IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

Bleep

Just wondered how many people this this is all true. Feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

StinkyPantz

I don't really understand the question. I do believe that the NWT is the primary Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses. But it is also true that they use other Bible's from time to time. . . .

Edit: Sorry, I don't know what proof or examples you want because I'm not sure I understand the question.

Edited by - StinkyPantz on 29 July 2002 19:41:46

Let me fix my post up. If you think this is true provide proof of. If you think it does not matter since it is a Modern Bible from the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures tell us why it is just as good. And if you think this is the best, then just say something that will back up this NWT Bible I use every day.

StinkyPantz

I personally think this version is easier to understand than say the King James version, but since I haven't actually studied Greek, and Hebrew I can't say how accurate it is.

What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:

-Dr. Bruce M. Metzger , professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)

-Dr. William Barclay , a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

-British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."

-Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

-"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)

The NWT translators were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel

"Fred Franz however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." ["Crisis of Conscience"; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50.]
Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all. They had only a high school education. Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but dropped out after his sophomore year. When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek.
What we are left with is a very inexperienced translating committee that twisted Scripture to make it fit the Society's doctrine.

http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

Earnest

Bleep,

Your question is still unclear. It seems you want an endorsement for the NWT (which is unquestionably the WT bible as it is translated and printed by the WTS).

I find the translation most helpful in that it forces me to question what the original writers meant. Most English translations are in the shadow of the Authorised Version and render their translation in harmony with that. The NWT is not. There are many verses which convey a completely different meaning to the AV. It doesn't mean that either of them are wrong grammatically. But clearly both do not convey the thoughts of the original writer.

Earnest

pseudoxristos

Here is proof that it is the Watchtowers' Bible.

Publications Available
The publication and distribution of Bibles and Bible literature by Jehovah's Witnesses is part of a worldwide Bible educational work that is supported by voluntary donations. The publications in this list are printed in most major languages.
NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
It has a concordance, marginal references, an appendix, and maps; hard black

No other religion in their right mind would use it. I can easily point to 237 times that the text of the NWT does not follow the original Greek text. Is it a faithful translation of the Greek text? No.

pseudoxristos

JanH

StinkyPantz,

Thanks for posting the list of quotations from scholars who disagree with the NWT rendering. From context, it obviously refers to the particular rendering of John 1:1.

I have to point out one inaccuracy, though.

When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek.

This is a misquotation. Greg Stafford answered the charge from the JW point of view, and as far as I know this is pretty much correct:

"In discussions concerning the identity and credentials of the NWT translators, it is common for critics of the NWT to point to what they consider reliable data on just how knowledgeable one of the presumed translators was in Hebrew. That translator was F.W. Franz, the fourth president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. However, although consideration will here be given to this "reliable data," it cannot be confirmed that Franz was indeed a member of the New World Bible Translation Committee, as no such official word has come from the WTB&TS or other members of the Translation Committee."
"In an attempt to discredit the scholarly nature of the NWT," some "cite the cross-examination of Fredrick W. Franz from the Douglas Walsh trial in the country of Great Britain in the year 1954. This trial was held to establish whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses should be recognized as a legal religious organization in Scotland. Consider the following cross examination:
Cross: "You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?"
Franz: "I do not speak Hebrew."
Cross: "You do not?"
Franz: "No."
Cross: "Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?"
Franz: "Which?"
Cross: "That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis."
Franz: "You mean here?"
Cross: "Yes."
Franz: "No. I won't attempt to do that."
"Some will say, that Franz like the others on the NWT Committee cannot translate Hebrew or Greek. Let us assume for the moment that Franz could not speak or read Hebrew. How in the world does this prove that Franz could not translate Greek? Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, and undoubtedly continued his study of the language after he decided to become a full-time minister. Also, how does this testimony imply that the other Committee members were unable to translate Hewbrew or Greek? Of course, it does not."
"Why would he (Franz) refuse to attempt to translate the verse? Perhaps the answer to this question will be better understood after we consider the following comments from William Sanford LaSor:"
"All learning is in context. The context, however, is not artificial, composed perchance by one who does not use the language naturally, but rather it is the actual language of those who used it as their mother-tongue. For this reason, I refuse to ask the students to compose sentences in Hebrew. To do so is to impress errors on the student's mind. And, frankly, most of us who teach Biblical Hebrew do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it."
"Now, considering Franz' earlier testimony, that he had made himself familiar with Hebrew, and that he could read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, and his admission that he could not speak Hebrew, we can certainly understand Franz' refusal to translate Genesis 2:4 from English into Hebrew (not Hebrew into English). For, as LaSor points out, even most teachers of Biblical Hebrew 'do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it.'"
Taken from "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An answer to scholars and critics" by Greg Stafford

- Jan

StinkyPantz

Thanks JanH I didn't realize the inaccuracy, but that's why I put the link so that people didn't think that that was my reasearch. Thanks.

Bang

It appears that they didn't do the work of translating the bible, but rather stole from the harlot-beast-world-folk who did the work, and then changed it to suit themselves and their wicked desire, making out as if they were all some sort of scholars of antiquity.

bang

Robert_V_Frazier

For, as LaSor points out, even most teachers of Biblical Hebrew 'do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it.

Granted, most teachers of Hebrew might find translating from English to Hebrew a challenge. But no translator worthy of the title would. If you aren't fluent in Hebrew, sufficiently fluent to easily translate in either direction, then you are not qualified to translate the Hebrew Bible. Period. And that goes double or triple for anyone claiming to make the best and most unbiased translation on Earth, which is what is claimed for the NWT. The standard of fluency for a translator is and ought to be much higher than for a mere teacher. It's the translators who write the textbooks the teachers teach from.

So, the statement "When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not," is perfectly accurate. He was asked if he could do that, and he did say, "No." Then he went on to add, "I won't attempt to do that." To conclude from that, "The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek," is entirely reasonable.

Robert Frazier

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

Publications Available

Share this