Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

2013 NWT Revision Defies to Correct Joshua's Death

WT president Rutherford assigned to ancient Joshua the 25 years of ruling Canaan from 1575bc entrance to a death of 1550bc. Rutherford died in 1942. In 1943 the book THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE changed this to 1475-1450bc which is still retained in the 2013 NWT revision despite contradiction since 1955. When in 1955 entrance to Canaan was changed from 1475bc to 1473bc, this should have shifted the death of Joshua 2 years to a 25-year rule from 1473-1448bc. It was NEVER changed. (For one brief moment in 1956 the Adam of 4026bc to 1656am as Flood 2370bc had recognized the ordinal year 1am would be 4025bc.) BUT Jewish Pharisee historian Josephus records a 5-6 year conquest (1624-1619bc), 25-year Joshua (1624-1599bc), and 18 years with no judge. His chronology unveils that his 25-year Joshua includes the conquest starting when entering Canaan (his 1624bc). Though Josephus Exodus is 1664bc, and Hippolytus Exodus is 1687bc, Christian Hippolytus places these 25 years to begin upon completion of conquest (his 1647-1641bc and 1641-1636bc). This unveils that 1473-1448bc of WT1956 should be shifted the 6 years to 1467-1442bc. The WatchTower book AID TO BIBLE UNDERSTANDING shows 18 years of no judge charted from 1442-1424bc. This chart thus begins the 18 years as 25 years after 1467bc (not after 1473bc). But this chart was sadly tossed in the revision known as INSIGHT IN THE SCRIPTURES (as if all things are in an unknown shifting-float between Joshua and king Saul), as the current tendency in all questions by JWs is to answer it as nobody knows, we'll have to wait to find out in the new world, hand-in-hand with no hour can be figured out. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE. Yet in 30 years since 1986 of this sent to the WatchTower their 2013 Bible says the book Joshua is covered to his death in 1450bc, whose year should have been rejected with the 1943AD revision of chronology having a 1513bc Exodus to 1473bc entrance to 1467bc completed conquest ruling 25 years 1467-1442bc. What further supports this 1442bc is lunar calendar where today's Jewish 19-year cycle (claiming started by Adam as year 3761-3760bc, is not probable because Moses was raised with the Egyptian 25-year lunar calendar that the end of Joshua's 25-year rule begins Jewish year 1 as 1443-1442bc and still to this very day. What worth is a revision if it is selective to who shows them the facts of their contradictions. (This is just one of dozens of this situation existing devouring structure from within with no help from the wicked outside this org.) My apologies, Rutherford dying in 1942 with a 4128bc Adam means my 30-year old charts have mistakenly labeled WT1956 Joshua 1450bc as being Rutherford; but is that sufficient reason to ignore the major point that Joshua did not die in the still-published 1450bc (since 1956). I was born in 1956 and was raised with the concept of you are here to be taught by us, we will not be taught by you. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Source needed for Thomas Winter

Thomas N. Winter, in a letter to M. Kurt Goedelman of Personal Freedom Outreach, dated 3 October 1980

Please give adequate source of the letter or the passage.--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I reached out to PFO and they had a copy of the letter on file and they were kind enough to send me a photo copy of the complete correspondence. How would someone source the first hand copy of the letters to source this passage here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:2680:3CD:5178:12F:51A8:E927 (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You responded to a question from 2010. The text quoted above does not exist in the current version of the article, and a source is already present for the current reference to Winter. A private letter from a small 'ministry' is no longer relevant to the article, and would almost certainly not meet the criteria for reliable sources anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguments for - Philip Harner

There may be problems with the paragraph about Harner. Though Harner agrees with the wording, the quoting as found in Watchtower publications may imply that Harner's interpretation is consistent with the JW view. Harner postulated that "in terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him it would appear that John could have written" the clause five different ways, and then examined them:

Clause	Word-for-word English	What Harner said about the clauses. (Formatting added. Bold indicates statements quoted in Watchtower literature. Harner's view is underlined.)
A. ho logos en ho theos	the word was the god	Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1: 1, in which John writes that ho logos 'nv theos [the word with god]. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of "personal" differentiation, between the two.
B. theos en ho logos [what John actually wrote]	god was the word	Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1. As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would implying B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos has the nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis. Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.
C. ho logos theos en	the word god was
D. ho logos en theos	the word was god	Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos.
E. ho logos en theios	the word was divine	Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was "divine," without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos.

The conclusion implied by selective quoting is that Harner agrees with the JW view that Jesus is 'divine'. The JW interpretation of the phrase in question is that of clauses D and E. However, Harner stated, "John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E." Harner also stated, "But in terms of our analysis it is important that we understand the phrase "the Word is divine" as an attempt to represent the meaning of clause B rather than D or E."

My own opinions of the matter are not relevant to this discussion of Harner's views, and are not stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom Interlinear

It's place is as warranted as either Diaglott entry. Actually it is probably more warranted considering the group and subject. It is quoted from the same column as the later reference to the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott text. I'm undoing but will leave the older one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsider10 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

--Outsider10 (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two lists of examples, and the second list of examples explicitly states that it is of entries similar to the NWT. This very strongly suggests to readers that the first list of examples is intended to present the other view, and that conclusion is supported by the wording that appears in that (allegedly) arbitrary selection of translations. Unless the first set of examples specifically indicates that it is of similar usage, there is little value in listing them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The small section I created shows entries that show historical and other translational juxtaposition. This is why I used language like 'contrast.' For an honest informative approach to translation issues. The selections are not arbitrary I selected them for their historicity, reference elsewhere on the NWT translation page or because they are popular bibles today. There were certainly some I left out because they merely explicitly agree, word for word, with the truncated word was God entries or they explicitly agree with the expanded word was a god entries.

There are mentions of modern bibles which make use specifically of "word was God" and mentions of translations similar to "word was a god". In discussing the topic it is important to consider other major translations and especially in case of the KIT, the source, unless your intention is for this to be an advocacy page which is the impression I am starting to get. It is not as simple as translations that agree/disagree. It is intellectually dishonest (I'll refer directly to the second bullet point) to insist on the Emphatic Diaglott interlinear reading but not a primary source of the organization behind the translation featured on this page and indeed an edition that has this page set as its redirect. If one is appropriate so is the other. If one is not appropriate neither is the other. I can't even fathom that the KIT is inappropriate to be mentioned here. This is where, as I believe you previously mentioned, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation page redirects to. As for the grammar I should direct you to supercommas but I may have used is poorly.

--Outsider10 (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)--Outsider10 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You said you selected them "for their historicity, reference elsewhere on the NWT translation page or because they are popular bibles today". In other words, 'a bunch of arbitrary criteria that only you are privy to' - there is no indication for any particular translation as to which of your arbitrary criteria is the reason for its inclusion, and because there is a separate list of entries that agree with the NWT, logic dictates that the most plain purpose for a separate list is for translations that disagree.

