It is unlikely that the JW will honestly agree with you that their Bible has been altered, but you may well place a seed of doubt in their heart and maybe, just maybe, they will check what they are being taught in another version and see the deception. Categories: Jehovah's Witnesses. Barry has been a Christian for over 45 years and has been studying the Watchtower society for 36 years since meeting his wife who was JW. He has written a number of articles for online Christian magazines and regularly talks with JWs on the street. He is keen to spread the word of Christ to these lost sheep and to encourage and train others to do the same.
Barry lives with his wife in North Wales where he attends a free church in Mold. His hobbies include snowboarding, windsurfing and popular science. Followers Subscribers Likes. Jun 11, 0 Barry Amor.
Kingdom Interlinear Translation. The later is used in support of house to house activity, while it seems in looking at how these words are used throughout the New Testament this practice does not seem to be found. Jeremiah is rendered 'fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon' in defense of a year Exile versus a year period of Servitude, where other modern translations read 'seventy years are completed for Babylon', which seems not only a legitimate rendering, but more legitimate than the NWT.
My apologies for repeating myself--I know I've put the later two verses in other threads. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I am interested in seeing everyone's findings. If there was only going to be one bible translation allowed we might wonder which one it would be? Did they have anyone educated enough to actually translate the bible or did they re-write an interlinear translation and used lexicons to make few sections more colorful while not having a problem "adjusting" some words to fit their teachings? This is my general observation as I haven't done deep investigation on the topic nor have I compared the several questionable phrases found in NWT.
Without knowing the committee members anything is a possibility. I don't think the question should be "Is the NWT biased?
It is more interesting to ask: In what way is it biased? Jason BeDuhn has a book devoted to bias in the NWT but it imo it reads too much like apologetics because it is really concerned with the permissibility of renderings than the question of whether the renderings draw on pre-existing exegetical traditions. Taking a cue from the search for Tendenz in translation in biblical studies, I would rather propose a different approach: Examine how given texts were rendered and interpreted in pre publications of the Watchtower Society, and then compare with the NWT versions to see whether the latter draws on what were already traditional perspectives on the meaning of the texts for Jehovah's Witnesses.
This is particularly conspicuous if the text had already been singled out previously for comment that anticipates how the NWT translation committee would later translate it. This would demonstrate that the translation is to some extent a reflection of how JWs interpreted the Bible at the time. I have seen some really good examples of this looking at s publications. But of course this would hardly be unique to the NWT; one could for instance find similar effects in other translations such as the claimed evangelical bias in the NIV.
With respect to Jeremiah , we had a good discussion of that a number of years ago, with input from a Hebrew scholar. Here is a summary: linkie.
I don't think its a glorified interlinear, I think its a little more competent than that, but I know what you mean To some extent, this reflects the literalness of the translation, but to some extent it is just poor English. And the translation isn't always literal; to me Philippians is a good example of how un literal the translation can be. The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation Bible, of which there are over million copies circling the globe, continues to come under intense criticism by respected Bible scholars the world over.
Although the Watchtower Society boasts of a handful of defenders, the vast majority of Bible scholars are vehement in denouncing the New World Translation Bible as a horrific distortion of God's word claiming it is false and misleading, and crafted for the sole purpose of promoting the Jehovah's Witnesses' unorthodox theories.
A careful examination of the New World Translation Bible reveals this to be true. It is unfortunate that many potential converts' initial exposure to a Bible of any kind is the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation, never suspecting that liberties to such a great degree could be taken by God-fearing people. Consequently, they too often give the Watchtower Society and their New World Translation Bible the benefit of the doubt until it is too late. As it turns out, the Jehovah's Witnesses really do have their own Bible as alleged, and it is a radical departure from Holy Scripture.
Critics decry their Bible as being written, or mistranslated, by non-Greek speaking pseudo-scholars, totally unqualified to translate the Greek into any language. This criticism is robust and extensive.
Here are just a few examples of how they have altered God's word: Whereas the great majority of Bibles interpret John as " Collosians provides that the Word was "before all things" and therefore could not have been created but is eternal, but the New World Translation inserts the word "other" to allow room for the Word's creation and inferiority to God, stating that the Word was "before all [other] things.
That which was begotten out of the flesh is [a] flesh, and that which was begotten out of the spirit is [a] spirit Horner's translation. So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have written "a god.
