The new NWT has been dumbed-down, just as the 'meetings' have been,
New World Translation is not much different other translations
doubting Thomas--although you very recently signed up here--werent you on here before ?
Why- were you?
What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
You said "We're judged tru our works with GRACE."
Paul is free to contradict what Jesus said.
But readers are free to reject it like Jesus (Mathew 19:4-8)
What was that about “A civil question deserves at least a civil answer”?
I remember that in one thread (I don't know which one on this site) a person stated disapproval of the NWT translation of Matthew 24:40-41 where the phrase "taken along" is used instead of simply saying "taken". From previous reading of other sources (ones critical of the WT and the NWT) I had also come to believe the word "along" should not be used in the translation of those verses. But, today I decided to do a search on the internet to see if any non-JW Bible translations say "taken along" and to see if there is good scholarly support for such a translation. I found some good scholarly support.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/matthew_2437-42_commentary says in part the following (the emphasis in the quote is from the source).
"Will be taken (3880) (paralambano from para = beside + lambano = appropriate, receive) means to receive alongside or to take to oneself (into close association). There are two basic ideas - to take or to receive. In this context clearly the meaning is to take with one in order to carry away. Some uses of paralambano are in a positive context (see note on Jn 14:3 below) whereas others are in a negative context (Mt 4:5, 8; Jn 19:16).
Jesus uses this verb in His description of the Rapture in John 14:3 promising the disciples that "if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive (paralambano) you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." Notice the taking conveys a sense of close fellowship and agreement associated with the receiving to Himself. Although NAS translates it as "will be taken" it is actually in the present tense (see Mt 24:41 note below by Gundry) so pictures them as in the process of being taken, a vivid description! The passive voice underlines this "taking" will not be of their strength nor of the choice but is from an external source (i.e., God's angels - Mt 13:39, 40, 41, 49)."
The same web page also says the following (the emphasis in the quote is from the source).
"Robert Gundry adds that "The two instances (Ed: Mt 24:40 and Mt 24:41) each of the present tense in "is taken along" and "is left" are preceded by the future tense in "will be in a field" and "will be grinding." So Jesus uses the present tense to emphasize the certainty of being taken along and being left. They're as good as happening right now. The taking away of people by the flood favors that being taken along has to do with judgment at the Son of Man's coming (compare the separation of the wicked out from among the righteous in the parables of the tares and foul fish [Mt 13:30, 40-42, 49-50]). Then being left means being spared from judgment. The accent doesn't rest on the separation of people in proximity so much as on the occurrence of this separation during the round of daily activities and therefore unexpectedly—unless you're watching. (Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation)".
I then looked for information about Robert Gundry and I found a Wikipedia article about him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Gundry whch says he "... is an American scholar and retired professor of New Testament studies and Koine Greek." It also says he "worked under F. F. Bruce." I have a hardcover theologically conservative Bible Commentary edited by F. F. Bruce, published by Guideposts. Gundry's commentary (named in the above paragraph) was published in the year 2010 (decades after the first NWT volume) yet it says "taken along" (according to the above source) and Gundry is an evangelical scholar!
From what I read today the translation of "taken along" indicates that the ones taken are taken to be alongside Christ and thus to be saved! Even if the WT chose the translation of "taken along" so they could apply it (in a way which I consider to be incorrect) to mean taken along in field service by human JWs, the phrase "taken along" is an accurate translation nonetheless. Wow!
In reading Mt. 24:40-41 in most translations which say "taken" instead of "taken along" it is hard to determine if the ones being take are taken to a place of safety or are taken to be destroyed (or tormented). But the wording of "taken along" when read in the context of the entire 24th chapter of Matthew and in the context of what the scholar Robert Gundry said about it and in a commentary by Dummelow, clarifies it means (at least to me) to be taken to safety by Christ (or through angels sent by Christ)!
A commentary I have called "A Commentary on The Holy Bible, by various writers, edited by the Rev. J. R. Dummelow M.A." and published in 1935 says the following (the boldface emphasis in the quote is from the source).
"40, 41. The general idea is that, though to human eyes the righteous and the wicked will appear exactly the same, the angels in the judgement will be able to distinguish.
40. One shall be taken] viz. into glory, by the angels. The other left] viz. for reprobation, or punishment. But if the fall of Jerusalem is meant, the 'taking ' means the successful flight from Judaea and Jerusalem; the being 'left' means failure to flee."
I am thus now impressed which the NWT using the word "along" in Matthew 24:40-41. Besides the above example I have noticed other contested controversial phrases in the NWT, which have the same wording as in some non-JW scholarly Bible translations. I thus now mostly agree with HowTheBibleWasCreated's claim of "... every single so-called change the NWT makes has been done by some other translation at some point ...". Lately my opinion of the NWT (at least up through the 2006 Printing edition) has greatly improved as a result of my research about it contested controversial translations of some words and phrases in some verses.
Disclosure: More than 10 years ago I ceased considering myself a JW and even ceased believing in Jehovah God and the Bible. I am now an atheist. However, I still find it interesting at times to study the Bible (in multiple translations) as a work of literature [kind like the way an atheist university professor of a course called "The Bible Literature" might do so, and also the way a professor might study mythology and teach a course in it].
Regarding the source I quoted from about Gundry' s wording, the source seems to be saying that Gundry says that in the context of the passage about the flood "that being taken along has to do with judgment at the Son of Man's coming ...Then being left means being spared from judgment." While that might be the case, I think in regards to Mt. 24:40-41 the being taken along means to be taken with Christ to safety.
The "Disciples' Literal New Testament: Serving Modern Disciples by More Fully Reflecting the Writing Style of the Ancient Disciples", Copyright © 2011 Michael J. Magill, says the following in the translator's note. "Matthew 24:41 Or, taken along... left behind. Some think believers are taken, referring either to protection on earth (as with Noah) or in heaven (through the rapture); unbelievers are left for judgment. Others think unbelievers are taken in judgment, believers are left on earth (like Noah)." [See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:39-41&version=DLNT .] According to an Amazon.com web page about Magill's NT book, the following is said about the translator. "Michael Magill graduated Valedictorian with a B.A. in Bible from Biola University. He earned an M.Div. in New Testament from Talbot School of Theology, and received the Robert N. Oliver Award in Systematic Theology. He taught Greek at Biola University and Logos Bible Institute."
NEW WORLD TRANSLATION too is influenced by other translations. Otherwise, JWs would have translated John 1:1 as "logos (reason) was God" as they rightly translated logikēn (adjective from logos) as "reasonable" (rendered by the power of reason) in Romans 12:1.
Logos has to do with something that is “actually subject to rigid laws of nature” which “could be discovered using reason and observation.” (Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The New Testament: 002) In Greek, the word for “desire for recognition” is thumos, “the emotional element in virtue of which we feel anger, fear, jealousy etc” hence to be controlled by nous (intellect, reason), says Plato in his Republic (Book IV). In the Phaedrus, Plato depicts logos as a charioteer driving the two horses: eros (erotic love) and thumos (sense of prominence). Thus, the expression “Logos was with God and logos was God” in John 1:1 shows that God is not affected by uncontrallable desire nor by sense of prominence—and what HE does is always a reflection of Wisdom, Love, Justice and Power as symbolized by “eagle, human, lion and bull” respectively seen around throne of God. (Revelation 4:7)
If it had been rendered as “reason” it would have left this implied truth that God is not ruled by any strong desire nor by a sense of prominence. Anyone copying this attitude of God would bring peace to self and others because he too will resolve to live without strong desires and sense of prominence. Such a life style itself is a great freedom because when your desires are not strong, you won’t feel anger if they are not fulfilled or are obstructed, will not feel attached/greedy if they are fulfilled and will not feel envy at the fulfillment of desires of others. And in not having sense of prominence you feel no need vindicating yourself at any circumstance.
Such a translation is also backed by the overall theme of the Bible—God serves us WITHOUT EXPECTATION like sun (Mathew 5:43–48; Psalm 84:11) and “renews” the earth whenever we the children pollute it beyond repair through our greed (Mathew 19:28; Revelation 11:18) thus proving Himself as Servant of His children WITH NO STRONG DESIRE, WITH NO SENSE OF PROMINENCE. This is something Jesus has observed in HIM (John 5:19) which he made his final teaching. (Luke 22:24–27) Ezekiel’s vision of God using a unique chariot moving on wheels made of eyes that can move in any direction with absolute ease. This symbolically shows God has no strong desires but is flexible depending upon circumstances at hand. (Ezekiel 1:15–18) Moses’ word picture of God as “a mother who brought us with labor pain” symbolically shows God has no sense of prominence because mother is known for her delightfully serving her child even in the middle of the night. (Deuteronomy 32:18) ‘HIS happiness is in GIVING rather than in receiving’ (Acts 20:35) which too shows HE lacks sense of prominence.
If JWs had done this, they would not have taught Vindication of God’s Sovereignty as their main teaching.