NWT Compared to Other Bible Versions

The New World Translations of the Holy Scriptures – Its Veracity and Benefits to Readers

A lot of bible versions were made nowadays to be able to read by the people in different languages. Many bible translations existed from old times which some people prefer to use because of the acceptance of the majority and clergy people such as the King James Version, one of the oldest translations in our time. Today, there are lot of Bible translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Every church religion has preference in using a bible version. They believe that their preferred bible version/s is/are better to use than the other translations. The Jehovah’s Witnesses also assert this statement and they believe that the New World Translation is the most accurate and the easiest version to understand by the readers according to their own language. However, despite of the usefulness and advantages of the NWT to its readers, many critics from different religious sects do not trust this translation. Instead, they deliberately criticize some parts of its translations. So the purpose of this article is to show the truthfulness of the NWT in the most credible way I could present. Here are some major biblical verses that detractors want to call attention to destroy the credibility of the NWT and also to lead and influence many people against NWT and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Please take this as an opportunity for everyone who wants to know the truth and uphold for the truth by reading this article most especially the links taken by the author to support the standing of the Watchtower in promoting NWT as the most accurate bible translation of this time.

GENESIS 1:2

NWT:  1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

TNIV: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

NIV:     1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

KJV:      1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

DISCUSSION:

Some Trinitarians insist this as the Holy Spirit which is coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son. The original Hebrew words here are “ruwach elohim” which are accurately translated as “Spirit of God”. However, when reading this verse, one cannot easily and plainly understand what the word “Spirit” means on the situation or what the word is exactly trying to depict to the reader. This is the problem that encounters by the Trinitarians for they believe that Spirit of God (also Holy Spirit) is a person coequal with the Father and Son. Spirit of God as defined by Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon states, “Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and Son”. On the other hand, if this Spirit is not taken as the Holy Spirit then this would show multiple good spirits of God or a different Spirit from the Holy Spirit. This would violate Ephesians 4:5 which states that there is only one spirit from God. Moreover, a person without a bible knowledge would definitely think it as a soul of God that is in him since most people know that spirit and soul are the same and interchangeable. On the part of religionists who believe that spirit and soul are not the same, many from them still believe that the Spirit of God is something that is inside of him. Let us find out what the Spirit of God is. Spirit is described as an active force of God in Psalms 104:30. Here he sends out his spirit to create things. Just imagine the universe. How can someone create and maintain all the heavenly things with enormous forces acting on each if the creator won’t use a magnificent and very powerful force? Thus spirit of God is definitely a force that he sends out to perform his will. Spirit is also described as the force of breath given to all mankind and animals – Ecclesiastes 3:19 – 21. Jesus entrusted his spirit to his Father Jehovah – Luke 23:46. Spirit of human is not immortal. It goes back to God who gives it when they die – Ecclesiastes 12:7; Psalms 146:4. From all of these, we can clearly see that the Spirit (ruwach which literally means wind) is really an active force which sends out by Jehovah to create all things, give life to all human and animals and do His own will (just as what he did to all his chosen ones from the beginning unto this last days by pouring his spirit unto them). Thus, there is no reason to say that NWT translators altered the word of God but this is mainly to define the true meaning of the word Spirit on that context.

For further reading about the identity of the Holy Spirit please click this link site:

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/the-holy-spirit-a-person-or-power-372775/

The above link explains the nature of Spirit however, it describes that the Spirit is a power. Though Spirit is used by Jehovah it does not mean it is a power but rather a force use by God in exerting his power thus, Spirit is associated with power of God. In Science, force it said to be a power but in the Bible it is not actually a power but a force (Spirit of God) which is something that is used by God to perform his will in relation to his power. To illustrate this, we can say that the power of God can be seen from his creation. He creates  everything from nothing. He has set everything from nothing. Thus creation means – a thing made out of nothing. While force is something that holds everything (all creation) and causes everything to exist or to happen. A power can create elements out of nothing but what these elements have statutes or decree on itself is cause by the force of God according to his will generally by his own design. That is why heavens were made out of nothing by the power of Jehovah but what holds it in its constant and proper position is caused by the force of God – the Holy Spirit.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/200607a/article_01.htm

ZECHARIAH 12:10

NWT:   10 “And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son].

