NWT Revisions

by Jeffro 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Jeffro

    There is mention on a Wikipedia article that there was a 2006 revision of the NWT. Is this true? What differences are there?

  • RR

    Well, I guess it's up to them to prove it!


  • Junction-Guy

    Im sure I dont read everything on this board, but if that is true, and there was a 2006 revision of the NWT, im pretty sure I would have come across it here.

  • moggy lover
    moggy lover

    To the best of my knowledge, the NWT text was standardized back in 1984. All subsequent editions have reflected that printing. What would make it somewhat impossible to make another "revision" is that, at least since 1999, when Milton Henschel, the last surviving member of the original committee, died, there is no one left to do the revision.


  • TheMan

    That's correct, the newest NWT translations are of a 1984 copyright. The writer may be referring to the new softcover version of the NWT that was released beginning in 2006. (Standard NWT in black hardcover is no longer available, even the pocket version is only now available in "paperback." The black and maroon "leather-bound" deluxe versions can still be ordered.

  • veradico

    The German reference NWT of 1986, as has been noted before, has a more recent footnote apparatus than the English one of 1984, but, as far as I know, the main text remains that of the 1984 revision. In 2006, they produced the paperback _editions_.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Yes it is true Jeffro. I know it because I have one (a paperback edition). In it there is no more use of single brackets, though there is still use of double brackets. The single brackets were used to indicate where the NWT included words in the translation that did not have an underlying Hebrew (or Aramaic) or Greek word in the text. Formerly the NWT said "Brackets enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text". Years ago I wrote a letter to WT headquarters in which one of my questions was why the WT made the NWT less literal by making such a change. I drew attention to the effect it had on the handling of the word "other" in Colossians 1:16-20. My letter was sent before the 2013 NWT was released (or if sent after the release, it was years before I realized the 2013 NWT had been released). I thus consider the 2006 printing edition to be a predecessor to the revision of 2013. The 2016 printing edition also had a revision to the Appendix and it has different maps on the inside cover of the Bible than the 1984 edition.

    The WT never sent a written reply to my letter. After waiting months I called them about and the person one the phone told me he as the answers to my questions but that if want answers I should ask the elders instead of asking the WT society.

  • Jeffro

    Why you are replying to a question I asked 16 years ago?

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Jeffro, why not? I thought maybe you didn't learn of the explanation that I found. No one else in the topic thread mentioned discovering the evidence which I had discovered about the "2006 Printing" edition of the NWT. To me the change (regarding the removal of the single brackets) was major and to me it was sneaky that the WT 'quietly' made the change.

    A number of times I have revived old topic threads.

    I found your post because I went to your profile page to see what posts you have made, in order for me to learn more about you, in order tor me understand the perspective you are coming from in some of your posts about the Bible.

  • Jeffro

    It’s been 16 years. Of course I already know. 🤦‍♂️

Share this