Errors in New World Translation Watchtower Bible

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is a translation of the Bible published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The NWT has been subject to criticism and scrutiny, particularly from those outside of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, who have pointed out various differences and translation choices that deviate from more traditional biblical translations.

One of the most discussed verses is John 1:1, where the NWT reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." This differs significantly from most Christian translations, which read, "and the Word was God." Critics argue that the insertion of the indefinite article "a" reflects doctrinal bias and alters the theological implications of the verse.

Another example is Colossians 1:16, where the NWT includes the word "other" in the phrase "all [other] things were created through him and for him," which is not found in the original Greek texts. This addition has been seen as an attempt to support the Jehovah's Witnesses' view of Jesus' role in creation, distinguishing him from God the Father.

The translation of Acts 20:7 in the NWT also raises questions. The verse describes the first day of the week when Christians gathered to break bread, which many interpret as evidence of early Christian Sunday worship. However, the NWT translates this as a common meal, which some argue diminishes the evidence for Sunday being a special day of worship in early Christianity.

The New World Translation (NWT) of the Bible, used primarily by Jehovah's Witnesses, has been a subject of debate due to its unique translation choices. These choices are often seen as controversial because they appear to deviate from traditional Christian interpretations and are viewed as supporting the doctrines specific to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Here are some additional verses that have sparked discussion:

1. Matthew 6:33: The NWT translates this verse as "Keep on, then, seeking first the Kingdom and his righteousness," which has been criticized for implying that God's Kingdom is a future event, rather than a present reality.

2. Hebrews 1:8: In the NWT, this verse refers to the Son as "God," but with a lowercase 'g', which contrasts with other translations that use "God" with a capital 'G', affirming the deity of Christ.

3. Revelation 5:10: The NWT renders this verse as "and you have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth." Critics argue that the phrase "are to rule" suggests a future event, whereas many other translations use "they shall reign," indicating a present or ongoing action.

4. Philippians 2:9: The NWT translates this verse as "For this reason also, God exalted him to a superior position..." which some argue diminishes the nature of Christ's exaltation compared to other translations that use "the highest place" or similar phrases.

5. 1 Timothy 2:5: The NWT states, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus," emphasizing the humanity of Jesus. Critics suggest that this translation downplays the divine nature of Christ.

These verses are just a few examples of the many that have been debated. It's important to recognize that translation is an intricate process that involves various interpretive decisions. Each translation reflects the theological beliefs of its translators to some extent. For those interested in exploring these differences further, comparative study tools are available that allow for side-by-side examination of various translations.

The discussions around the NWT highlight the broader conversation about biblical translation and interpretation, reminding us of the complexities involved in conveying ancient texts to modern readers. Whether one views the NWT's renderings as errors or interpretive choices depends on one's theological perspective and understanding of translation principles. Regardless, such debates encourage deeper engagement with the biblical text and can lead to a more nuanced appreciation of its messages.

These are just a few examples of the numerous debates surrounding the NWT. It's important to note that translation is a complex task, and all translations involve interpretive choices. The NWT's unique renderings reflect the theological perspective of the Jehovah's Witnesses and underscore the impact that translation choices can have on doctrinal understanding. 

Errors in the New World Translation Bible: A Critical Examination

The New World Translation (NWT) of the Holy Scriptures, published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and used primarily by Jehovah’s Witnesses, has been a subject of significant controversy since its first release in 1950, with the complete Bible published in 1961. While the NWT is presented by its publishers as a scholarly and accurate translation, many biblical scholars and theologians have identified numerous errors and biases that reflect the theological agenda of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, particularly their rejection of core Christian doctrines like the deity of Christ and the Trinity. This post will explore some of the most notable errors in the NWT, focusing on mistranslations, insertions, and omissions that align with Jehovah’s Witness theology, and will provide a critical perspective on the translation’s reliability.

---

Background on the New World Translation

The NWT was produced by the New World Bible Translation Committee, a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses who claimed to be “anointed” but whose identities were kept anonymous by the Watch Tower Society, ostensibly to give glory to God rather than the translators. However, this anonymity has raised concerns about accountability and the qualifications of the translators. Former Watch Tower Governing Body member Raymond Franz revealed that the primary translator, Frederick W. Franz, had only two years of Greek education at the University of Cincinnati and was self-taught in Hebrew, while the other committee members—Nathan H. Knorr, Albert D. Schroeder, George D. Gangas, and Milton G. Henschel—had no formal training in biblical languages (Franz, Crisis of Conscience, 1983). This lack of scholarly credentials has been a point of criticism, with experts like Walter Ralston Martin noting that none of the translators had recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation (Martin, 1997).

The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim the NWT is based on the most reliable ancient manuscripts and aims to restore God’s name, Jehovah, to its rightful place in the text. However, critics argue that the translation systematically alters the text to support the Watch Tower Society’s doctrines, particularly their Arian-like belief that Jesus is a created being, not God, and their rejection of the Trinity.

