A Jehovah's Witness Defense of The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Hello, I am a JW and this is my first post here (I just joined) :slight_smile:

May I offer a defence of the New World Translation:

mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/home.htm

jehovah.to/exe/translation/advantages.htm

jehovah.to/exe/translation/nwterrors1.htm

jehovah.to/exe/translation/nwterrors2.htm

watchtower.org/bible/index.htm

Thank You :slight_smile:

Greetings and Welcome Alpha!

Thank you for the links you provided. Something struck me as I was reading the link explaining the supposed errors in the New World Translation. The writer referred to the many, many different translations of the ONE book of holy scriptures. So I thought… How do we know which one to choose? Which is the CORRECT one? I don’t speak 1st century Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, and was not there during Jesus’ time, so what do I use as a guide to choosing the correct translation? Do I use language scholars from different countries with different degrees to pick one for me?

How Do I choose?

Sincerely in Christ,
Corrgc

Doesn’t it help if the people that are translating the Old Testament could actually read Hebrew?

I am referring to Frederick W. Franz, who was one of the five people translating the Bible.

He admitted in a court trial that he couldn’t even read a passage out of Genesis Chapter two, which a second year Hebrew student should be able to read.

Corrgc,

Please see the link provided, as a beginning of an answer.

It is not exactly what you asked “How Do I choose?” However we will have to do some research ourselves :slight_smile:

Therefore we will update the Blog as time permits:

how-reliable-is-our-bible.blogspot.com/

Hello Alpha,

Thank you for visiting. A couple things. For one, by providing so much information, something of a shotgun approach, you have made it difficult for one to respond to all that the articles propose, giving the impression of a definitive defense of the NWT. I would ask that, if you truly believe in the validity of this translation, you make a case for it in your own words and answer the objections posted, rather than simply referring to the links you have provided.

Regarding the shot gun approach, I began reading the first two links, and already I have enough objections for this post. No doubt that if the first essay and what I’ve read of the second represent the whole, there isn’t much substance to what you have presented.

For one, the first link you provided made no defense at all, but simply made the comparison between criticism of the NWT and that of Jesus, himself, and of other Bibles, in particular Luther’s translation, which the article now suggests is a landmark translation by many scholars. Put aside the fact that you will find few (if any) on these forums who will regard Luther’s translation as landmark, this argument by comparison is useless. It would be the same as saying that, while many people complain that gasoline has a bad taste, medicine often has a bad taste, too, but it is good for us. Therefore, we can suppose that gasoline might be good for us, too. Likewise, there have been many translations which have been criticized for good reason and it turns out the criticism was valid, so one might use the same logic as your link to criticize the NWT on those grounds.

Another point is that the articles set up the straw man argument of presenting a rejection on Trinitarian grounds as the primary reason for objection to the NWT. One article quotes, as proof, a Protestant author who makes such a case. Unfortunately, I’ve never read any rejection of the NWT on Trinitarian grounds. Much of what I read echoes what runandsew posted, which is that the qualifications of the NWT translators is laughable. Of the six translators, Franz is the only one with any knowledge of Hebrew, and this was self-taught (hence the embarrassing episode in runandsew’s post), and he studied some MODERN greek. On those grounds alone one could reject the NWT.

Another point, from the second link states that the translators picked an equivelant English word for each word in the original and stuck with it throughout translation. Unfortunately, this is just outright untrue. “Kyrios”, for instance is usually translated as “Jehovah”, but in at least two instances where it refers to Christ, the translators altered their translation to avoid the Spirit-inspired truth that Christ is God.

Yes, I’ve seen this in my copy of the “NWT” which I got for comparison purposes. In 2 Cor. 3:16-18 (and also 8:21), the NWT four times uses “Jehovah”, when the Greek uses “Kyrion” - Lord.

