Jehovah's Witnesses Bible

[Ross]

Much debate has taken place over the change the Jehovah's Witnesses made to John 1:1 rendering GOD as 'a god'. Virtually all references made to the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the NWT of the Greek Scriptures included adjustments to the literal rendering of the Koine' Greek to English, with the notable exception of John 20:28.

This translation of the Greek Scriptures was performed in secret by a Translation Committee led by the President and Vice President without the knowledge of the Governing Body who had no option but to accept this once it was revealed, as back then the Governing Body had little power.

After this they produced the Hebrew Scriptures, and It didn't take long for them to carry out similar unfaithful translation.

Almost every Bible ever written translates the second part of Genesis 1:2 as it appears to us in the Hebrew Masoretic Text:

"And The Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters"

Jehovah's Witnesses assert that the Spirit of God, The Holy Spirit, is a none intelligent, none personal form of Gods power, likened in their literature to electricity that makes things work or happen.

Their official description and interpretation of the Holy Spirit is 'Gods active force'.

Genesis 1:2 reads in the New World Translation:

" and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."

Is this not the most blatant insertion of pre conceived doctrine into scripture you have ever seen?

[Miles]

BTW the NWT has a footnote for active force. *God's Spirit, for Genesis 1:2.

Genesis 1:2 (New World Translation (2013 Revision)
2 Now the earth was formless and desolate,* and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep,*+ and God’s active force*+ was moving about over the surface of the waters.+

* Footnote:
Or “God’s spirit.”

So, why do you think the editors of the New World Translation (2013 Revision) chose to do away with the term "God's Spirit" and opt for "force" instead? After all, the Hebrew word used in that position, רוּחַ, is essentially never translated as "force," active or otherwise, but rather as "Spirit or spirit (232x), wind (92x), breath (27x), side (6x), mind (5x), blast (4x), vain (2x), air (1x), anger (1x), cool (1x), courage (1x), miscellaneous (6x).
source

Could this simply be an exercise in juvenile editorial power: "We changed it because we could"?


.

[onewithhim]

I'm currently learning Koine Greek. At this point I can't determine if the NWT version of John 1:1 is reasonable. The Greek grammar here is a lot more nuanced than you would think. It works differently than in English, so there is no simple comparison. Miles already gave a good response to the verse in Genesis.

Is this not the most blatant insertion of pre conceived doctrine into scripture you have ever seen?

It is indeed not the most blatant insertion of pre conceived doctrine into the Bible I have ever seen. All major Bible translations are made by both linguists and theologians. English Bibles are not just straightforward translations (if such a thing would exist), they always have a theological layer on top of the translation. There can be a denominational layer, but there is always a general Christian layer. Since JW's are non-trinitarien, their theological layer differs significantly from that of other Bible versions, which makes it more visible. I wouldn't recommend the NWT, I think there are better translations. My preferred translation is the NRSVue, which is the Bible most scholars recommend. While it does have a theological layer, this layer is significantly thinner than with other versions.

Here are some examples of more blatant insertions of preconceived doctrine into the Bible:

Isaiah 7:14
After the resurrection, the virgin birth is probably the biggest miracle associated with Jesus. In Matthew 1:23, we find a citation of Isaiah 7:14 supporting this doctrine. However, the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 doesn't talk about a virgin birth at all. This is not at all controversial among Hebrew scholars. However, when the RSV corrected this verse in 1952, it caused a lot of controversy. One pastor even burned an RSV Bible in public out of protest.
It is rather ironic that it was already known in the second century that the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 doesn't match with its use in the gospel of Matthew. In Dialogue with Trypho chapter 71, Justin Martyr accuses the Jews of removing parts of their own scriptures because it would point to Jesus. In Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 21, Irenaeus makes the same point. They both see that the Hebrew differs from the Septuagint, but they use this to argue for the superiority of the Septuagint. Irenaeus even said that "the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God".

Psalm 22:16
Another famous citation found in the New Testament is "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is a reference to Psalm 22:1. Later on in this Psalm, you get another famous passage, "they pierced my hands and my feet". In this video (6 min), Dan McClellan explains why this translation is completely inaccurate. Around 2:30 the part about this verse starts, but the rest of the video is worth watching too.

Job 1:6
In Job 1:6, as well as many other verses in the book of Job, most English translations use the word Satan. The words they translate as 'Satan' are 'ha satan'. These words mean 'the accuser', or 'the adversary'. Just like English, personal names can't be preceded by a definite article in Hebrew. You can't speak about 'the Jesus', 'the Paul', 'the Peter', or anything like that. Thus, most translations have decided to remove the definite article, leave the Hebrew word untranslated, and capitalize the word. This results in a completely inaccurate translation. The reason for this is that in the New Testament, this accuser has developed into the character of the devil or Satan. These translators impose New Testament theology on Old Testament text in order to harmonize them.

Considering your comment about the NWT, it is actually the best version out there, and Professor Jason BeDuhn said as much in his excellent, non-theologically bent, book Truth in Translation. (He says that the New American Bible is the next best.) I have compared many versions, and I can see that the NWT is spot on. It includes "YHWH" (Jehovah) in every place it appears in the original Hebrew text and renders all the hot-spots of argument according to rules of grammar and context.

It's interesting that people find fault with JWs, thinking that we have "our own Bible," structured as to our whim, but we didn't need another Bible to show our understanding of Scripture. We used the KJV and the American Standard Bible for almost a hundred years before the NWT was made available. We can show the truth in any version. The NWT is just a refreshing translation that irons out all the confusing parts of the text of especially the New Testament. The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson is one of the versions that honor the translation of John 1:1 with "a god," if you look carefully at the Interlinear structure. There are several other Bibles that do that also.

[Ross]

Faithfully and accurately based on who's faith and standards?

Faithfully and accurately meaning true to what the Masoretic text says. The translation committee even admit that they have added their own incorrect translation by providing a footnote that is a correct one.
And the NWT doesn't translate ruach elohim as 'active force' in any of the other 26 or so occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. So the standards in your own Bible which you defend are inconsistent.

[Ross]

The term active force is more accurate because it is in harmony with other scriptures.

So you think and believe that translation of the sacred manuscripts should be governed by your modern day religion's conception and perception of other parts of the Bible?

No. It should be governed by the modern day English we speak not the ye old English that we don't speak. Did you know that the KJV is not the first English translation and that it too fixed some of the bad translating from other Bibles?
Do you believe that people should have stopped translating the Bible into English after the first one was made?
BTW you said sacred manuscripts...did you know there are no original manuscripts? Everything we have today are copies.

Is this not insertion of pre-conceived doctrine into scripture?

No. Bible's with doctrine peppered in them have glaring contradictions. Such as 1 John 5:7. The KJV says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This is not accurate and needed to be removed and many translation did just that. Aren't you glad that there are translations that don't keep flaws in their versions?

You are using the King James Version as a smoke screen.

THE BIBLE is the manuscripts, not the Authorised version or NWT.

There is no 'active force' translation from ruach elohim. Your doctrine is placed into the verse to deceive and mislead people, because the true translation adds weight to the Trinity by including The Spirit of God into the three entity creation process and depicting it in an intelligent manner.

[2timothy316]

Faithfully and accurately based on who's faith and standards?

Faithfully and accurately meaning true to what the Masoretic text says.

I think the NWT does that.

The translation committee even admit that they have added their own incorrect translation by providing a footnote that is a correct one.
And the NWT doesn't translate ruach elohim as 'active force' in any of the other 26 or so occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. So the standards in your own Bible which you defend are inconsistent.

You might have a problem with translations becoming more accurate to fit with modern English and that is up to you. That doesn't make it incorrect. Just wrong in your opinion. I and millions of others do not see it the way you do. Accept it or don't, it doesn't really matter to me.

You didn't answer the questions: Should we have never translated the Bible again after the first English translation was made? Should we be forced to read the Bible in an outdated English version of the language today?

[2timothy316]

The term active force is more accurate because it is in harmony with other scriptures.

So you think and believe that translation of the sacred manuscripts should be governed by your modern day religion's conception and perception of other parts of the Bible?

No. It should be governed by the modern day English we speak not the ye old English that we don't speak. Did you know that the KJV is not the first English translation and that it too fixed some of the bad translating from other Bibles?
Do you believe that people should have stopped translating the Bible into English after the first one was made?
BTW you said sacred manuscripts...did you know there are no original manuscripts? Everything we have today are copies.

Is this not insertion of pre-conceived doctrine into scripture?

No. Bible's with doctrine peppered in them have glaring contradictions. Such as 1 John 5:7. The KJV says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This is not accurate and needed to be removed and many translation did just that. Aren't you glad that there are translations that don't keep flaws in their versions?

You are using the King James Version as a smoke screen.

Im using it as an example and you don't like that because it proves my point.

THE BIBLE is the manuscripts, not the Authorised version or NWT.

The Bible manuscripts are copies of the originals. Are you saying that the Bible shouldn't be translated at all?

There is no 'active force' translation from ruach elohim. Your doctrine is placed into the verse to deceive and mislead people, because the true translation adds weight to the Trinity by including The Spirit of God into the three entity creation process and depicting it in an intelligent manner.

Your opinion has been noted. To say that God's Spirit was a being moving over the surface of the Earth in Genesis 1:2 makes no sense compared with the other scriptures a put in my post that you obviously didn't read. The trinity is a false teaching and I look forward to the day when I never have to hear about it again.

[Ross]

Faithfully and accurately based on who's faith and standards?

Faithfully and accurately meaning true to what the Masoretic text says.

I think the NWT does that.

The translation committee even admit that they have added their own incorrect translation by providing a footnote that is a correct one.
And the NWT doesn't translate ruach elohim as 'active force' in any of the other 26 or so occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. So the standards in your own Bible which you defend are inconsistent.

You might have a problem with translations becoming more accurate to fit with modern English and that is up to you. That doesn't make it incorrect. Just wrong in your opinion. I and millions of others do not see it the way you do. Accept it or don't, it doesn't really matter to me.

You mean millions of J'W's.

By the way; your answers flabbergast me, they are so loaded with spin. Modern English has nothing to do with misleading translation.

Answer please why the NWT doesn't translate ruach elohim as 'active force' in any of the other 26 or so occurrences in the Hebrew Bible?

[Ross]

The Bible manuscripts are copies of the originals. Are you saying that the Bible shouldn't be translated at all?

I think everyone who debates the Bible knows that manuscripts are copies and not original and that some vary.

There is as far as I am aware no variation of ruach elohim in any version of the Masoretic Text in Gen 1:2.

I use interlinears.

You seem to think that one can re- translate from the manuscripts and add words that are not there like 'active force' which is a doctrine.

[2timothy316]

The Bible manuscripts are copies of the originals. Are you saying that the Bible shouldn't be translated at all?

I think everyone who debates the Bible knows that manuscripts are copies and not original and that some vary.

There is as far as I am aware no variation of ruach elohim in any version of the Masoretic Text in Gen 1:2.

I use interlinears.

You seem to think that one can re- translate from the manuscripts and add words that are not there like 'active force' which is a doctrine.

There are those that seem to think that an interlinear is all a person needs. However, you will be missing out on the meaning of proper syntax. It is not a Bible to give people free license to interpret the scriptures to say whatever they want the Bible to say. There are many scholars that actually know the Greek and Hebrew languages that say that unless you know the language an interlinear shouldn't be used at all.
Case in point, there is another poster that uses an interlinear to come with a totally different take on the Bible. They say that Jehovah, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person. Not three different beings AND uses an interlinear to proof-text the belief. That is what I see you doing here. Same trick, different dogma.

[2timothy316]

Faithfully and accurately based on who's faith and standards?

Faithfully and accurately meaning true to what the Masoretic text says.

I think the NWT does that.

The translation committee even admit that they have added their own incorrect translation by providing a footnote that is a correct one.
And the NWT doesn't translate ruach elohim as 'active force' in any of the other 26 or so occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. So the standards in your own Bible which you defend are inconsistent.

You might have a problem with translations becoming more accurate to fit with modern English and that is up to you. That doesn't make it incorrect. Just wrong in your opinion. I and millions of others do not see it the way you do. Accept it or don't, it doesn't really matter to me.

You mean millions of J'W's.

There are others. Not just JWs.

"The Spirit brooding over the primeval waters (Gn. 1:2) and creating man (Gn. 2:7), the Spirit who garnishes the heavens (Jb 26:13), sustains animal life and renews the face of the earth (Ps. 54:30), is the ruah ('breath,' 'wind') of God, the outgoing divine energy and power." The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (1962), page 531

Good News Translation

2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God[a] was moving over the water.

[a]Footnotes
Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God; or the power of God; or a wind from God; or an awesome wind.

By the way; your answers flabbergast me, they are so loaded with spin. Modern English has nothing to do with misleading translation.

Of course my answers flabbergast you. For trinitarians, doctrine is more important than the scriptures when it comes to the trinity. For a person to speak without the trinity doctrine as their foundation, it sounds like spin. Bible translations were dominated by trinitarians for hundreds of years and you don't think that during that time the Bible wasn't translated to fit that doctrine? For you to even think that all those translations could be inaccurate blows your mind.

Answer please why the NWT doesn't translate ruach elohim as 'active force' in any of the other 26 or so occurrences in the Hebrew Bible?

They did it for accuracy. To show accurately what exactly was moving over the earth as it was being created. Some translation use the word 'wind'. But that is not as accurate as it could be either.

His 'fingers' His 'hands' His 'active force'. It's trying to describe something in human terms that we can't even begin to truly understand how God's power works. To just say 'spirit' or 'wind' doesn't make a good word picture of what was happening on the Earth as it was being created. I don't understand why Gen 1:2 is being cherry picked for proof-texting the trinity anyway.