Is this true, e-mail I got from mom, sounds like BS to me.
Recently on Jeopardy on TV...One of the questions was.....What is
>the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures?? No one got the >correct answer, so Alex Trebek said "New World Translation of the Holy >Scriptures, printed by Watchtower Bible Tract Society.... ] >This following is worth reading! Maybe even putting a copy of it in >your book bag!!! > > >Book: "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH >TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" >Author: Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of >Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds >a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an >M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity >School, and a >Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana >University, Bloomington. >The Nine English Translations Compared in BeDuhn's book are >: > >- The King James Version (KJV) >- The Amplified Bible (AB) >- The Living Bible (LB) >- The New American Bible (NAB) >- The New American Standard Bible (NASB) >- The New International Version (NIV) >- The New World Translation (NW) >- The (New) Revised Standard Version (NRSV) >- Today's English Version (TEV) >Excerpts from his book : >Chapter Four : Examples of translation of the Greek word >"proskuneo", used 58 times in the New Testament. The word is translated >various ways as worship, do obeisance, fall down on one's knees, bow >before. >Scriptures discussed include Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9; Mark 15:18,19; Matt >2:1, 2, 8,11; Matt 14:33; Matt 28:9, "... in our exploration of this >issue, we can >see how theological bias has been the determining context >for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NW... >translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support >for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God." >Regarding Matt. 28:16, 17, where all versions except the NW use >"worship" >where the NW uses "did obe isance": "Here all translations except the NW >have recourse to "worship" -- a rendering which makes no sense in this >context... This contradiction seems to be missed by all the translators >except those who prepared the NW." >Chapter Five : A discussion of Philippians 2:5-11: "The NW >translators.. have understood "harpagmos" accurately as grasping at >something one does not have, that is, a "seizure." The literary context >supports the NW translation (and refutes the KJV's "thought it not >robbery to be >equal)..." >Chapter Seven : A discussion on Col. 1: 15-20: "It is a >tricky passage where every translation must add words." "The LB >translator is guilty of all the doctrinal importation discussed above >with reference to the NIV, NRSV, and TEV, and even surpasses them in >this respect. So it is the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB -- the four Bibles >that make no attempt to mark added words - that actually add the most >significant tendentious material. >Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these >four translations is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the >NW is attacked for adding the innocuous "other" in a way that clearly >indicates its character as an addition of the Trans lators... But the NW >is correct. >"Other" is implied in "all", and the NW simply makes what is implicit >explicit.. >It is ironic that the translation >of Col. 1:15-20 that has received the >most criticism is the one where the "added words" are fully justified by >what is implied in the Greek." >Chapter Eight : A discussion on Titus 2:13; 2 Thess 1:12; 2 >Peter 1:1, 2: "... the position of those who insist "God" and "Savior" >must refer to the same being.. is decidedly weakened." >Chapter Nine : A discussion of Hebrews 8:1: "so we must >conclude that the more probable translation is "God is your throne..., " >the translation found in the NW... It seems likely that it is only >because most translations were made by people who already believe that >Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has >been preferred." >Chapter Ten : A discussion on John 8:58: "Both the LB and the >NW offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 >according to proper English syntax, and that >accurately reflect the >meaning of the Greek idiom. The other translations fail to do this." >"There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to >suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here, contrary to what >the TEV tries to suggest by putting quotations marks around "I am."" >"The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses >of "I am", and properly integrate the words into the context of the >passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly >forget how to translate." "All the translations except the LB and NW >also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and >produce a sentence that makes no sense in English. These changes in the >meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point >to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators." "No >one listening >to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would >have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression "I >am," which, if you think about, is just about the most common >pronoun-verb combination in any language." "The NW... understands the >relation between the two verbs correctly.. The average Bible reader >might never guess that there was something wrong with the other >translations, and might even assume that the error was to be found in >the.. NW." >Chapter Eleven : A discussion of John 1:1: "Surprisingly, >only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and >translates "a god." "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, >TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain >things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in >accordance with their beliefs. ... >Ironically, some of these same >scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" >for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following >the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators >came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other >translators d id. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in >this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek" "Some early >Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God >simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the >Father was born and crucified as Jesus. >They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately >from the Gospel according to John." >"John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his >Gospel." >"All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate >starting point >for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as >provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations >cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even >begun." >Chapter Twelve : A discussion of holy spirit: "In Chapter >Twelve, no translation emerged with a perfectly consistent and accurate >handling of the many uses and nuances of "spirit" and "holy spirit." >The NW scored highest in using correct impersonal forms of the relative >and demonstrative pronouns consistently with the neuter noun "holy >spirit," and in adhering to the indefinite expression "holy spirit" in >those few instances when it was used by the Biblical authors." >Summary : "... it can be said that the NW emerges as the most >accurate of the translations compared...the translators managed to >produce works relatively more >accurate and less biased than the >translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those >produced by single individuals" "Jehovah's Witnesses... really sought >to re-invent Christianity from scratch... building their system of >belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without >predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, >would say that the results of this pra ctice can be naive. But for >Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, >with far less presumption than that found in may of the Protestant >translations." >"...Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of >the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original >expressions of the New Testament." >Commenting on bias in translation : "To me, it expresses a >lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does >not back up their "truth" >enough. To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly >that say conforms to expectations or accepted forms of modern >Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, >faith."