 NWT? Why is the "a" in "..a god" of the NWT John 1:1 never put in brackets? After all, they are keen to make sure they aren't misleading people, right?
    Literalness. Unlike paraphrased translations, the New World Translation renders words literally as long as doing so does not result in awkward wording or hide the thought of the original writings. Translations that paraphrase the Bible’s original text may insert human opinions or omit important details.


    Those who talk much, hear little, learn nothing.

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,908
    Thanks
    1,206
    Thanked 2,800 Times in 2,205 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by str8tawk vs heresy View Post
    Is it "accurate" to use "Jehovah" as the WT do? How "accurate" to add words in the NWT not found in the manuscripts by their own admission? Why are the words in brackets in the 1984 NWT not in brackets in the 2013 NWT? Why is the "a" in "..a god" of the NWT John 1:1 never put in brackets? After all, they are keen to make sure they aren't misleading people, right?

    Is it accurate to remove God's name as many bibles do? Is there any doubt God's name belongs in NT scriptures quoting OT verse?
    We love God's name. Some prefer it gets forgotten.

    Brackets are unnecessary.
    Jesus is a god, not the God. Jesus own words at John 10:33-36 bear this out.
    So the NWT is more accurate, and misleads no one. And replaces God's name where it rightfully belongs. Jesus' own name means "Jehovah is salvation".
    Agape,
    TBax

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to TBax For This Useful Post:

    BibleStudent (02-13-2017)

  14. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    888
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 149 Times in 117 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBax View Post
    Is it accurate to remove God's name as many bibles do? Is there any doubt God's name belongs in NT scriptures quoting OT verse?
    We love God's name. Some prefer it gets forgotten.
    "Jehovah?"

    You deny God's name was in the Hebrew scriptures being quoted?
    "Jehovah?"

    Brackets are unnecessary.
    Why are they in the 1984, NWT?

    Jesus is a god, not the God. Jesus own words at John 10:33-36 bear this out.
    If "Jesus is a god" God created another god which makes WT witnesses polytheists.
    Those who talk much, hear little, learn nothing.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •