Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation

by Londo111 83 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jonathan dough

  Good eye, SD-7.

  Those who reign at Revelation 20:4-6, the souls of those beheaded, are not the same as those on thrones entrusted with judgment, as the Jehovah‘s Witnesses propose; so they can’t be “judging” the resurrected under these provisions as the claim.

  Then I saw thrones; those who sat on them were entrusted with judgment. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the world of God and who had not worshipped the beast or its image nor had accepted its mark on their foreheads or lands. They came to life and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over these; they will be priests of God and Christ, and they will reign with him [for] the thousand years. (Rev. 20:4-6 NAB) (also: I saw, ESV; And I saw the souls, NASB; I also saw the souls, CEV)

  A literal translation does not read “Yes, I saw the soul …” at Revelation 20:4 as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have interpreted it in order to associate these two groups of people as being the same, and place the 144,000 on judgment seats.
  
  Furthermore, the 144,000 would have to share the reign with the Great Crowd who, like those who reign, have “not worshiped the beast or its image nor accepted its mark on their foreheads or hands.” This places the Great Crowd up in heaven, not on earth.

  Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the twelve tribes of Israel at Revelation 7:1-8 are the anointed 144,000 and they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel pursuant to Luke 22:28-30 and Matthew 19:28, they end up judging themselves.

  http://144000.110mb.com/144000/i-3.html
• 

  Vidqun

  Personally I go for very literal translations as well as Interlinears. I have many Bibles. Quite a few are Protestant versions. Others are Catholic. This tells me, each group has its own agenda. Here the Witnesses are by no means unique. Depends on what you want to use it for. Like you said NIV Evangelical version, or NIV, TNIV, RNIV. The same goes for translation methods. Dynamic Equivalence, Formal Equivalence, Functional Equivalence, etc. On the Net there's interesting discussions on the differences between DE translation and interpretation. After the KJV, the NWT is probably the most controversial Bible in circulation, eliciting a lot of Bible study, comments, and criticism, which is a good thing. A lot of people have taken up intensive Bible study because of it.

  According to Nida and Taber, one finds three basic types of translation:

  (1) An ecclesiastical translation : This is a translation that reflects traditional Church usage with liturgical application in view.

  (2) A scholarly translation : This is a current, literary translation aimed at scholars and students.

  (3) A popular translation : This is a common (vulgar) translation that uses “general” or “popular” terms, to be read and understood by ordinary people. At the same time, this translation should be accepted as a standard for the printed medium.[i]

  ---

  [i] E.A. Nida and C.R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden, 1982), p. 31, footnote 1.
• 

  maksym

  NWT of John 1:1 is horrendous.

  Inserting the "a" is just purely biased to their theology.

  If Jesus is A god who worships him? If Jesus is A god, then is he a good god or bad god? Why are there two gods when there should only be one? What a rathole they've created with that one.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I find the examples of bias that relate to the particular moment in Watchtower history when the NWT was produced most interesting. For example replacing the term "elders" with "older men" because the organisation had freshly emerged from a battle with "elders" in the Russellite mould and repudiated the term. Another example is avoiding translating the term "standard" in Numbers because they were embroiled in the flag controversy at the time and wanted to avoid the idea that the Israelites used flags.

  A curious exception seems to be Romans 13:1, which appears to support their current understanding of the superior authorities rather than what they believed in 1950 when the verse was translated. Has anyone got any idea why that shouls be?
• 

  Vidqun

  In a perfect world, a translation committee would have said: "Let's see what the original languages have to say. Let's compare that to the latest research, commentaries and articles, and translate accordingly. We can then adapt our doctrines to fit the resulting translation." Yes, I know, only in my dreams....

  An interesting book to read is Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, by E. Tov. He insists the Bible text we have today has undergone many changes. So the responsible translation committee would have to keep up to date with recent developments and current research. Here NET and ESV are admirable, especially their footnotes. Footnotes in any translation are important in minimizing bias. If there are ambiguities or more than one way to translate, it should be made clear in the footnotes in such a way that the reader can make his own decision on the matter. Here scholarly translations are best, e.g. the Gottinghen Septuagint (for Greek OT), BHQ and The Hebrew University Bible (for Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures), as well as the Nestle-Aland text and footnotes (for NT).
• 

  designs

  Why should anyone be surprised at the New Testament invention of their leader being taken from a human to the Perseus and Zeus levels. Hubris is a human characteristic. As you parse back through the three centuries when the editing was being done shouldn't you find all three levels in the various parchments.
• 

  Leolaia

  I find the examples of bias that relate to the particular moment in Watchtower history when the NWT was produced most interesting. For example replacing the term "elders" with "older men" because the organisation had freshly emerged from a battle with "elders" in the Russellite mould and repudiated the term. Another example is avoiding translating the term "standard" in Numbers because they were embroiled in the flag controversy at the time and wanted to avoid the idea that the Israelites used flags.

  Excellent examples! That's the kind of thing I was talking about. Translation choices that reflect a sort of Tendenz distinctive to JWs, drawing on pre-existing views about the Bible. It would be interesting to find examples that were revised in the 1984 edition that reflected doctrinal changes that had transpired since the original production of the NWT in the 1950s.
• 

  Leolaia

  Vidqun....That's why I find the translations within critical commentaries most interesting because an up-to-date commentary avails itself to the latest textual evidence and scholarship, and the translation choices are set forth in detail in the discussion, explaining at depth why a given rendering was chosen. So Collins' or Goldengay's translation of Daniel, or Bauckham's translation of Jude and 2 Peter, Nikelsburg and VanderKam's translation of 1 Enoch, or Aune's translation of Revelation come to mind as good examples of this.
• 

  Vidqun

  Leolaia, thanks for your informative posts. There's always something useful in there that makes me think (I believe one must exercise one's brain otherwise it'll turn into mush).

  I think that was a major mistake of the Society for not keeping up to date with the latest developments. Theoretically, the Scriptures should have been a major concern. They had virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. In the late eighties I wrote to them to remind them that the age of Westcott & Hort (1881) was finally over. By then it was over a hundred years old. The Egyptian papyri were discovered long after W&H came into being. They should rather start using the Standard text as a basis for the NW. But by then the deterioration had already set in.

  I have Collins' Daniel, a mine of information. Especially informative was his discussion on Eschatological Markers, on p. 161. However, I cannot agree with the statement that "there can be no predictive element in prophecy." That's a paradox if there ever was one. Collins, with most modern scholars and critics, refuse to consider a post-Grecian interpretation of Daniel's prophecies, especially Dan. 2 & 7. They relegate the book of Daniel to the category of imperfect and dishonest history (by a deluded Maccabean Jew). There I tend to be more conservative or old-fashioned, accepting Jesus' statement that Dan. 9:27 referred to the Roman invasion, and not the occupation of Antioches IV Epiphanes (cf. Matt. 24:15).

  I have a list of changes from the 1960 to the 1970 version (the small red NWT), but the print is very small. I'll go through it and see if I can pick out word changes that have to do with doctrinal changes. If I unearth anything dramatic, I will post it.
• 

  Leolaia

  It is telling that there have been no major revisions of the NWT that have taken advantage of newer MS evidence and lexicographical insights. As you point out, the critical edition of W&H is far outdated compared to NA27 or UBS4.

  Well, we'll definitely have to disagree with respect to Daniel, which would be the subject of another thread. I would like to point out though, in the interest of this thread, that the translation of mshych "anointed one" as "Messiah" in the NWT in ch. 9 forces a messianic sense into the text in place of a sacerdotal one (which is supported by the context itself).