Inconsistency of translating in the New World Translation

I've read a few bibles by now. I still use a few including the King James but NWT is the easiest to read for me. 1984 edition. If there is some question or doubt, I've got a few that I can compare with. Satan is about to be cast down here to make us miserable. Arguing bible translations at this stage of things is making me laugh like the Japanese CEO in the Michael Keaton movie Gung Ho when he came to inspect production. You make me raff.
 
I've read a few bibles by now. I still use a few including the King James but NWT is the easiest to read for me. 1984 edition. If there is some question or doubt, I've got a few that I can compare with. Satan is about to be cast down here to make us miserable. Arguing bible translations at this stage of things is making me laugh like the Japanese CEO in the Michael Keaton movie Gung Ho when he came to inspect production. You make me raff.
Thanks for weighing in
 
When I'm digging into a single verse, I use BibleHub because it has so many translations and commentary. I really enjoy the 2001 Translation. I'm currently reading the Bible in Living English printed by WTBTS in 1979. It doesn't flow as well for me but it has good margins for notes. The 1984 NWT is the one I grew up with so I'm most comfortable with its wording. I feel like the 2013 NWT was really built as a translation tool and not a deep study tool. Given the times we're in, that may be a reasonable trade off. Getting God's word into as many languages as possible is an admirable goal.

I tried my hand at researching the meaning of Matthew 24:28 based on the original language texts. After consulting with a Bible translation team, I realized just trying to determine if it was eagles or vultures was a whole project with no absolute answer. I can't imagine the amount of effort it takes to translate the entire Bible from the original languages!
Great point. Even in the legal world to legally translate a document you have to have some sort of certification that qualifies you as a translator and there is even an organization for professional translators. Courts don’t accept a translation from just anyone. There is more to it than being able to translate isolated words.
 
I did some research on this book myself awhile back because of the JW rumor going around that this question was on the show Jeopardy it was not, and I forget that authors name also, but what he actually said was, that of the English Bible Translations he was reviewing, that the NWT was the best English translation out of those. Which I would say is still excellent, and would have you wonder why they would dumb it down like they did.
Jason BeDuhn was the author.
Jason has a section about John 1:1 that is VERY illuminating.
 
Hopefully I'm not overdoing this but I found some English words that are no longer in circulation [like the word peradventure (perchance)].

Here's more words in other languages:
 
Hopefully I'm not overdoing this but I found some English words that are no longer in circulation [like the word peradventure (perchance)].

Here's more words in other languages:
I never knew crapulous was a word. I have felt crapulous before.
 
Hopefully I'm not overdoing this but I found some English words that are no longer in circulation [like the word peradventure (perchance)].

Here's more words in other languages:
Thank you. 👍
 
Apparently Origen supported the way the NWT renders John 1

I’ve come to a conclusion what could John mean in the text here. I do not prefer without the article “a” as it hides what John intends to portray.

For example, if translated with an article “a god”, the Word(Logos) is portrayed in a different light with the Father, like without His personality. But, if translated “and the Word was God” it carries the same meaning as in John 14:7-10.

By this, I do not equate the Lord Jesus in the same manner as Trinitarians, being equal with God, but being as God personified in the flesh as he perfectly mirrors His Father.(Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:2,3)
 
Top