Layton says it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication in the immediate context to help us? I believe there is significant evidence in favor of a qualitative reading. In the Sahidic version of John b, the anarthrous theos in the Greek is translated with the definite article. Horner's translation reads as follows:. It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a translator would understand John to have designated the Word "a god" in John and "the God" in John Instead, his use of the definite article in verse 18 would make more sense if he understood John to be ascribing the qualities of Deity to the Word in John Click here to see an image with the first few verses of John's Gospel in Horner's Sahidic edition.
I have blogged on this topic further here.
I did not have the benefit of Mr. Wright's article when I wrote my comments about Horner, and he has indicated in private email that he was unaware of my website. Thus, we have each independently arrived at a similar conclusion, for much the same reasons. His tangential reference to the NWT occurs in a portion of his review in which Houtman expresses his view that while some doctrinal bias may be present in a variety of translations, it is not as great as some might suppose.
He writes: "The translator must know the subject. As we have seen in the past, people expressed distrust of translations by those belonging to another denomination or religious community, fearing that theological points of view would affect the translation. Click here for a somewhat longer excerpt from Houtman's article in Dutch, followed by a rather literal English translation.
Houtman says that the NWT may withstand criticism on the point that "only in exceptional circumstances" can one identify bias. Further, while the article quoted only mentions the NWT tangentially, Professor Houtman has written two articles that specifically evaluate the NWT - and in his own words, those articles are "very critical.
Jesus uses ego eimi in a number of ways in John. Isn't his real language of expertise Pig Latin? But honestly compels us to remark that, while each of them has its points of merit, they have fallen victim to the power of human tradition in varying degrees. After extensive reseach read: a quick google I can confirm that the Jeopardy question is indeed urban legend - just as well really, because otherwise the internet would be full of venomous pages trashing Jeopardy. Agape, JohnOneOne. The sentence continues into verse14 with only one person, Christ, in view.
The Watchtower Society misuses my articles by quoting sentences without their context. Professor George Howard goes on to say: 'When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint. Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars. George Howard's theory has been rejected by most - if not all - modern Biblical and Textual scholars.
In any case, his theory is that the New Testament authors retained the Tetragrammaton whenever they quoted verses from the Old Testament that contained it.
His theory thus has no relevance to most of the instances where the NWT translators inserted "Jehovah" into their "Christian Greek Scriptures. Professor Howard wrote two letters that have been made public which clarify his position:. I disagree with the Jehovah Witness translation that uses Jehovah many times.
This goes beyond the evidence. I do not believe Jesus Christ is Jehovah. Sincerely, George Howard Professor. Steven Butt P. Butt: Thank you for your letter of 3 January My research does not support their denial of the deity of Christ. What I tried to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations.
To do this is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate. Finally, my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me for example Albert Pietersma. Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven and mine has not been proven they should not be used as a surety for belief. For a detailed evaluation of Howard's study with reference to Watchtower claims, click here.
Jannaris, Ph. Andrews, Scotland in ZNW 2 , Jannaris does, indeed, suggest "a god" as the proper translation of theos in John c, but in doing so, he does not provide support for the NWT rendering. Jannaris argued that ho logos did not refer to the pre-incarnate Son, but rather "that well known oracular utterance which God made unto pros Himself and which having been instrumental di' autou in the creation, is naturally represented as a creative power, a creator, that is a god , - god and creator being two synonymous terms" Jannaris, "Logos," pp.
Click here for the text of a letter to me on the subject of Jannaris and John from Dr. Robert Keay of St. Andrews University, Scotland. Just's "Hyper-Literal" translation of John originally read as the Witness website has it. In a recently added note, Dr. Just explains what he was attempting in both versions of his translation:.
So what did the Evangelist mean in John c? He certainly did not consider Jesus to be just one "divine being" or "deity" among many others.
To summarize: The Fourth Evangelist may not yet have thought of Jesus as the "second person of the Trinity" theological language that took several centuries to develop in early Christianity - itself strongly influence by this Johannine passage ; yet John certainly thought of Jesus as "divine" or "deity" or "god" in a unique sense, not merely "a god," or one deity among many.
Exactly what he meant in John c may not be easy to understand, and it is even harder to translate into English because of the difficulties mentioned above. So rather than fixate on any particular English translation, even the best of which might confuse us or lead us astray, we should try to continue deepening our understanding of what John's entire Gospel says about the uniquely close relationship of Jesus and the Father.