New World Translation: yea, or nay?

[Gaura Priya]

As much as I love the American Standard Version, which uses both beautiful archaic English and the name 'Jehovah,' I am disappointed that it's out of print and no one seems to have it in stock anymore... *grumble grumble*

So perhaps the New World Translation would be a good substitute? Despite some peculiarities, the only thing that is disappointing about the translation is that it is so undeniably jarring to the ear, and the capitalisations of YOU to indicate second-person plural is unnecessary for any anglophone, unless ey were a Bible scholar.

Here is an example of the 23rd Psalm, first from the American Standard Version, and the second from the New World Translation:

Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;
He leadeth me beside still waters.
He restoreth my soul:
He guideth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil; for thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
Thou hast anointed my head with oil;
My cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and lovingkindness shall follow me all the days of my life;
And I shall dwell in the house of Jehovah for ever."

Compared with this:

Jehovah is my Shepherd.
I shall lack nothing.
In grassy pastures he makes me lie down;
By well-watered resting-places he conducts me.
My soul he refreshes.
He leads me in the tracks of righteousness for his name’s sake.

Even though I walk in the valley of deep shadow,
I fear nothing bad,
For you are with me;
Your rod and your staff are the things that comfort me.

You arrange before me a table in front of those showing hostility to me.
With oil you have greased my head;
My cup is well filled.
Surely goodness and loving-kindness themselves will pursue me all the days of my life;
And I will dwell in the house of Jehovah to the length of days."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

NWT is poo poo.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I rather prefer the KJV translation Or the NRSV(Anglecized edition)
They both read rather better than the versions you show, and neither fall into the trap of thinking Jehovah is the name of God.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I rather prefer the KJV translation Or the NRSV(Anglecized edition)
They both read rather better than the versions you show, and neither fall into the trap of thinking Jehovah is the name of God.

I'm only interested in versions that render the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah, and lesser, but still worthy, as Yahweh.

The ASV is actually a more literal rendering and more accurate than the KJV, and it was the first revision of that particular Bible translation.

However, I want to know the merits or demerits of the New World Translation as a potential daily-usage Bible translation.

 

[Gaura Priya]

NWT is poo poo.

I'd hate to know what translation is pee pee... :areyoucra

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm only interested in versions that render the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah, and lesser, but still worthy, as Yahweh.

The ASV is actually a more literal rendering and more accurate than the KJV, and it was the first revision of that particular Bible translation.

However, I want to know the merits or demerits of the New World Translation as a potential daily-usage Bible translation.

Good luck with that one. :biglaugh:

Demerits: It was "translated" by people who either could not read Greek or Hebrew or were intellectually dishonest.

I haven't double checked this, but as I recall it's not even a translation -- and if it is, it's so horrible that it's a great embarrassment to the translators.

The English Standard or the New Oxford NRSV are the best English translations to date, and you can then pretend whatever you want about the theology of "Jehovah."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'd hate to know what translation is pee pee... :areyoucra

The Message.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Good luck with that one. :biglaugh:

Demerits: It was "translated" by people who either could not read Greek or Hebrew or were intellectually dishonest.

I haven't double checked this, but as I recall it's not even a translation -- and if it is, it's so horrible that it's a great embarrassment to the translators.

The English Standard or the New Oxford NRSV are the best English translations to date, and you can then pretend whatever you want about the theology of "Jehovah."

Actually, the NWT attempts to translate the Greek verbal tenses quite literally, as opposed to how they would sound smoothly in English idiom. Also, I appreciate the differing translations of the same verses, such as John 1:1.

There is also the World English Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, and of course, the Sacred Name movement has alot of mediocre spin-offs of translations with the name 'YHVH' replacing 'LORD.'

I do love the rhythm and the poeticness of the New Jerusalem Bible... any say on that?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is also the World English Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, and of course, the Sacred Name movement has alot of mediocre spin-offs of translations with the name 'YHVH' replacing 'LORD.'

I do love the rhythm and the poeticness of the New Jerusalem Bible... any say on that?

I'm under the same impression, but I have not reviewed it for errors. The NWT is notorious for it's horrible translation, which is why it's come to my attention. It's even listed in several Greek grammars as examples of how NOT to translate.

I haven't read much of the WEB, but I have it.

I enjoy the NIV also, but I don't prefer its translations. It is smooth, though and easy to read silently and aloud.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm only interested in versions that render the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah, and lesser, but still worthy, as Yahweh.

The ASV is actually a more literal rendering and more accurate than the KJV, and it was the first revision of that particular Bible translation.

However, I want to know the merits or demerits of the New World Translation as a potential daily-usage Bible translation.

The NWT is horrible English, to the point of being unreadable. It is not even as accurate as the KJV.

Neither the ASV nor the NWT are often seen in the Uk today.
The Church of England has mostly standardised on the NRSV (Anglicized edition)
It is the Anglicized working of the latest American, revised standard version.( itself an update of the ASV.)
the scholar's entrusted with this work include various Protestant denominations as well as roman catholic and orthodox and a Jewish scholar. It takes into account all the latest Biblical discoveries. (The work is ongoing) 1990. ( It does not use Jehovah, because that was never used in the original Hebrew) There is no need to distinguish "God" from other gods, nor has there been since pre Christian times.

 

[Gaura Priya]

The NWT is horrible English, to the point of being unreadable. It is not even as accurate as the KJV.

Neither the ASV nor the NWT are often seen in the Uk today.
The Church of England has mostly standardised on the NRSV (Anglicized edition)
It is the Anglicized working of the latest American, revised standard version.( itself an update of the ASV.)
the scholar's entrusted with this work include various Protestant denominations as well as roman catholic and orthodox and a Jewish scholar. It takes into account all the latest Biblical discoveries. (The work is ongoing) 1990. ( It does not use Jehova, because that was never used in the original Hebrew) There is no need to distinguish "God" from other gods, nor has there been since pre Christian times.

Yes, I note the strong bias of the NRSV Anglicised in this thread, and it is the standard Bible translation for Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, United Church of Canada, and more 'liturgical' Churches in Canada.

I have one and I heartily recommend it to newcomers to the Bible. However, it does not do much for me in terms of a literary read; I would rather to the New Jerusalem Bible.

However, my interest is in a Bible that uses the Tetragrammaton and is a good consideration for a Bible translation.

NOW, if the KJV had the Apocrypha back in the mix, I would be utilising it post-haste without hesitance.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes, I note the strong bias of the NRSV Anglicised in this thread, and it is the standard Bible translation for Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, United Church of Canada, and more 'liturgical' Churches in Canada.

I have one and I heartily recommend it to newcomers to the Bible. However, it does not do much for me in terms of a literary read; I would rather to the New Jerusalem Bible.

However, my interest is in a Bible that uses the Tetragrammaton and is a good consideration for a Bible translation.

NOW, if the KJV had the Apocrypha back in the mix, I would be utilising it post-haste without hesitance.

I used to have A KJV complete with Apocrypha, concordance, subject index and central notes. However it got lost in a move.

They must still be availabe second hand.

I can understand the Tetragrammaton being indicated in the old Testament, but not the New, as it never indicated a Christian name for God.
As far as I can tell neither Jews nor Christians have used a name for God in the Christian era.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I used to have A KJV complete with Apocrypha, concordance, subject index and central notes. However it got lost in a move.

They must still be availabe second hand.

I can understand the Tetragrammaton being indicated in the old Testament, but not the New, as it never indicated a Christian name for God.
As far as I can tell neither Jews nor Christians have used a name for God in the Christian era.

Absolutely not in Canada, or at least in British Columbia. I've checked shops, used book stores and Christian stores, and to find an Authorised Version with the Apocrypha is like trying to catch a leviathan.

