New World Translation: A Reliable Bible Version?

sacolton

http://www.lulu.com/content/1331198

The New World Translation (NWT) is published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. This is the organization that Jehovah’s Witnesses belong to. But how reliable is this Bible version? This review will evaluate the NWT by looking at select passages from Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. The standards I will use here are the same standards that I use in evaluating over thirty versions of the Bible in my book Differences Between Bible Versions. Simply put, does the translation faithfully and accurately render the Greek text into English? More specifically, are words translated correctly? Are words left untranslated? Are words added without any indication that they have been added? Are the grammatical forms of words altered? Are phrases paraphrased rather than translated? How readable is the text? And how reliable is the Greek text being translated?

PaulJ

How reliable is ANY version of the bible?

LockedChaos

Fairly reliable

I use "Holman Christian Standard"
There are many others too

Can use just about any translation
as long as you know where the land mines are

IMO, any version is as good as the other... they all are copies of copies... with added and deleted stuff over centuries of copying and copying.. I do not see whats the big deal; not a single page is an original and I am referring to the oldest 'copies' available...

Therefore every single person who places his faith and life in this book is doing so on the copies of copies of flawed and imperfect men over thousands of years...

But if you need an emotional or spiritual crutch to make sense out of your own lives, well I guess any copy is as good as the other... although I pity those whose self esteem is so low that they need reassurances from the myths of nomadic tribes from yesteryears... to each their own.

Guest with Questions

When you compare the NWT with their Kingdom Interlinear you soon realize that this is an unreliable translation.

Just two examples.

New World Translation: Col 1:15-17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all (other) things were created in the heavens and upon the earth; the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him, and for him. Also, he is before all (other) things and by means of him all (other) things were made to exist.

Kingdom Interlinear)

Col 1:15-17 who is image of the God the invisible, firstborn of all creation, 16 because in him it was created the all (things) in the heavens and upon earth, the (things) visible and the (things) invisible, whether thrones or lordships or governments or authorities; the all (things) through him and into him it has been created; 17 and he is before all (things) and the all (things) in him it has stood together,

New World Translation: John 1:1 In (the) beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God, and the word was a god. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word.

Kingdom Interlinear: John 1:1 In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word.

Greek Text (literal rendering) : “and the Word was [en] with [pros] the God [ton theon], and God [theos] was the Word.” In biblical Greek, “God” with the article (“the”) and “God” without the article (i.e., the anarthrous theos) as in John 1:1c (lit., “and God was the Word”) can both refer to the one true God—context dictates the meaning. Further, many JWs incorrectly think that the two terms translated “God” (theon and theos) in 1:1 mean two different things: ton theon (“the God”) being the almighty God (Jehovah) and the anarthrous theos(“God”) being a mighty god (Jesus). However, the difference in spelling is due to their function in the sentence— not their meaning!

lavendar

I don't know of any other Bible version that refers to the Baby Jesus as an "IT". The NWT does this, which I find offensive.

Also, the NWT has butchered the beautiful 23rd Psalm.

XJW4EVR

IMO, any version is as good as the other... they all are copies of copies... with added and deleted stuff over centuries of copying and copying.. I do not see whats the big deal; not a single page is an original and I am referring to the oldest 'copies' available...
Therefore every single person who places his faith and life in this book is doing so on the copies of copies of flawed and imperfect men over thousands of years...

Statements with no supporting proof are assertions.

But if you need an emotional or spiritual crutch to make sense out of your own lives, well I guess any copy is as good as the other... although I pity those whose self esteem is so low that they need reassurances from the myths of nomadic tribes from yesteryears... to each their own.

Ad hominem.

Tired of the Hypocrisy

DON'T Question the veracity of this version. You might be called a rebel or an apostate....

cameo-d

New World Translation---Reliable?

hahahahaha.

Jeremiah 8:8 (New Century Version)

'You keep saying, "We are wise,
because we have the teachings of the Lord."
But actually, those who explain the Scriptures
have written lies with their pens.

Darby Translation:

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us?

Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.

Earnest

This book "New World Translation: A Reliable Bible Version?" is written by Gary F. Zeolla, director of 'Darkness to Light'. He graduated from Penn State University in 1983 with a B.Sc. degree in Nutrition Science. In March 1988 he began studying towards a Master's degree in Philosophy of Religion at a seminary in Denver, Colorado but didn't complete the course.

He has translated his own Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible as well as God-given Foods Eating Plan, Overcoming Back Pain and several companion books to his translation. He strongly recommends the third edition of his translation as there were "many corrections, changes, and improvements made to the text from the first [published in September 2001] to the second [published in March 2005] and from the second to the third editions [published in September 2007]".

Whether or not the NWT is a reliable bible version I have some reservations about Mr Zeolla's judgement.