The New World Translation and Honesty

by Little Bo Peep 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Little Bo Peep
    Little Bo Peep

    After having researched my beliefs of 45+ years, finding so much was really different than what the Bible context really taught, I decided to "read" the Bible for for the first time to see what it really was saying, taking off the "blinders" of the WT. I began reading the Greek Scriptures first. I used the New World Translation, knowing if we were to ever reach our grown children, I would need to use that translation to prove anything. I have found much comfort in my readings, but one thing really stood out in contrast to what I had been brought up to believe. The NWT wasn't the honest translation I had believed. Two of the most outstanding contradictions I found are the use of "Jehovah's name" in the Greek Scriptures and the non-use of brackets [ ] for words that are NOT in the original writings. These two things really can change the meaning. Even if they do not change the meaning from what was originally intended, we aren't given the choice to make up our own minds what the writer was saying, but rather, the WT decides for us.

    My husband and I have been having a discussion with a very dear friend (who left the WT over 30 years ago) on the honesty of the NWT. He feels it is a terriffic translation. Recently I sent him this information. The following are but just a few scriptures using the name "Jehovah" which are not quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures. When you read the context, it seems to possibly be referring to Jesus. Mark 5:19,20;Acts 2:21; 4:12,30; 8:25; 10:33; 12:24; 13:12, 44-48; 14:23; 15:35,36; 16:31,32; 18:25; 19:17-20; 1 Thess 1:3,8; 4:14-16; 5:2,23; 2 Thess 2:1,2,13; 3:1; 2 Tim 2:18,22.

    Rom 10:9-15 is a scripture I have always used to show the need to preach about Jehovah's name, but in reading the context, it really seems to be talking about Jesus. I had a hard time fitting the context with using Jehovah's name, until I read 1 Pet 2:3. In the reference NWT, there is a footnote to this scripture, which I think might explain the confusion in Romans. It is talking about using "Lord" instead of "Jehovah", even though it is a quote from Psm 34:8. In part it says, "Peter is not here making a formal quotation, but merely borrowing O.T. language, and applying it in his own manner." Could Paul be "borrowing O.T. language" in Romans 10:13?

    There are quite a few more Scriptures, where it is questionable who is really being referred to, "Jehovah" or "Jesus". In the book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, by Gregg Stafford, on page 32-35, he lists 61 scriptures where there is no quote from the Hebrew Scriptures, but the context indicates the reference is to "Jehovah", and another 83 scriptures where there is no quote at all, but the "NWT used the divine name in the NT simply on the basis of their interpretation of the context, is their prerogative as translators."

    I always was led to believe the NWT only used "Jehovah's name" where there was a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures. The above book also says that the "NWT did not clearly communicate the fact that not all uses of the divine name in NT were based on O.T. quotations or paraphrases. Still, in view of the space they have devoted to explaining their use of the divine name in the NT, I am not sure that even this would be a legitimate argument." I found this admission very disturbing.

    The other "huge" problem I found within the NWT is the "non-use" of brackets [ ]. According to the forward of the Reference Bible and the Kingdom Interlinear (KIT), brackets would be used any place words were added to help in the understanding. Unfortunately, many, many words are added, without the use of these brackets, leading the reader of the NWT to assume what they are reading is what is actually written. A check in an interlinear clears up much. Even checking the original Greek in the KIT, will tell this.

    In the book of John, the words "in union with" are added in 7 scriptures, and another 13 times throughout 2 Corinthians, Colossians, and 1 John. The word "other" has been added in Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9 and Col 1:16-20. "In relation to" has been added in Mt 5:19 and Col 1:20. These and many more places, you'll find words inserted, that are not in the original writings, giving a biased rendition.

    I thought for 45+ years, the other translations were biased, but not the NWT. I suppose they are all biased in one way or another. Even the three different interlinears we have vary in their translating different words. We now have a Bible with 8 translations, plus several others. Between these 10 translations, we can get a better idea of what is being talked about, when a question arises.

  • tweety

    For no particular reason, it wasn't until 2004 that I decided that I wanted to read the King James version. I wasn't looking for anything different, but I found myself doing a comparison between the NT and KJ version.

    I'm going to look up your scriptures that you mention, just to see what I find.

    Thanks for the information


  • bonnzo

    if you read the bible w/o WTS "binders", you will never come to the same conclusions they come to. no wonder they say that you need their publications to understand the bible!

  • vitty

    When I was still in the org. I started reading the living bible, now I know this isnt the most acurate version, but it really changed the way I read the bible. For one thing it was enjoyable, im not a scholar but even I started questioning the NWT

    I took it to a meeting once and the looks I got, it was if Id brought in the devil himself

    The WT says we could use any version, but we all know we couldnt, unless we were using a scripture that backed up the NWT

  • the_classicist
    I took it to a meeting once and the looks I got, it was if Id brought in the devil himself

    Once I brought the NRSV with Apocrpha to a DC, I was given looks, but by that time I didn't care at all.

    If I may say so, I think it to be great that you were able to find these things out yourselves. God is certainly helping you.

  • A Paduan
    A Paduan

    I had read many other versions of the bible when I was younger but not the NWT - it was not until I came to this site that I heard snippets from it and I don't enjoy hearing it, or the use of the language therein - it's like a grating on my sensibilities.

  • Little Bo Peep
    Little Bo Peep

    I just would like to clarify...much of what I found, I found as a result of the reading and research my husband and I had done from sites like this. That, in turn, caused me to "look" as I was reading. Once I knew what I was looking for, I saw many of these additions and contradictions. I'm not a "Bible scholar" by any means, but have found, reading the Bible for what I says, is very "eye opening".

  • rebel8

    BTW, aren't the terms "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Greek Scriptures" made up by the dubs in the 1st place?

    Does anyone ever wonder why the dubs go by the books of the bible selected by the catholic church at the council of trent, instead of going out and selecting their own?

  • NeonMadman
    Does anyone ever wonder why the dubs go by the books of the bible selected by the catholic church at the council of trent, instead of going out and selecting their own?

    It might be because the books that were recognized officially as canonical at the council of Trent had been recognized unofficially for centuries before. Most of the Bible books had been recognized right from their inception as being inspired. That's also why most Protestants continue to use them. The antilegoumena - the few books in the OT and NT that were questioned as to canonicity - represent a small part of the Bible and the reasons for their having been questioned were settled long before Trent.

  • NeonMadman

    I used to regularly use different Bible translations at the meetings, often the Jerusalem Bible or the Amplified Bible, or occasionally Byington's. Some people thought it was a bit odd, but eventually some of the book study conductors got into it and even once in a while asked me whether there was an alternate reading in the Bible I was using. In retrospect, though, they probably now look back on that (if they think of it at all) as the first signs of my incipient apostasy.

    Anyway, the reason I really got involved with this thread was the title. Seeing the phrase, "The New World Translation and Honesty" reminded me of the scene in The Godfather Part 3 where Michael Corleone is speaking with the archbishop and says, "Friends and money...oil and water."

Share this