What date was bible accuracy regarding Jason david beduhn answered on jeopardy?

Which Bible is closest to Hebrew Bible?

All translations of the Hebrew Bible involve some opinion and interpretation. Accuracy in translation is not easy to measure. In my opinion, the best English translation is the Koren Tanach, published in Jerusalem. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTARIES show the accuracies of the "NEW WORLD TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES" *** g 11/07 p. 14 How the Bible Came to Us *** Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation. In 1989 he said: "This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain." *** w04 12/1 p. 30 A "Remarkably Good" Translation *** A "Remarkably Good" Translation ACCORDING to one count, as many as 55 new English translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were published between 1952 and 1990. Translators' choices mean that no two read alike. In order to assess the reliability of the translators' work, Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S.A., examined and compared for accuracy eight major translations,*** including the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah's Witnesses. The result? While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a "remarkably good" translation, "better by far" and "consistently better" than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation "is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and "the most accurate of the translations compared."-Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. ***[Footnote] Besides the New World Translation, the others were The Amplified New Testament, The Living Bible, The New American Bible With Revised New Testament, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible-New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The Bible in Today's English Version, and King James Version.

How true is the New World Translation from Jehovah Witnesses?

It is an inaccurate translation and reflects their peculiar beliefs, not what the original words actually say. Obviously, you would get a different answer from a Jehovah's Witness.Answer from one of Jehovah's WitnesssThe New World Translation has indeed broken with tradition in many of its renditions of verses, but has done so respecting the original meanings of the Hebrew/Greek text. It is a semi-literal translation meaning it tries to stay as close as possible to the original language while staying understandable to the modern reader. How "true" it is is best addressed by qualified bible scholars, a number of whole reviews can be found below:** The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Refering to the NWT reference edition): "[Jehovah's Witnesses'] translation of the Bible [has] an impressive critical apparatus. The work is excellent [...]"**Jason BeDuhn, an associate professor of religious studies, Northern Arizona University : "..the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation." While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that it emerges as "the most accurate of the translations compared," calling it a "remarkably good" translation. Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2004.**New World Translation has been found to be "one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and is "the most accurate of the [8 major] translations compared."-Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona**Andover Newton Quarterly of January 1963 said: "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."**As Theologian C. Houtman explains regarding the unorthodoxy of the New World Translation: "Various traditional translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded, apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding."**REGARDING the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek "New Testament" in An American Translation, wrote in a letter dated December 8, 1950: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."**Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: "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."**Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson wrote: "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, pages 52-7.** "I have never discovered in the 'New World Translation' [of the Hebrew Scriptures] any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain" -- Professor Benjamin Kedar, Hebrew University of Jerusalem** In its review of Bible translations released from 1955 to 1985, The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary listed the New World Translation as one of the major modern translations.

Which translation of the Bible is the best?

No more deleting answers here, just add your own!________________________________________________________________________________________________A:Best translation of the BibleThe NIV (New International Version) is the best translation. The KJV (King James Version) though poetic, has too many translation mistakes.NKJV (New King James Version). NIV is lacking some parts of verses.A:The Bible version that your denomination is using. Actually, the above statement may be false. The best translation that I currently know of is the NASB, but I prefer to read a Greek BibleA:Just get as close to Hebrew as possible... The order of translations are as follows (to the extent of my knowledge): Hebrew-> Aramaic->Greek->Latin->EnglishA:Many languages have numerous Bible translations. Some translations use difficult, archaic language. Others are free, paraphrased translations that aim for easy reading rather than accuracy. Still others are literal, almost word-for-word translations. The English edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah's Witnesses, was prepared directly from the original languages by an anonymous committee. This version, in turn, has been the primary text used for translations into about 60 other languages. Translators for those languages did, however, make extensive comparisons with the original-language text. The New World Translation aims for a literal rendering of the original-language text whenever such a rendering would not hide its meaning. The translators seek to make the Bible as understandable to readers today as the original text was to readers in Bible times.Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations-including the New World Translation-for examples of inaccuracy and bias. One such scholar is Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States. In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world." His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, for that is where "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. What is his assessment?BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation." While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version "emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." He calls it a "remarkably good" translation.Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation. In 1989 he said: "This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."Ask yourself: 'What is my goal in reading the Bible? Do I want easy reading with less attention to accuracy? Or do I want to read thoughts that reflect the original inspired text as closely as possible?' (2 Peter 1:20, 21) Your objective should determine your choice of translation.*Besides the New World Translation, the others were The Amplified New Testament, The Living Bible, The New American Bible With Revised New Testament, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible-New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The Bible in Today's English Version, and King James Version.I you can read biblical Hebrew there is the Biblia Hebraica Stutt., and the Nestle Greek text.

