Critique of the lastest New World Translation?

by dontfitin 45 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • dontfitin

    Thank you all for the information. I am not focused exclusively on the trinity issues right now. For example, even finding about about "coming to know you" being translated for so long as "taking in knowledge" was disturbing to me. Glad they corrected it, but for so long it was used to say, "see, study the Bible with us!"

    Some of these other types of translations might be easier to bring up with my husband. He obviously doesn't believe in the trinity, so he is more likely to "support" those changes. But if I can show him there are other "not honest" translations or adding, it may start to open his mind.

    For example, when Saul consults the spirit medium and it said he spoke to Samuel, the gray bible now has Samuel in quote marks "Samuel". Presumably to make it clear he was not really speaking to Samuel. It is fine to explain that interpretation, but not justified to just add quote marks where none are indicated. Things like that.

  • Connie

    Hi Donfitin,

    I came across this today, I had not studied it for a while but thought it might be of help to you.

    under E. Examples of mistranslation within NWT in order to teach Jesus was created

    There is a whole list of scriptures that have been changed in the NWT to support their doctrine.

    What has really helped me are the Netbible and the Blueletterbible both online and I loved being able to see the Greek, and all the various English translations all on one page. Even being able to pull up Strong's Concordance was helpful too. But I looked at specific Scriptures used by the Watchtower Reasoning Book to support their position as I wanted to get an objective look at what the Scripture said. I also used my NWT interlinear Bible. I did not look into the trinity at all until much later. I instead chose to first prove to myself if scripture taught the Deity of Christ, and looked into John 8:58 and Ex 3:14. I set out to learn what the Bible teaches instead of trying to prove the Watchtower wrong. I also prayed a lot for guidance and every day seemed to read just the right thing at the right time, if you know what I mean.

  • FayeDunaway

    Connie my method of study was very similar to yours and answers also came to me in that way after praying for direction.

  • Wonderment

    FayeDunaway: "I don't believe 1 cor 15:27 does exclude Christ from being equal to God. It says that God was not placed under christs feet. This is because they sit side by side."

    So we have to believe that ‘subjection to God’ does not mean what it says. Wow!

    I suppose Trinitarians would eagerly distort this text just as they have with John 14.28, "The father is greater than I am," where "greater" does not mean what the English word normally stands for. Talk about scripture twisting!

    God can never be subjected to anyone! Otherwise God is not God almighty. We find Scripture repeatedly showing God Almighty giving a command to someone under him: "Sit at my right hand." No one can tell God where to sit. Period! Does God tell the spirit where to sit? If not, why not?

  • FayeDunaway
    Reading the context...just two or three scriptures...around John14:28 is all that is needed.
  • Wonderment

    Connie: "I instead chose to first prove to myself if scripture taught the Deity of Christ, and looked into John 8:58 and Ex 3:14. I set out to learn what the Bible teaches instead of trying to prove the Watchtower wrong."

    Your goal of ‘learning what the Bible teaches instead of trying to prove the Watchtower wrong’ is commendable. But then I got the impression that you go to Protestant Evangelical sources (NET Bible,etc) on the web to confirm your suspicions. Remember, Protestants too have their own religious agendas, no less than the WT, a fact dismissed by many posters here.

  • Wonderment


    You brought up a website ( as a recommendation to dontfitin. I would trust that website as much as I trust the Watchtower telling me that the term "generation" overlaps another generation to accommodate WT agenda.

    For instance, the writer of that page informs his readers the following:

    "However the Watchtower society was losing so may new converts [by 1971, when the NWT used ‘obeisance’ in its version] because of the word ‘worship’ (only God gets worshipped) that they did the typically dishonorable thing and chose the obscure unknown word ‘obeisance’ to complete the deception of new converts."

    This is pure nonsense! The WT was not losing so many converts so as to scare them back then in 1971 when they went from "worship" to "obeisance" in its revision. If that was true, the WT would have dropped the "a god" reading at John 1:1, which is the most scandalous rendering of the NWT to the Trinitarian masses a long time ago.

    Also, the word "obeisance" or the thought that the term itself transmits is supported by numerous translators, even Trinitarians. It is dishonest for a website to claim "a deception" of that sort by supporting "obeisance", when a little research would prove him/her wrong.

  • Tenacious

    @ FayeDunaway - yeah, it truly is tedious work but well worth it. I got tired of hearing those maggots on the GB with other brothers parroting how great this translation was.

    Let's just say that as it stands right now, the translation is an injustice to the writers but more so to God who's Word they have clearly adulterated and poisoned.

  • Connie

    Hi Wonderment,

    I appreciate your feedback. It is such a struggle to find information that you can rely on. Everything we read has to be looked at with critical thinking. I guess one reason the Watchtower has got away with deception for so long. I really have empathy for all the struggling JWs who are trying to sort it all out. Thanks again, Connie

  • Wonderment

    Thanks Connie for your words.

    It is a challenge for us all to stay objective in religious matters. There is so much faulty information circling us everywhere that the truth often is not so obvious.

    Many Christian followers would like to believe that simple answers can be found from one single religious source. This is why JWs as a religious group are so popular with those looking for straight answers.

    The truth is that not everyone is right or wrong in everything. Various religious groups display adherence to God's Word in varying degrees. Are the JWs wrong in every doctrine or statement? No! Are Protestants right in most things related to the Bible? No! Are all Jews lost? No! Can we learn some things from Catholics? Perhaps. And so on.

    It is a common belief that the higher education one gets from prestigious sources increases the surety or accuracy of available information. Generally true, but not always. Universities have limits. So do professors. The whole system is subject to corruption and tradition, including government and religion. The WT Society is not exempt from either corruption or tradition. Those who always defend the JWs like to stick their head in the sand, ignoring glaring deficiencies in the system. The same can be said of Evangelicals, Catholics, Muslims, or other.

    Hence, it is wise to be open to new ideas, and not be so gullible so as to worship the feet of religious authority. We can learn from anyone, whether they represent a majority view or a minority one. I have learned a lot of things from various posters here. Some posters in this forum display depth of knowledge which exceed my own by lots. However, that does not mean I cannot present a valid argument for someone else willing to hear it.

    One thing that has helped me in my biblical studies, is to have various publications from different religious sources. That includes bibles and commentaries from various religious faiths. Some ex-JWs proudly say that when they leave the org. the throw away every WT publication. Why? I don't think that is necessary. I personally keep some like the Bibles, Insight, All Scripture, Reasoning book, etc. I like to see how JWs, Evangelicals, Catholics, Jewish sources, among others, explain things. Then I decide which makes more sense to me. This is not always the right procedure, and wrong conclusions will be a product of that. Hey, I'm only human, as everyone else here.

    In our search for truth, let us not forget Jesus' own words (probably my favorite biblical text): "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14.6)

    From this text alone we learn that Jesus is the way to the truth and to the Father. Notice that as simple as these words are, most religious systems err in their traditional interpretations. For instance, JWs do not give Jesus the "honor" he so much deserves. (John 5.23) The WT gives more prominence to their hierarchy than they give to Jesus. The WT opponents on the other hand do NOT honor "the Father" as they claim when pretending to be honoring Jesus. The Father is virtually absent in their daily worship. Jesus taught that the Father was "greater" than him, and that the Father was God Almighty. (John 20.17) This is so true, that the NT was written for that purpose...that Jesus, the Son of God, is the way to God. (John 20.31)

    Yet, most traditional groups cannot get this right. Yes, words with a meaning so simple, but religious believers prefer something more meaty, more complex, which explains why the Trinity is so popular. Intermingling Greek philosophy with Scriptures may be the norm today, but Christianity is far simpler than religious people wants us to believe. It is simpler than what the WT Society teaches overall. It is simpler than the stuff Christendom pushes to the masses. The truth shall set us free!

Share this