What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious 86 Replies latest jw friends

  • PSacramento


    My Issue with the NWT isn't really about their OT translation, but there NT one is heavly flawed with numerous insertions that chaneg the actuall meaning, not just translations, of passages.

  • kurtbethel

    The NWT is an awkward translation to read, with their "why use one word when we can use five words" mentality throughout it.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Why not read them all. Most are free here http://e-sword.net/

  • Wonderment

    I agree the NW is awkward and verbose. That is one of its faults. However, it has so many things going for it.

    I do react when I see people talk about all these other translations (Protestant evangelical) as if they were flawless.

    Far from it! And they too insert their doctrinal bias throughout. I once thought about making a list of these. I gave up, they were so many, and I don´t want to look too negative, not upbuilding. But they should be taken to task.

    I don´t think it is fair to demonize the NW while the others get all glory, when they too have serious flaws.

    Anyways, I love bible translations, and I use them all whenever possible. I do recommend to at least get some from different perspectives, from a different religious persuasion to balance our sources of information. To just focus on the NW, or evangelical versions as our only choices may not be the best idea.

  • StAnn

    My husband and I both prefer the Revised Standard Catholic Version (not the NEW Revised Standard Version) for research. It includes all 73 of the books of the Bible. My husband has an NIV Study Bible (one of his professors was the editor of some of the OT books) and I have a New American Study Bible. We've compared both and prefer the New American Study Bible, although I think it's a bit watered down sometimes. But the New American Study Bible has excellent footnotes and excellent reader's guides before each chapter that help to set the scene and help the reader gain the most from the readings.

    The Jerusalem Bible is good, too, but I tend to use my New American Study Bible the most because of the footnotes and references.

  • aniron

    Of course you are all going on about Bible translations in English.

    As if the Bible is only meant for English speaking people.

    What about other languages ?

    Are they translated accurately ?

    The problem when translating anything is to get over the same meaning and nuance, as in the original language.

    Sometimes this is difficult because some languages just do not have the same phrase that covers the original language phrasing.

    That is why if you are serious about Bible study you should use more than one version.

    Unlike JWs, so called students of the Bible, who I have known to panic if asked to look at other translations.

    If you want information on why the NIV is translated the way it is go here and download a pdf

    "Accuracy Defined and Illustrated:An NIV translator Answers Your Questions"

    "To help others understand the NIV's passion for accuracy, Kenneth L. Barker explains the translation of 150 Scripture passages in the NIV. From the creation account in Genesis 1:1, the prophesied birth of Isaiah 7:14 or the fourth person of Daniel 3:25, to head covering in 1 Corinthians 11:4-7, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 or the tree of life in Revelation 22:19, the author carefully answers translations questions."


  • Leolaia

    On the question of bias, BeDuhn mainly examines the handling of certain controversial verses in the NWT vis-a-vis a number of other translations. I'm not sure this approach is always the best for assessing the role of bias in the process of translation. I think it is better to look at the translation in the context of prior Bible translations used by Jehovah's Witnesses, e.g. the Emphatic Diaglott, Rotherham's version, and the American Standard version, among others. What I have noticed time and time again is that in places where the NWT takes a controversial or uncommon rendering in a given passage, if you look at the pre-NWT literature of the Watchtower Society (such as in publications of the Rutherford era), you will often find that the Society has already used a rendering or an interpretive tradition that anticipates what is later found in the NWT. That is to say, the NWT translators did not approach their project without already established interpretive traditions towards various passages in the Bible. I haven't made a study of this, but it is something I have noticed in reading Rutherford-era publications.

  • Wonderment


    What you said about the WT going into translation with a pre-corpus of doctrinal ideas is also true of all translations.

    No one goes into a translation with no knowledge or doctrinal baggage. It would be nice if someone could do that. But all humans have a level of doctrinal bias, a certain level of orientation, whatever that may be. That is why is so important to have a good set of bible concordances and a few translations to compare and let that do most of the talking. Commentaries are only helpful sometimes, but they can be a hindrance if you want to get to the bottom of things.We just can´t let others make doctrinal conclusions for us.

    I agree with the following comment made by Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Lutheran School of Chicago, Frederick W. Danker:

    "The ´orthodox´ do not possess all the truth, yet one does well to ´test the spirits.´ [1Jn 4:1]"

  • truebelieverbob

    Yes i enjoy the NWT the best . As brought out in the book " Truth in translation", the NWT is the only translation that restores the divine name Jehovah to its rightful place in the old testament. Bringing glory to Jehovah is the most important role of the bible. Also the NWT eliminates the bias shown in other bibles which promotes the trinity , clearly a false doctrine that was adopted into christianity from the greeks by psuedo christians after the apostles died . I learned alot about this in Wikipedia .

  • 3Mozzies
    the NWT is the only translation that restores the divine name Jehovah to its rightful place in the old testament.

    There are 3 other Bibles that I know of that restore the name of God in the OT.

    ASV (American Standard Version) uses Jehovah (not the NEW version)

    WEB (World English Bible) uses YAHWEH

    Jerusalem Bible uses YAHWEH (not the NEW version)

    Reason why the New Jerusalem Bible replaced Yahweh with Lord:

    The literary quality of this version is admirable. Among the English stylists who worked with the translators was J.R.R. Tolkien, the famous English novelist and literary critic. Unfortunately, the Hebrew tetragrammaton or divine name (represented as "Lord" in the New Testament) is everywhere rendered "Yahweh," which spoils the literary effect of many passages, especially in the Psalms.


    YAHWEH is a more accurate translation of the Tetragram

    See below from page 23 of The Kingdom Interlinear-Greek Scriptures 1969 (Produced by the WT Corp)


Share this