In my mood today of trying to give a chance, I looked at Reniaa's link to Wikipedia. It offered no positive praise of the NWT.
The closest it got was the line below about how Harper's Bible Dictionary listed the New World Translation as one of the major modern translations.
There is a bit of "highly accurate" in the paste below, so I may have overstated above.
"Major" means things like "widely used." It is not positive feedback or negative feedback. Look at the negative feedback in that section and judge for yourself:
(Sorry, I left the links in and just pasted it. Just don't click on them as it might take you into the wikipedia and out of JWN)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures
Critical review
The New World Translation has received both commendation and criticism. In its review of bible translations released from 1955 to 1985, Harper's Bible Dictionary listed the New World Translation as one of the major modern translations. [ 27 ]
[edit] Translation Committee qualifications
The translators of the NWT insisted to remain anonymous because they did not want to "advertise themselves but let all the glory go to the Author of the Scriptures, God" [ 28 ] and that this translation "should direct the reader, not to the translators, but to the Bible’s Author, Jehovah God". [ 29 ] Jehovah's Witnesses believe that "the particulars of their [the New World Bible Translation Committee's members] university or other educational training are not the important thing" and that "the translation testifies to their qualification". [ 30 ] Academic reviewers of the New World Translation have made statements in favour of the translators. For example, Dr. Bruce Metzger stated for the NWT of the Greek Scriptures that "on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators". [ 31 ] However Dr. Metzger also said, "the Jehovah's Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek." [ 31 ] Similarly, though critical, Samuel Haas, in his review of the first volume of the NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures, stated that “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.” [ 32 ] . Dr J R Mantey in reference to the NWT of John 1:1 said it is "a shocking mistranslation. Obsolete and incorrect. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" On the NWT New Testament, commentator Alexander Thomson writes, “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing,” [ 33 ] . Thomson had no formal training in either Greek or Hebrew and worked for a bank in Scotland. Croft (1988:1-2) , and the Greek scholar Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed wrote in a letter to the Watchtower Society, “I am [...] much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.” [ 34 ] On the question whether the NWT can be be recommended to the general public Goodspeed replied : "No,I'm afraid I could not do that. The grammer is regrettable . Be careful on the grammer. Be sure you have that right."(Cetnar & Cetnar,1983:58 )
[edit] Linguistic and theological review
Various critics have accused the translators of rendering the NWT to conform "to their own preconceived and unbiblical theology." [ 35 ] To support a view of theology overriding appropriate translation, Drs. John Ankerberg and John Weldon cite several examples, such as the NWT's use of "for all time" in Hebrews 9:27: “And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment.” Ankerberg and Weldon cite Dr. Julius Mantey on this text as saying, “Heb. 9:27, which without any grounds for it in the Greek, is mistranslated in the J. W. Translation… the phrase “for all time” was inserted in the former versions without any basis in the original for it.” [ 36 ]
The translation includes the name Jehovah over 200 times in the New Testament as a substitute for references to God, when in the original Greek and Hebrew the name Jehovah was never used. [ 37 ] The basis offered by the translating body departs significantly from their relatively thorough methodology, stating that since the name Jehovah was used liberally in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, it can be assumed that the lack of references to Jehovah in the New Testament were an oversight on the part of the ancient manuscript writers. [ 38 ]
Dr. William Barclay concluded that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in the New Testament translation…. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." [ 39 ]
In 2003 Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, published a 200-page study of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world,” including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version. His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, where “bias is most likely to interfere with translation”. For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn states that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation.” While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version “emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared,” calling it a “remarkably good” translation. [ 40 ]
Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation, wrote in a letter dated December 8, 1950: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”
Greek scholar Dr. Rijkel ten Kate notes in reference to the NWT that in rendering different Greek words (bre′phos, pai?di′on, and pais) employed to describe the successive stages of Jesus’ growth “that there is actually one Dutch Bible in which the different use of the three Greek words bre′phos, pai?di′on, and pais is rightly taken into account,” after having previously reviewed other Dutch translations and concluded that “not one Dutch translation has rendered this adequately, that is to say, completely in harmony with the original text.” [ 41 ]
Professor Benjamin Kedar[1], a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.”
Bruce Metzger cites NWT renderings as instances of translating to support doctrine. He references the NWT’s comma placement at Luke 23:43 as “In the interest of supporting the doctrine of "soul sleep" held by Jehovah’s Witnesses.” [ 42 ] Another example Metzger offers is the insertion of the word “other” four times in Colossians chapter 1 “thus making Paul say that Jesus Christ is one among ‘other’ created things.” Of this insertion, Metzger states it is “In the interest of providing support of [Jehovah’s Witnesses’] Unitarianism” and that the insertion is “totally without warrant from the Greek”. [ 43 ] Dr. Jason BeDuhn disagrees on this point by stating “‘Other’ is implied by ‘all,’ and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit.” [ 44 ] Dr. Bruce Metzger characterizes the NWT’s use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament as an “introduction.” He writes, “The introduction of the word ‘Jehovah’ into the New Testament text, in spite of much ingenuity in an argument filled with a considerable amount of irrelevant material (pp. 10–25), is a plain piece of special pleading.” [ 45 ]
Reachout Trust writer Tony Piper concludes it is not a "faithful translation of the Scriptures…", giving as examples Acts 2:42, 46 and 20:7, 11 and he objects that “the NWT translates it to read that the church simply shared meals together” rather than using the phrase “breaking of bread [...] to disguise the fact that the early church celebrated the Lord's Supper more than once a year.” [ 46 ]
Charles Francis Potter has stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross," and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen." [ 47 ]
Regarding the NWT’s use of English, Dr. Harold H. Rowley is critical of what he calls “wooden literalism” and “harsh construction.” He characterizes these as “an insult to the Word of God” and offers a few sample renderings from Genesis. Specifically he cites Genesis 15:5, 4:13, 6:3, 18:20, 4:8, 19:22, 24:32 and 24:66. Rowley concludes these criticisms by writing, “From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.” [ 48 ]
Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.” [ 49 ]
Thomas Winter considers the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (part of the NWT project) as “highly useful” toward mastery of biblical Greek. [ 50 ] Winter relates that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.” [ 51 ]
