You’re entirely welcome to disagree, and whilst it’s obviously not so similar to the KJV to be comparable to the NKJV, it is quite definitely based on the KJV and ASV. Their biggest departures are the verb changes and updated vocabulary, with some doctrinal bias thrown in, though not as much as is sometimes claimed. The 2013 revision is a bit of a different story, though there are various notable instances where it is closer to mainstream translations than the original NWT.
The 1950s NWT (1984)
by HowTheBibleWasCreated 41 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Jeffro I believe the NWT is not really a translation at all. If you check you will find that four guys worked on the so-called translation and only Freddie Franz had a bit of knowledge in Greek (Not Hebrew)
I agree it's a rework of the ASV and keep in mind the WT published both the ASV and KJV at this time in the 1940's and 1950's . The ASV is a decent translation in my opinion and the bible I often use online the World English Bible is based on it. However the society did not translate so much as copy and update the ASV with a lexicon next to them and some cleaver imagination at certian points. At some places they fall short and it becomes appearant in Genesis 1 when they render spirit as actve force. I mean that's obviously doctrinaly based. Spirit or wind would have sufficed.
As for influence from the KJV \i haven't seen it but I wish they had used it. Somehow I always laugh inside when I read 'pisseth against the wall'
-
Vidqun
Well, seeing that we are generalizing, one could say most modern English Bible translations are based on the King James, including the ASV. I think I read on this forum that an Israeli translator affirmed that Frederick Franz was adept at Hebrew. She could not fault his translation. I still believe that he had some original ideas, whether right or wrong. The critique of his "[strong] testicle" translation just proved it to me yet again. But I do not excuse his scholarly dishonesty to prove a doctrinal point. A good example is Jer. 29:10 in order to prove the 1914 date. If he did have a good knowledge of Hebrew he would have known it was wrong. The Silver Sword also has it wrong.
-
Jeffro
HTBWC:
As for influence from the KJV i haven't seen it but I wish they had used it. Somehow I always laugh inside when I read 'pisseth against the wall'
Actually, you’ve provided a good example of similarity to the KJV. Whilst the majority of translations just say ‘male’ at 1 Samuel 25:34 (recognising the meaning of the Hebrew idiom), the original NWT ‘faithfully’ renders the KJV text, but just changes ‘pisseth’ to ‘urinating’.
-
Jeffro
Vidqun:
I still believe that he had some original ideas, whether right or wrong.
Of course. That’s why they needed their own translation. However, though Jeremiah 29:10 is a good example of doctrinal bias, the NWT rendering there is also taken from the KJV. (It is of course nonsensical because the passage says attention would be given to their return after the 70 years were completed and it would be pointless giving attention to their return once they’d already returned.)
-
JoenB75
Actually JWs are henotheists. The idea that our English "God" is a name and exclusive to the one true guy / power with capital P is an Evangelical invention and oversimplification ☺️.
-
dropoffyourkeylee
The OT of the pre-2013 NWT was very literal, to the point of being overly tedious to read. I have an interlinear Hebrew Bible (Jay Green), which is laid out similarly to the NWT Greek interlinear. It has Hebrew to the right side of the pane with interlinear word for word and the Strong's number, and the Green literal translation in the left side of the pane. It reads very much like the NWT OT. Literal, wordy, long run on sentences and awkward verbs. It was a very formulaic approach that may be good for some study applications, but not for reading.
The NW NT was not as literal, with a lot more doctrinal bias.
-
scholar
To All
Much has been written about the original NWT produced some 70 years ago and has withstood much criticism but remains the 'Rolls Royce' of all modern Bible Translations. Its scholarship is outstanding, brilliant and remains the most widely translated Bible in its own right being singularly multi-lingual.
scholar JW
-
Anony Mous
Dr. Bruce Metzger, Professor of New Testament at Princeton Universtity:
“Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering… ‘and the Word was a god’… It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” (For the Record – John 1:1)
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, University of Glasgow, Scotland:
“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations, John 1:1 is translated: ‘the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect that can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
H. H. Rowley, British scholar:
“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:
“A grossly misleading translation”; “obsolete and incorrect“; “shocking mistranslation“
“It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘the Word was a god.’ But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.”
“I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as the Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures…. It is a distortion–not a translation.”
“The translators of the New World Translation are ‘diabolical deceivers.'”
Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, well known translator:
“A fatal distortion of Biblical truth”; “the grammar is regrettable”
The one “bible” which translates John 1:1 as “the Word was a god” known to us, and to the WTB&TS, is Johannes Greber’s “Bible.”
Greber was a Catholic priest who became a spiritist. He claimed to get his “translation” as a medium of the spirit world.
He wrote another book entitled, Communication with the Spirit World, published in 1932, which details his experiences as a medium.
-
scholar
Anony Mous
The NWT has always had its critics and the first of these was Metzger's article. In fact, one evangelical journal featured an article titled that the NWT was the world's most dangerous book or words to that effect. Contrariwise. Prof. Jason Be Duhn most favorably on the NWT's scholarship when comparing the same with several Bible translations in his Truth In Translation.
scholar JW