I think these quotes give a good insight into the minds of the Societys publication writers - they are misleading people and are so deceitful AND THEY KNOW IT. Its no wonder the Org. do not want you to read anything except for Society books, if the JWs did then they would be caught out...
Taken from the book 'The Jehovahs Witnesses' by Doug Harris - if you read this Doug - brilliant book! Really enjoying it!
The WBTS wants us to believe that scholars approve and support its translation of the Bible. In a letter from the Society (London, 26 Sept. 1985) it gives a number of quotes to prove this. We list them below. The parts the Society left out are supplied in bold letters. The quotes are introduced in the letter as follows:
'Finally, we felt it might be of some assistance to list a few comments by various scholars concerning the New World Translation particularly highlighting the competence of its translators:
The translation has been endorsed by no less an authority than C H Dodd... Referring to 'the Word was a God' he states: 'If translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of (John 1:1) would be, "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted...The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johanine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole.'
(The Bible Translator, Jan 1997, Vol. 28)
Samuel Haas said of the New World Translation, 'While this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages.'
(Journal of Biblical Literature, Dec 1955)
Robert M McCoy said: 'In not a few instances the New World Translation contains passages which must be considered as "theological translations" ... John 8:58... On grammatical grounds alone... cannot be justified. It cannot be called a historical present, since the words are not narrative... The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.'
(Andover Newton Quarterly, 3,1963)
Professor Bruce M Metzger:' On the whole one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators (their names are not divulged)... Some of the translations which are simply indefensible... The introduction of the word "Jehovah" into the New Testament ... John 1:1... is not justified despite a lengthy note... the translators have not hesitated to insert four times the word "other" (totally without warrant from the Greek)... in Colossians 1:16.
(The Bible Translator, Vol.15)
Doesn't it make you angry when you realise how they have twisted other peoples words to make them sound as though they are saying something completely different. Surely this should be illegal?? It's certainly unethical.