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
Hisclarkness
Posts: 457
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: How accurate is the 2013 NWT?

#21 Post by Hisclarkness » 5 years ago

apollos0fAlexandria wrote:
52 years ago
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.
I remember. I believe I even let out an audible groan which elicited a glance from the brother sitting next to me. They basically said that the pages looked too cluttered and busy with all of those pesky references in the way so they did us a favor and cleaned up the pages by cutting the references in half. Now wasn't that nice of them?! :shock: :doh:

jo-el
Posts: 1123
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: How accurate is the 2013 NWT?

#22 Post by jo-el » 5 years ago

Hisclarkness wrote:
52 years ago
apollos0fAlexandria wrote:
52 years ago
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.
I remember. I believe I even let out an audible groan which elicited a glance from the brother sitting next to me.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Hisclarkness wrote:
52 years ago
They basically said that the pages looked too cluttered and busy with all of those pesky references in the way so they did us a favor and cleaned up the pages by cutting the references in half. Now wasn't that nice of them?! :shock: :doh:
:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :roll:

apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3333
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: How accurate is the 2013 NWT?

#23 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 5 years ago

Hisclarkness wrote:
52 years ago
apollos0fAlexandria wrote:
52 years ago
I remember. I believe I even let out an audible groan which elicited a glance from the brother sitting next to me. They basically said that the pages looked too cluttered and busy with all of those pesky references in the way so they did us a favor and cleaned up the pages by cutting the references in half. Now wasn't that nice of them?! :shock: :doh:
Thanks Hisclarkness. That sounds about right. I think I was too busy at that point flipping through to specific scriptures to see what they'd changed and probably wasn't even listening by that point.

User avatar
alexrover
Posts: 533
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#24 Post by alexrover » 5 years ago

The inclusion of extrabiblical material which includes the term governing body and defending 1914 bothers me. To be clear, those do not tamper with the Word, but they do tamper with the reader of the Word, that they come to believe light shines through the GB.

Kopernicus
Posts: 78
Joined: 7 years ago
Location: London

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#25 Post by Kopernicus » 5 years ago

My most recent Bible purchase is "The Voice" translation. It has a full listing of the Editorial Reviewers, Biblical Scholars, Contributing Writers, and Other Contributors.

It has interpolations which are identified in italics and described in the introductory notes - "Added information is provided that describes the context of a situation." The NWT 2013 edition does not reveal it's interpolations. Its translators etc, are similarly not revealed. That the translators / editors have the competence to do their work is widely doubted.

I now seldom use the NWT. In the Kingdom Hall I have been using the Good News Bible for many months. No censure for such as yet.
1 Corinthians 4:6

MeletiVivlon
Posts: 953
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#26 Post by MeletiVivlon » 4 years ago

Bias is evident in the rendering of 2Th 2:1, 2:

“. . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.” (2Th 2:1, 2)

Paul is taking about the presence of the Lord which JWs say occurred in 1914, but in the same breath, he's talking about the gathering of the anointed, which JWs say happend in 1918, or 1919--not clear on which. However, the return of Christ, which is the main point he is making here did not happen in 1914, so the NWT translates "day of the Lord" as "day of Jehovah" to get around that. JW theology allows for two days. One for the Lord beginning in 1914 and one for Jehovah which is at Armageddon. Of course, there are not two days, but only the one. That's why Paul is referring to a single day, a single presence, what he calls the "day of the Lord". Since this does not tally with JW theology, they try to support the illusion of two days by replacing "Lord" with "Jehovah".

This insertion of Jehovah changes the fundamental meaning of Paul's words and as such is messing with the inspired word of God.

User avatar
oneapart
Posts: 224
Joined: 4 years ago
Location: California, USA

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#27 Post by oneapart » 4 years ago

Answer to your question: no.
...who opposes and exalts himself [so proudly and so insolently] above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he [actually enters and] takes his seat in the temple of God, publicly proclaiming that he himself is God... 2 Thess 2:4 "not NWT"
compared
He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship,* so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. — 2 Thess 2:4 NWT
Meets the conclusion...
May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth. — Psalm 83:18, NWT
With Love,
Angela Glass

User avatar
menrov
Posts: 1893
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#28 Post by menrov » 4 years ago

MeletiVivlon wrote:
52 years ago
Bias is evident in the rendering of 2Th 2:1, 2:

“. . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.” (2Th 2:1, 2)
It seems there are 2 options:
.....day of the Lord (Westcott, Tischendorf)
.....day of the Anointed [Christ] (ABP, Textus Receptus and various others)

As verse 1 identifies that the Lord [strong 2962] is Jesus, it does not make sense that in verse 2 another day is suddenly the topic [in verse 2, also strong 2962 is used]. In other words, according to NWT, the same word (strong 29620 is translated differently, depending on the "taste" or agenda of the translator(s).

Like you mentioned, it is about the presence of Christ which is linked to the day of Him, the day of the Lord.

User avatar
oneapart
Posts: 224
Joined: 4 years ago
Location: California, USA

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#29 Post by oneapart » 4 years ago

JHVH != YHWH

a God vs. the God

(2 Thess 2:4, Ps 83:18, NWT)
With Love,
Angela Glass

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#30 Post by Bobcat » 2 years ago

I'm slowly transferring some research and comments from another site to here for easier reference (among other reasons also).

These comments fit this thread and are concerning John 10:16 & John 17:3. Here is the comment about John 10:16 -
John 10:16 "other sheep which are not of this fold" - "of" should read "out of" based on normal NWT usage.

This is a sneaky little rendition to support their idea of who the "other sheep" are. They want you to think that the "other sheep" are not in the same "fold" as the sheep mentioned earlier, whom they consider the anointed.

Jesus is saying the "other sheep" did not come "out of" the same "sheep fold" that the earlier sheep were "led out" of. "Of" in Jn 10:16 is the same particle (Greek ek) that prefaces "leads [them] out" in Jn 10:3. But they want you to think "of" in Jn 10:16 means 'belongs to.' It is small but significant.

Also (while I'm at it), they would do justice if they changed "sheepfold" in Jn 10:1 and "fold" in Jn 10:16 to "courtyard." Both are the same word, and both refer to an in-town pen for housing flocks of sheep, as opposed to a wilderness pen described in Jn 10:7-15.
And here is the comment about John 17:3 -
John 17:3 "taking in knowledge" - My guess is this was rendered to support the ministry. But in doing so they miss out on an important point.

"Taking in knowledge" was justified because W. E. Vine said that was a possible rendering of ginosko (literally: "to know") And, 'since he said it, that means its ok to use it in Jn 17:3.'

The word can have a range of meaning based on the context. For example, Mt 1:25 "had ... intercourse," Lu 1:34 "having ... intercourse." But here is the problem. In Jn 17:3: [ginosko] "means" [or lit. "is"] "everlasting life." There is an equivalency between the two. But "taking in knowledge" does not equate with "everlasting life." For example, compare Jn 5:39, 40, Lu 11:52, and 2Ti 3:7, 15. There IS a relationship between "taking in knowledge" and "everlasting life," but the two are not equivalent.

Invariably, when KH speakers use Jn 17:3 they will say "taking in knowledge" is a 'first step' towards everlasting life, when the verse says it "means" or "is" life. The phrase "taking in knowledge" forces them naturally to contradict what the verse is saying. "Knowing" or 'having a relationship with' would much closer approximate the meaning intended.

But, "taking in knowledge" does fit the pharisaical view that doing enough will eventually gain life.

Bobcat

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests