Addressing The Claim That The New World Translation is "Biased"

Some have made claims similar to the quote found in p. 65, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991, that, "the NWT is filled with faulty translations designed to make the Bible fit Jehovah's Witness doctrine. It is therefore legitimate to say ... that the NWT is doctrinally biased."

Ususally what many of these opposers apparently mean by "doctrinally biased" is that the NWT translates passages that may have more than one possible interpretation in a way that does not support the trinity doctrine (or certain other "orthodox" doctrines of modern Christendom). Just because they support some of these doctrines (particularly the trinity doctrine) does not make them true. Jehovah's Witnesses have determined through proper, honest scholarship that a number of these teachings are actually unscriptural additions by scholars and philosophers made hundreds of years after the deaths of Christ and his Apostles. - See the HIST; CREEDS; ISRAEL; IMAGE; etc. study papers.

For Jehovah's Witnesses to choose honest alternate translations and interpretations which refute these unscriptural doctrinal additions or questionable translations may make them biased, in a sense, but it certainly does not make them dishonest or guilty of "faulty translations"!

Being "biased" does not necessarily make a person dishonest or unscholarly. Being biased against illegal drug usage and drug pushers does not make you a villain. Being biased against abortion or biased against having children out of wedlock or adultery, etc., does not automatically make you wrong, dishonest, unscholarly, or evil! We are all biased in many ways and often in good, proper ways.

All Bibles are doctrinally biased in their translations. For example, it is doubtful that you will easily find one for sale today which is not strongly biased toward a trinity doctrine. That is, when more than one honest rendering exists for a particular verse, these Bibles will purposely choose the one which best presents evidence for a trinity. This is solely because of the tradition of a three-persons-in-one-God trinity doctrine which was officially begun by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century A. D. (hundreds of years after the deaths of Christ, his Apostles, and the inspired Bible writers) and continues down to today in 99% of the churches of Christendom.

This trinitarian doctrinal bias is not based on proper Scriptural evidence (see the IMAGE; PRIMER; I-AM; etc. study papers). It is not based on proper historical evidence (see ISRAEL; HIST; and CREEDS study papers). It is not just "doctrinal bias," it is unsupported doctrinal bias.

So for the NWT to be virtually the only Bible to be consistently translated with its properly-supported bias for a single-person God is certainly not dishonest or false!

Additional Reading:
Is The New World Translation Biased and Unscholarly? (In Defense of the NWT)

Robert Hommel's Comments on the New World Translation (Bible Translation and Study)

Index of Links and Pages that Defend the New World Translation (Defending the NWT)

Why was the New World Translation Bible Printed, and How Accurate is it?

Why was the New World Translation Bible Printed?

There were several reasons why the NWT was printed:

1) Most of the other translations used were made by those who were influenced by the pagan philosophies and unscriptural traditions that their religious systems had passed down from long ago as well as other influences,

2) Older and more reliable Bible manuscripts were becoming available,

3) As a result of archaeological discoveries, the Greek language of the first century was becoming more clearly understood, and

4) The languages into which translations are made undergo changes over the years. (For instance, who today really talks like this?: "And he commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? and whither goest thou? and whose are these before thee?" - Gen. 32:17; KJV)

Jehovah's Witnesses wanted a translation that was of the latest scholarship, one that was without spot by creeds or traditions, a literal translation that faithfully presented what is in the original writings and a translation that would be clear and understandable to modern-day readers. (Read the New World Translation Bible online.)

How Accurate is The New World Translation?

