NWT...how accurate?

by Theburstbubble 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • freeman

    I find myself in the uncomfortable position of defending the NWT. I think it's a decent translation in some respects.

    After about 4 ½ years of study of New Testament Greek I can say that the majority of passages in the NT portion of the NWT are rendered more or less correctly.

    That said, there is an important caveat concerning the accuracy of their translation, and it is this: They render the Greek into English accurately as long as the passage in question does not undermine their overriding theology. In other words, they tell the truth until they get cornered and then they lie their ass off.

    It's really funny reading it in the Greek and seeing them translate the same construct of words correctly except when they get to a passage that conflicts with their teaching, and sometimes this happens on the same page or chapter of a particular NT book, it is amazing.

    So their ya go. It's just my opinion, but I think it's a decent translation except for all the lies. :-)


  • Hadriel

    In my waking experience this is something I've delved into quite heavily. That being the original texts from various Codexes and so on.

    Certainly no scholar with years and years of study but after roughly 2 years of learning Koine Greek and substantial study I can say unequivocally that the NWT, grossly misrepresents the scriptures when the original text curiously doesn't fit the desired doctrine.

    Take 2 Corinthians 5:20. In this text the phrase "substituting for Christ" is added with regards to ambassadors. There is zero basis for this however it is postured in such a way as if to further bolster authority. Or at least that's how I see it. To me that's simply incorrigible.

  • slimboyfat

    I've always liked this assessment of the NWT from someone who disagreed with various renderings.

    Robert M. McCoy, writing in the Andover Newton Quarterly, January, 1963.
    "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation. This translation, as J. Carter Swain observes, has its peculiarities and its excellences. All in all, it would seem that a reconsideration of the challenge of this movement to the historical churches is in order."

  • Theburstbubble
    I don't know why but I find it quite sad if the NWT is so misleading to support their own beliefs. Well I do know why it makes me feel sad because it means everything was a lie. I know there is a lot wrong with this religion but I had hoped the NWT was a good version. Thanks for the information, I'll do some more research.
  • Terry

    Just a SIDEBAR here.

    In a court of law, a handwriting expert will testify whether somebody's writing is authentic or not ONLY if an original specimen, called an "exemplar" is available for analysis.

    Without an original version, nothing can be determined to the court's satisfaction.

    I recall now with amusement the day I discovered the fact there are no originals for the Bible--no exemplars--nothing in the way of "autograph copies" (in other words, in the actual handwriting of the author) in any museum, church, repository, safe, or private collection. There is NOTHING.

    Why do I mention this?

    The question: HOW ACCURATE IS THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION is a question

    without meaning because there are no exemplars for comparison.

    There are only approximations of approximations of copies of copies widely divergent with others.

    To make a long story short, THERE IS NO THERE THERE.


    In my opinion it is a very reliable version for the JW. It is in keeping with their theology.

    It is not a good translation though. A translation is the translators interpretation of what the writer was trying to convey

    A version is someones version of what they want to hear

    NWT is a version, not a translation imho

  • TD
    It is not a great translation, but believe it or not, there are worse out there and others that are almost equally biased. .
  • umbertoecho

    I was shown "on the new app" by an elder; how wonderfully accurate the Silver Sword is.

    Jason Be'Dunne (hope I have spelled this correctly) is the author in support of this new bible and is endorsed by the society. I looked him up and down loaded
    Truth In Translation, by this Jason person. Then I looked for peer reviews to see how other scholars reacted to this book. A book that seems to support the JWs new bible.

    There were only two that bothered to analyse it and his own university distanced itself from the book. This did not bode well as far as accuracy and unbiased scholarly research is concerned. One of Jason's problems is that he is not a linguist.

  • Mephis

    2 Samuel 24:1 is my personal favorite in their list of 'idiosyncratic' translations. No longer do you need wonder whether YHWH or Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1) incited David to take a census because the Governing Body have translated away the contradiction.

    It's worthless to me as a translation. It just isn't worth the time needed to crosscheck it.

  • slimboyfat
    Where did "his own university" distance themselves from BeDuhn's book?

Share this