Robert Bowman shows how the New World Translation is such a poor
translation
with intentional alterations to promote the Watchtower Bible And Tract
Society's false teachings.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
The New World Translation On Trial
by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
*The New World Translation (NWT)[1] is the official translation of the
Bible
published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and used by all
Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs). It has often been criticized for its biased
renderings of crucial texts traditionally used by Christians to sup****t
the
deity of Christ. Although study of such isolated mistranslations in the
NWT
is valuable, it can give the mistaken impression that the NWT is an
otherwise acceptable translation with only a handful of verses in dispute.
This is not the case, however.*
As I explained in Part One, the purpose of this four-part series is to
show that the JWs _systematically_ distort the Bible to make it fit their
preconceived beliefs.[2] In the present article I will argue that the NWT
itself reflects this systematic distortion in a vast number of texts
relating to practically every area of biblical doctrine.
Space does not permit a discussion of who the translators were, what
scholarly training they brought to their work, or what opinions non-JW
scholars have expressed about the NWT. Another restriction for the sake of
space is that the scope of this article will be confined to the New
Testament, or "Christian Greek Scriptures," as JWs call it.
I should also clarify at the outset what it means to charge a
translation with doctrinal bias. While _all_ translations reflect their
translator's doctrinal convictions to a certain extent, _some_
translations
are extremely biased to the point of severely distorting the meaning of
the
Bible. And so, though it is true that all translations reflect some
biases,
these are in most cases inconsequential compared to the bias of the NWT.
In this article there will be no extended discussion of individual
texts. Instead, brief comments will be made concerning a large number of
biblical passages. In most cases the reader can verify what is said by
simply consulting the JWs' own _Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the
Greek
Scriptures (KIT)._ The _KIT_ prints the 1984 edition of the NWT New
Testament on the right side of the page. On the left side is the
Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881 with the Society's own 1969 word-for-word
interlinear translation printed underneath the Greek words.[3] The editors
of the _KIT_ explain the purpose of the volume: "The word-for-word
interlinear translation and the _New World Translation_ are arranged in
parallel on the page, so that comparisons can be made between the two
readings. Thus, the accuracy of any modern translation can be
determined."[4]
There are several types of mistranslations in the NWT. This article
will
draw attention only to some of the most common and unfortunate.
*ADDING WORDS*
In Colossians 1:16-20 the word "other" is added four times in the NWT
to
make it appear that Christ is part of creation. Paul is thus made to say
that "all [other] things" were created in and for Christ, as if Christ
were
one of the created things. It is, of course, legitimate for translators to
add the word "other" where this does not change the meaning but simply
makes
for smoother English (e.g., Luke 11:41-42; 13:2,4). In Colossians 1:16-20,
however, adding "other" substantially changes the meaning.
What is not so often recognized is that the NWT does this same thing
in
several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Romans 8:32; Phil. 2:9). In
Romans 8:32 ("....will he not also with him [Jesus] kindly give us all
other
things?"), the word "other" is not even placed in brackets, contrary to
the
work's stated practice.[5] In each case, the intent is apparently to
undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.
There are several other texts where the NWT adds words without
brackets
which change the texts' meaning. Some of these have real doctrinal
significance. In Romans 8:28 "all things" is changed to "all his works."
This implies that God does not work "all things" together for good to
those
who love God, but only those things which He Himself does, over which He
therefore has control. This allows for their belief that God does _not_
have
control over all things.
In Philippians 1:23-24 (NWT) several words are added without brackets
that, along with some other changes, completely alter the structure and
thereby the meaning of the text. The passage reads in the NWT (with the
added words italicized), "I am under pressure from _these_ two things;
_but
what_ I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this,
_to
be sure,_ is far better." There are other errors as well, but the
additions
indicated here clearly change the meaning. JWs translate it this way in
order to avoid the text's implication that at death Paul would be with
Christ. Such an implication would contradict their belief that death
involves the annihilation of the soul.
Some of the additions in brackets with the NWT so clearly change the
meaning that it is a wonder that more JWs do not question them. In 1
Corinthians 14:12-16 the expression "gift of the" is added in brackets
five
times, changing "spirit" to "[gift of the] spirit." The result is that
Paul's contrast between his own personal "spirit" and his "mind" is
removed,
which again serves the JW doctrine that the spirit is not a distinct
entity
which survives death. To assure that this contrast is missed, the word
"my"
is also added in brackets before "mind" twice in verse 15. Thus the simple
contrast between "the spirit" and "the mind" is changed to "the [gift of
the] spirit" and "[my] mind."
*OMITTING WORDS*
The NWT also omits key words on occasion, when retaining them in the
text would seem to contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is
Romans 8:1, "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no
condemnation," which omits the word "now." This omission is evidently
motivated by the fact that JWs do not believe anyone can claim to be free
of
condemnation _now._
Also notable is the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:19, "because [God]
saw
good for all fullness to dwell in him." Here the little word "the" is
omitted before "fullness." This is significant, because in the NWT
rendering
"all fullness" is ambiguous, whereas "all _the_ fullness" clearly refers
to
the "fullness" of God's own being (cf. Col. 2:9).
