"The New World Translation is an incredibly biased translation" Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes

"It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation" Bible Translations and how to choose between them by Alan S. Duthie

In the verse preceding his statement, Ron Rhodes says that the NWT rendering of Hebrews 1:8 is unacceptable. Mr. Rhodes likes the New International Version(NIV) and the New American Standard Version(NASB).

Hebrews 1:8 says in the NWT: "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness."

The NASB says: "But of the Son he says, THY THRONE O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM."
The NIV reads similarly.

So which one is right? The NASB's translation reads like the Son is God, the NWT's does not. This scripture is quoting Psalms 45:6,7. What Mr Rhodes fails to mention in this regard is that Psalms here is referring to a human king, probably King Solomon. Was King Solomon "God"? NO! That is why the Revised Standard Version translates Psalms 45:6,7 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever" which is different from the way it translated it for Hebrews 1:8. Who is biased now? Hebrews 1:8 equates Jesus(the Son) with King Solomon in Psalms. Both are subordinate to God, both are Kings. The Tanakh Holy Scriptures(the New Jewish Publication Society Translation translates Ps 45:7 as "Your -divine throne- is everlasting. and then it encourages the reader to read 1 Chronicles 29:23 which says: "Solomon successfully took over the throne of the LORD as king instead of his father." Solomon, like Jesus sits/sat on Jehovah's throne.
So a little investigation will go a long way to uncover the truth behind attacks on the NWT. Ron Rhodes states that the NWT gets a "thumbs down" from legitimate bible scholars...which is an insult to the list below.

So What About the NIV and the NASB?

First, let me say that the New International Version and the New American Standard Version are very good Bible Translations and I use them on a regular basis as I do the NWT. But as much as people like to criticize the NWT, there are problems with the NIV and the NASB.

The New International Version

God's name Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the original hebrew text about 7000 times, but the NIV fails to mention it even once. When asked about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:
"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you."
Profit is a low motive for changing this most important text. Even the King James had "Jehovah" 4 times at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4.
The NIV is not a literal translation, but something between literal and paraphrased. Is it biased? Yes it is. Check this out: At Luke 16:23, hades is translated "hell". At Matthew 5:22, gehenna is translated "hell". At 2Peter 2:4, tartarus is translated "hell". Earlier versions of the NIV also had son of destruction translated as "child of hell".
Where the NASB has "accursed" at Galatians 1:8,9, the NIV has "eternally condemned". It sounds like the NIV wants to make sure that the Bible teaches hell-fire, which would contradict scriptures like Romans 6:23 which states, "The wages of sin is death." See also Eccl 9:5,10; Psalms 146:4; Romans 6:7; 1John 4:8.  What do references say?  Historical evidence of the fiery  hell of Christendom is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161)
The NWT strives to keep pagan influences out of the Bible.

Is the NIV biased when it comes to the Trinity? Yes it is. Dr. Kenneth Barker, General Editor of the NIV when accused of being too strong on the Deity of Christ answered: "If they want to accuse me of being biased toward the Deity of Christ, I'm honored."
Feel free to check out how biased the NIV people are when they approved the
New International readers Version.

Jack Lewis, commenting on his own experience as part of the NIV translation committee interestingly admits, "Once the committee got at its task, one discovered that his preparation was far too scanty. If one had written a PhD dissertation on each verse that was to be considered, he might have been qualified to deal with all the questions that could be raised. The individual traits of each committee member quickly surfaced. One had a special talent for recalling where a particular form had occured before. Another could offer his training in Akkadian and Ugartic; another in Latin and Greek. The Old Testament specialists were sometimes not aware that a passage was also used in the New Testament." [Emphasis mine, "The New International Version" Restoration Quarterly 24 1st Quarter p.3]

The New American Standard Version

The NASB is a reworking of the excellent American Standard Version of 1901. It also claims to be a literal translation of the Bible. But is it? The ASV had Jehovah in it about 6,823 times, just like the original hebrew, but the NASB removed it every time. This makes for some awkward situations like Psalms 110:1, "The LORD said to my lord."
Gehenna and Tartarus are both translated "Hell"(Matt.5:22; 2Peter 2:4)
The Hebrew word ALMAH is "virgin" at Is.7:14, "maiden" at Gen.24:43, girl at Ex.2:8, "maidens" at Ps. 68:25 and "maid" at Prov. 30:19.
The NWT is one of the few Bible that translates this word faithfully.
MONOGENES is translated "only-begotten" when applied to Jesus(John 1:18;3:16) and Isaac (Heb.11:17), but elsewhere it is translated "only" at Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38.
The above examples show that the NASB is hardly as literal as it claims to be.

Does the NASB have a Trinity bias? Yes! "Full deity is
 attributed to Jesus Christ in the NASB."(The English Bible from KJV to NIV by Jack
 P. Lewis)
Lets take a look:
John 1:1 "and the Word was God." NIV and NASB
John 1:1 "the Word was Divine" Schonfield,Goodspeed,Moffatt etc
John 8:58 "before Abraham was born, I Am" NIV and NASB
John 8:58 "I existed before Abraham was born." Schonfield, New Living etc
Acts 20:28 "to shepherd the Church of God which he purchased with his own blood" NASB and NIV
Acts 20:28 "to feed the church of the Lord, which he obtained wuth his own blood" RSV, see also Schonfield
Colossians 2:9 "For in him all the fulness of the Deity dwells" NASB and NIV
Colossians 2:9 "for it is in him that the immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells" Schonfield, see also Good News Bible-TEV
Titus 2:13 "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" NASB and NIV
Titus 2:13 of the Great God, and of our Deliverer Jesus Christ" Schonfield, see also Geneva, KJV, NAB, Moffatt etc
Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son he says:Thy Throne O God is Forever and Ever." NASB and NIV
Hebrews 1:8 "God is thy throne" RSV margin, see also Moffatt, Kingdom etc
2Peter 1:1 "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" NASB and NIV
2Peter 1:1 "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" KJV, see also Schonfield, ASV, Concordant etc.

Are the NASB and the NIV inconsistent?
Take note: "And yet you have made him a little lower than God." (Psalms 8:5)NASB
"...a little lower than the angels." (Hebrews 2:9) NASB
Are the angels really "God"? The NIV has improved on this by rendering Psalms 8:5 "heavenly beings". The NWT renders it "god-like ones" which is consistent with other scriptures in the OT that refer to angels as "gods".(Ps.82; 97:7; 138:1)Compare New American Bible and the New English Bible.
"They will look on me, the one they have pierced." Zechariah 12:10 NIV
"they will look on me who they have pierced." NASB
"they will certainly look on the One whom they have pierced" NWT, see also Good News Bible -TEV
The NIV and the NASB have both translated the above scripture using "me" because it was Jehovah talking, hence making Jesus the God of the OT, as Jesus was pierced. Now let's look at how this is translated in the Christian Greek.
"They will look on the one they have pierced." John 19:37 NIV
"They shall look on HIM whom they pierced." NASB
"They will look to the One who they pierced." NWT, NRSV
Again, the NWT is more consistent in its rendering, as it does not fall prey to false theology. Few others, like the New Revised Standard Version(NRSV) and the TEV are not burdened by King James tradition in this instance.
Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he had offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? You behold that [his] faith worked along with his works and by [his] works [his] faith was perfected, and the scripture was fulfilled which says: "Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness," and he came to be called "Jehovah's friend."
 YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone. In the same manner was not also Ra'hab the harlot declared righteous by works, after she had received the messengers hospitably and sent them out by another way? Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. James 2:21-26 NWT
The NASB faithfully renders the greek word ERGON as works, but not the NIV. It translates it by these words in this order: "what he did", "actions", "what he did", "what he does", "what she did", "deeds".
It is quite obvious that the New International Version do not want to forward a Works/Salvation theology.
An interesting note is that in Romans 4:1-6, where Genesis 15:6 is again quoted(just like it is in James 2) the NIV has no problems using the word "works".

What about John 1:1 in the NWT?

Well, I will let Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University answer this one:
"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word."

Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."

Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.)

So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism.

No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes

Jason Beduhn

Northern Arizona University
Department of Humanities Arts and Religion

In 1976 "A Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament" was released by Fritz Rienecker, "Translated with additions and revisions, from the German SPRACHLICHER SCHLUESSEL ZUM GRIECHISCHEN NEUEN TESTAMENT edited by Cleon L. Rogers Jr."
ISBN 0-310-32050-X

What do they say of John 1:1? "The word is without the article and is the predicate emphasizing quality, 'the word had the same nature as God'."
Who published this? It was Zondervan Publishing House. The same people who bring you the New International Version. So let's put this canard to rest.

What about the NWT Old Testament?

Isreali Professor Benjamin Kedar: "Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in articles that deal with purely philological questions (such as the rendition of the causitive hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew as well as of an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target language. A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such its details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding the the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find its explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the Watchtower-Bible who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed scrutiny. This either was not done or else the verses submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13; 6:3; 10:9; 15:5; 18:20; etc.) did not prove the point, namely, a tendentious translation."
It should be pointed out that that Professor Kedar does not "feel sympathy for any sect and this includes Jehovah's Witnesses."

Other Favourable Comments on the NWT.

J.D. PHILLIPS:  (J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the
original tongues).    "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an
owner. You have done a marvelous work...I was happy, indeed, to see the name
Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I
pray God that your Version will be used to His glory.  What you have done for
the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!"

ALLEN WIKGREN:  (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version
committee, as well as on the committee which  produced the UBS Greek text).
"Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such
as...the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament(1950)." (The
Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)

BENJAMIN KEDAR:  (Benjamin Kedar is a
professor at Hebrew University in Israel). "In my linguistic research in connection with
the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what
is known as the New World Translation.  In so doing, I find my feeling
repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an
understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.  Giving evidence of a
broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a
second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific
structure of the Hebrew...Every statement of language allows for a certain
latitude in interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given
case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World
Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not
contain."

S. MACLEAN GILMORE:  "In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World
Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old
Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by a
committee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek." (The Andover Newton
Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26) C. HOUTMAN:    Mr. Houtman
notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the
Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." (Nederlands
Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page  279-280)

WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR:  (William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister
schooled in the original tongues).  "Just when the infidel universities of this
land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up...surges..
"Jehovah's Witnesses". ...And with considerable scholarship they get out their
own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two
or three hundred times...It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many times"
(The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)

C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280

CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best
manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen."   (The Faith Men Live By,
1954,  Page 239)

EDGAR J. GOODSPEED:  (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the
University of Chicago, and also translated the New  Testament portion of "The
Bible an American Translation"). "I am...much pleased with the free, frank and
vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
can testify." (Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8,
1950; See also Watchtower September 1, 1952 page 541, where Goodspeed is quoted
as stating that the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was
"an interesting and scholarly work" )

ROBERT M. MCCOY:  "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the
presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the
many problems of Biblical translation."   (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January
1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)

STEVEN T. BYINGTON:  (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as "The
Bible in Living English").  "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive
renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian Century,  "Review of the
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page
1296)

JASON BEDUHN:  (Jason Beduhn teaches at the University of Indiana). "I have just
recently completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of
Indiana University, Bloomington, ...This is primarily a course in the Gospels.
Your help came in the form of copies of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of
the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the
class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with
my students...Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I
am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in
use in modern biblical studies, and by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's
Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World
Bible Translation Committee' has done its job well.  Your interlinear English
rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to
come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the
Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high
quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness
to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations
in use today."

The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary calls it one of the "major translations of the Bible into English," along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and the New English Bible. p. 292

ALEXANDER THOMPSON:  "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and
clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the
Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing."  (The
Differentiator,  April 1952,  Page 52)

EDGAR FOSTER: (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)
"Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons,
commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it's
accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test
now for me...The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation
_par excellence_. But I feel just as confortable with an RSV or an
NASB. Mostly I prefer my UBS Greek text."

THOMAS N. WINTER:  (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of
Nebraska).  "I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery
of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several
interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary test.  After
learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn
koine from this source alone. ...the translation by the anonymous committee is
thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. ...In sum, when a witness comes
to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well
to place an order." (The Classical Journal, "The Kingdom Interlinear",
April-May 1974,  pages 375, 376) See Also:   "Bible Translation how to choose
between them" by Alan S. Duthie,(Alan S. Dunthie is a professor at the
University of Legon), Page103. Comments by Dr. Rijkel ten Kate

F.F. BRUCE: "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950),
followed by the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1953 and following years), is a publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., and some of its distinctive renderings reflect the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's
Witnesses (e.g., "the Word was a god" in John 1:1). Sometimes it renders the text with an un-English literalness (e.g., "Let continue yours what is yours" in Gen. 33:9); at other times we find such colloquial phraseology as "Excuse me, Jehovah" (Ex. 4:10) and "the Nile
river will fairly stink" (Ex. 7:18). Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good; thus "a jealous God" is "a God exacting exclusive devotion", and the Hebrew phrase which the AV variously renders as "on this side Jordan"
according to the context appears as "in the region of Jordan" (The English Bible 184).
      Edgar's Reply: Bruce's review is not a diatribe against the NWT and his remarks seem
to center mostly around the renditions of the NWT as opposed to criticisms of the theological positions of Jehovah's Witnesses. Conversely, it is evident from some of his remarks that Bruce has a problem with certain renderings of the NWT for theological reasons (e.g., John 1:1. But see Greg Stafford "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended"). That being said, Bruce calls attention to the literalness of the NWT, which has been effectively treated by Rolf Furuli in his book "The Role
of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation." Furuli shows the appropriateness of literalness in some contexts and translations. Nevertheless, Bruce also recognizes the skillful work expressed in the NWT. Overall, I think Bruce is as neutral as he can be in his comments on the NWT. Overall they present a somewhat favorable view of this influential work published by the WTBTS.
Edgar Foster
Classics Major
Lenoir-Rhyne College

For Metzger,Colwell, the NWT and John 1:1c click here

I have a question: How does the New World Translation justify the addition of the word "other" into the  Colossian hymn 1: 15-20? In the 1963 edition the word is in the
text without the brackets. The word "other" is not in the Greek.

Answer: Now let's look at the insertion of the word "other" in the New World Translation at Colossians chapter 1. We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is done.
Luke 21:29
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV)
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)

Luke 11:42
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT
"and all the other herbs." TEV
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version

In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".
The book Theology and Bias in Bible Translations by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about the word "other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a legitimate part of PAS."

Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version? Those are words that are not in the original text, yet there are thousands of them.

I have a question.  At Rev. 5:10, most version say "on earth" instead of "over the earth". I read the reference bible, but did not fully understand its comment.

The word for ON/OVER is EPI which can mean over as well(such as at Rev. 9:11; 11:6). And there are 4 other times where EPI(over) is used with BASILEUO(to rule) and most versions render it as "over"(see Luke 1:33; 19:14,27; Romans 5:14).
That is why other versions use "over the earth" at Rev 5:10 like the Simple English Bible, Williams NT, Beck's translation, Amplified Bible, Smith&Goodspeed and footnotes in Schonfield's and Weymouth's NT.

Hello Heinz:  I have a question:  Why did the NWT translate hi'na gi·no'sko·si se in John 17: 3 as "taking in  knowledge"?

