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
apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3333
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#11 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 5 years ago

Hi Marina

Thanks for that. Indeed it seems to be a word with a wide range of meanings and I don't think NWT translators were necessarily wrong in the words they chose, EXCEPT for the fact that they made a subtle change between those two verses for no apparent reason. "Compulsory labor" and "compulsory service" are almost synonymous but it seems that they deliberately paved the way to justify a difference in interpretation, and to not demand a cross reference. I think I can see why, and I'll try to expand on this when I put that other topic post together.

Apollos

Fight4Truth
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 years ago

How accurate is the 2013 NWT?

#12 Post by Fight4Truth » 5 years ago

What is your opinion on this new translation? How accurate does it reflect the ancient manuscripts?

Marina
Posts: 2142
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#13 Post by Marina » 5 years ago

Hi again Apollos

It sounds very interesting. I look forward to reading your new topic post when its ready.
Marina

apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3333
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#14 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 5 years ago

I've started a new topic on those Job passages:

Job, Death and Resurrection

apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3333
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: How accurate is the 2013 NWT?

#15 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 5 years ago

Fight4Truth wrote:
52 years ago
What is your opinion on this new translation? How accurate does it reflect the ancient manuscripts?
The more I study the more suspicious I become of it. As has been commented on many times, no translation is free of the bias of the translators, but if anything the rNWT reflects more bias than its predecessor. I find this especially noticeable in terms of the cross references. I can't remember how the reduction in x-references were sold as an improvement during the AGM launch, but I can see no reason to cut them down so dramatically, except for the liberty it affords to cull the ones that are no longer convenient.

Fight4Truth
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: How accurate is the 2013 NWT?

#16 Post by Fight4Truth » 5 years ago

apollos0fAlexandria wrote:
52 years ago
Fight4Truth wrote:
52 years ago
What is your opinion on this new translation? How accurate does it reflect the ancient manuscripts?
The more I study the more suspicious I become of it. As has been commented on many times, no translation is free of the bias of the translators, but if anything the rNWT reflects more bias than its predecessor. I find this especially noticeable in terms of the cross references. I can't remember how the reduction in x-references were sold as an improvement during the AGM launch, but I can see no reason to cut them down so dramatically, except for the liberty it affords to cull the ones that are no longer convenient.
The bias is ever more present in this newer translation as you point out. I have actually started a systematic review, verse by verse, of the NWT using the NRSV which most scholars will agree is the closest there is to an accurate translation. It's very tedious work but if anything merits it, it's the word of God.

User avatar
menrov
Posts: 1893
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#17 Post by menrov » 5 years ago

Thanks Bobcat for the link. I read it and noticed the following which in hindsight explains why I found it at time very hard to capture what I was reading. It somehow did not stick. 2 Statements in bold from the link:
The translators trusted their dictionary too much, not realizing that dictionaries are uninspired - I sense they have used a dictionary to translate which is not going to help in all instances.
But I did object that the New World Translation, usually following dictionaries (which, as I remarked, are not inspired), sometimes gives a false "special sense" and sometimes gives a false emphasis, which to my mind is as much a mistranslation as any other falsity.

charis (on which see another note by the same Robinson in the same book). They talk as if undeservedness were part of the essential sense of the word. But it is not so; this is the regular word for our thanks to God, which are never undeserved. Paul uses the word frequently of cases where there is in fact no desert, but not because this word says so. In texts like Rom. 4:4; 11:6, the essential point is that this benefit comes from an act, attitude or quality of God, not from an act or status of the man; by making "undeserved" the emphatic word we are making the man's status the prominent thought. James 1:5 says that God gives generously and does not keep throwing his gifts in our faces by ungenerously reminding us how much in his debt we are; to keep translating "undeserved kindness" with labored persistency makes on me the impression that the writer who writes on God's behalf is in fact throwing up to us how generously we have been treated. I should feel that the proper meaning of "grace," associated as it naturally is with "gracious," "gratis," "gratuitous," was clear to readers in general. If in this respect I am not sufficiently conscious of the difference between past and present usage, I would sooner try either "favor" or "graciousness" than load a three-syllable adjective on the back of the noun.
I now understand how the guilt feeling is created. The use of underserved kindness instead of just grace that comes "gratis" from God makes a huge difference in my view.

apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3333
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: How accurate is the 2013 NWT?

#18 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 5 years ago

Fight4Truth wrote:
52 years ago
apollos0fAlexandria wrote:
52 years ago
Fight4Truth wrote:
52 years ago
What is your opinion on this new translation? How accurate does it reflect the ancient manuscripts?
The more I study the more suspicious I become of it. As has been commented on many times, no translation is free of the bias of the translators, but if anything the rNWT reflects more bias than its predecessor. I find this especially noticeable in terms of the cross references. I can't remember how the reduction in x-references were sold as an improvement during the AGM launch, but I can see no reason to cut them down so dramatically, except for the liberty it affords to cull the ones that are no longer convenient.
The bias is ever more present in this newer translation as you point out. I have actually started a systematic review, verse by verse, of the NWT using the NRSV which most scholars will agree is the closest there is to an accurate translation. It's very tedious work but if anything merits it, it's the word of God.
Welcome to the site Fight4Truth. Will you make the results of your research available somewhere? I'm sure lots of people will be interested in your findings.

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#19 Post by Bobcat » 5 years ago

Welcome to the site Fight4Truth. Will you make the results of your research available somewhere? I'm sure lots of people will be interested in your findings.
I ditto the welcome and the interest in your research, Fight4Truth.

You may find some points of interest in this thread.

Bobcat

Fight4Truth
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#20 Post by Fight4Truth » 5 years ago

Yes, definitely. I'll be sure to post the results of this investigation.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests