I have found the NWT as being far more accurate than others, do the facts agree?

I agree and roughly 7 million do as well .

I like this scripture and not sure what other translations would put the word "exercise"

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him. He that exercises faith in him is not to be judged. He that does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. John 1:16-18

Why now not get your self a replica of the NWT. You'll in finding that at any place the place there could be a couple of feasible which means to a word, the translators have used brackets. So you see nobody is hiding something . What the translators do is put in brackets the certainly which means though the brackets inform us that this may be just a little specific. The NWT is a direct translation from the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. The place as many other translations had been altered through the years. This can also be extra evidently visible when you've got a replica of the historic king James Bible and then cross reference it to the brand new king James variant. Perhaps probably the most apparent risk is that the brand new king james has taken out Gods name where because the old king James nonetheless has Gods name in it. The NWT makes use of Gods name. Many of the different bibles took it out on account that no person is simply too certain on the pronunciation of it. In order to not offend God they removed it. Now not using Gods title depersonalises God and it could be the equal as calling all guys by means of man and all ladies by means of the title girl. Gods use of names in creation suggests us that it's foremost to have a name. Why then should we no longer use God's name. So in view of this i'd say that the NWT is essentially the most accurate.

I'll address only what I perceive to be problems. Everything that you have written that is correct I will pass without comment.

1) The same John who penned the Epistle called John, also penned the book of Revelation.

Although this agrees with "tradition", most scholars disagree. Most scholars believe that the John who wrote The Book of Revelation is not the same person as the other New Testament author(s) named "John".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Mo...

2) Please NOTE, that worship as used here MUST be an incorrect rendering.

Unsupported (and unsupportable) statement. "Worship" is a perfectly fine rendering *if* you understand the meaning of that word as it was used in 1611. If you don't, then you shouldn't be using the KJV.

3) Note please, that even as a glorified spirit Being, Jesus, the Word, refers to his God, JEHOVAH.

The statement is a non sequitur. These things cannot be found in any of the Bible passages that you quote:

- Jesus is "a glorified spirit being"

- Jesus is "the Word" (though that is stated in The Gospel of John chapter 1)

- "his God"

- "Jehovah"

Now, let's look at your initial question:

"I have found the NWT as being far more accurate than others, do the facts agree?"

You have provided no facts that allow us to form a logical conclusion regarding this matter.

Conclusion: frankly, the entire question seems as if you are jumping from one point to another, unrelated point to and then to another point unrelated to the first two, *and so on*. You use 3 different translations (2 of them well past their "best used by" date) without any obvious reason. (I mean: if we were comparing accuracy, you would have quoted the same passage for all 3.) You make claims without any obvious supporting evidence. Most of all: you don't give us any reason to believe that any of those translations is more or less accurate than the other.

You want to claim that the NWT is the most accurate English Bible translation?

1 - develop a method for comparing the accuracy of Bible translations

2 - make sure you can explain (defend) why that method is valid

3 - compare at least all of the most popular English translations, though realistically you should compare *all* English translations to be able to make that statement honestly

This should deter you from making that statement in future. Tell me: how many of these English Bible versions (almost all of them are available in print, only a very few are unavailable online) have you compared to the NWT?

http://bible-reviews.com/charts_basic.html

For some ideas at developing a method for comparing accuracy:

http://bible-reviews.com/topics_accuracy.html#Subj...

For a guide to Bible versions (including nearly every Bible version in print)

http://www.bibleselector.com/

- Jim

P.S. I didn't say anywhere in my answer that you did not do exhaustive research. However, it's pretty clear from the "evidence" that you have provided that you have not done so. For example: the first link you provide brings up an answer that is **indisputably** erroneous (which means: the answer contains errors). The second link that you provide is **a bookseller's web site**. If we read about the particular book at that second link, it simply does not support your claim of "exhaustive research" (unless you are the author, BeDuhn). If we read about the book at another web site

http://tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.html

we discover that only 9 English Bible versions were compared by BeDuhn, and that only a few select passages (selected at the sole, subjective discretion of the author) from the New Testament were compared.

Even though that book concludes that the NWT is the most accurate translation ***of the 9 and only 9 translations compared***, it does not justify the claim that the NWT is the most accurate Bible translation. Additionally: the author's own warning concerning the conclusiveness of his results (quoted at the above web site) are certainly worth remembering!

If you haven't yet compared the NWT to the oldest Greek manuscripts we have of the words that eventually got collected into the New Testament (and translated into Latin, before ever being translated into English), then it is pretty silly for you to say that one English translation is more accurate than other. At most, you might say that reading NWT causes you more pleasure than reading the other translations.

I suggest you take a few minutes to listen to this part of a debate on the New Testament, by one of the worlds foremost scholars on the subject. It might change your point of view on this subject.

Dare you let that happen?

Or you really just a seeker of comfort in your own preconceived notions?

--

Regards,

John Popelish

Verses have been changed in it to fit Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine (eg John 1:1 and John 8:58), so the 'translators' will be in trouble when they face God at the Judgment, especially since they would be aware of the warning at the end of Revelation about the consequences of doing that sort of thing.

Yes I do agree! I have studied with someone with her using her King James version and soon into it, she said: I admit defeat - yours is tons better lol

We do not just go by our own version (contrary to the mistaken belief). We use many translations because some are easier to understand than others. A bit like languages really.

As to your first answer who said that we have doctored our version to go along with our theories on Jehovah. Well if that was the case, then we have done a fantastic achievement because older versions of the bible, have the name Jehovah in and recently times, the pope ordered His Divine name to be removed. And guess what: the song: hallelujah means: praise Jah which is short for Jehovah. Also in England: there is a place called Plymouth and they have a huge monument with the name: JEHOVAH on it.

The only thing we have done is to put back His Divine name where it belongs!! It is other bibles who have distorted the truth and one can clearly see this when they read the bible!

Jason BeDuhn in his book "Truth and Translation" says it is and some Bible scholars agree.

When people criticize it, it is usually for two reasons: Firstly, others criticize it and they are repeating what they heard, not truly investigating it.

And also some claim we changed words to fit with our theology, for instance that we don't believe the Trinity. But actually, the translations that word things to fit with the Trinity are the ones doing that. They render things slightly inaccurately to make it look like their false doctrines are true. There is even an interpolation in the KJV to support the Trinity. It does not belong there.

Before JWs used the NWT, they were still able to refute doctrines like the Trinity using other Bibles and we compare many Bibles, even today.

Not sure what to say about that. Does it matter which translation is most accurate, when the Bible itself was cobbled together 300 years after the fact by imperial committee? Any true standard of accuracy should go back to what Jesus actually said, which is only a tiny slice of the Bible and largely lost over the years, and instead we've got Paul's spin on it, and other people's interpretations that never met Jesus because they lived decades or centuries after him. Truth is, if we all followed Christianity as Jesus actually intended, we'd all be Jewish.

Not sure why Jon H got so many thumbs down. What he said was quite accurate.

The NWT intentionally changes the rendering of the text to conform to Jehovah’s Witness theology.

The Watch Tower society is actually HIDING the identities of their translators because sources say none of them specialized in the Hebrew or Greek language

----- The New World Translation is a perversion, not a version, of the Bible.

Any accredited Christian website will never have the NWT because it's an insult to the Greek and Hebrew language.

the nwt was supposedly translated by an anonymous group of jw's. it was errantly translated to fit jw doctrine, and is the only translation in existance which was specifically translated for the express purpose of supporting already established doctrine.

all other bible translations were translated with no previously established agenda or doctrine affecting the translation, but by scholarship and knowledge of hebrew, greek and aramaic only. plus all other bible translations list the names of the translator (s) so that their credentials can be examined and accepted or rejected as being qualified to effeciently translate the word of God.

the nwt does not make it's translators known so no one can check to see if they are or were in fact qualified to do the job. very sneaky and shoddy behavior on the part of the jw's