TNIV:   10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

NIV:     10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

KJV:      10And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

NASB:  10“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

DISCUSSION:

Actually the Hebrew word that is translated on some bible versions for the word “on me” is “et” which is an “untranslatable mark of the accusative case” thus there is no transliteration of the said word for the said verse. Accusative in dictionary means a grammatical case use to identify the direct object or other grammatical parts that affects the noun, pronoun and adjective. Thus it helps out the reader or hearer to identify the thing or person spoken about. Since Jehovah is the one who was speaking on the said verse, the only possible word to apply is “on me” and “to the one” since the person being mention is someone who was pierced through. And since Trinitarians believed that Jesus is Jehovah then they translated it “on me” and since Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is not Jehovah and that Jesus was the one pierced then they translated it as “to the one”. The question is if the words “on me” is really the appropriate translation for that verse then why do the Trinitarian translators did not use the word “for me” instead of “for him” on the next phrases? This is a raising issue to Trinitarians. Since there is no Hebrew word that corresponds to the word “him” and so the translators had to decide what corresponding pronoun (he, she, him, her) should be used based on the gender which the context present. Since the pronoun “him” is normally translated without Hebrew word for it, this is normal to write it as “him” and so they wrote it as “for him” and “over him”.  Moreover, it is true that Jehovah was the one who is speaking on that verse at that time – Zechariah 12:1, 10. But why would a speaker who first spoke on the first person (i.e. on me) would spoke on the second person (him)? Would it sounds not bad grammatically to use a personal pronoun in the first person (me) then switch suddenly to a personal pronoun in a second person (him) in one sentence? Still, even the second personal pronoun was in the second sentence (considering the first pronoun was the first sentence) this would only show a big confusion to the reader and hearer in relation to what the speaker have spoken about his preceding statement that is as to whom the word “him” refers to. By careful examining the context of the whole statement concerning the pronouns used, we could clearly understand the incapacity to connect the person described as “him” to the person described as “me”. The flow of grammar as to what it should appear to the reader or hearer which is exactly primarily and the only meaning of the said statement is that – there is another person being pointed out by the speaker that is not in relation to the person he is describing on the first. So definitely the pronoun “him” proves grammatically nonsense and incorrect with regards to the subject being discussed by the speaker itself. In order to prove the concordance of the context of each phrase we must show the singularity of the pronoun use. Thus, asserting the first pronoun to be “me” then it must also be “me” on the next phrases. This will lead to a precise grammar with good sense or understanding. Grammatically, the statement should appear like this: “ 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for me (or over me) as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for me (or over me) as one grieves for a firstborn son.” Let us revise the original statement in NIV. Supposed we are going to remove the phrase “the one they have pierced” as this is possible because it is an identity clause of the subject (on me) spoken about by the speaker and try to connect the next phrase after the first phrase, this would lead as to this statement, “They will look on me and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son”. Bingo! It proves faulty! The identity clause “the one they have pierced” is very important in identifying the person spoken about by the speaker. By having the identity clause to be part of that scripture that identifies the words “on me” which I believe was incorrect as (NWT stands for) really proves that it was Jesus Christ and not Jehovah who was pierced through as man. However, if one will consider Trinitarian translations as real and original then how come the whole context does not give a single thought or a clear thought to be precise? The undeniable reason why Trinitarian translators use the word “him” though it calls them to write it as “me” is because if they will make it similar on the pronoun “me” it will look inconsistent with their translation since the untranslated Greek word “et” is absent within the next two phrases which is present on the first phrase. The translations of the Septuagint Interlinear about this verse show the words “on me” which is therefore used by Trinitarians to insist their Trinity doctrine or Sabellianism. If the Septuagint shows the words “to the one” unfortunately it is not then the translators for sure will show the next pronoun as “him” to the next two phrases. On the other hand, if the translators of the Septuagint wrote the word as “on me” then he must also write the next two pronouns as “me” in the next two phrases for this the only way the correct grammar calls considering Jehovah is the one who was pierced through as he is Jesus as man. There are only two possible ways to look on this matter about the Septuagint Interlinear of this verse. It is either the verse is altered to refer that Jehovah is also Jesus or simply Jehovah is the one that they will look for yet Jesus is a separate individual who was pierced when he was a man. The biblical proofs that the words “on me” that Trinitarians want to refer to Jehovah as equivalent to Jesus is not applicable since no human can ever see God and lived. No one has seen Jehovah ever since and no man (with flesh) will ever see Jehovah – Exodus 33:20; 1 Timothy 6:16; John 1:18; John 6:46.