I do not disagree with your removal of the Emphatic Diaglott entry. It is indeed intellectually dishonest to include the JWs' interlinear in a list of translations that disagree with the rendering of the NWT, and the fact that the KIT redirect to this page is not relevant to the purpose (the actual purpose rather than the ambiguous criteria you decided on) of the list of translations in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you don't get much older than 1365 for English translations. Newcome is mentioned later. Emphatic Diaglott is mentioned later. The Amplified, Good News and CEV Bibles don't translate very similar to either "word was God" or "word was a god". And the Kingdom Interlinear Text uses this very page as it's Wikipedia page and was created under the auspices of the very same organization to direct the translation of the NWT. There is more than simply agree or disagree and frankly if that is the criteria the list that agrees with the NWT will need to get shrunk smaller. Both Goodfield and Schonfield are far less than clear about being in agreement with "word was a god".

It is intellectually dishonest to remove such a close interpretation simply because you are trying to prove a point in that you think it agrees or disagrees. It doesn't matter if it agrees or disagrees with the NWT reading it is encyclopedic, highly relevant to this page and the John 1:1 section, with a source and it is verifiable. It's inclusion is not advocacy for a particular stance but your remarks are clear advocacy for it being hidden because of it's source.WP:SOAP

--Outsider10 (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The translation of the text from both the Diaglott and the KIT (which uses the NWT text for its *translation*) is retained in the article; the interlinear (word-for-word) text does not need to also be in those lists. The original text is considered further down in the 'arguments for' section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about when you bring up WP:SOAP or this being an "advocacy page". The section being discussed has two lists of translations of the verse from various English Bible translations. The second list explicitly states that it is of renderings similar to the NWT. The reasonable conclusion is therefore that the other list presents translations that present the other view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That reasonable conclusion can only be derived because you keep editing the section description. Nor am I calling it an advocacy page. I am stating plainly that you are advocating a position and actively trying to hide relevant materials. You have abandoned the neutral point of view requirement. The interlinear gloss is a translation. I'm not sure what you are trying to go on about with that.

content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. --Outsider10 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The same "reasonable conclusion" is drawn even if your vague criteria are listed instead, because the second list still presents a contrasting view. The first list only makes sense if it includes the opposite rendering to those in the second list, otherwise there is no point in having two separate lists. If you think that the article would benefit from separately providing the original Greek text with a word-for-word translation, as from an interlinear, then go ahead. As for your allegations of not being neutral, it is highly improbable that the characters in question actually exist, so the suggestion is absurd.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also confused about your claim that "The Amplified, Good News and CEV Bibles don't translate very similar to either "word was God" or "word was a god"." Those translations all have wording that is clearly in support of the mainstream Christian view of this verse as a proof-text for the Trinity, and that is the whole reason this verse is controversial in the NWT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're insisting on an either/or reading when the opposite is repeatedly explicitly described. This is not your soapbox. I have and am escalating this. As for your allegations of not being neutral, it is highly improbable that the characters in question actually exist, so the suggestion is absurd. has certainly staked out your position on the matter and such a position is certainly not neutral. It doesn't matter if you are atheist, Hindu, Muslim or some form of Christian. You are advocating a dishonest approach to this subject. I'll repeat myself this is not your soapbox.

As for the AMP, CEV and BNG your insistence on editing the section heading to reflect your view does not suddenly give rise to credibility of your argument. You are altering the premise to meet your conclusions. It began by being labeled for "comparison, contrast and other uses" and followed what agreed explicitly in wording. To be more precise I edited it specifically to "English translations notable for age, other inclusion on page, source or translation outcome of John 1:1:" Editing after that has and continues to attempt to make it something other than it began as. You've been a party to that and any arguments you make as to what it is are very clearly dishonest, considering the purpose of that addition was there from the beginning, and disingenuous as well as acting against policies on POV and completeness.

--Outsider10 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're free to let your imagination run away with you about my supposed motives. It is unclear what you imagine to be the purpose of the second list if the first list includes entries for "contrast".--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You've done plenty to clarify your own motives by acting against the concepts which Wikipedia requires and that I've cited. I know it's unclear for you what the purpose is. Because you think the purpose should be something ambiguous and you edit accordingly. However the purposes has been stated numerous times both here and as edit notes and explicitly written in the page so I doubt that you will suddenly come to see what it was explicitly created for. There is more than simply agreeing with translation A word for word and something which corresponds with translation B word for word. There are different translation practices employed and different outcomes results. Again it's not a falsely dichotomized situation that you repeatedly attempt to brand it as. You would do well to stop changing what something is and acting as though your edits are what the section was created for. Hint, try reading.

--Outsider10 (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The entire purpose of the section in the article is to discuss the controversy surrounding the NWT's rendering of the verse in question; if you believe there is some other purpose, the section becomes out of scope of the article, and should be removed. Your preferred ambiguous criteria of translations that are either a) 'old', b) 'other included', c) 'source' or d) 'translation outcome' (whatever that is meant to mean) are unhelpful, as 1) it isn't specified which criterion is applied to any particular entry in the list, and 2) the entries in the second list fit the same arbitrary criteria. I have not stated any personal view about how the verse 'should' be translated, so it is unclear how you imagine I have not remained neutral. So please, by all means, escalate this so that other balanced editors can help you out.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it is not clear what it is you imagine my position/motives to be. In this edit, you claimed it was my intention to make the article an "advocacy page" (which you subsequently denied here), but it's not clear what you imagine I'm trying to advocate, except of course, the purpose of the section as stated in the section's first sentence. If you think this section should be a more general discussion of John 1:1, then you are editing in the wrong place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the meaning of accusing you of "trying to turn this into an advocacy page" and this being "an advocacy page" are lost on you. That being said, the source of the misunderstanding seems clear. You seem to impart some hidden meaning on things which are plainly worded. And no it wasn't ambiguous, the criteria is pretty plain and matches perfectly fine with what is there. If other sources were good to add to it, do so. Don't redefine it and accuse me of working outside the scope of your definition. I suppose I may just begin rolling back any destructive edits you make here with the same fervor you undo other edits that add information. --Outsider10 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not continue discussion with you. I leave you to your insolence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Presentation of translations of John 1:1

