I agree with Larsguy that the NWT is "basically" as good a translation as many others, EXCEPT for hundreds of passages where it supports WTS doctrine by departing from good translation principles.
Metatron's example of the use of "Jehovah" in the NT is a case in point. Any evidence derived from the Septuagint (LXX) is only circumstantial at best. True, some of the writers of the NT favored the LXX translation of the original Hebrew even when the LXX did not provide the most accurate rendering. However, the majority of the NT quotes of the OT ignore the LXX altogether and are direct translations of the original OT Hebrew. So the LXX was by no means universally accepted as authoritative, and it is a great extrapolation to assume that the VERY few extant LXX fragments that preserve the tetragrammaton suggest a general use of the divine name by first-century Christians. Furthermore, there is not ONE, NOT A SINGLE ONE OUT OF NEARLY 7,000 Greek manuscripts (or fragments thereof) of the NT that have anything but kurios (Lord) or theos (God) in the text, even where the OT text has the tetragrammaton. Now, if first- and second-century Christians used the divine name as a matter of course, then wouldn't the copyists of that same period have caught on and seen to it that their copies included the divine name? If God was concerned that His name be so preserved, then wouldn't He have made sure that at least some textual evidence remained as proof? Including even, perhaps, a hint about the proper pronunciation of that name?
So, then, what purpose is served by the NWT to deliberately mistranslate some 230 times in the NT and foist the name "Jehovah"? Instead of showing respect for God and concern about His name, NWT actually shows disrespect for Him by perverting the clear historical and textual evidence that Christians very quickly, almost immediately, dropped the use of that name and reciprocally referred to "God" as "Lord" and "Jesus" as both "Lord" and "God." Those titles became virtually interchangeable, and strongly suggest the Deity of Christ. Of course, WTS will have nothing of that, and the NWT is used to muddy the waters on this fundamental doctrine.
Other examples include John 14:14 and Hebrews 1:6. The Wescott and Hort text at John 14:14 is transliterated in The Kingdom Interlinear as "if ever anything you should ask me in the name of me this I shall do." What does the NWT do about this clear invitation by Jesus to pray to him? The second "me" is conveniently and surreptitiously dropped, and so the NWT reads "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." Hebrews 1:6 in The Kingdom Interlinear (up through at least the second printing) translates "...let all God's angels worship [Jesus]." That rendering was soon changed, and current editions of the NWT read "...let all God's angels do obeisance to [Jesus]." In defense of the NWT, it is true that there are a few later textual variants of John 14:14 that omit the second "me," and the Greek word for "worship" in Hebrews 1:6 can sometimes mean something less than what we today consider to be worship.
I cite these last two examples only to illustrate the predisposition WTS has to use the NWT as a tool to promote their own doctrine. That most of these doctrines predate the NWT does not absolve WTS of guilt for now promoting the NWT as the best translation on the planet, an assertion that 99.9% of JWs accept without question. For myself, I never once in 40 years heard any JW use another translation except where its reading was essentially in harmony with the NWT.
PS: I found The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament (Robert H. Countess; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1982) to be a very good source of info about the NWT.
Edited by - onacruse on 12 July 2002 19:14:25
