Did Jehovahs Witnesses change words that are in the King James Version of the Bible?

Answer 1

It is possible that there may be some errors in translation of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures(NWT), but assuredly none of them are intentional.

The main differences in translation between the NWT and others is based on a better understanding of the original languages of The Bible, and findings of more ancient copies of the original manuscripts, and the fact the majority of other translations are trinity-biased. The NWT of the above and other passages is the most accurate available, and while no other single Bible reads the same as the NWT, there are many others which render the passages in a manner similar to the NWT.

This response will concentrate as examples on those passages listed by the previous respondent: Genesis chapter 1; John 1:1; John 17:3; Romans 10:9-10; Hebrews 13:15.

To decide the accuracy or inaccuracy of ANY translation, we cannot compare them to one another, although we can use other translations evidence either for or against. We must rather compare the translation with the original, which in the case of the Bible is impossible, or with the most ancient copies available of the original. I frequently check out renderings in an interlinear version, or use other research tools such as Strong's Concordance or Vines Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words.

Since the question in concerning the KJV and the NWT, we will concentrate on these more so than on the NIV or any other version. Here are some facts concerning the above cited passages:

è Genesis chapter 1-Not sure what the problem is here since the entire chapter is listed. Some have expressed concern in the past because the NWT uses the words "active force" in verse 2, whereas the KJV says "the Spirit of God." First thing, check a Hebrew dictionary and one finds the Hebrew word translated "spirit" is ruach, and is also translated as air, wind, blast, etc.

o The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) says "a wind from God."

o The footnote of the NRSV says "the spirit of God or a mighty wind."

o The footnote to the NET Bible says: "The traditional rendering "Spirit of God" is preserved here, as opposed to a translation like "wind from/breath of God" (cf. NRSV) or "mighty wind" (cf. NEB), …."

o Compare the rendering of this same Hebrew word ruach in other passages of the various Bibles; KJV quoted here:

§ Genesis 3:8-"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."

§ Genesis 6:3-"And the LORD said, My spiritshall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

§ Genesis 8:1-"And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged."

è John 1:1-This is the most common and controversial one of all.

o "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."-KJV.

o "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."-NWT.

§ Both translations say "the Word was WITH God." Therefore, he cannot be THE God."

§ First "God" is ho theos or The God; Second has no definite article.

§ Greek language had no definite article.

§ Sahidic Coptic first language to use indefinite article said the Word was "a god."

§ Other similar passages, such as Acts 28:4 & 28:6 insert the indefinite article in the KJV.

§ WHY? Because of their trinitarian bias they refuse to translate John 1:1 correctly.

§ Compare:Goodspeed's An American Translation, Mofatt, the interlinear rendering of the Emphatic Diaglott, and others.

§ "A god" in more in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures than is "God."

· No one has ever seen God. (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12)

è John 17:3-The disputed words are "taking in knowledge of" vs. "know." The way we come to know God is by forming a personal relationship with him by taking in knowledge of his ways, requirements, likes, and dislikes as recorded in the pages of his Word the Bible. There is no problem here, especially if one realizes that the original Greek words used actually means "to learn to know."

è Romans 10:9-10- The NWT, KJV, & NIVall read similarly, that we must believe and declare Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. I fail to any issues with this passage.

è Hebrews 13:15-The NWT, KJV, & NIV all read similarly, that by means of Jesus we "offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name." I fail to any issues with this passage.

Perhaps detractors should do a little more research before declaring half-truths as facts.

Answer 2

First of all, the King James Version (KJV) is not necessarily the definitive Bible, as it contains many errors and mistranslations, itself. However, it has become the most trusted English translation, at least among Protestant Christians.
There is little doubt that The New World Translation Bibledoes contain errors, whether intentional or not. Genesis chapter 1 is sufficiently different from most English Bibles to suggest intent. Former Witnesses claim that, on checking Watch Tower translations of scriptures against the orthodox New International Bible, that deliberate errors become apparent, including: John 1:1; John 17:3; Romans 10:9-10; Hebrews 13:15.
Whether or not differences result from mistranslation, not all the criticisms levelled by other Christian denominations are justified. For example, some see biblical changes as designed to remove the Holy Spirit from the Old Testament. However, the Old Testament arguably never mentions the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by the fact that Jews do not accept his existence. Other Christians interpret their own Bibles so as to find ancient references to the Holy Spirit, where none exists.