Please see this link for further discussion about Zechariah 12:10.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/zech-1210-trinitarians-and-jws-656232/

Advertisements

5 responses to this post.

  1. Jehovah’s name
    5760 times in ASV Bible
    5757 times in YLT Bible
    4 times in the KJV Bible

    Close but no cigar.

    Jay

  2. Since over 95% of our doctrine had been conceived while using the King James version, people can go ahead and bash the NWT. – The TRUTH is still the truth whicnever translation one uses.
    (1) No trinity
    (2) No immortal soul
    (3) No hell fire ( Russell put hell’s fire out over a century ago)

    “People believe what they WANT to believe, despite the facts.”

    Stop over to http://jwitness.wordpress.com for some JW news.

    I like your site here.

    Jay

  3. Thanks for your appreciation and for your comment.

  4. WHAT ABOUT NWT BIBLE? IS IT A TRUTHFUL TRANSLATION?
    A lot of people especially in the Christendom criticize the translations of NWT. Is NWT biased in its own teachings that is why the translators inserted words which seem unfound in the original Biblical words? Let us first know the basic meaning of adding and removing words from a testament. Adding words would mean adding additional words which are not said by the author and removing words is removing words which are not part of the statement of the author. However, adding words may really mean of exposing the real thought of a person. Adding words (as if it is necessary) is a way of exposing what is explicit in the context of statement of a person. Is adding explicit words as if necessary can consider a sin against the speaker? Let us have example. If for example the lawyer of a dying person is giving his will of testament. Of course the lawyer should write every details or words of the dying person. The original thoughts of the dying person should be seen in the will of testament. Now if the dying person stated that “ONE FOURTH OF MY PROPERTIES WILL GO TO MY SONS AND DAUGHTERS” yet he has legitimate sons and daughters and illegitimate sons and daughters, the statement would be uncleared. However, if the testament will follows a statement like “ONE FOURTH OF MY PROPERTIES WILL GO TO MY SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF MY WEDDED WIFE”, would these include only particular sons and daughters and others will not have? It would definitely mean that way. However, if the statement has “ALL MY SONS AND DAUGHTERS ON MY WEDDED WIFE WILL HAVE ONE FOURTH OF MY PROPERTIES,” then it would definitely mean “ALL LEGITIMATE SONS AND DAUGHTERS WILL HAVE ONE FOURTH OF MY PROPERTIES.” Now, is adding the word “LEGITIMATE” (if the testament will is reconstructed by the lawyer) on the first statement an invented and added words since it is not found in the whole testament of the dying person? Of course not. The word “legitimate” suggest a true and well explicit thought of the dying person because it proves in the following statements that the necessity to add that words is truly acceptable and is not misleading to the original thought of the dying person. This calls the right translation for it is supported by the law. Biblically speaking the added translation in Holy Scriptures is supported clearly by other verses to show the exact meaning explicitly.
    Once a translator (especially in news report) conveys the exact true words of the quoted words of a person, then it cannot be considered as an invented or added words.
    An “added words” would mean definitely an “ADDED THOUGHT NOT IN LINED WITH THE WHOLE THOUGHT OF A PERSON” and not an added words just to expose the exact and explicit thought of the original thought of a person.
    As far as I have read the explanations of the NWT on its particular verses, I have found out that NWT translators really exposed the original thought of God’s word rather than saying they are just being biased with their own doctrines. NWT proves its truthfulness and its accurateness!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: