Why did Jehovah's Witnesses adapt the New World Translation to fit their doctrine rather than adapt their doctrine to fit existing bibles?

Answer 1

Response from Jehovah's Witnesses.

1st) Jehovah's Witnesses in fact did NOT adapt the NWT to fit their doctrine. Instead they fit their doctrines around what the Bible actually states.

This is confirmed by the quotes from various non-JW scholars below. (Please read them very carefully.)

2nd) Translators should never adapt their translation to 'fit existing Bibles'. Instead they need to use what the ancient manuscripts actually say. Many existing Bibles are not true 'translations', they are simply 'versions' (ie the King James VERSION). A 'version' is a 'biased' product. The word 'version' says it all.

Other 'existing' Bibles are very loosely 'paraphrased'. A 'paraphrased' Bible is NOT a 'translation' either.

The New World Translation - - is a 'translation' - - - minus the 'bias'.

Some reviews of the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses

** The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Referring to the NWT reference edition): "[Jehovah's Witnesses'] translation of the Bible [has] an impressive critical apparatus. The work is excellent [...]"

**Jason BeDuhn, an associate professor of religious studies, Northern Arizona University : "..the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation." While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that it emerges as "the most accurate of the translations compared," calling it a "remarkably good" translation. Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2004.

**New World Translation has been found to be "one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and is "the most accurate of the [8 major] translations compared."-Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona

**Andover Newton Quarterly of January 1963 said: "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation."

**As Theologian C. Houtman explains regarding 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."

**REGARDING the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek "New Testament" in An American Translation, wrote in a letter dated December 8, 1950: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."

**Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: "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."

**Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson wrote: "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."-The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7.

** "I have never discovered in the 'New World Translation' [of the Hebrew Scriptures] any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain" -- Professor Benjamin Kedar, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

** In its review of Bible translations released from 1955 to 1985, The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary listed the New World Translation as one of the major modern translations.

A non-Witness perspective:

Put simply, the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witness is not new, but is a reuse of the Arian doctrine of the early church which was totally discredited both by the early church fathers and by those who traced their line of teaching (eg Irenaeus ---> Polycarp ---> John the Apostle ---> Jesus) as a shameful and evil heresy and contrary to what Jesus taught and just who he is.

Arianism denied the divinity of Christ, relegating him to a 'demigod' (whatever that means), rather than what scriptures, the teaching of the early church, and the tradition passed down from the Apostles states that Jesus is divine and God incarnate.

Charles Taze Russell, the JW founder, being a charismatic leader, but also a believer in Arian theology, impressed his ideas on those around him who had little scriptural foundation, and hence could not really argue, and, like in most cults, the promise of the 'faithful' being the only ones saved, seemed very attractive. Sadly, for JWs, advances in textual criticism and discoveries of earlier and better scriptural manuscripts, meant that their skewed ideas of Christ were becoming transparently further from accepted scripture. Therefore, the commission of the New World Translation of the Bible, where areas of scripture were deliberately mistranslated, added or omitted, meant that this new 'scripture' fitted the doctrine of the JW organization. Until recently JWs were allowed only the New World Translation, and even today they are constantly, but incorrectly told that it is the 'best' translation out there, despite the vast majority of eminent Bible scholars not just disagreeing but violently disagreeing.

Another perspective:

The Watchtower magazine of Jehovah's Witnesses is a bible based magazine whose policy is to include numerous scriptural references to support their various doctrinal conclusions. Although the majority of their scriptural references quote the New World Translation (NWT) the Jehovah's Witnesses literature also makes reference to other non-witness translations of the Bible to support their position.

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim a "progressive" approach to scriptural interpretation and adjusts (revises) their teachings with increased understanding as it becomes available.

Another Perspective:

Lots of Christian faiths take ideas here and there from the first few centuries of Christianity. You know, when Jesus and the apostles, and those they taught, and those they taught were around. Kind of a given, when you think about it.

Jesus was not demoted to a "demigod". Rather, he is known to be a god, and the first born son of the Almighty God. Not that radical a doctrine, "Christianity" wise.

Charles Taze Russell founded their Christian branch. It stemmed from Adventism. It was not the case that his teachings were false, thus needing a new Bible. And don't take my word for it, go look at that Bible. Get a NWT, a King James, and any New Revised kind you like. Compare all three. See if they differ. Decide for yourself.