Is the New World Translation an accurate Bible translation?

Although there are a few points of controversy regarding the NWT and the Revised NWT released in 2013, it is generally considered an accurate and reliable representation of the original texts. It is considered by many a "must have" for their library of bibles because of it's "easy to understand" application and the variety of languages it has been made available in. The most controversial part of the NWT is not that the divine name (JHVH translated Jehovah) has been restored in the Old Testament nearly 7000 times, but that it is placed in the New Testament as well. They have only placed it in the New Testament when there are quotes or references made from the Old Testament or when God is considered to be "talking". Some translators disagree with this approach because the transcripts of New Testament used for Bible translation did not have the divine name in them. This is because the time periods that these transcripts are dated at are after it became "taboo" to pronounce the divine name. This is generally not considered "bias" by bible translators, because if you translate the Old Testament with the Divine name, than any references that the New Testament has to the Old Testament should logically match the reference.

How are the KJV and the Bible used by the Jehovah's Witnesses different?

The two main differences you will find are: 1) The KJV is an old English Bible, which uses the King's English of 1611, and the NWT is a modern English translation. An example of this is 1 Corinthians 10:25 where it says in the KJV "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:" This may be difficult for some to understand since the word "shambles" meant something different than it does today. The NWT words this scripture in a way that we can understand what is meant when it says: " Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience." So, the word "shambles" means a "meat market." Few people today would know that. Also, in the King's English, the word "let" means to hold back or restrain, exactly the opposite of what it means today. 2) The second main difference is the frequent use of the divine name of God, Jehovah. It is found in the KJV 8 times: Four times in it's complete form at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 26:4. Once in it's abreviated form "Jah" at Psalms 68:4, and three times as part of a name of an object or pplace in connection with an act that He performed on behalf of His people at Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:5; and Judges 6:24. However, in the oldest manuscripts that are available today, the name Jehovah is found over 7000 times, more than any other word in the Bible. The reasons that the KJV translators left out the name and substituded the titles "Lord" and "God" are somewhat unclear, but some have theorized that it was due to an ancient Jewish superstition that the divine name was too sacred to be written or spoken. An example of this difference is found at Psalm 110:1, where the KJV says: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Some may be confused by this passage due to the omission of the name Jehovah which appears there in the ancient text. Therefore, the NWT renders this passage: "The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: "Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet." It becomes clearer David is seeing in this prophetic vision that Jehovah is speaking to His son, Jesus.

Why did Jehovah's Witnesses adapt the New World Translation to fit their doctrine rather than adapt their doctrine to fit existing bibles?

Response from Jehovah's Witnesses.1st) Jehovah's Witnesses in fact did NOT adapt the NWT to fit their doctrine. Instead they fit their doctrines around what the Bible actually states.This is confirmed by the quotes from various non-JW scholars below. (Please read them very carefully.)2nd) Translators should never adapt their translation to 'fit existing Bibles'. Instead they need to use what the ancient manuscripts actually say. Many existing Bibles are not true 'translations', they are simply 'versions' (ie the King James VERSION). A 'version' is a 'biased' product. The word 'version' says it all.Other 'existing' Bibles are very loosely 'paraphrased'. A 'paraphrased' Bible is NOT a 'translation' either.The New World Translation - - is a 'translation' - - - minus the 'bias'.Some reviews of the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses** The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Referring to the NWT reference edition): "[Jehovah's Witnesses'] translation of the Bible [has] an impressive critical apparatus. The work is excellent [...]"**Jason BeDuhn, an associate professor of religious studies, Northern Arizona University : "..the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation." While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that it emerges as "the most accurate of the translations compared," calling it a "remarkably good" translation. Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2004.**New World Translation has been found to be "one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and is "the most accurate of the [8 major] translations compared."-Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona**Andover Newton Quarterly of January 1963 said: "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."**As Theologian C. Houtman explains regarding the unorthodoxy of the New World Translation: "Various traditional translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded, apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding."**REGARDING the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek "New Testament" in An American Translation, wrote in a letter dated December 8, 1950: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."**Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: "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."**Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson wrote: "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, pages 52-7.** "I have never discovered in the 'New World Translation' [of the Hebrew Scriptures] any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain" -- Professor Benjamin Kedar, Hebrew University of Jerusalem** In its review of Bible translations released from 1955 to 1985, The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary listed the New World Translation as one of the major modern translations.A non-Witness perspective:Put simply, the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witness is not new, but is a reuse of the Arian doctrine of the early church which was totally discredited both by the early church fathers and by those who traced their line of teaching (eg Irenaeus ---> Polycarp ---> John the Apostle ---> Jesus) as a shameful and evil heresy and contrary to what Jesus taught and just who he is.Arianism denied the divinity of Christ, relegating him to a 'demigod' (whatever that means), rather than what scriptures, the teaching of the early church, and the tradition passed down from the Apostles states that Jesus is divine and God incarnate.Charles Taze Russell, the JW founder, being a charismatic leader, but also a believer in Arian theology, impressed his ideas on those around him who had little scriptural foundation, and hence could not really argue, and, like in most cults, the promise of the 'faithful' being the only ones saved, seemed very attractive. Sadly, for JWs, advances in textual criticism and discoveries of earlier and better scriptural manuscripts, meant that their skewed ideas of Christ were becoming transparently further from accepted scripture. Therefore, the commission of the New World Translation of the Bible, where areas of scripture were deliberately mistranslated, added or omitted, meant that this new 'scripture' fitted the doctrine of the JW organization. Until recently JWs were allowed only the New World Translation, and even today they are constantly, but incorrectly told that it is the 'best' translation out there, despite the vast majority of eminent Bible scholars not just disagreeing but violently disagreeing.Another perspective:The Watchtower magazine of Jehovah's Witnesses is a bible based magazine whose policy is to include numerous scriptural references to support their various doctrinal conclusions. Although the majority of their scriptural references quote the New World Translation (NWT) the Jehovah's Witnesses literature also makes reference to other non-witness translations of the Bible to support their position.The Jehovah's Witnesses claim a "progressive" approach to scriptural interpretation and adjusts (revises) their teachings with increased understanding as it becomes available.Another Perspective:Lots of Christian faiths take ideas here and there from the first few centuries of Christianity. You know, when Jesus and the apostles, and those they taught, and those they taught were around. Kind of a given, when you think about it.Jesus was not demoted to a "demigod". Rather, he is known to be a god, and the first born son of the Almighty God. Not that radical a doctrine, "Christianity" wise.Charles Taze Russell founded their Christian branch. It stemmed from Adventism. It was not the case that his teachings were false, thus needing a new Bible. And don't take my word for it, go look at that Bible. Get a NWT, a King James, and any New Revised kind you like. Compare all three. See if they differ. Decide for yourself.

Is the Jehovah Witness Bible authentic or were the books written to suit the beginning of a new group?

One Perspective:The vast majority of Christians worldwide, of all denominations, the vast majority of bible scholars, theologians, divinity scholars, university and bible college staff and the vast majority of clergy AND laity of all Christian denominations regard the NWT as a very poor and inaccurate translation where they believe major passages confirming, e.g. Trinitarian doctrine among many others, have been deliberately and blatantly mistranslated to give credence to what they see as the skewed beliefs of the Jehovah's Witness organization.It seems that the only support that the JW movement can amass for their translation is a book written by Jason BeDuhn who has only a basic understanding of New Testament Greek. Neither is he recognized in the scholarly community (Christian or otherwise) as anything resembling event approaching an expert in Biblical Greek, and much less so in Hebrew. In fact, it was written recently, by a respected theologian, regarding the translators of the NWT:"It has been argued that the NWT translators were insufficiently qualified to translate the Bible, with only Franz [one of the JW translators] having any formal education in Biblical languages. It has also been argued that the size of the translation committee was very small compared to the number of translators involved in producing most other English translations. These criticisms are disputed by Witnesses, who state that the translation should be examined on its own merits, not on the speculated credentials of its translators."In other words, if you need a heart transplant, go down to Macdonalds and ask some of the lads there to do one for you. I'm sure they'd manage, but I'm also sure that it wouldn't work!The problem with the JW movement is that their founder, Charles Taize Russell had only a very basic education and had no education in the scriptures whatsoever, nor was he ever called to ministry. Yet this did not prevent him from declaring himself a 'pastor' and a 'Bible scholar' until found out in court where he could not even recite the Greek alphabet. Russell began the Watchtower society by selling thousands of tracts (making a great deal of money) supporting his own skewed version of the Bible. Russell reintroduced an Arian theology - discredited in the early church and declared heretical as those who spoke out against it were either eyewitnesses to events themselves or were disciples of those who actually heard Jesus himself teach, and knew Arianism to be wrong. Yet Russell, not having the grounding in scripture necessary to prevent his error, still pursued this discredited cultist theology.The New World Translation was commissioned by the Watchtower society to provide an 'accurate' translation. However, to almost all Christians worldwide, they see the NWT as a very poor translation that continues to lead gullible people astray from the true message of God's love for humanity into a cult-like organization that regards scripture as its 'god', and which replaces love and forgiveness with a disregard for the sanctity of life (by refusing blood transfusions even to dying children) and the message of revenge and hatred (through the custom of disfellowhipping).There are too many incidences of mistranslation within the NWT to go into here, but there are just a few examples that show how even slight changes to words and phases can change the complete meaning of passages and render a whole new erroneous theology based on this translation. For example, The New World Translation renders the Greek term word "staurós" ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross, despite all the historical and archeological evidence, plus the evidence of the Church fathers who can trace their teaching back to the disciples themselves. The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words "sheol," "hades," "gehenna," and "tartarus," as "hell" simply because Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in hell, again, despite Jesus' own teaching on this. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of "coming" for the Greek word "parousia" because JW's believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900's - again, in error, as contemporary Greek documents of that time always translate "parousia" as 'coming'. In Colossians 1:16 the NWT inserts the word "other" into the text on several occasions despite it being completely absent from the original Greek text. this may be a small change but it renders the passages with a totally different slant. It does this to give the view that "all other things" were created by Christ, instead of what the text actually says in the original Greek, "all things were created by Christ." This is to go along with their erroneous belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.However, the most well known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1. The original Greek text reads, "the Word was God." The NWT renders it has "the word was a god." This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (ie, the English - "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in the English translation must be added in by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable in English, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text. But here it does. More than that, JWs will not state categorically what they mean by 'a god' simply because their own theology on the matter is very confused simply because they cannot square the divinity of Christ with the skewed and warped translation of the NWT. There are many, many other examples where passages are rewritten in the NWT or words added or removed with the express intent of being able then to use 'scripture' to back up the JW Arian theology. JWs have to accept what is taught them by the elders of the movement on pain of disfellowshipping, and this independent theological thought is banned. This is a great shame as if JWs were allowed by the movement to study scripture in its original form would then realize just how erroneous and skewed the NWT actually is.Thus most Christians believe that the JW movement introduced the New World Translation of the Bible, not to help discern scripture and its true meaning, as do most modern translations, but to subtly (and not so subtly!) change scripture so that it now backed up their own Arian theology, and, as such, they see it as a travesty of what scripture, in its original Hebrew or Greek, was intended to convey.A Different Perspective:Jehovah's Witnesses have produced a translation not a rewriting or "reworking" of the biblical text. It is a semi-literal translation based primarily on Westcott and Hort and Nestle's Greek texts and not a paraphrase bible.While the NWT does break with tradition in its rendition of certain verses (something that has proved controversial) it has not done so by compromising contextual honesty. As for how "authentic" it is, reference to scholarly reviews (see below) of the New World Translation can give an insight on its value and place as a respectable translation.Jason BeDuhn, an associate professor of religious studies, Northern Arizona University, stated in 2004 in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament:"..the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: "Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation." While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that it emerges as "the most accurate of the translations compared," calling it a "remarkably good" translation.New World Translation has been found to be "one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and is "the most accurate of the [8 major] translations compared." (BeDuhn, Truth in Translation).Andover Newton Quarterly of January 1963 said: "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."As Theologian C. Houtman explains regarding the unorthodoxy of the New World Translation: "Various traditional translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded, apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding."Regarding the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter dated December 8, 1950: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: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.Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson wrote: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, pages 52-7.I have never discovered in the 'New World Translation' [of the Hebrew Scriptures] any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not containAnother Perspective:I think that if you got a copy of the New World Translation, the King James Version, the Apocryphal Bible and the New Revised Edition, that there are few of us who could see the theological differences - assuming there's even any - in a blind "taste test" so to speak.Let me give it away - in all the various "versions" and "translations" of the Bible by Christian faiths, they all say God created the Heavens and Earth, Adam and Eve sinned thereby sentencing us all to death, Jesus Christ the Son of God came down and sacrificed himself that any who believe upon him might live.And they all have Samson, David and Goliath, and Moses in them. Which is about now the extent of what 99% of Christians care about, and now 100% of what they need for salvation!Truth is, the various translations are pretty near identical, and the difference only concerns those who forget that all Jesus ever said was "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself". Some of you are saying "Amen!" to that.All these Bibles are fine. If you find one that says, "Hate Jesus", come correct me.And how about the most obviously overlooked thing? Charles Taze Russell died long before the New World Translation took place. He could not have had any plans for fooling people. And he knew everyone could read, and obviously expected his ideas to be upheld by the Bibles of his time - and apparently, to tens of thousands of people, they were!Where then the need for a deliberately faked book, when the King James Bible was doing great for them?