---

Key Errors in the New World Translation

1. Mistranslation of John 1:1: Denying the Deity of Christ

One of the most well-known errors in the NWT is its rendering of John 1:1. The Greek text reads: en archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos, which most translations render as, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The NWT, however, translates this as, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This insertion of the indefinite article “a” before “god” is not supported by the Greek text, as there is no indefinite article in Greek. The NWT’s rendering suggests that Jesus (the Word) is a lesser, created being—a second “god”—rather than fully divine, aligning with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief that Jesus is not equal to Jehovah.

Biblical scholar Bruce Metzger, a leading expert on New Testament manuscripts, called this translation “a frightful mistranslation,” arguing that it violates Greek grammar and introduces polytheism by implying the existence of multiple gods (Metzger, Theology Today, 1953). The Greek construction theos ēn ho logos (the Word was God) indicates that the Word shares the same nature as God, not that it is a separate, lesser deity. The NWT’s translation is inconsistent with other verses in John’s Gospel where the same Greek structure is not translated similarly, revealing a deliberate bias to undermine the deity of Christ.

2. Insertion of “Jehovah” in the New Testament

The NWT inserts the name “Jehovah” 237 times in the New Testament, replacing the Greek words Kyrios (Lord) and Theos (God), even though the name “Jehovah” (a hybrid of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH and the vowels of Adonai) does not appear in any known Greek manuscript of the New Testament. For example, in Romans 10:13, where the Greek text quotes Joel 2:32 and says, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [Kyrios] will be saved,” the NWT renders it as “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” This change obscures the New Testament’s application of Old Testament passages about YHWH to Jesus, such as in this verse, where “Lord” clearly refers to Christ (cf. Romans 10:9).

This insertion is not supported by the manuscript evidence, as the earliest New Testament manuscripts, some dating to the second century, use Kyrios and Theos when referring to God, even in quotations from the Old Testament. The Watch Tower Society justifies this by claiming they are restoring God’s name, but critics argue this is a fabrication that distorts the text to create a false distinction between Jehovah (God the Father) and Jesus, supporting their anti-Trinitarian theology (Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1993).

3. Mistranslation of “I Am” in John 8:58

In John 8:58, Jesus declares, “Before Abraham was, I am” (prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi), a statement that echoes God’s self-identification as “I Am” in Exodus 3:14 (ego eimi in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament). Most translations preserve this as “I am,” recognizing its theological significance as a claim to divine identity. The NWT, however, renders this as, “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been,” changing ego eimi (I am) to “I have been.” This alteration obscures the connection between Jesus’ statement and the divine name, aligning with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rejection of Jesus’ deity.

Greek scholar J.R. Mantey, co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, criticized this translation, noting that ego eimi is a present tense verb that cannot be rendered as a past tense “I have been” without distorting the text. Mantey argued that the NWT’s rendering is a deliberate attempt to avoid the implication that Jesus is identifying Himself with the eternal God of Exodus (Mantey, 1973).

4. Addition of “Other” in Colossians 1:15-17

In Colossians 1:15-17, the Greek text describes Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation” and states that “by him all things were created.” The NWT inserts the word “other” four times, rendering it as, “by means of him all other things were created.” This addition, which is not present in the Greek, implies that Jesus Himself was created and then created all “other” things, supporting the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief that Jesus is a created being. However, the Greek words for “other” (heteros or allos) do not appear in the text, and no major English translation includes this word.

This insertion contradicts the context of Colossians, which emphasizes Christ’s preeminence and role as the creator of all things, not a subset of “other” things. Scholar Ron Rhodes notes that this change is a clear example of the NWT altering the text to fit Watch Tower theology, as it undermines the passage’s affirmation of Christ’s divine role in creation (Rhodes, 1993).

5. Omission of Verses and Key Words

The NWT omits several verses and phrases found in most other translations, often because these passages conflict with Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. For example, the NWT excludes verses like Matthew 17:21, Mark 9:44, and Acts 8:37, which are present in many ancient manuscripts but are disputed in some textual traditions. While the Watch Tower Society claims these omissions align with the “oldest and most reliable manuscripts,” critics argue that the NWT selectively omits verses that support doctrines they reject, such as the importance of fasting and prayer (Matthew 17:21) or the explicit confession of faith in Christ (Acts 8:37).

Additionally, the NWT omits key words to downplay Christ’s role. In John 14:14, where Jesus says, “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it,” the NWT removes “me,” rendering it as, “If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.” This omission supports the Watch Tower’s teaching that prayer should not be directed to Jesus, only to Jehovah (Applied Apologetics, 2011).

6. Mistranslation of Terms to Support Doctrine

The NWT frequently mistranslates Greek terms to align with Jehovah’s Witness teachings. For instance, in John 17:3, the Greek ginoskosin (to know intimately) is translated as “taking in knowledge of,” changing “This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God,” to “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God.” This shift supports the Watch Tower’s emphasis on intellectual knowledge as a requirement for salvation, rather than a personal relationship with God (Applied Apologetics, 2011).