John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads, "If YOU
ask
anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in the _KIT_, however,
has "me" after "ask." It therefore should be translated, "If you ask _me_
anything in my name, I will do it." It is true that some later Greek
manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it,
and
most modern editions of the Greek New Testament (including those used by
the
JWs in producing the NWT) include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to
have mentioned this reading in a note.
*CHANGING WORDS*
The NWT is further guilty of mistranslating or paraphrasing words in a
way which not only does a disservice to the text but betrays its
prevailing
doctrinal bias as well. It does this with words as small as prepositions.
Of course, it is possible to make too much of prepositions. Words like
"in," "of," "into," and "with" really do not in and of themselves have
doctrinal significance. Only as these words are attached to other words do
they take on significance. It is also im****tant to recognize that a
preposition can have different meanings in different contexts. Yet --
though
this is true -- prepositions do have recognizable functions and meanings
and
cannot be translated in whatever manner one chooses.
In violation of this, the NWT translates the simple preposition "in"
(Greek, _en_) with unnecessary variations which often obscure or alter the
meaning of the passage. This is illustrated in 1 John 5:20 where the NWT
reads in part, "And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son
Jesus Christ." Reading this translation, one would never suspect that _in
union with_ and _by means of_ translate the same simple Greek preposition.
There is no sound reason for this variation. "And we are _in union with_
the
true one, _in union with_ his Son Jesus Christ," would have brought out
John's point that union with Christ _is_ union with God.
Again, in Colossians 2:6-12 the preposition "in" is translated by the
NWT using unnecessary variations. The Greek phrase _en auto_ ("in him") is
translated "in union with him" (v. 6b), "in him" (vv. 7a,9), and "by means
of him" (v. 10). _En ho_ ("in whom") is translated "by relation****p with
him" (vv. 11a,12a). These variations of "in" serve no useful purpose,
undermine the unity of the passage, and obscure the point of the author
which is that the Christian life consists of a supernatural relation****p
with Christ through faith.
There are many other passages where "in" is paraphrased in the NWT to
avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, in Matthew
5:19
"in" is translated "in relation to." This is done to avoid the passage's
teaching that some who disobey the Law's commandments and teach others to
do
so will nevertheless be accepted "in the kingdom of heaven." (JWs believe
the Kingdom will be restricted to 144,000 specially chosen and sanctified
believers).
Another kind of mistranslation involves the word "believe." One of the
most offensive teachings of evangelical Christianity to the JWs (and to
many
others as well) is that God reckons the sinner righteous on the basis of
simple faith, or believing, in Christ. Of course, where "faith" or
"belief"
is reduced to mental assent to a doctrine, this is rightly rejected. But
biblical justification is based on faith in _Christ,_ not faith in a
doctrine. Nonetheless, even when this teaching is properly defined it is
offensive to the JWs, as is evidenced by their attempt to obscure this
truth
in the NWT.
Most notable in this regard is the NWT rendering of the Greek word for
"believe" (_pisteuo_) as "exercise faith" instead of "believe." As others
have noted, to "exercise faith" implies more than to believe; it implies
doing works on the basis of one's belief. The NWT almost always renders
_pisteuo_ as "exercise faith" when it concerns God's free pardon and
justification of those who believe in Christ (e.g., John 1:12; 3:16-18
[but
note v. 15]; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:22).
It was noted earlier that in 1 Corinthians 14:12-16 the phrase "gift
of
the" is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[gift of the]
spirit." The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple word
"spirit" -- especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of human
nature -- in order to avoid the implication that such a spirit has a
reality
distinct from the body. For instance, in Hebrews 12:9 "the Father of
spirits" becomes "the Father of our spiritual life." In Galatians 6:18
"your
spirit" is paraphrased "the spirit YOU show."
Similar rewordings are introduced in passages where the simple
translation "spirit" or "Spirit" might imply that God's Spirit is a
person,
contrary to their doctrine that "holy spirit" is God's "active force." So,
Jude's description of certain men as "not having the Spirit" is rendered
"not having spirituality" (Jude 19).
Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our
union with God is secure "owing to the _spirit_ which he gave us" (3:24).
The next sentence (4:1) in the NWT reads, "Beloved ones, believe not every
_inspired expression,_ but test the _inspired expressions_ to see whether
they originate with God..." (4:1a; emphases added). One would never
suspect
from this rendering that "inspired expression" translates the same Greek
word (_pneuma_) as was translated "spirit" in 3:24 (see also 4:2,3,6).
John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence in us gives us
assurance of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims
to
be from God, but test them by the teachings which their prophets espouse,
"because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1b). The NWT
obscures this point of God's Word in order to avoid its implication that
His
"Spirit" is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic "spirits"
are
personal entities and not impersonal forces, as JWs recognize).
The same doctrinal bias is seen in 1 Timothy 4:1 where the NWT reads,
"However, the _inspired utterance_ says...." A straightforward "the spirit
says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "spirit."
Finally, the way in which the NWT most systematically distorts the
teaching of Scripture is in its handling of the names and titles used for
God. Two points must be made here.
First and most obvious is the appearance of "Jehovah" over 200 times
in
the NWT New Testament where the Greek text has _kurios_ ("Lord"). Other
writers have exposed the scholarly errors involved;[6] I will not repeat
their work here. Instead I wish to point out two ways in which this
distorts
the teaching of the New
Testament.
The New Testament follows the practice of the Septuagint (the Greek
translation of the Old Testament used by most Greek-speaking Jews in the
first century) in substituting the word "Lord" (and occasionally "God")
for
the divine name "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah"). By so doing, the New Testament
makes it clear that the use of "Jehovah" is _not_ necessary for
Christians,
contrary to the JWs' claim.
Moreover, the substitution of "Jehovah" for "Lord" often obscures the
meaning of passages relating to Jesus Christ. A good example is Romans
10:9-13, where Christ is called "Lord" (_kurios_) three times, concluding
with verse 13, a quote from the Septuagint where the "Lord" is Jehovah.
The
NWT, by rendering _kurios_ in verse 13 as "Jehovah" but as "Lord" in
verses
9 and 12, has obscured the fact that in this passage Jesus is being
identified as Jehovah by the use of the title "Lord."
The second way the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or
titles is in its handling of texts in which Jesus is called God. There are
nine texts where Jesus is definitely called God (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1,18;
20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20; possibly
also
Acts 20:28).[7] Of these, four are translated so that Jesus is not called
God at all (Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1). Two are rendered
so
that he is "a god" or "god" (John 1:1,18). The remaining three texts (Isa.
9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20) are interpreted so that either Jesus is not
called God at all or he is called God only in some lesser sense. In short,
wherever possible, the NWT has translated texts which in their natural
reading plainly call Jesus God in such a way that they no longer make that
identification.
Only a small sampling of doctrinally-motivated mistranslations in the
NWT have been do***ented here. We have seen words added, words omitted,
and
words and phrases paraphrased improperly with a view toward transmuting
the
Bible into JW doctrine. We have seen that these mistranslations
conveniently
sup****t the distinctive JW understanding of the name "Jehovah" and their
denials of Christ's deity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the
separableness of the human spirit from the body, spiritual life after the
death of the body for Christians, God's absolute sovereign control over
the
world, the unity of God's people, and justification by faith. Were we to
extend the study, we would see that every distinctive of the JWs has
strategically been insinuated into the text of the NWT in a way that to
the
non-JW clearly shows doctrinal bias.
One possible criticism of this survey would be that it does not
consider
the arguments JWs would advance in defense of their controversial
renderings
in the NWT. In reply I must point out that to address such arguments would
necessarily mean limiting the examples of mistranslation to just a few.
But,
it is my experience and doubtless that of many others that no JW will
admit
that there might be so much as _one_ doctrinally-slanted verse in the NWT.
To defend such a position, however, they must now satisfactorily explain
_all_ of the examples given here. In any case, the more in-depth treatment
a
specific text is given (including evaluation of arguments in its favor),
the
more evidence piles up that the JW renderings are wrong and biased.
In Part Three of this series, a specific passage of the Bible _will_
be
examined in-depth as a case in point. I shall argue that the methods and
presuppositions of biblical interpretation used by the JWs are seriously
flawed and lead them into error.
*NOTES*
1 The New World Translation of the "Christian Greek Scriptures"
was first published in 1950, with the complete Bible appearing
in 1961. All citations from the NWT are from the _New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures: With References_ (Brooklyn:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1984), hereafter cited as
_NWT_ (1984).
2 "Watchtower Authority and the Bible," CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL
11 (Fall 1988):19-21.
3 "By Way of Explanation," in _The Kingdom Interlinear Translation
of the Greek Scriptures,_ rev. ed. (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society, 1985), 5.
4 _Ibid._
5 _NWT_ (1984), 7.
6 _See_ Robert H. Countess, _The Jehovah's Witnesses' New
Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of
the Christian Greek Scriptures_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
& Reformed Publi****ng Co., 1982), 19-40, and especially Doug
Mason, _JEHOVAH in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World
Translation_ (n.p.: Doug Mason, 1987; available from Bethel
Ministries, CP-258, Manhattan Beach, CA 92667).
7 On John 1:1 and 20:28, see my _Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus
Christ, and the Gospel of John_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1989). On Romans 9:5, see Bruce M. Metzger, "The Punctuation of
Rom. 9:5," in _Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour
of Charles Francis Digby Moule,_ ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen
S. Smalley (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
1973), 95-112.
|