In any case, the Tetragrammaton was widely used in the past pre-Christian times for the Jewish religion, and for me it has personal significance, which is why I have special attachment to it. The Tetragrammaton, at least from what I have seen in its usage in the Hebrew Scriptures, did denote a proper Name, as opposed to a descriptive adjective; especially when it constructed many theophoric names (Yirmiyahu, Yehoshaphat, Eliyahu, etc.) as well as has been used extensively to compare YHVH to the other so-called gods.

The Karaite Jews, a very obscure sect of Judaism, also recognised the importance of the Tetragrammaton to the early Jews.

So this is for personal reasons, for me.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have just checked.... both the NRSV and the KJV are available with apocrypha from amazon
from $11 paperback.( Rather more hard back.)

 

[Gaura Priya]

I have just checked.... both the NRSV and the KJV are available with apocrypha from amazon
from $11 paperback.( Rather more hard back.)

Why are Bibles in paperback? :no:

I've noticed that Scriptures are coming in paperback versions nowadays... This also goes for the Qur'an...

I already have had the NRSV Catholic Anglicised edition before, and I'm not interested in the NRSV!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why are Bibles in paperback? :no:

I've noticed that Scriptures are coming in paperback versions nowadays... This also goes for the Qur'an...

I already have had the NRSV Catholic Anglicised edition before, and I'm not interested in the NRSV!

They have the KJV with apocrypha in Hard back on Amazon.

I have a KJV version with a soft leather cover:yes:

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Cambridge University Press to Reprint KJV with Apocrypha | The Anglo-Catholic

Amazon.com: New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha Personal Size Black Calfskin KJ595:TA (9780521198813): Baker Publishing Group: Books


Check these out... the personal sized one is in calf leather and is due any time soon.

 

[Pegg]

However, I want to know the merits or demerits of the New World Translation as a potential daily-usage Bible translation.

Here is a Hebrew speaking scholar and what he had to say about the NWT:

“In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. . . . Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.” Professor Benjamin Kedar Director of the Institute of Advanced Studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

 

[Pegg]

And i thought i'd also add this article from a 1991 Watchtower about some of the difference in our translation to other translations:

WT 1991 March 1
Different—But Not Wrong

For one thing, closely related words in the original Bible languages are translated, where possible, by different English words, thus alerting the Bible student to possible different shades of meaning. Thus, syn‧te′lei‧a is rendered “conclusion” and te′los “end,” although both words are translated “end” in many other versions. (Matthew 24:3, 13) The word ko′smos is rendered “world,” ai‧on′ “system of things,” and oi‧kou‧me′ne “inhabited earth.” Again, many Bible translations use merely “world” to represent either two or all three of these Greek words, although, in fact, there are differences between them.—Matthew 13:38, 39; 24:14.

Similarly, the New World Translation carefully notes the difference between gno′sis (“knowledge&#8221 and e‧pi′gno‧sis (translated “accurate knowledge&#8221—a difference ignored by many others. (Philippians 1:9; 3:8) It also distinguishes between ta′phos (“grave,” an individual burial place), mne′ma (“tomb&#8221, mne‧mei′on (“memorial tomb&#8221, and hai′des (“hades,” referring in the Bible to the common grave of dead mankind). (Matthew 27:60, 61; John 5:28; Acts 2:29, 31) Several Bible translations distinguish between ta′phos and mne‧mei′on at Matthew 23:29 but not consistently elsewhere.—See Matthew 27:60, 61, New International Version.

Verb tenses are carefully and precisely rendered. For example, in the Revised Standard Version, 1 John 2:1 reads: “If any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Shortly after, the same translation renders 1 John 3:6: “No one who abides in [Jesus] sins.” If no follower of Jesus sins, how does 1 John 2:1 apply?

The New World Translation resolves this seeming contradiction. At 1 John 2:1, it says: “I am writing you these things that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one.” John used the aorist tense in this verse, indicating the committing of an isolated sin, the kind of thing all of us do from time to time because we are imperfect. However, 1 John 3:6 reads: “Everyone remaining in union with him does not practice sin; no one that practices sin has either seen him or come to know him.” John here used the present tense, indicating an ongoing, habitual course of sin that would invalidate anyone’s claim to be a Christian.

Other Scholars Agree

Certain unfamiliar terms supposedly invented by Jehovah’s Witnesses are supported by other Bible translations or reference works. At Luke 23:43, the New World Translation records Jesus’ words to the criminal executed with him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” In the original Greek, there were no punctuation marks such as commas; but usually some kind of punctuation is inserted by translators to help with the reading. Most, however, make Luke 23:43 read as though Jesus and the criminal were bound for Paradise that very day. The New English Bible reads: “I tell you this: today you shall be with me in Paradise.” Not all convey this thought, however. Professor Wilhelm Michaelis renders the verse: “Truly, already today I give you the assurance: (one day) you will be together with me in paradise.” This rendering is much more logical than that of The New English Bible. The dying criminal could not have gone with Jesus to Paradise that same day. Jesus was not resurrected until the third day after his death. In the meantime he was in Hades, mankind’s common grave.—Acts 2:27, 31; 10:39, 40.

According to Matthew 26:26 in the New World Translation, Jesus, when instituting the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal, says of the bread that he passes to his disciples: “This means my body.” Most other translations render this verse: “This is my body,” and this is used to support the doctrine that during the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal, the bread literally becomes Christ’s flesh. The word translated in the New World Translation as “means” (es‧tin′, a form of ei‧mi&#8242 comes from the Greek word meaning “to be,” but it can also signify “to mean.” Thus, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that this verb “is often i.q. [equivalent to] to denote, signify, import.” Indeed, “means” is a logical translation here. When Jesus instituted the Last Supper, his flesh was still on his bones, so how could the bread have been his literal flesh?

At John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: “The Word was a god.” In many translations this expression simply reads: “The Word was God” and is used to support the Trinity doctrine. Not surprisingly, Trinitarians dislike the rendering in the New World Translation. But John 1:1 was not falsified in order to prove that Jesus is not Almighty God. Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of “god” long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language. Five German Bible translators likewise use the term “a god” in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as “of divine kind” or “godlike kind.” These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine. But Jehovah and Jesus are not the same being, the same God.—John 14:28; 20:17.

 

[jojo50]

As much as I love the American Standard Version, which uses both beautiful archaic English and the name 'Jehovah,' I am disappointed that it's out of print and no one seems to have it in stock anymore... *grumble grumble* So perhaps the New World Translation would be a good substitute? Despite some peculiarities, the only thing that is disappointing about the translation is that it is so undeniably jarring to the ear, and the capitalisations of YOU to indicate second-person plural is unnecessary for any anglophone, unless ey were a Bible scholar. Here is an example of the 23rd Psalm, first from the American Standard Version, and the second from the New World Translation: Compared with this:

hi i've been using the New world translation bible for years,and i've compared scriptures so,so many times from that bible to many others. the thing that use to bother me was this. all i ever heard was.."oh no,i read the "jws" bible it isn't like the other bibles" first,why aren't other bible being compared to each other? ,it's always just the bible we use. many don't seem to realize,the only thing we have in our bible that's different than many. is the name Jehovah in place of the capital word LORD. which if anyone do their research,they would see the name was removed by man,and replaced with LORD.

also what you post from both bibles,only showed then being worded a little differently. both scriptures are understandable. if i read either one,i would know they meant the same thing. many bible word scriptures somewhat differently. it's just like when three people are told to write down all they have seen concerning an accident. they might word it differently,yet the one reading them will see that the story all leads the same way. but if you have a problem with the NWT,why use it.
i wouldn't study out of any bible that removed the name Jehovah. and i thank Jehovah,dispite what people WANTED to believe years ago. there's proof we didn't make up the name. besides loving the fact that the Father's name is in the place it suppose to have been from the beganning. it's so much more easier to read, i hated the... thy,thou, and words ending with eth's. especially when there were about three or four words that way together,i don't talk that way. peace