Similarly, in Hebrews 1:6, where the Greek proskuneo (to worship) is used of the angels’ response to Christ, the NWT translates it as “do obeisance to,” a term meaning to show respect rather than worship. This change avoids the implication that Jesus is worthy of worship, which would contradict the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view of Him as a created being (CARM, 2008).

---

Scholarly Criticism of the NWT

The NWT has been widely criticized by biblical scholars across denominations. Bruce Metzger, a renowned New Testament scholar, described the NWT as “a frightful mistranslation” and “erroneous” in its handling of key passages like John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15-17 (Metzger, 1953). H.H. Rowley, a British scholar, called it “a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated,” citing its “wooden literalism” and “harsh construction” as an “insult to the Word of God” (Rowley, 1953). Robert Countess, in his doctoral dissertation on the NWT’s Greek text, concluded that it is “radically biased” and “at some points actually dishonest” (Countess, 1966).

Even scholars who have offered limited praise for the NWT, such as Edgar J. Goodspeed, who called it a “vigorous translation” in a 1950 letter, often qualify their remarks by noting its peculiarities and biases (Goodspeed, 1950). Jason BeDuhn, in his book Truth in Translation, argues that the NWT is not the worst translation and that all translations reflect some bias, but he still acknowledges issues with its rendering of certain passages, such as John 1:1 (BeDuhn, 2003). Critics counter that while all translations have biases, the NWT’s errors are systematic and intentional, designed to support Watch Tower theology rather than reflect the original text.

---

A Critical Perspective

While the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim the NWT restores accuracy by using God’s name and relying on ancient manuscripts, the evidence suggests otherwise. The insertion of “Jehovah” in the New Testament lacks manuscript support and appears to be a deliberate attempt to separate Jesus from the divine identity of YHWH, a separation not present in the original texts. The mistranslations of key passages like John 1:1, John 8:58, and Colossians 1:15-17 are not mere linguistic choices but theological manipulations that undermine the deity of Christ, a core tenet of historic Christianity.

Moreover, the lack of transparency about the translators’ qualifications raises serious questions about the NWT’s reliability. The Watch Tower Society’s claim that anonymity ensures glory goes to God seems disingenuous when compared to other translations, like the New American Standard Bible, which also do not list translators in the text but make their identities available upon request. The limited linguistic expertise of the NWT committee, as revealed by Raymond Franz, suggests that the translation may reflect more of the Watch Tower’s doctrinal agenda than the original meaning of the biblical texts.

It’s also worth noting that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ reliance on obscure sources, such as Johannes Greber’s translation (a work influenced by spiritualism), to support their rendering of John 1:1, further undermines their credibility. The Watch Tower Society cited Greber’s translation in publications from 1956 to 1983, despite knowing his spiritualist background, only retracting their support after public criticism (Watchtower, April 1, 1983).

---

Conclusion

The New World Translation contains numerous errors that reflect the theological biases of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, particularly their rejection of the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Mistranslations like John 1:1’s “the Word was a god,” the insertion of “Jehovah” in the New Testament, and the addition of “other” in Colossians 1:15-17 are not supported by the Greek text and have been widely criticized by scholars as deliberate distortions. While the NWT may have some merits, such as its attempt to use modern language, its systematic alterations make it unreliable for those seeking an accurate representation of the original biblical texts.

For those engaging with Jehovah’s Witnesses or studying their beliefs, it’s crucial to compare the NWT with other translations and consult the original Greek and Hebrew texts, using resources like interlinear Bibles or tools available on sites like BlueLetterBible.org. The errors in the NWT highlight the importance of approaching any translation with a critical eye, especially when it is produced by a group with a clear theological agenda.

For those interested in exploring these differences further, resources like Blueletterbible.org offer tools for comparative study of biblical texts, allowing users to examine various translations side by side. Such tools can be invaluable for those wishing to delve deeper into the nuances of biblical translation and interpretation.

In conclusion, while the NWT is a widely used translation among Jehovah's Witnesses, it has been met with criticism for certain translation choices that appear to support specific doctrinal positions. Whether these constitute errors or legitimate interpretive differences is a matter of ongoing debate among scholars, theologians, and believers.

Sources

• Franz, Raymond. Crisis of Conscience. Commentary Press, 1983.
• Metzger, Bruce. “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ.” Theology Today, 1953.
• Rhodes, Ron. Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Harvest House, 1993.
• Rowley, H.H. Review of the New World Translation. 1953.
• Countess, Robert. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis. 1966.
• Mantey, J.R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. 1973.
• BeDuhn, Jason. Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. University Press of America, 2003.
• Goodspeed, Edgar J. Letter to the Watch Tower Society, December 8, 1950.
• “Questions from Readers.” Watchtower, April 1, 1983.
• Applied Apologetics. “The Errors of the New World Translation.” 2011.
• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM). “The New World Translation: Errors in the JW’s Bible.” 2008.