A massive list of such self-serving contradictions could be given; here are two more: :wink:

In Colossians, 2:12, the NWT offers: “for you were buried with him in [his] baptism.” This, of course, flies in the fact of the actual text and completely ignores St. Paul’s writings that we are buried with Christ in our own baptism, by which we enter into the Mystery of His crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection.

In Acts 4:21 we have the scene of Sts. Peter and John before the Sanhedrin and no grounds being found “to punish them”. The same Greek word (kolazoo) is used in 2 Peter 2:9, but now in the NWT it is not used to signify punishment, but of being “cut-off” in aid of their theology that denies the existence of Hell.

Hello again Alpha!

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately as the two posters before me pointed out - your response did not provide a clear answer.

Also, the fact that you did not respond in your own words, but instead relied on pre-printed material, suggests that you relied on someone else’s authority to make the decision for you? Is that a fair and accurate statement?

Sincerely in Christ,
Corrgc

the thing that always puzzles me is why the NWT agrees with Johannes Greber translation of the NT?

In 1962 they ( watchtower ) started to use a Spiritualist and Medium named Johannes Greber to support their doctrines and their Bible translation. (The New World translation)

Even when God Forbids us to consult them, follow them, or use them in any form. The Bible condemns all forms of spiritualism. Leviticus 19:31, 20:6,27 Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Galatians 5:12, Revelation 21:8

Even still the Watchtower society used him for 14 years!

The word, who is he? according to John 1962, pg. 5

The Watchtower, Sept. 15,1962 pg. 554

Make sure of all things, 1965, pg. 489

Aid to Bible understanding, 1971, pg. 1134

Aid to Bible understanding, 1971, pg. 1669

The Watchtower, Oct. 15, 1975, pg. 640

The Watchtower, April, 15,1976,pg.231

Now you may ask where’s the lie?
In 1983 someone wrote to the Watchtower and asked about them using Johannes Greber in their publications.
The Watchtower said that according to the forward in Johannes Greber’s 1980 translation of the Bible, he said that God’s spirit world helped him translate his translation and his wife was a spirit medium.

So the Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. Deu. 18:10-12.

But back in 1955 in a book that they published called “What do the Scriptures say about survival after death” on page 88 it said that “It comes as no surprise that one Johannes Greber, a former Catholic clergyman, has become a spiritualist” also the same article was repeated in the Oct.1, 1955 Watchtower on page 603.

Then in the Feb.15,1956 Watchtower on pages 110-111 it said “Very plainly the spirits in which ex-priest Greber believes helped him in his translation”

They still used him in the 1987 Spanish version of the book called “Aid to Bible understanding” on page 1258. Even after they said that they only found out in 1980, which is not true, it was in 1955!

WHY DID THEY USE HIM FOR SUPPORT OF THEIR TRANSLATION OF THE N.W.T. BIBLE, AND THEN LIE ABOUT KNOWING WHO AND WHAT HE WAS?

The Watchtower puts out a book called a index that has all their subject listings from 1930-1985. How come they only show that they used Greber two times, once in 62, when they first used him and again in 83, when they said that they found out that he was a spiritualist? What about all the other times they used him? How come they didn’t list the 1955 or the 1956 W.T. or the Survival after death book? (Those said that Greber was a spiritualist). They hide the fact that they knew who he was, A Spiritualist!

Sounds like a cover up to me!

Now since the organization has left out these references in their Index, when the average witness tries to look them up, he can’t find them! It makes it very hard for him to check them out. Thanks to the organization!

DON’T PUT YOUR TRUST IN THIS ORGANIZATION. BUT PUT YOUR TRUST IN JESUS CHRIST, FOR HE WILL NEVER LIE TO YOU, BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU, SO MUCH THAT HE DIED FOR YOU! JOHN 15:13

JUST ASK HIM TO COME IN TO YOUR LIFE AND HE WILL SHOW YOU JUST HOW MUCH HE DOES LOVE YOU! HIS LOVE IS AWESOME.
JESUS LOVES YOU!

members.aol.com/larrycdoc/spiritualist.html

premier1.net/~raines/wtgreber.html

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=NWT+spiritualist+&btnG=Search

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/greber1.jpg

theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/greber1.jpg

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/greber2.jpg

theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/greber2.jpg

There are many things wrong with the JW religion. For one thing, they don’t believe in Hell. Jesus spoke more of Hell than Heaven (How do you interpret Matthew 25:31-46, for example?). For another thing, they don’t believe Jesus was (is) God… How do you reconcile this with the fact that Jesus said “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”?
The JW change scripture… There was some thing in 1 or 2 Peter years ago that i compared (JW to Catholic Bible) - totally different… can’t recall details right at this time, but it was different… Catholics r accused of changing (adding, etc) things to scripture yet it is Protestants who do this… They are the ones who took 7 books out of the OT in the 1500s… Yet, virtually all my life, i heard that it was the Catholics who added them…
If anyone is not confused… they aren’t paying attention… but one thing i’m not confused about is that Jesus really is God…
Who but God would forgive the monsters who crucified Him - while he is still on the cross even… (not that that’s the only reason i say he’s God). The Real Presence…
I have run out of space… May you find Jesus…

One of the church fathers pointed out that Jesus has to be God himself inorder to make an infinite sacrafice. A mere creature can not be a sacrafice that is complete even for themselves within be an infinite sacrafice for all of mankind through all of time.

Read Eze 18, the father can not pay for the sins of his son, nor can his son take his place.

Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."

Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Alpha, thanks for reminding me that the he “who is to come” is Jesus!!!

Alpha,

Traditionally this is considered ‘spamming’. If you want to make a defense of the New World Conglomeration of the Scriptures, by all means, go for it – but use your own words. Here at Catholic Answers we like debates which start from the Original Poster (OP’s) point of view, not the same old bile… :slight_smile:

Enjoy your stay and God bless!

As far as the NWT goes, there are a couple revisions running around. Which revision are you trying to defend, and why? We don’t even know the names of the translators or their credentials or their source material, so debating the NWT is kind of moot without those factors.

I have mentioned this before, and I will again.

I can see where The New World Translation could correct a verse or two which might have Greek grammar errors and such. As far as I can find, absolutely every single verse that could prove the divinity of Christ and point to the Trinity have been changed in this translation. To me this points to the fact that the Bible has been seriously altered to fit the Jehovah’s Witnesses theology.
I can see one or two changes, but every single one?
Doesn’t this throw up a red flag to the JW’s?
It sure does to me.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9110chap.asp

Since you like links Alpha, here is one for you.
Sorry, but probably every good bible scholar rejects the NWT. You have to have an open mind and be willing to seek the truth. The Witnesses have been proven time after time that their teachings do not reflect the teachings of scripture. You would know this too if you would read something other than Witness material.

An excerpt from one of Alpha’s links:

As to this feature of uniformity, note what Hebrew and Greek commentator Alexander Thomson had to say in his review on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: "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.

Further examination of Alexander Thomson:

“Although on three occasions I have given in The Differentiator brief reviews on parts of the New World version of the Bible, it must not be inferred that I agree with the teachings of `Jehovah’s Witnesses,’ so called. On the whole the version was quite a good one, even though it was padded with many English words which had no equivalent in the Greek or Hebrew.” 7

Thomson was co-editor of the magazine called The Differentiator. The magazine is no longer published, but was issued bimonthly, and had a very small circulation. According to his co-editor, Thomson “did not even formally study Greek or Hebrew in any school.” He was not a Hebrew and Greek scholar as claimed by Jehovah’s Witnesses. “Thomson was employed in a bank in Scotland and did not believe that Jesus was God.” 8 He was a Universal Restitutionist, that is to say, he believed that all men would be saved regardless of their belief in, or their commitment to, God.

So Thomson was not qualified and even so admitted that it was incorrect. Why did the Witnesses not publish ALL of his comments and his (lack of) qualifcations?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.