Concerning it's accuracy, the 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

The comments made by Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel can be found by clicking on the link below:
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009/09/nwt_7717.html

Recommended Links to Information and Quotes Praising and Supporting the New World Translation: Scholarly Quotes on the New World Translation (From God's Word)
Advantages of the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses United)
Advantages of the NWT (In Defense of the NWT)
The New World Translation (Pastor Russell)

Accusations Against The New World Translation Hypocritical 

Some have hypocritically accused the New World Translation Bible of inaccuracies, bias, and written by those with poor credentials. When, in reality, what kind of credentials do the writers of most every other modern Bible have? And yet these copyists allowed the insertion the title "LORD" instead of the divine name in most of the nearly SEVEN THOUSAND instances in their 'translation' of the Hebrew Scriptures. Not only is this inaccurate, but it is a purposeful, blatant misuse of God's Name! (Ex. 20:7) The NWT is accurate in that it uses God's Name in all instances found in Scripture. (Also see "Jehovah" in The New Testament; Search For Bible Truths)

Also, (unlike the NWT) most of these other translations used were made by those who were influenced by the pagan philosophies and unscriptural traditions that their religious systems had passed down from long ago as well as other influences. For just one instance, the majority of Bible scholars (including Trinitarian ones) freely admit that 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version is spurious. But Trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to ADD it to the Holy Scriptures because of their trinitarian biases.
(Also see: How Can You Choose a Good Bible Translation?; w08 5/1 pp. 18-22; Watchtower Online Library)

For more, see:

Index of Links and Pages that Defend the New World Translation (Defending The New World Translation)

NWT FAQs (Defending The New World Translation) 

Why does the NWT at Col. 2:9 state that in Jesus "all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily," when other translations say, "dwells the fullness of Deity/Godhead?'"

The following is an excerpt from the Watchtower, August 1st, 1962, pages 479, 480 (WTB&TS):

"At Colossians 2:9 the word in the Greek that the New World Translation renders "divine quality" is theótes, and this is the only use of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The same is true of a similar Greek word, theiótes, which appears only at Romans 1:20, and which the New World Translation there renders "Godship," as follows: "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."The way these two words have been rendered in the New World Translation has given rise to the charge that the New World Bible Translation Committee let their religious beliefs influence them. That charge is true, but they did not do so wrongly, or unduly. The meaning that is to be given to these two Greek words depends upon what the entire Bible has to say about Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.

"How so? In that there is basis for translating these words either as "Deity," "Divinity" or "Godhead" and so attributing personality to them, or as "Divine Nature," "divine quality," "Godship," and having them merely denote qualities. Thus those who believe in the trinity will attach personality to these words, whereas those who do not will render them as qualities in view of the way God and Christ are described in the Scriptures and so as to harmonize the words with the rest of God's Word. This emphasizes the fact that one simply cannot properly and accurately translate the Bible unless one clearly understands its teachings.

"That the New World Bible Translation Committee were perfectly right in rendering these words the way they did is apparent from what Greek authorities have to say about them. Thus Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261) and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (page 264). Note the definition "divine nature" as well as "Godhead."

"Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from the Scriptures. Theiótes it defines as "divine nature, divinity" (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the same way, as "divinity, divine nature," and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9. In this connection it shows that the similar Greek expression, dia theóteta, means "for religious reasons" (page 792).

"Thus the New World Translation is fully justified in rendering Colossians 2:9 to show that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily, and this in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ, so that this body of Christ's followers is possessed of a fullness by means of him: "It is in [Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you [Christians] are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority." - Col. 2:9, 10.

"It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American Translation render the passage, "the fullness of God's nature."

"To get an objective view of the matter, in exploring questions such as these it is best to use the nonsectarian and nonreligious Hebrew-English and Greek-English dictionaries, instead of those that have been produced by some religious denomination."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is an excerpt from the two volume encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures (WTB&TS):

"Then, at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says that in Christ "all the fullness of the divine quality [form of the·o´tes] dwells bodily." Here, again, some translations read "Godhead" or "deity," which Trinitarians interpret to mean that God personally dwells in Christ. (KJ, NE, RS, NAB) However, Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon defines the·o´tes in basically the same way it does thei·o´tes, as meaning "divinity, divine nature." (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as "divinity." Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering thei·o´tes as referring to quality, not personality.

A consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having "divinity," or "divine nature," does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty. In the preceding chapter, Paul says: "God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." (Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it "pleased the Father" (KJ, Dy), because it was "by God's own choice." (NE) So the fullness of "divinity" that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such "fullness" does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being "seated at the right hand of God."-Col 3:1.

Considering the immediate context of Colossians 2:9, it is noted that in verse 8, Christians are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human tradition. They are also told that "carefully concealed in [Christ] are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge," and they are urged to "go on walking in union with him, rooted and being built up in him and being stabilized in the faith." (Col 2:3, 6, 7) In addition, verses 13 to 15 explain that they are made alive through faith, being released from the Law covenant. Paul's argument, therefore, is that Christians do not need the Law (which was removed by means of Christ) or human philosophy and tradition. They have all they need, a precious "fullness," in Christ. -Col 2:10-12." (Vol. 1, page 629)

For MUCH more, see:
Does Col. 2:9 prove that Jesus is God? (SFBT)

Col. 2:9 - "Fulness of Deity" (Examining the Trinity)

"Theotes simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today..." (JWQ&A)

"The Fullness of the Divine Quality" in Colossians 2:9 (Bible Translation and Study)

Defending the New World Translation Index (Defending the New World Translation)

How Accurate is The New World Translation?

Concerning it's accuracy, the 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

The comments made by Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel can be found by clicking on the link below:
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009/09/nwt_7717.html

Recommended Links to Information and Quotes Praising and Supporting the New World Translation: Scholarly Quotes on the New World Translation (From God's Word); Advantages of the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses United); Advantages of the NWT (In Defense of the NWT); The New World Translation (Pastor Russell)

Accusations Against The New World Translation Hypocritical 

Some have hypocritically accused the New World Translation Bible of inaccuracies, bias, and written by those with poor credentials. When, in reality, what kind of credentials do the writers of most every other modern Bible have? And yet these copyists allowed the insertion the title "LORD" instead of the divine name in most of the nearly SEVEN THOUSAND instances in their 'translation' of the Hebrew Scriptures. Not only is this inaccurate, but it is a purposeful, blatant misuse of God's Name! (Ex. 20:7) The NWT is accurate in that it uses God's Name in all instances found in Scripture. (For the subject of God's Name in the N.T., see the "Jehovah" in The New Testament Category.)

Also, (unlike the NWT) most of these other translations used were made by those who were influenced by the pagan philosophies and unscriptural traditions that their religious systems had passed down from long ago as well as other influences. For just one instance, the majority of Bible scholars (including Trinitarian ones) freely admit that 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version is spurious. But Trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to ADD it to the Holy Scriptures because of their trinitarian biases.
(Also see: How Can You Choose a Good Bible Translation?; w08 5/1 pp. 18-22; Watchtower Online Library)

For more, see:
Index of Links and Pages that Defend the New World Translation (Defending The New World Translation)

NWT FAQs (Defending The New World Translation) 

"Jehovah" 50 or 237 places in the New Testament? (Examining Countess' list)

As a part of his attack upon the NWT's `dishonest' use of "Jehovah" in the NT, Mr. Countess uses a listNWT translators, editors, and publishers are hypocritically dishonest! He claims that there are only 50 places in the NT where the inspired writer has quoted OT scriptures which actually use "Jehovah." Therefore, he tells us there should be a maximum of 50 places where the NWT has `honestly' changed "Lord" or "God" in the NT to "Jehovah" (to match the original OT quote)! And yet the NWT has used "Jehovah" in 237 places in the NT! Even worse, only 39 of them (out of a possible 50) are places where the NT actually quotes * an OT scripture using "Jehovah" (according to Mr. Countess)! Therefore, according to this trinitarian "scholar" and Presbyterian minister, the NWT has dishonestly and hypocritically used "Jehovah" in 198 out of the 237 instances (about 85% of the time)! {Please see my JHVHNT study} Below is the first part of Table IV (p. 104) which Mr. Countess uses in support of his extremely serious charges:
(Table IV, p. 104) to "prove" that the


TABLE IV

"Jehovah's" in the Main Text of NWT



Book.....YHWH in OT text...NWT based on YHWH..not based on YHWH

Matthew..........8.....................7 ............................. 11

Mark.............. 2 ................... 2.................................7

Luke............... 2................... 2............................... 34

John............... 2................... 1................................. 4

Etc.



[In other words, Countess is claiming that there are only 8 places in Matthew which quote or refer to an OT use of YHWH ('Jehovah'). Then he claims that the NWT uses 18 "Jehovahs" in the Book of Matthew. Of those 18, he claims that only 7 of them are actually based on a passage in the OT which uses YHWH. Then he claims that the 11 other "Jehovahs" in the Book of Matthew in the NWT are NOT based on a use of YHWH in the OT!!]

Why don't we actually examine the accuracy of this table by Mr. Countess? That is the only way that one can truly determine who is being dishonest!

For example, notice that in his table he claims that John only quoted twice from the OT where it originally used "Jehovah," whereas the NWT has used "Jehovah" 5 times in the Gospel of John. Furthermore, of those 5 times, he claims, only one is actually based on an OT use of "Jehovah"! In other words, the NWT is dishonest in 4 of its 5 uses of "Jehovah" in the Gospel of John because they are not based on an OT use of "Jehovah"!

We have seen that even respected trinitarian scholars disagree as to whether certain NT scriptures are quotes (or clear, direct references) to OT scriptures or not. Sometimes the evidence is simply not strong enough to make it certain. However, for a Bible to disagree with all other Bibles and scholars in 80% (4 out of 5) of such cases might justify an accusation of dishonesty.

The five uses of "Jehovah" in John by the NWT are Jn 1:23; 6:45; 12:13; and 12:38 (twice). Is it really true, as Countess claims, that only one of these uses a quote from the OT where "Jehovah" was originally used?

(1) ALL of the trinitarian Bible translations I used above to determine what was a quote from the OT and what was not (NKJV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; NIV; REB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); JB; NJB; MLB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Jn 1:23 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 40:3 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV actually uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(2) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Jn 6:45 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 54:13 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts).

(3) Six of those same trinitarian Bibles (NKJV; NASB; JB; NJB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Jn 12:13 to be a quote from the OT: Ps. 118:26 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(4) & (5) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Jn 12:38 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 53:1 (which does use "Jehovah" once in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword `LORD' here (once only, however) which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original! The only possible accusation of "dishonesty" here could be the fact that the NWT has rendered both `Lord's in Jn 12:38 as "Jehovah" whereas the original being quoted uses only one "Jehovah." However, the context certainly suggests that the first "Lord" is directed to Jehovah also. And a number of Hebrew New Testament translations have rendered both `Lord's at Jn 12:38 as "Jehovah." This includes the two I have in my possession which are translated by respected trinitarians: (1) by the United Bible Societies, 1983 printing; and (2) Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament, The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981 printing.

So just how is the NWT being "dishonest" by using "Jehovah" 5 times in these 4 verses in the Gospel of John where John is quoting from the OT? And how honest is Mr. Countess when he tells us that only one use of "Jehovah" in the Gospel of John in the NWT is supported by a quote from the OT? Exactly who is being dishonest?

Another good example from Mr. Countess' table is that of Mark.

In Mark, he claims, there are only two times that Mark quoted from the OT where "Jehovah" was used in the original OT manuscripts. But there are 9 times in Mark that the NWT has used "Jehovah." Therefore, according to Countess, the NWT has used the Divine Name in Mark "dishonestly" 7 times!
All of the 9 uses of "Jehovah" in Mark by the NWT are: Mark 1:3; 5:19; 11:9; 12:11; 12:29 (twice); 12:30; 12:36; and 13:20. Is it really true that only two of these use a quote from the OT where "Jehovah" was originally used?

(1) ALL of the 13 trinitarian Bible translations I used above to determine what is considered a quote from the OT and what is not show Mk 1:3 to be a quote from Isaiah 40:3 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts).

(2) NONE of those same trinitarian Bibles indicates Mk 5:19 to be a quote from the OT. However, the context makes the connection to Jehovah probable. In addition, 7 Hebrew New Testament translations do use "Jehovah" at Mk 5:19. This includes the two respected trinitarian Hebrew New Testaments I have: Delitzsch's and the UBS'. It certainly does not seem dishonest for "Jehovah" to be used here, but it apparently is not a quote from the OT.

(3) SIX of those same trinitarian Bibles (NKJV; NASB; JB; NJB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Mk 11:9 to be a quote from Ps. 118:26 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original! The NIVSB also tells us in a footnote for Mk 11:9, "A quotation of Ps. 118:26." Also 14 Hebrew New Testaments use "Jehovah" at Mk 11:9. This includes the two modern, respected trinitarian Hebrew New Testaments I have in my possession.

(4) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:11 to be a quote from Ps. 118:23 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(5) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:29 ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord God....") to be a quote from the OT: Deut. 6:4 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(6) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:29 (last part of verse: "...the Lord is one.") to be a quote from the OT: Deut. 6:4 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(7) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:30 to be a quote from Deut. 6:5 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(8) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:36 to be a quote from Ps. 110:1 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(9) NONE of those same trinitarian Bibles shows Mk 13:20 to be a quote from the OT. However, as in Mk 5:19 above, the context makes the connection probable. In addition there are 10 Hebrew New Testament translations which use "Jehovah" here in Mk 13:20. This includes the 2 respected trinitarian translations I have in my possession. It certainly does not seem dishonest for "Jehovah" to be used here, although it does not appear to be a quote from the OT.

It is very obvious that at least 7 of the 9 uses of "Jehovah" in Mark by the NWT are from quotes by Mark of the OT which also used "Jehovah"!

So exactly who is being dishonest? Are there really only 2 places in Mark where an OT passage using "Jehovah" is being quoted or referred to by Mark? Mr. Countess insists there are!

Everyone else says there are at least 7! And some other respected trinitarian sources agree that "Jehovah" is also an appropriate rendering in the two other places the NWT uses "Jehovah" in the Gospel of Mark!

So, honestly, exactly who is being dishonest?

-----------------------------------------------
Note

* Although it was the most certain determinant, the NWT translators did not restrict themselves entirely to exact quotes of specific OT verses when they restored the Divine Name to the NT. They admitted that they took into consideration the context of the NT itself (especially if it included a common description or popular phrase frequently found also in the OT which normally included God's personal name) whether or not to restore the name `Jehovah.' But it was extremely rare that there weren't Hebrew translations of the NT (usually by trinitarian translators) which had used "Jehovah" at that same place and, therefore, reinforced their decision. These Hebrew translations are listed in the 1951 ed. of the NWT on pp. 30-33 and 1984 NWT Reference Bible on pp. 9-10.

For more, see:

"Jehovah" in The New Testament - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament? (w08 8/1 pp. 18-23; Watchtower Online Library)

God's Name and the New Testament (Search Results From the Watchtower Online Library)

The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures Heb., יהוה (YHWH) (Watchtower Online Library)

"Jehovah" in The New Testament (Search For Bible Truths)

NWT - Criticism by Zondervan's So Many Versions? - "Jehovah" in the New Testament (Defending the NWT)

On the Form of the Divine Name "Jehovah" (IN Defense of the NWT)

Should God's name “Jehovah" appear in the New Testament? (Search For Bible Truths)

YHWH in the New Testament (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

Other Sites and Pages That Defend The New World Translation

Click on the following links to access other sites and pages that defend the New World Translation:

Bible Translation and Study

How Theology and Bias affects Bible Translation

In Defense of the New World Translation

Jehovah's Witnesses United - Biblical Exegesis Section