Someone on one of the other topics, when he found out that I am an expert on English Bible translations, made a statement to me "you can therefore attest that the New World Translation Bible...is the most scholarly Bible in circulation. It is certainly a refreshing translation that brings the Creators message into our living language".
I would like for you to read my response to that person. It follows with some additional info.
Yes, the NWT is easy to read and understand, mainly, because it was written in the English we use today.
However, there is NO perfect translation of the Bible. There is always something lost when translating from one language into another. Also, ALL Bible translators are bias mainly because of their own religious beliefs.
This is also true of the NWT.
Knowing that, you can then understand my next statement. All translations are the Word of God. It doesn't matter how well the translation is or how bad it is, they are all the Word of God. Do translators make mistakes as well? You bet they do. Does that make their work something less than the Word of God?
The NWT does have a lot of good points that speaks for the translators, if that is what they were. Were they bias in their work? Yes, they were as can be seen in many scriptures. This is NOT the place to get into that.
In answer to your unasked question, yes I do use the NWT just as I do my other 1,510 different English translations that I have. I do have a copy of every Bible the WTB&TS published. This includes the two different copies of the Emphatic Diaglott by B. Wilson that they published. Did you know there were two different ones? Until I wrote an article about it, I don't think many other people knew that fact. The WTB&TS does not state anywhere that they changed Wilson's Diaglott. I found the change and confronted them with it and they gave me all kinds of reasons which just doesn't justify changing someone else's work without stating so on the title page.
One last item, would I recommend the NWT to people? Yes I would. However, I would want them to know the above facts first.
The NWT has a lot of very good points that would recommend it. However, it is no where near a perfect translation. The men who worked on this Bible may not have been fluent in the original languages and may have taken the good from this translation and that one to put the NWT together (much the same as the KJV translators did when putting the KJV together. The KJV was not a new translation. The fact of the matter is this; 90% of the N.T. is Tyndale's, the very person the King and the church had put to death for making an English translation.) They did use some very good expressions that are not in any other translation that I have investigated and so they did do some original translating on their own.
Another point you may not realize is the the men who worked on the KJV did exactly the same thing as the NWT men did. The KJV men were directed to follow 15 guidelines in putting together a new Bible. One of them was to take the good from the previous translations to make their KJV. 90% of the NT is Tyndale's N.T. They took parts of Coverdales Bible, Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, Rheims/Douay Bible, Geneva Bible, along with very little new translations of their own and made the most important work of all time. So don't criticize the men who put the NWT together. It is still God's word.
Oh, one thing I noticed from one of the other replies. Yes, you can use almost any other translation when reading the WT and Awake magazines. Why, because they quote from them when it supports their viewpoint. If you were to use just your own translation when reading the magazines, you will find a lot of places that do not agree with your Bible. That is where you must be very careful.
Let me take a small amount of space to show you why I collect English Bible translations.
I now have approx. 1,510 different English translations of the Bible and parts thereof and many (around 200) non-canonical books as well.
Its true that my collection might be said to be several collections - - but where does one stop? What is the Bible? What are the limits of inclusion in the Bible? The Jews believe that the Bible stops with Malachi. But up to about 120 yrs. ago, when the Jew used an English version, they had to use the King James, or it and a few selections of corrections. What makes the Apocrypha a part of the Bible? The Catholics? Ah, no, the King James Bible always had its version of the Apocrypha. The King James Bible always included a version of the Apocrypha, even though most Catholic translations dont include 2nd Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. The books that were not specifically included - - The Pseudepigrapha (Apocryphal, both the Old Testament and New Testament) - - need to be "available" in order to examine their important value in early Christian teachings and also to see why they were excluded.
Some ministers and lay people believe that paraphrases should not be included in this work, because some of these paraphrases take extreme liberties with the text. I have run across some that are pretty padded. So I classified Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" as a padded paraphrase of the historical portions of the Old Testament. Did I stretch his intention too far?
Where does the N.T. stop? The Syriac claim that Revelations and some short books preceding are not part of the canon. Some Church Fathers have accepted other titles such as the Shepherd of Hermas. And the old Uncials included 1st. Clement and others. Are we going to let Catholic councils refuse us the permission to examine the evidence?
What is Muhammadanism but an offshoot from Christianity? It refers to the Bible in places and seems to tell a different account of what happened in the few instances they "compare." If I "must know that much" surely accounts didnt stop there, that claim non-human origin. So, would it suit one better if I called it a Scripture in English collection?
"Bible History" as researched by modern scholarship dont do more than intrigue the curiosity. I want to examine the ancient written evidence myself. "Theology" doesnt interest me from modern viewpoints (although I do read a lot of it). I want to see what it is based on. If I am to know truth, surely I need to know it for myself, and not somebody elses digest and opinion of it. What did they believe "then"?
Your reaction to all this may show you that I am not a Bible collector for collecting sake, but for understanding. I liked English little enough in school. I have no desire to be bogged down in the technicalities of the original languages even if the original autographs were to be found. Variant translations seem the ideal way of understanding the opinions of what was originally written, though there is no full equivalency to be expected between languages. Therefore, we need translations that better reveal how the original expressed itself (literal), translations that express the thought that the translator "understood" and paraphrases which bring out the opinions of what scholars conclude was understood by the original readers.
Thus, our 1510 or more translations and versions.
I, personally, use the RSV, Green's Interlinear, ERV for my study Bibles. However, I do use whatever is necessary in order to better understand.
My most favorite Bible is a small translation of the Psalms by King James, dated 1632. Did any of you know that King James was a scholar and did a translation himself?
One other tidbit is that I have approx. 10 different scripture comparisons on the Web at a JW site and I am NOT a JW. If interested, I will give whoever the address.
Yes, I am an expert in English translations of the Bible.
Edited by - bchamber on 29 November 2002 13:43:1