Is the presentation of translations of John 1:1 suitable for the context of the article, per discussion above. Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, as User:Jeffro77 implies. Putting all this material here is undue. NWT is hardly alone in its rendering, so it's much more reasonable for almost all of this discussion to just be at John 1:1. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole section on John 1:1 is beyond the scope of the article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Though this verse is certainly one of several verses considered controversial in the NWT for various reasons, I'm not convinced that it is the most controversial, and I'm not sure that the degree of elaboration on that particular verse is of benefit to readers about the nature of controversies in the translation in general. Rather than have this section, a single sentence could state that some of the NWT's rendering support their non-Trinitarian beliefs, cite John 1:1 as an example, and link to that main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the other translations that render similarly, I'm tempted to agree that this isn't as much of a controversy, and would wonder if John 1:1 even merits being singled out for such mention. However, if it weren't much of a controversy, I doubt it would be singled out to have its own article. Downstrike (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate and summarize, discussion of NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is notable and encyclopedic, but the consensus is that such a discussion is more appropriate for the article John 1:1 and so it's been removed from New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Rendering of John 1:1. See also Talk:John 1:1#NWT. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy regarding the translation of John 1:1 is not unique to the NWT; translations with a similar rendering include Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott (interlinear reading) and Goodspeed's An American Translation." This sentence has an issue in my opinion. The citing of the Emphatic Diaglott as an independent example of the "a god" translation may be dubious. It seems reasonalble that the Emphatic Diaglott was an early source for the NWT in that it obtained the copyright to the Emphatic Diaglott around 1900 and republished it under the Watchtower Society in 1902, 1927, and 1942. Shouldn't there at leaset be a disclaimer to that possibility? Elgingreen (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is here. The Emphatic Diaglott possibly being the basis for the NWT only demonstrates further that the NWT rendering is not unique. The Watch Tower Society obtained the rights to publish the ED, but they didn't write it. The sentence does not claim that the NWT is entirely independent from the ED, and the ED is not the only translation identified.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Arguments For: Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature

I expanded the quote in the arguments for section. It seems misleading to call it an argument for and to shorten it so drastically. I'm not really stuck on it either way but I do have the article in front of me.

• A. o Aoyos nv o os - ho Logos en ho theos
• B. os nv o Aoyos - Theos en ho Logos
• C. o Aoyos@ sosn v - ho Logos Theos en
• D. o Aoyos xv os - ho Logos en Theos
• E. o Aoyos xv tos - ho Logos en Theios

That is a chart referred to in the article as different ways it could have been written and the quote refers back to it.

Other quotes from the same article are "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos" p. 87

and also "In John 1:1 I think that the qualatative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite." p. 87

The article mostly seems to say that the Logos and God are not the same but they are the same in nature which is part of classic trinitarian philosophy.

--Outsider10 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See #Arguments for - Philip Harner above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that. Anyways I agree. Appropriate to remove this talk section or what? --Outsider10 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You were probably busy trying to impugn my motives. It would seem this section is redundant though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting some of Jason BeDuhn's remarks in "Overall Review"

I am considering deleting the following sentences from a paragraph in Overall Review:

"BeDuhn said the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament. He noted that the NWT used "Jehovah" consistently in the Old and New Testaments where other translations used "Lord" and concluded: "Both practices violate accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God.""

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, the main reason why they use the name "Jehovah" in the Old Testament is because the Tetragrammaton (commonly translated as Jehovah) appears frequently in manuscripts of the Old Testament. If you don't believe me, arrange to go and have a look at the British Museum's library. Therefore, his comment that this "violates accuracy" is incorrect. Many other Bible translators translate the Tetragrammaton as "Lord" or similar, which could be considered to "violate accuracy" even more, especially in the Old Testament.

Since these few sentences have no firm foundation, I wish to delete them. If anyone disagrees, please say so and why, including why he is correct. If no one disagrees, I will delete the sentences in around 48 hours. Beeshoney (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable published sources. The fact that your disagree with some of them is no reason to delete material. BlackCab (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement "both practices violate accuracy" is false, as the tetragrammaton appears frequently in the Old Testament. Also, just because other translations use "Lord" doesn't mean that the NWT "violates accuray". I don't think this article should contain misleading quotes. Please respond to this. Beeshoney (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not for me to engage in a debate with you on the issue. The article simply quotes what experts in that field have written. BlackCab (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Beeshoney, the benchmark for inclusion is verifiability and notability. The opinions expressed by the source are properly cited in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright I'm not so fussy about the "New Testament" sentence, but the final sentence has got to go. Beeshoney (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW if Jeffro77 is an atheist, why is he so interesting in editing articles on Jehovah's Witnesses? Beeshoney (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

None of your concern.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also I think that there are far too many negative reviews in this article. Just compare it against the King James version. You give the impression that 90% of people think it's inaccurate. They don't! It should be closer to 50/50. Beeshoney (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Source? In any case, the article also includes comments from positive reviews of the translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Source = British Museum. Go and ask them! Beeshoney (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of, and highly doubt the existence of, any comment from the British Museum stating that 50% of people consider the NWT accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean that. I mean that the British Museum says it is not completely inaccurate. If the British Museum says so, why should 90% of reviews in this article be negative? Make it balanced. Beeshoney (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC) This cannot be found on the British Museum's website, just go and ask the people who work at the British Museum's library.

I'm not aware of any statement from the British Museum regarding the NWT's accuracy. If you claim that they have made such a statement, the burden of proof is on you to provide a source, which can then be provided in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are merely stating that the British Museum has records of the Old Testament including the tetragrammaton, that point is not in dispute. The statement from BeDuhn that you are contesting is talking about the New Testament, which does not include the tetragrammaton.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that. That is why I am only deleting the sentence which mentions the Old AND New Testaments. I am not deleting the sentence which just mentions the New Testament. Beeshoney (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing the part that isn't BeDuhn's quote. I'm not convinced that BeDuhn would have said that use of 'Jehovah' in the Old Testament would be inaccurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

At last. Thank you. Beeshoney (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have misread BeDuhn's comments. I don't have the book, but from what has been written here, he is noting that (a) other Bibles use the word "LORD" consistently in the Old and New Testaments, which is inaccurate, and the NWT uses the word "Jehovah" consistently in the Old and New Testaments, which is also inaccurate. He says the authors of all those Bibles are using a denominationally preferred rendering of the original text than staying true to the original. The current, abbreviated version of his observation, however, would appear to be accurate in relation to the NWT. BlackCab (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence indicating that Jason BeDuhn's endorsement of the NWT is not unchallenged and in fact was challenged by theologian Dr. Robert Bowman in a debate online that took up 500 pages. I think its important that that is mentioned since these two provide a scholarly defense for and against one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A compilation of an online debate would appear to not meet the criteria for reliable sources. The website hosting the record of the debate also appears to fail that criteria, as it seems to be an anonymous personal website. Additionally, it isn't the purpose of the article to present a debate between the critics. It would be better to simply present what Bowman has to say about the translation, provided there is a source we can cite other than an online debate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The point of including the online debate is to show that BeDuhn's endorsement is not with out scholarly challenge. Its not to validate the website. Its included because it is home to the exchange link. Furthermore if the statement in the article is saying that Bowman is saying he disagrees with BeDuhn then putting the link up is so that others can read what his critique is. It just so happens that it is in the context of a debate. So my purpose wasnt to introduce a debate but to introduce an opposing view point to BeDuhn's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Your chosen source is a theologian, not a scholar. Link to the book if you must, but the debate is not a reliable source. Do not restore the disputed text until other editors have commented.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffro here. The debate between an author cited here and another uncited author who happens to disagree with him is not sufficiently notable in itself to warrant inclusion. A personal website is not a reliable source. If Bowman made a worthwhile comment in his book on the accuracy or otherwise of the NWT it may be notable if the publisher, Baker Books, is deemed to be one with a sound reputation. BlackCab (TALK) 10:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You have an extremely biased and prejudicial view of who constitutes a scholar. How is a theologian not a scholar? Its seems that being an atheist you must think that a theologian cant be a scholar. Bowman is most certainly a scholar based on his writings in this area and has a firm grasp of the issues around translations as the debate shows and even BeDuhn respects and acknowledges. As for BlackCab the website was linked for the purpose of directing the reader to the debate not to any info on the website itself. If I was referring to someone to an article or other writing from someone affiliated with that site I would agree. As for your little remark abut Baker Books, its reputation is reputable and only someone who isnt familiar with their publications could even ask.

