Is the New World Translation Accurate

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Sargon
Posts: 80
Joined: 7 years ago

Is the New World Translation Accurate

#1 Post by Sargon » 7 years ago

http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses ... -accurate/

Went over this article during family worship tonight. I could barely make it through our discussion. Most quotes were from the 1960's or earlier. Then of course their favorite quotes from Jason BeDuhn. No mention of course about whether it is correct to use Jehovah in the New Testament.

imjustasking
Posts: 203
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#2 Post by imjustasking » 7 years ago

What does one mean by accurate?

I googled accuracy and got this result
accurate
ˈakjʊrət/Submit
adjective
1.
(especially of information, measurements, or predictions) correct in all details; exact.
"accurate information about the illness is essential"
synonyms: correct, precise, exact, right, errorless, error-free, without error, faultless, perfect, valid, specific, detailed, minute, explicit, clear-cut, word for word, unambiguous, meticulous, authoritative, reliable, canonical; More
So by this definition, no the NWT is NOT accurate. But to be fair, the same could be said of every other Bible translation.

I think the more pertinent question is whether the NWT is honest and free from translation bias.

On this measure the NWT fails and any claims the Society makes for its veracity, integrity, honesty etc must be regarded with suspicion.

To take two examples:

1. The insertion of God's name in the NT in so many places is unwarranted and this has been discussed at length.
2. The mistranslation of Luke 22:29 in translating diatithemi as covenant to make it appear that the memorial is about going to heaven.

What made me laugh was the claim made by the GB in the 2014 year book. In the preface they suggest to the unwary reader that God helped them (i.e. the GB, personally) to translate the Bible and claiming it is the best translation available to mankind :lol: :lol: :lol:

They lack honesty by (a) suggesting that God personally helped them to translate the Bible, as if they did so from the original manuscripts and (b) Not acknowledging their sources for their translation, for example Westcott & Hort for the NT translation.

So in reality they are relying on the hard work of scholars from so called Christendom to do the heavy lifting. The irony!!

MeletiVivlon
Posts: 953
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#3 Post by MeletiVivlon » 7 years ago

imjustasking wrote:
52 years ago
1. The insertion of God's name in the NT in so many places is unwarranted and this has been discussed at length.
2. The mistranslation of Luke 22:29 in translating diatithemi as covenant to make it appear that the memorial is about going to heaven.
I agree with the first point, but in fairness, both Strong's and Thayer's list "make a covenant" as one meaning for diatithemi. So why would you claim that to be a mistranslation. (Bear in mind that I don't believe either way that Luke 22:29 can be used to make a case for those who say that partaking at the memorial means going to heaven.)

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#4 Post by Bobcat » 7 years ago

On the one hand, I agree with Meleti that the WT could find references that use the word "covenant" to define διατίθεμαι (Strong's 1303). So trying to argue with the WT about it would be a waste of time. They've translated it exactly how they want it to read.

On the other hand, for those wishing to get a better sense of what Jesus is saying in Luke 22:29, especially in comparison with "covenant" (diathēkē, Strong's 1242) in Luke 22:20, the words "appoint to/unto" or "confer on/upon" (in place of "make a covenant with") would better convey the meaning in Luke 22:29. The 'appointments' Jesus makes in Luke 22:29 are part of the larger 'New Covenant.' The Society sees those sitting on thrones as being the only ones in the New Covenant. So for them, Luke 22:20 and 22:29 are practically synonymous. See here for additional renderings. (Of which I notice only Weymouth uses "covenant.")

User avatar
imacountrygirl2
Posts: 428
Joined: 7 years ago
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#5 Post by imacountrygirl2 » 7 years ago

Sargon, I have a suggestion for you to consider. It sounds as if you feel the information you give your family is not something that you yourself even find appealing when you do your family worship.

Would it be so wrong to focus on the Bible itself instead of using Society literature? Maybe you can find a place where the Organization uses other Bibles for their quotes and justify using a different Bible to study out of.

Since we just had the Memorial of Jesus last supper, study the account together and ask them if there were any parts they didn't understand about the Memorial, or about the significance of each emblem, or about the significance of the Memorial Celebration itself. Ask if they are curious about any part of the celebration. Ask what they learned about Jesus. What they liked the most about the Memorial.

Maybe one week pick some Bible account/s that teach about love and read those scriptures together and then ask for family participation for how to apply those scriptures in daily life and to give examples of how they can show love to others.

The next week you could pick another account to teach about the fruitages of the spirit. If you have children, maybe you could help them memorize the fruitages of the spirit. Look them up in the dictionary so they understand what each means. Ask them to think of ways they could use those fruitages in their own lives.

Maybe one week you could ask everybody to write down something they are curious about in the Bible on a piece of paper and fold them up as small as they can get. Mix them all up and let one of them pick a piece of paper while blindfolded. Then keep using the slips of paper as your family study, depending on time. Maybe one week, it could be something scary in the Bible. Something that makes them laugh. Something that makes them sad. Something that makes them happy. Something they love about Jesus. Something they love about the Bible. Practice singing the Kingdom songs. Their favorite kingdom song and why. These things will give you insight into what is in your children's hearts, what they are learning about the Bible, about Jesus and how they feel about it.

Maybe for a few weeks, everybody could memorize the names of the books of the Bible, that was always fun for me.

By using God’s Word instead of dry pre-digested food someone else cooked up, you can come up with your own recipes to help your family come to love the Bible, help them use their reasoning abilities to make practical applications of what they learn, and the nourishing food will help them grow spiritually. By making it fun and interesting, your children may come to love the family study, rather than dreading it and they will love you more for making it “real” and come alive for them.

Once in a while throw in a monkey wrench, like when reading about Noah, ask did Noah have a commission to preach? That might be a time you can ask your wife to help research it, and if your children are old enough, ask them to help too. This will teach them how to search for answers for themselves.

All of these suggestions will depend on the ages of your children. Mix up the formats so that they never know what you will be doing. Make it as much fun and interesting as you can to keep them involved. Assign them homework sometimes. Assign them some project to work on before the next study sometimes. Challenge yourself for ways to get them involved and excited about the family worship time. These are just a few thoughts I had as I read your post.

Since you love your family enough to have a weekly family worship and since what you are using now sometimes has a foul odor and leaves a bad taste in your mouth, use something natural and healthy like God’s own words from the Bible.

Maybe you can family study them into opening their eyes, even just a tiny crack will let light get in, little by little.
I love clever and witty sayings...I just can't think of any right now.

User avatar
imacountrygirl2
Posts: 428
Joined: 7 years ago
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#6 Post by imacountrygirl2 » 7 years ago

Sargon, I apologize. My comment was totally off topic. It was right in front of me, I don't know how I missed "Is the New World Translation Accurate" question you posed. I read your post, and responded to what I thought was your real meaning. Not your very real question. Oops!

I concur with the other posters, I don't feel the NWT or the RNWT are accurate. Does it really matter? Some say "No, some say "Yes".

I think of it kind of like a brain surgeon. If I needed one, how many mistakes would I be willing to let slide? I personally would want the one who makes the fewest mistakes.

Has anyone figured out which Bible translation has the fewest mistakes? Does anyone have a favorite translation?
I love clever and witty sayings...I just can't think of any right now.

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#7 Post by Bobcat » 5 years ago

I found a page that is interesting in connection with the accuracy of the NWT. It is a reprint of comments made by Steven Byington in The Christian Century in its Nov 1, 1950 issue. The page also reprints the WT's response to that article and Byington's response to the WT's response. It can be found [here]. [Note from Bobcat: The link I had here has changed into something that surreptitiously tries to add a Chrome browser extension. So I deleted the link.]

(Steven T. Byington was the translator of The Bible in Living English, now owned and printed by the WT Society.)

Bobcat

jo-el
Posts: 1123
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#8 Post by jo-el » 5 years ago

imacountrygirl2 wrote:
52 years ago
Has anyone figured out which Bible translation has the fewest mistakes? Does anyone have a favorite translation?
Personally I do not like the RNWT - I much preferred the older version. I eventually formed an overall preference for the ESV, until I read the rendering of Exodus 6:3 where the convention of omitting Gods name was followed and so all the translations have errors to varying degrees. The only way to get anywhere is to try and compare the various renderings to get some kind of sense where something seems out of place OR preferably to use an interlinear and try to make sense of the literal text that way. Sometimes a certain rendering can lead you to a new thought which you may not find repeated in other renderings, so checking the original text seems almost essential.

apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3333
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#9 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 5 years ago

I want to post a separate topic on some research on resurrection in the OT, but I don't have time to do that justice right now.

In the meantime since this thread is talking about accuracy of NWT and rNWT I'm just wondering if anyone knows, or can speculate, why there is a difference in translation of the Hebrew word "tsaba'" between Job 7:1 (compulsory labor) and Job 14:14 (compulsory service). The difference exists in both the old and the new versions.

Also, curiously there is a cross reference in the NWT from 7:1 to 14:14, but not vice versa. And the more frugal rNWT loses even the one way cross reference altogether.

Considering one of the major selling points of the NWT was always supposed to be consistency in translating the same original word in the same way throughout the text, I find it amazing as to how many examples I've since come across of inconsistency. And the rNWT is even more inconsistent because it seems that the translators have acknowledged that consistency isn't always a good thing anyway depending on context. On the other hand it seems it's easy to hide "bias" behind the concept of "context".

Apollos

Marina
Posts: 2142
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#10 Post by Marina » 5 years ago

Hi Apollo

I don't have an answer about the tsaba but I did a bit of research and found this. Hope it's helpful.

Numbers 1:3 BHS
מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל־יצא צבא בישראל תפקדו אתם לצבאתם אתה ואהרן׃

Numbers 1:3 Young’s Literal Translation
from a son of twenty years and upward, every one going out to the host in Israel, ye do number them by their hosts, thou and Aaron;

Numbers 1:3 Jay Green
From twenty years old and upwards, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel; you shall number them by their armies, even you and Aaron.

Numbers 1:3 RNWT
You and Aaron are to register by their companies* all those from 20 years old and up who can serve in the army in Israel.
Footnote reads * Lit., ‘according to their armies’
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers 4:3 BHS
מבן שלשים שנה ומעלה ועד בן־חמשים שנה כל־בא לצבא לעשות מלאכה באהל מועד׃

Numbers 4:3 Young’s Literal Translation
from a son of thirty years and upward, even till a son of fifty years, every one going in to the host, to do work in the tent of meeting.

Numbers 4:3 Jay Green
From thirty years old and upward even until 50 years old, all that enter upon the service, to do work in the tabernacle of the congregation.

Numbers 4:3 RNWT
All those from 30 to 50 years old who are in the group assigned to work in the tent of meeting.
Marina

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests