What do JWs know?

[2ndpillar2]

I just had two JWs come to my house. They said that they do not believe in the Trinity, yet they were quoting from a bible whose canon was produced by Athanasius in 367 A.D., the same guy who was the main proponent of the Trinity doctrine at Constantine's Council of Nicaea. They apparently did not know that Athanasius produced the canon they used, and that he proposed doctrine which is opposite of what they believe. Is this a one off, or is lack of historical context part of the JWs normal routine? They gave their quote of the day, Rev 21:4, without context, and didn't know that Rev 22:15 applied to the same Jerusalem, and that those "who practice lying" would not "enter". As soon as I told them, they turned and walked quickly away. The second time in around so many weeks, that JWs came, and quickly walked away when confronted with their inconsistencies.

[Capbook]

So, this is online statement is wrong?
Yes, "NWT" (New World Translation) is considered a "word-for-word" translation, meaning it aims to translate each word from the original language as directly as possible into the target language, often preserving the original sentence structure, making it a very literal translation of the Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+nwt+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

The above statement is NOT one made by the Watchtower Translation Committee.

Is it nonetheless accurate ? Possibly; at least regarding how others view our translation. Jehovah's Witnesses have no control over how the NWT is quote "considered " by non-Witness, and some may indeed considered the NWT "word-for-word" translation, whether it is or not.

The 1984 Reference Bible published by JW which is refered to by the publishers as being as literal "as possible" makes the following statement ...

There have been occasional departures from the literal text, for the purpose of conveying in understandable terms the difficult Hebrew or Greek idioms. However, in the reference edition of the New World Translation, these have been called to the reader’s attention by means of footnotes that give the literal rendering.

In the years leading up to the release of The REVISED New World translation of 2013 NWT ( the main version currently used by JWs ) The Watchtower society has recognised the limitations of "word by word" translations. Note the following

• Since no language exactly mirrors the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, a word-for-word translation of the Bible would be unclear or might even convey the wrong meaning. - The Watchtower May 1, 2008 p. 19

The above statement was later to become part of the forward in the current 2013 REVISED NWT which reads in part

As stated in the foreword to the original English edition of the New World Translation: “We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.” Thus, the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought. ...

Source : https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/stu ... anslation/

CONCLUSION : Is the NWT a strictly "word for word" translation ? No. Does it try and stay as close to the original as possible ? Yes. Will it add, omit or rearrange words in the target language in order to maintain clarity and integrity of thought ? Absolutely yes.

Your conclusion couldn't be any better. You know, I don't think there are actually ANY versions that translate word-for-word. Most do what you said above. Perhaps the only word-for-word version that I have seen is the Interlinear Bible.

Among other word for word Bible translations, I find NASB better as it has Strong Concordance and Lexicons.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is known for its formal equivalence translation style, which is considered a word-for-word translation, aiming to be as literal as possible to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It employs a formal equivalence translation method, which prioritizes translating the original language word-for-word as closely as possible. This approach aims to preserve the structure and meaning of the original languages, even if it results in some awkward or less natural English phrasing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+nasb ... e&ie=UTF-8