Jehovah's Witnesses - 04_02 - The NWT and Bible Translations

Doctrine Article - D.0300_04_02

social_media_nav_bar

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR FRIENDS and FOLLOW

1. You wrote, "I also purchased every different bible I could put my hands on, JB, interlinear Gr. and Heb., KJV, NIV, Living Bibles, ASV, Chourachi, Holy Bibles, NWT [New World Translation of the Watchtower] you name it…"

a. First, let's consider our approach to the word of God. Is it the final authority? Yes, it is. It will judge us in the last day. (John 12:48)

b. So, we must conform to it; and not change it to fit our beliefs, and not pick and choose what parts of it we will obey. The translations you cite (including the NWT) have contradictions even within themselves, besides the many contradictions amongst themselves; and they are re-published with doctrinal changes almost as often as contradictory "new light" is broadcast from the Watchtower.

c. If a person relies on a smorgasbord of "bible" translations in order to 'piece together the big picture', then someone has to decide which "rendering" of those bibles is what God actually said. Who will decide? Perhaps a pastor or theologian or professor is your final authority. If you decide, then YOU are the final authority yourself. Today you might choose the NWT rendering; tomorrow the JB; then the ASV. That does not make the King James Bible right either. My opinion is no better than yours. We need to know which book is actually the word of God that contains the words whereby we must live, and we need to obey it as our final authority.

2. There are many passages which cast doubt on the authenticity of the NWT, including:

a. In Luke 4:4, did God simply state a negative and say that man shall not live by bread alone, as the NWT reads? Or, did he actually provide the positive and uplifting answer written in the King James Bible: "but by every word of God"? Isn't it interesting that the very part of the verse that tells us what we need in order to live - EVERY word of God - is the part that is missing from the NWT?

b. Did God actually say nothing at all in Matt 18:11, as the NWT reads? Or did he explain to us the entire purpose for which Jesus came to earth - "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" – as the King James Bible reads? This is an extremely important doctrine.

c. If the NWT is actually the word of God – the authentic standard – then why would it have numbered verses like this that are completely blank and empty of the very words of God by which we live?

d. I could spend all day (and night) giving you these kinds of examples. The fact is that modern versions have errors, omissions and contradictions. Therefore, they cannot be the words of God - including the NWT.

3. Yes, I know that you don't accept translations as being perfect. But, do you accept God's word as your final authority? I do. So, I will refer to that final authority to demonstrate how your current beliefs on this matter are inconsistent.

a. You wrote that you accept the Old Testament in Hebrew as being perfect.

b. You wrote that you accept the New Testament in Greek as being perfect.

c. You wrote that you don't accept English versions, including the King James, "because they lose some accuracy in translation"

d. In Genesis chapters 42-44, Joseph spoke to his brothers in Egyptian. His words were translated by a translator into Hebrew. (Gen 42:23) Those Hebrew words were then written in the Old Testament Hebrew that you claim is perfect. You can't have it both ways. This passage is either perfect in the Hebrew, or it has lost something because it is merely a Hebrew translation of the words that the Holy Ghost divinely inspired Joseph to speak in Egyptian (II Pet 1:21). (Or do you now agree with me that both the original and the translation are perfect?)

e. In Acts 22, Paul spoke to the Jews completely in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 21:40). But Luke wrote those words in Greek in the New Testament which you claim is perfect. You can't have it both ways. It is either perfect in the Greek New Testament, or it has lost something in the translation from Hebrew to Greek because it is merely a translation. (Or do you now agree with me that both the original and the translation are perfect?)

f. I could cite other passages where pagan kings and foreign persons (in Babylon, Persia, etc) spoke in other tongues that were translated into Hebrew or Greek, but more examples are unnecessary.

g. Clearly, the scriptural pattern – as found in our final authority (John 12:48) - is that God considers his translations of his word to be as pure and perfect as that which was spoken in the original tongue.

4. You have accepted the Watchtower's false teaching that the King James Bible omits God's name. But, God's name is never omitted in the King James Bible. If you compare the manuscripts underlying the King James Bible with those underlying New Versions (including the NWT), you will find discrepancies between them. The question is: which set of manuscripts is authentic? A study of the intrinsic evidence proves that Origen, Eusebius, Westcott and Hort fabricated and propagated the corrupted texts which underlie the new versions. You can find documentation about this in our article (What_About_the_Septuagint?).

5. We cannot come to a conclusion on this by opinion alone. A study of the history of the manuscripts is necessary (see above) and of the texts themselves. The translators of the NWT were inconsistent in translating 'the Divine name' in the New Testament – sometimes translating it as "Jehovah" and sometimes translating it simply as "Lord". Because of this, one would be correct in saying that they inserted the Divine name 237 times into the New Testament.

6. Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly) they inserted it every time that it would otherwise have identified Jesus as Jehovah God! Why do you suppose they did that?