I will say that your views on linking to the debate and on Rob Bowman show a very amateur understanding of the nature scholarship. Not even Beduhn would agree with your take on Bowman. Furthermore your criteria for including this debate is not shared by your fellow Wiki editors. Wikipedia's article on Ego Eimi and the issues regarding the translation of it includes the link to the debate. The discussion shows the editor had no problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ego_eimi

Its your article so Ill leave it like it is but I just need for you to know that your reasoning is very bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Too many reviews?

I was skimming thru this article, and I think it's generally good but and it seems to me that 12 total reviews is a bit much, burdening down the article, most pages for different Bible tranlastions have a couple reviews, obviously the NWT is more controversial than most but could some of this be moved to 'further reading', or similar? And on another point can Tetragrammaton.org really be considered to be put in the neutral section, I skimmed thru the site and seems to be put up to refute the NWT, if this is neutral: "When reading the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation it is obvious that they have published a Bible for the purpose of teaching their own doctrine" then what is critical? Respectfully, Enedra (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference to Tetragrammaton.org was apparently moved from the Critical section to the Neutral section by User:Duffer1 (purportedly a JW[1]) in 2007.[2] I don't have a problem with removing some of the reviews so long as such removal isn't too selective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest keeping Haas and Kedar for the OT (Rowley's views are pointless b/c the paragraph gives a response, of sorts, to these) as for the NT: It seems like this section is a soapbox for every bitch and moan about the NWT, really I think Bruce Metzger's review is sufficient, he discusses the good and bad points and is fair in his treatment, the others could be moved to links in the further reading section; That's what I think but I want run that by before I do anything - regards, Enedra (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Countess removed

The quote by Countess was removed. Countess was an ordained Presbyterian minister, and yet it took him decades to get his anti-JW book packaged and published as a self-described "evangelical outreach to Jehovah's Witnesses" by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company rather than as a scholarly commentary on the Bible and Bible translation. Editors may also be interested (horrified?) to know that Countess was an outspoken Holocaust denier; among other publications, Esquire magazine (both Feb 2001 and June 10, 2009 issues) discussed at length Countess's activism as a Holocaust denier. It is perhaps not unrelated that Jehovah's Witnesses appear prominently in the true accounting of Holocaust victims. As the thread states, there are sufficient reviews without this one. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No specific objection to removing Countess if he's not a reliable source. Thanks for the out-of-scope soapboxing about JWs in the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reachout Trust removed

It seems responsible to weed out those critics with unambiguous motives. For example, Reachout Trust itself notes: "Reachout Trust began in 1982 as a local outreach to Jehovah's Witnesses." Subheading "Reachout Story". Their sponsored "ref" has been removed. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No major objection to removing this particular reference, however I do not support your criteria, which is a slippery slope. The reliability of a source is not determined by its "motives" or how 'ambiguous' such motives might seem to a particular editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Erratic insertion of supposed tranlators

Would the user please stop doing this The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 14:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is Robert McCoy?

In the review of NT, I saw the name Robert McCoy. Is this person have sufficient knowledge to make a review? The link goes to the "principal clerk of a court/Brigadier General"??--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I've removed the link because it's obviously the wrong person (died 1849).--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

NWT in Pinyin (= 103rd language)

Could anyone confirm full or at least partial translation of NWT to Chinese (Pinyin) dialect?

Although this information could be true .... (...= Bible is printed in 2011,,, (but "reprint 2006" edition)...)

--FaktneviM (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Watchtower Publications Index 1986–2010: "2006, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: ... Chinese (simplified, Pinyin edition, large size) (© 2004; 2006 printing)"--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be also other term for "Chinese Standard" or "Chinese Simplified".

If Pinyin is really another different dialect ... so WTBTS already translated 3 variations (Standard, Simplified, Pinyin) ... and summary is 103 translated languages, not 102. .... --FaktneviM (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know what something is, you can look it up (perhaps on a website such as Wikipedia). Pinyin is a system of Chinese using Roman script, and is therefore not the same as either 'Simplified' or 'Traditional' Chinese.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks "Pinyin" is synonym for "Simplified Chinese"

Chinese_language, Varieties_of_Chinese, Standard_Chinese, Traditional_Chinese_characters, Pinyin, Simplified_Chinese_characters and there is stated:

Simplified Chinese characters are officially known as 简化字 (traditional Chinese: 簡化字; pinyin: Jiǎnhuàzì),[2] and colloquially called 简体字 (traditional Chinese: 簡體字; pinyin: Jiǎntizì).[3]

--FaktneviM (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I already did such specific correction in the article. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Pinyin is not a synonym for 'Simplified Chinese'. As previously stated, Pinyin is a method of representing Chinese language using Roman characters (as is demonstrated in the quote you provided above). Anything in Chinese, whether it is Simplified or Traditional, or whether it is Cantonese or Mandarin or any other dialect, can be represented in Pinyin. The edition of the NWT in Pinyin happens to be a Romanized representation of the equivalent Simplified or Traditional Chinese. It is not the same as the edition using Simplified Chinese script. I will therefore correct your edit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood complexity of the Chinese in so called "Traditional" (like this: 簡化字 ... no one knows what that "image" does it mean) and Roman (normal Latin) script. Despite my mistake, I hope, however, you assumed good faith. (= summary of edit looks like "almost hard revert").

Now I suppose that Simplified and Traditional Chinese, both, could be just "rendered" or "converted" from Chinese character to Latin alphabet. .... That means, actually, Pinyin is not an individual Chinese dialect. Rather could be marked as "form of character encoding or typography". In fact, Pinyin is not standalone language, but rendering of written Chinese into Latin script. In any case, Pinyin is 103rd recognized and confirmed translation of NWT. --FaktneviM (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It was wrong so I changed it, but your edit clearly wasn't intended to damage the article.

Yes, Pinyin isn't a specific dialect of Chinese, just as American Sign Language isn't a specific dialect of English, but for the purposes of different translations it can be considered a different language here. A person who can read Pinyin may not necessarily be able to read Chinese script or vice versa.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, just to clarify - Hanyu Pinyin is a method of writing Mandarin only. You cannot write Cantonese, or other Chinese languages (so-called "dialects", they are really separate but related languages), using pinyin. Other dialects such as Cantonese do have Romanization systems, but they are not the same as Pinyin, even though some of them are based on pinyin for Mandarin. 60.225.114.230 (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Though how we number does not matter, I will let you know in the Watchtower counting, that it updates every year or two on jw-media.org, it will not count the four brailles or pinyin. Probably they list brailles only as (also) and do not list pinyin because these are not publicly distributed to everyone. The 20+ volume brailles are only given to JWs or those studying to be such. The pinyin going to JWs learning Chinese as second language. This is shown in Watchtower.org where pinyin isn't listed and brailles as one page, whereas sign languages have separate pages and numerous scripts separately also. Also on jw.org, the pinyin watchtower is listed with the Chinese-Simplified PDF. So their count of languages we know is 100 in Watchtower count. Like I said, how we number doesn't matter, but I wanted to pass the information on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon101 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That being the case, and the JW website ostensibly being our source for the count, maybe we shouldn't count them separately either?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Another way I came to this conclusion was when the March Watchtower was quoted and printed in January at 96 languages, I knew, two unknown named languages to me, Twi(asante) and Luvale were to be released in Africa in March; and Lithuanian and Vietnamese were unmentioned yet. I'm sorry signing I'm not sure how.Juleon101 (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Juleon101Juleon101 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to as new NT or new OT/NT are released and posted on the jw.org PDF from about April and Oct. or so, because new total print will show. (Most languages use Arabic numbers.) Also these new languages will show the other new languages of that Bible printery, like Latvian and Lithanian of Germany, of the 6 month release period, which is about summer of the hemisphere, some have them both periods around tropics. (US, Mexico?, Brazil, Germany, South Africa, Nigeria?, Japan, Australia?) Watchtower count is 102 with the separate scripts and translators, for full public release. Whatever, I just hate number arguments.Juleon101 (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed in most Latin script NT PDF of NWT on jw.org, the language list is in English, for semiannual totals and updated English language list, in about March and Sept. (retotals are 3/1 & 9/1)Juleon11 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As the Yearbook 2012 shows on page 26, the 106 do not count Brailles or Pinyin Chinese, but count the Sign languages, in the WT count. Also Tuvulaun and Solomon Is. Pidgin is not listed so the WT count is 108 at this time.Juleon11 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why 108? Maybe Tuvuluan and Solomon Is. Pidgin are no longer produced? It seems strange that they'd stop printing Pinyin. The March 2011 Watchtower didn't count different scripts as separate languages, but the 2012 yearbook does. Plus the sign languages minus the Brailles. The inconsistent reporting complicates matters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Pinyin is still in print, just not considered a separate regular use written language by WT. And Tuvualuan out in Nov., Solomon Pidgin in this month are newer than the YB list which is made 3-4 months before release to translate in 100 languages and PDF post Dec. 20. Its like April WT magazines are now posted on JW.org 3 months early.Juleon11 (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can I leave it to you to update the article accordingly? I'm just headed out the door.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Uzbek

In the 168 million edition, is Uzbek in Cryllic and/or Roman script? Roman is official language, but Cryllic is popular from the Soviet era still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon101 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Juleon101,

I´d like to help you, but I dont know. There is no other specification about "Uzbek language" in NWT. Probably only official language of the Uzbekistan state. And that is named same as the state: Uzbek.

Bear in mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion about the topics of articles – comments should be limited to the article's content. --FaktneviM (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Typo in edit summary

My last edit summary appears to have a contradiction, due to a typo. The edit summary said, in part: Watch Tower literature speaks of 'Gun' being spoken in Benin. Fon is spoken in Togo, not Benin. See Gbe languages..

Note that it should have said, Gen is spoken in Togo, not Benin. This distinction should be clear from the map at Gbe languages. Sorry for any confusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, Gun (a.k.a. Gungbe) is a dialect of Fon. See Gbe languages#Classification.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of languages

As has been demonstrated recently in a well-intended (though poorly formatted) edit[3], the number of languages is less than the number of scripts. The article currently lists the correct number of languages and now matches the number reported by the publisher. Please don't change it back to enumerating scripts rather than languages, unless supported by a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Put helpful comment with Pinyin-103.Juleon101 (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not change the number of languages back to the higher number. If you want to indicate the number of different editions (counting each type of script separately), this would need to be indicated separately, though it seems there would not be much benefit in doing so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying the first time, to cooperate with your wishes Jeffro77. I figured if anyone reads the talk page, they will see the facts of new languages, the Watchtower count and PDF help in the future. I didn't expect this on front page ever, sir, sorry I misunderstood this statement.Juleon101 (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"front page"? "sir"? I guess I kind of lost your train of thought there, but it doesn't matter.

When I previously addressed the matter of Pinyin as a separate translation, I suggested it should be counted differently, because other scripts at the time were counted differently. However, once it became clear that the publisher counts the individual languages rather than translations (including different scripts), then it was evident that it is correct to count the number of languages. Sorry for any confusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Douay

Prior to the NWT, JWs did not assign any special preference at all to the Catholic Douay Bible. The cited 1990 Watchtower article mentions the Catholic Douay Bible because the article attempts to discredit alleged comments by 'opposers' of JWs about the NWT. Reference to the Douay is to engender a sense of familiarity with outsiders. However:

• The Watchtower, 1 November 1959, p. 672: "Up until 1950 the teachings of Jehovah’s witnesses were based mainly upon the King James Version of the Bible,"
• All Scripture Inspired, p. 323: "In 1907 the Watch Tower Society published a “Bible Students Edition” of the Bible. This volume contained a clear printing of the King James Version of the Bible"
• Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 93: "To aid his listeners in their response to the “Go ahead” signal, Brother Knorr announced the release of an edition of the King James version of the Bible, printed on the Society’s own presses"

Please do not add misleading statements about the JWs preferred version prior to the NWT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(The article previously used this source; The Watchtower, 15 August, 1990, p. 16: "For the best part of a century, the Witnesses used primarily the King James Version, the Roman Catholic Douay Version, or whatever versions were available in their language". That source states that they primarily used the King James Version and also other versions. Clearly, they did not primarily use various versions.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article were to mention a secondary translation frequently used by JWs prior to the release of the NWT, it would be the American Standard Version, which the Watch Society also published. There was never any special preference by JWs to use the Douay version.

• The Watchtower, 15 March, 1989: "In 1944 they began to publish the American Standard Version of the Bible"
• The Watchotwer, 1 January, 1968: "Since 1950 Jehovah’s witnesses have been distributing the Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation and individual volumes of the Hebrew Scriptures as they were completed. But long before that Jehovah’s witnesses were urging people to read the King James Version, the American Standard Version, or any other translation of the Bible, because God’s words of truth are contained in any Bible."

--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added a quote from the Bottings, which supports the existing 1959 WT reference. The Bottings identify only the KJV as the Bible translation used by the Witnesses before the NWT. BlackCab (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor continues to claim the Douay version was also "primarily" used despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. He or she continues to edit without engaging in discussion. The proposed sentence in fact makes no sense: Jehovah's Witnesses could not have been using those Bibles "for the best part of a century" because they did not exist by that name until 1931. BlackCab (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Context

To more clearly indicate the context of the source the anonymous editor wishes to use, the source in question says, under the heading "Opposers at Work", that:

Some, like certain apostates today, are disloyally working as Satan’s agents to undermine the faith of newly associated members of the Christian congregation. Rather than simply use the Bible as the basis for true teachings, they concentrate on trying to discredit the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, as if Jehovah’s Witnesses were wholly dependent on it for support. But this is not so.

In that context, the source says JWs would use the Catholic Douay version because Catholics are the most numerous group of Christians in contrast to the more limited audience of the NWT. However, there is no evidence that the Douay version was ever "heavily" or "primarily" used by JWs, or that they ever specifically recommended its use, as the other sources above clearly indicate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked my 1950's WT volumes, I noticed through the 1957 issues the WT stated on the bottom of page 2 that "unless otherwise stated, the KJV is used." Now that same statement refers to the NWT since 1958 WT issues.Juleon11 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Brackets

Can anyone substantiate the rumour that editorial brackets were removed from the 2006 edition of the NWT? Perhaps a scan?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In my marriage edition that is 17 years old and has only 74 million printed, Gen. 1:1 has brackets around "the", "in [the] beginning", also Gen. 1:2 has brackets around "the", "in [the] watery deep", also Gen 1:10, 12, 18, 25, 31 has brackets around "it was", in "God saw that [it was] good." In the edition that is in PDF on JW.org with 168 million copies and says 2006 edition form on page 4, there is no brackets in these places. I checked all places for 10 chapters through the time of the Flood. The Greek edition in PDF with 171 million, and the 2008 edition form, does not have brackets. Neither does Sranantongo, a brand new OT included edition. Juleon11 (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just checked the PDF version at jw.org. That version purports to be the 1984 revision. However, the PDF does indeed not have the brackets, where brackets did appear in the actual 1984 version. This includes controversial interpolations, such as the use of 'other' at Colossians 1:13-20.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

They were removed. There were a few minor changes. I think mostly to the indexes and the appendix. I can't remember the reason specifically, but I think I remember it having to do with making the translations into additional languages easier, and updating the appendix, but don't quote me on that, my memory isn't the best at times. Willietell (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless the PDF has been changed since you looked Jeffo, the copyright page states "2006 Printing". Are you seeing something else that suggests the PDF 'purporting' to be one thing while actually being another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.234.145 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment was from over a year ago. I have no control or special knowledge of the Watch Tower Society's systems for version control.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Though the version currently available from the website does indeed say it is the "2006 Printing", it does still purport to be both Revised and Copyrighted in 1984.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The current version still states that double brackets are used to "suggest interpolations in original text" (page 1549), but does not employ the brackets where the word "other" has been interpolated in Colossians chapter 1.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My observations are the 2006 printing edition retains the double brackets but omits all of the single brackets. In addition, since it no longer retains the single brackets it also no longer retains the statement of why single brackets were used. A Yahoo Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Bible-Translation/attachments/439838141 includes a pdf of a purported letter to the WT regarding the matter and a pdf of the WT's purported reply. See also the message post of Friday, October 22, 2010 10:51 AM within that group at http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Bible-Translation/conversations/topics/1835 . 208.71.200.80 Is the purported letter from the WT authentic or is it a hoax and is the purported letter to the WT a hoax? 208.71.200.80 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC). In 2013 the Society produced a revision of the their Bible. That edition is called the (2013 REVISION). It appears that it, besides not having single brackets, excludes double brackets (such as at Luke 24) [whereas the 2006 printing edition had retained the double brackets]. That edition can be read online at http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/ .

New Languages

I have seen the Hebrew NT also. Though I understand leaving it off until it can be refered to on-line.Juleon11 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The African language, Tshiluba NT, was posted available for order at Kingdom Halls.Juleon11 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory statement

During the period from 1963 to 1989, the English version of the New World Translation became available in ten additional languages.

If it became available in "additional languages," it was not the "English version of the New World Translation." 108.246.205.134 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless the other translations are translations from English, in which case it would be correct. Can we clarify? ChilternGiant (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The translations in languages that are not in English are not in English, regardless of their textual source. The question from four years ago has been dealt with.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Stylistic criticism

Can someone source some stylistic (as opposed to theological) criticism please? While some passages in the NWT are fairly well rendered, some are incredibly clunky and use phrases only known within the JW community.--MacRùsgail (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns, etc.

Reading through this article, I notice that a preponderance of references are to primary sources - Watchtower Society material - and nearly all of the positive references are. I have tagged the article accordingly. After checking a bit more deeply, in addition to a few concerns about representation of sources, I believe that this introduces an element (possibly a strong element) of bias - that is, in contravention of what would be the general, non-WTS "scholarly consensus" - in to the article, but I have not tagged the article as POV. Pursuant to these two main concerns, I have demoted the article to C-class. It is an impressively full and well-written article for a Bible version - if only all other common Bible versions were treated in this way on Wikipedia! - but, the apparent heavy referencing is an appearance, due to the heavy use of primary sources, and what seems, at least superficially, to be a general bias in selection thereof, to present a very favourable picture of the translation. I welcome discussion on this matter, and suggestions to improve it, with consensus, and not by unilateral editing on my behalf, as, from past experience, edits to articles with relevance to JWs often are hotly contested if they do not "tow the party line", so to speak (leading to a bunch of reverts and a non-collegial atmosphere where consensus is not achieved). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 07:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the "other languages" part is woefully over-full and extremely, absurdly over-linked, and could use a vigorous pruning. Some other stylistic issues mar other parts of the article as well. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 07:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures/Archive_8#Languages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to cut that part out unilaterally (languages) after reading the archives, but it needs to be removed. I second your decision on putting the relevant NWTs in the relevant sections of Bible translations by language, and leaving a list of perhaps five or seven languages, if that, in the main body of the article, with a link to "Bible translations by language" or something similar. I do intend to seek consensus for this, because it appears that someone attempted to do it before without achieving consensus, with the sad result the crufty, WP:DIRECTORY, far over-wikilinked section stayed unchanged. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 21:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Absurdly over-detailed. Four or five languages is sufficient. BlackCab (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Citing the Watchtower Association Is Invalid

Except in determining the theories of the Watchtower, citing the Watchtower association is invalid. Even as that it constitutes a primary source. There are reliable sources objecting to this version being called a translation. All references to this version as a translation (except in its title) need to be changed to version or something other than translation. It is a version, not a translation according to reliable sources; e.g., Bruce Metzger. See http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm (EnochBethany (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC))

Regardless of quality or intent, it's still a translation. In order to make the claims you are making, you would need to establish that it is more broadly rejected as a 'translation' than just Metzger. Indeed even Metzger says it's a "a frightful mistranslation", which is a kind of translation. Other sources on the poorly formatted site you provided as a source also state that it is a "translation".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Walter Martin is implied to be a high ranking official of the Watchtower Society.

The wording of the article implies that Walter is a high-ranking official of the Watchtower Society. He is of course NOT a high-ranking official. he is in fact an opposer of the Watchtower Society if you read any of his literature. He also never claimed to be a former member. To imply that the information that he gives out is from a once high-ranking official in this organization is obscene.

The article needs to be re-worded to pronounce him as who he is rather than to imply that he was something that he was definitely not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjjlee (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the wording is ambiguous. The sentence "Former high ranking Watch Tower staff have claimed knowledge of the translators' identities" is sourced to Tony Wills, though the only statement he makes about the translation's authorship is that Fred Franz supervised the work.

Raymond Franz was a high-ranking Watch Tower Society staff member, worked in the writing department at world HQ and was one of the authors of the major WTS reference work Aid to Bible Understanding, published in 1971; Franz identified his uncle, Fred Franz, as the "principal translator" of the NWT. (Crisis of Conscience, 2002 ed, pg 56.) In a footnote he names "other members" of the New World Translation Committee as Knorr, Schroeder and Gangas, but suggests they played only a minor part because of their more limited knowledge of the Bible languages. James Penton cites Raymond Franz and concludes that "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man—Frederick Franz." (Apocalypse Delayed, p.174).

I would propose noting in the article that "Raymond Franz, who was a Governing Body member and writing department member before his defection from the religion, identified Frederick Franz as the principal translator of the Bible." There may be little significance to the identify of the other committee members, so they need not be included. Walter Martin's criticism is irrelevant at that point and should be removed. Any or all of Franz, Penton and Wills can be cited as a source. BlackCab (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess the most obvious problem with quoting Raymond Franz is that he is an known anti-JW source, and therefore cannot be trusted as a viable resource. And, as shown by his book, he was very disgruntled after being disfellowshipped from the organization as an appostate.

Let's do something even more provocative instead. Let's tell the rest of the history of the New World Translation. The part that matters for today's audience that might be looking to this page for advice on the current version of the NWT. Let's include the facts like the translators that translated it in the 1950s haven't been the translators of this publication for more than 30 years. Heck, while we're at it, let's make sure that everyone knows that the latest translation team's names are currently unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjjlee (talk • contribs) 02:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't make any presumptions about exactly what motivates people to read this article, or exactly what information they are seeking.

Although I haven't seen the 2013 NWT, I understand the version contains relatively minor adjustments in some terms and language. That fact is noted in the article. That version though was based on what was an entirely new translation, released in its entirety in 1961. Obviously someone created that 1961 NWT and Raymond Franz, who by dint of his earlier membership of the Governing Body, his senior position in the HQ department that dealt with research and writing, and his blood relationship with Fred Franz, has credibility when he states that it was indeed Franz. Wills's book, first published in 1967, made the same statement.

Can Raymond Franz be trusted as a source? He did resign from the Governing Body, and was subsequently disfellowshipped for sharing a meal with a friend who had formally disassociated himself from the religion. I don't know if you have ready any of his books. I have, and though he was critical of many aspects of the religion, he also heaped praise on them for other aspects. The tone of his books is moderate and he reproduces many letters and documents to support his statements. Though his works should be treated with caution because of his background, I see no problem with including the statement I have suggested, which clearly notes that he defected.

Even if we were to accept your statement that he was "anti-JW" and "disgruntled", that has no bearing on his identification of his uncle as the chief translator. The statement is not derogatory of the religion, is not critical. The statement is quite uncontroversial but for the fact that it reveals information the WTS had previously, and quite curiously, declined to provide.

There are flaws with this article and I'm sure other editors, including me, will be willing to collaborate on improving it. But your attitude of recklessness, obstinacy and sarcasm will probably get in the way. Still, taking this issue to the talk page is a start. Please also remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Like this. ~~~~ BlackCab (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2014

To whom it may concern:

I apologize for any sarcasm that may have been present in my previous posts.

As a critical reviewer of the NWT myself, I can personally testify to the fact that, yes previous versions were based on that early work, and that the 2013 edition is a full departure from the work of any of the previous translators of this translation. Anyone not at our 2013 annually meeting would not know the details of the method used to fully retranslate it, or know what to look for to easily prove that it was a complete re-translation.

It is in-fact a complete re-translation...

For 20+ years, I have personally critically analyzed the NWT, always struggling to remain unbiased using literally 50+ third-party resources to conduct my investigation and to review the Hebrew and Greek of the new/old testament in strong detail. First and foremost, I researched the scriptures that have the greatest theological import(similar to what Jason BeDuhn did in his book "Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament", an EXCELLENT read by the way), and secondly other scriptures where there was some small difference. Even when at different times I personally thought that I had found a mistranslation, (Epignosis is a good example in particular. For a period of about six months, I did not know why they translated it the way they did.) the final analysis consistly revealed the NWT as not only the most accurate, but in many cases the only major translation that had steered clear of the traditional rendering which was clearly biased. In the end I have personally seen for myself that that the positive reviewers of the NWT translation have accurately assessed it's merits. I probably have spent 1000 hours of my own personal time studying this matter out. I did this because the Bible is our main resource for Jehovah God's thoughts. I also did so because I did not want to be duped by anyone, especially if they were somehow "cooking the books" so to speak, as SOOOO many translators have done in the past.

By criticizing the text myself privately, I have found that the translators, new or old, have had nothing but scholarly intentions and abilities. I am soooo thankful for their hard work and dedication to the one true God, Jehovah. They, and of course Jehovah, have deeply helped me find the truth for myself.

This article should reflect that the current version of the NWT is not by the hand of the previous translators, as great as they were, who ever they are... Fjjlee (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)fjjlee

Your personal testimony isn't appropriate at an article talk page, nor does it address the objection you raised, or the solution I offered. BlackCab (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually it shows my character and diligence and thus lends weight to my proposal. Fjjlee (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)fjjlee

The revised NWT is hardly a "complete re-translation". If anything, it's more like the King James and American Standard versions than the previous NWT, from which the original NWT borrows heavily anyway. (There are essentially 3 kinds of 'departures' from the KJV in the original NWT - 1: updating Old English, 2: changing progressive verbs and 3: doctrinal bias; of those, the 2013 revision does some more updating English, reverses most of the usage of progressive verbs, and adds some more JW buzzwords [e.g. brazen].) Your 'testimony' above isn't really relevant, because you're essentially anonymous, and it's not appropriate to try to posit your own credibility as if you're a reliable source as far as Wikipedia's policies go. In particular, your previous ham-fisted approach to editing the article (the only article you've ever edited) doesn't lend to your credibility. It is extremely naive to arbitrarily 'classify' reviews as either 'favourable' or 'unfavourable'. In reality, reviews of Bible translations tend to point out some good and bad points. When a review says only good things or only bad things, it very quickly becomes clear that the review itself is biased.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not a university professor of theology or classical language, but have been an avid Bible reader and student for the past 32 years, and a teacher and minister since 1996. I have read and possess many Bibles going back to the Geneva Bible of 1599 in time. May I add two small comments please?

1) I am amazed at the amount of scrutiny this translation has gotten, far more than any major or minor translation reviewed on this site, but do appreciate honest discussion! Many take issue with the NWT Translation Committee's choice to include the Divine Name in the new testament and I understand the concerns. However, it should be noted that we today are not in possession of the original writings. There are 1000's of early greek text copies available for review, most dating two centuries from the original writings, but no original texts. It is well known among Bible researchers that the practice of replacing the tetragrammaton with kyrios (lord) in copies was accepted early on in the infancy of the christian congregation/church. So an honest translator has a legitimate choice to make: restore the name or perpetuate what was likely an early replacement of God's name, "lord." A tough choice indeed. Personally, I am delighted to see it "restored" to various places in the NT because there is compelling evidence to do so. It is inconceivable to me that the Lord Jesus who stated in prayer to his father in John 17:26 that he "declared unto them thy name, and will declare it" KJV or, in modern speech, "I have made your name known to them and will make it known" NWT and yet translators would not include instances where he used God's name even once in the NT? There is much contextual support for such inclusion. One example, Jesus rebuke at Mt 4:4, qouting Deut. 8:3 where God's name was found in Hebrew.

2) Do I believe Fred Franz was a member of the original translation committee for the NWT? Yes, I should hope so as he was a reknown Bible scholar as noted in his obituary article written by Marvinne Howe in the NY Times (12/24/92). I thinks its admirable however that, if true, he never publicly acknowlegded this as all members choose to remain anonymous- a sign of great humility.Joerito (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)joerito

Are you suggesting a change to the article? Talk pages aren't really for general discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Languages

I have commented out the list of languages, pending deletion. Since the translation is available in all the main languages, and because the list is not supported by secondary sources, the full list is essentially WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature, and is otherwise just trivia. Additionally, the list is not based on any concrete source, but rather has been compiled piecemeal as new translations are released, apparently with the assumption that no languages ever go out of print (and the additional assumption that all language editions are printed, whereas some might only be available online). The 2013 revision of the NWT on page 4 just says 'in whole or in part in over 120 languages', and says to see the website for the full list. This is linked in the PDF version, but it goes to the JW home page, with no list of NWT languages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, such a list may be helpful, if someone is looking to see if a bible translation is available in a particular language, so such a list isn't necessarily WP:Promotional unless it were presented in such a way as to constitute bragging. The simple act of including a list isn't of itself WP:promotional. For example, the article on Watch Tower Publications is hardly promotional, but they do inform the reader of most of the WTS publications, even those out of print and/or obsolete due to a change in understanding. Willietell (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, hence it is not necessary for it to provide a list of languages in which a particular piece of literature is available. The article provides the number of languages, and sufficiently indicates that the NWT is available in all common languages.

If you believe that the publications article is superfluous, feel free to raise an AFD.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

History

The "Editions" section is out of date and the "2013 Revision" section should most likely be incorporated into the "History" section as it is really a continuation of the topic discussed there, unless there is a valid objection to such a move I may, over time, make this adjustments. However, I will certainly consider any honest objections prior to making such a change. Willietell (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, any valid improvements are welcome. It's not clear what you're suggesting for the History section. The 2013 Revision subsection is already within the History section. It follows the Translation Services Department subsection, and moving it above that would disrupt the chronological order.

Regarding the Editions section, the work-in-progress Study Edition could probably merit a single sentence; it is already present in the External links section. There is an amount of trivial detail of various defunct digital formats mentioned, all of which are based only on primary sources, and those could probably be trimmed back. Other than that, the section doesn't seem to be extraordinarily out of date; the last sentence of the section could probably have ", including an app" appended for completeness.

What specifically did you have in mind?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wording

Willietell, in regards to this edit, in which you changed "claimed" to "asserted that", and offered WP:CLAIM as a reason, I must note that WP:CLAIM does not suggest that "asserted that" has any advantage over "claimed." It actually states that, "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." So "asserted" and "claimed" are criticized for the same reason. I have now added a different wording entirely, avoiding the use of either "asserted" or "claimed." I hope it will be acceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I already tried to explain this to Willietell at his User Talk page. I also informed him that using "claim" is not an example of weasel words, but he made the same assertion in his more recent edit summary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My objection to WP:Claim is listed under the page for "Weasel Words", which is why I keep referring to that page, the term is pointed out to violate WP:NPOV and should be used in very limited instances, because its use generally is suggestive of dishonesty. Something a couple of editor also tosses around more frequently than is advisable. Willietell (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If you would prefer a different wording to those added by either Willietell or myself, by all means suggest one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I am good with your current edit FreeKnowledgeCreator, glad to see progress in the making. Sorry I didn't think of re-wording it myself. Willietell (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words is an entirely separate subsection, and refers to ambiguous or otherwise unattributed material. And as FreeKnowledgeCreator and I have already pointed out to you, the specific word claim is not a distinctively 'banned' word on Wikipedia. The word claim is not any worse than using any other synonym, and context determines whether such words are being used inappropriately.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation

<<Under the direction of the Translation Services Department, translation of the Old Testament in a particular language may be completed in as little as two years.>> It would be fascinating to find out how this is done. Other Bible translation agencies take many years longer to translate from Hebrew and Greek, so it would be great to what the Watchtower does different. ~~

Translations into additional languages are based on their existing English translation. The additional translations are not translations from the Hebrew or Greek text. The process is described in the Other languages subsection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)