W.E. Vines Expository Dictionary(which I highly recommend) states that GINOSKO(1097) means, "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand." Strong's also uses the word "in a great variety of applications with many implications", which, if you look this scripture up in the Amplified Bible will see that it renders it, "to know(to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with and understand.) It may be that the NWT translates this verse better than most other Bibles.
 The New World Translation carefully notes the difference between gno'sis ("knowledge") and e·pi'gno·sis (translated "accurate knowledge")-a difference ignored by many others. (Philippians 1:9; 3:8)

MasterAcc0 writes:
I am just quite curious as to why the NWT Left Out a few distinct parts in  the scriptures. I am aware that I John 5:7 is controvertial in many  respects, and many do not believe that it was part of the true texts, but  what about   John 5:4 of which the NKJV says "For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the  water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was  made well of whatever disease he had."

>>You don't have these scriptures because you don't have the New World Translation Reference Bible where you will find these (albeit in the foototes). This verse is not included in P66[Bodmer2 200 C.E.], P75[Bodmer14,15 200 C.E.], Codex Sinaiticus [4th Cent. C.E.], Vatican Ms 1209, [4th Cent. C.E.], Bazae Codices[5th, 6th Cent. C.E.], Jerome's Latin Vulgate[405 C.E.] and the Curetonian Syriac[5th Cent. C.E.]

Matthew 17:21  "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

>>This scripture is not included in the Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Curetonian Syriac and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex.

  Matthew 18:11  "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

>>Again this is ommited in Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex.

  Matthew 23:14  "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows'  houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the  greater damnation."

>>This verse is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Bazae Codices, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, Sinaitic Syriac Codex and the Armenian Version 4th to 15th Cent.

   Mark 7:16  "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican Ms 1209.

   Mark 9:44  "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."   Mark 9:46  "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

>>Both these verses are omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Ephreami rescriptus 5th cent. C.E. and the Freer Gospels 5th Cent. C.E.

  Mark 11:26

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Freer Gospels and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex.

  Mark 15:28

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus and the Bezae Codices.

  Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses)

>>These are omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Sinaitic Syriac Codex and the Armenian Version.

  Luke 17:36

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Freer Gospels and P75.

  Luke 23:17

>>This is omitted by Codex Alexandrinus, Vatican Ms 1209 and P75.

  Acts 8:37

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraimi, P74, P45, Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta 5th Cent. C.E.

  Acts 15:34

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus and P74.

  Acts 24:7

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Vulgate and P74.

  Acts 28:29

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209 and Codex Alexandrinus.

  Romans 16:24

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi and P46.

  I am quite concerned in finding that many verses are missing from the NWT. I  am in awe. Why??? I am sure that there is just cause, but it troubles me in  wondering. If you have any inside knowledge of what reason the translators  had to remove so much, please tell.  thanks to you neighbor,  Glenn

>>Again, these verses are not missing in Reference Edition, the first edition and the CD-ROM edition of the NWT. But they are missing in alot of manuscripts and other versions and translations such as the RSV, Smith& Goodspeed, RV etc. Most others have them in brackets or in the footnotes.
My KJV and NKJV study Bibles also have footnotes against these verses.
The 1611 edition of the KJV also has variant readings[i.e. Acts 7:20 etc]  and admissions of manuscript uncertainty in the margins[i.e. Luke 17:36, Luke 10:22], so it should not trouble you or anyone else. Consider yourself "put at ease".
-Heinz

"Ray Franz has since identified the New World Bible Translation Committee and now we know that the translators of the NWT have no more than a High School education."

>>You are putting word in Franz's mouth. What he actually says is that one member has studied Greek for two years, and is self taught in Hebrew. People are too quick to accept what an apostate like Ray says. Ray now has a profit motive and a name recognition to uphold, hardly the basis for honest criticism. Ray uses the NWT as his default translation (see Copyright page) in his 'coming out' book, so obviously it is okay by him, as his book also uses the NIV, RSV, NEB and the JB as secondary versions. Another apostate/critic, M. James Penton, writes about the NWT that "this has very little to do with the quality of the translation itself which deserves to be examined on the basis of its own merits...Criticism of the New World Translation itself seems largely directed at a few passages and certain consistently used word translations."
As we can see from the above praise of this Bible by scholarly poeple like Beduhn et al, any rejection of this good translation must amount to religious bigotry and hate.