The “New World Translation”—Scholarly and Honest
Back in the 16th century, opposers said that Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible was "FULL of falsifications!” They believed they could prove that Luther’s Bible contained “1,400 heretical errors and lies.” Today, Luther’s Bible is viewed as a landmark translation. The book
Translating the Bible even calls it “a work of genius”!
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.
In this 20th century, the
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now. has also been charged with falsification. Why? Because it departs from the traditional rendering of many verses and stresses the use of
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.,
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.. Hence, it is unconventional. But does this make it false? No. It was produced with much care and attention to detail, and what may appear unfamiliar represents a sincere effort to represent carefully the nuances of the original languages. Theologian C. Houtman explains the reason for the unorthodoxy of the
New World Translation: “Various traditional translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded, apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding.” Let us consider some examples of this.
Other Scholars Agree
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.Certain unfamiliar terms supposedly invented by Jehovah’s Witnesses are supported by other Bible translations or reference works. At
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now., 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.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.. Jesus was not resurrected until the third day after his death. In the meantime he was in
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now., mankind’s common grave.—Acts 2:27, 31; 10:39, 40.
According to
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now. in the
New World Translation, Jesus, when instituting the celebration of the
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now., 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” (
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.´, a form of ei·mi´) 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?
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now. In many translations this E×ρréššion 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,
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now., 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 E×ρréššions 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.—
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.; 20:17.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.
God’s Personal Name
At Luke 4:18, according to the
New World Translation, Jesus applied to himself a prophecy in Isaiah, saying: “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me.” (Isaiah 61:1)
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now. here. It is, however, just one of the more than 200 places where that name appears in the
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the so-called New Testament. True, no early surviving Greek manuscript of the “New Testament” contains the personal name of God. But
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now., not merely on a whim. And others have followed a similar course. In the German language alone, at least 11 versions use “Jehovah” (or the transliteration of the Hebrew, “Yahweh”) in the text of the “New Testament,” while four translators add the name in parentheses after “Lord.” More than 70 German translations use it in footnotes or commentaries.
In Israel, God’s name was pronounced without inhibition for more than a thousand years. It is the name that appears most frequently in the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament”), and there is no convincing proof that it was unknown to the general public or that its pronunciation had been forgotten in the first century of our Common Era, when Jewish Christians were inspired to write the books of the “New Testament.”—Ruth 2:4.
Wolfgang Feneberg comments in the Jesuit magazine
Entschluss/Offen (April 1985): “He [Jesus] did not withhold his father’s name YHWH from us, but he entrusted us with it. It is otherwise inexplicable why the first petition of the Lord’s Prayer should read: ‘May your name be sanctified!’” Feneberg further notes that “in pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God’s name was not paraphrased with kýrios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form [YHWH] in Hebrew or archaic Hebrew characters. . . . We find recollections of the name in the writings of the Church Fathers; but they are not interested in it. By translating this name kýrios (Lord), the Church Fathers were more interested in attributing the grandeur of the kýrios to Jesus Christ.” The
New World Translation restores the name to the text of the Bible wherever there is sound, scholarly reason to do so.—See
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now. in the Reference Bible.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.. In Hebrew manuscripts, the name appears just as four consonants, YHWH, and many insist that the proper pronunciation is “Yahweh,” not “Jehovah.” Hence, they feel that using “Jehovah” is a mistake. But, in truth, scholars are by no means in agreement that the form “Yahweh” represents
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.. The fact is that while God preserved the spelling of his name “YHWH” over 6,000 times in the Bible, he did not preserve the pronunciation of it that Moses heard on Mount Sinai. (Exodus 20:2) Therefore, the pronunciation is not of the utmost importance at this time.
In Europe the form “Jehovah” has been widely recognized for centuries and is used in many Bibles, including Jewish translations. It appears countless times on buildings, on coins and other objects, and in printed works, as well as in many church hymns. So rather than trying to represent the original Hebrew pronunciation, the
New World Translation in all its different languages uses the form of God’s name that is popularly accepted. This is exactly what other Bible versions do with all the other names in the Bible.
Why the Harsh Criticism?
Luther’s Bible was criticized because it was produced by a man who exposed the shortcomings of the traditional religion of his day. His translation opened the way for ordinary people to see the truth of much of what he said. Similarly, the
New World Translation is criticized because it is published by
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now., who outspokenly declare that many of Christendom’s doctrines are not found in the Bible. The
New World Translation—indeed, any Bible—makes this evident.
In fact,
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.. In 1989,
Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said: “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.”
—March 1, 1991 Watchtower, page 26-30. WTBTS
PH
because we are JUST HUMANS (Creation)
)
ganda ng punto de vista mo dito 