Which Bible is best translated?

Book: "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Author: Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington. The Nine English Translations Compared in BeDuhn's book are : - The King James Version (KJV) - The Amplified Bible (AB) - The Living Bible (LB) - The New American Bible (NAB) - The New American Standard Bible (NASB) - The New International Version (NIV) - The New World Translation (NW) - The (New) Revised Standard Version (NRSV) - Today's English Version (TEV) Excerpts from his book : Chapter Four : Examples of translation of the Greek word "proskuneo", used 58 times in the New Testament. The word is translated various ways as worship, do obeisance, fall down on one's knees, bow before. Scriptures discussed include Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9; Mark 15:18,19; Matt 2:1, 2, 8,11; Matt 14:33; Matt 28:9, ".. in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NW... translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God." Regarding Matt. 28:16, 17, where all versions except the NW use "worship" where the NW uses "did obeisance": "Here all translations except the NW have recourse to "worship" -- a rendering which makes no sense in this context... This contradiction seems to be missed by all the translators except those who prepared the NW." Chapter Five : A discussion of Philippians 2:5-11: "The NW translators... have understood "harpagmos" accurately as grasping at something one does not have, that is, a "seizure." The literary context supports the NW translation (and refutes the KJV's "thought it not robbery to be equal)..." Chapter Seven : A discussion on Col. 1: 15-20: "It is a tricky passage where every translation must add words." "The LB translator is guilty of all the doctrinal importation discussed above with reference to the NIV, NRSV, and TEV, and even surpasses them in this respect. So it is the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB -- the four Bibles that make no attempt to mark added words - that actually add the most significant tendentious material. Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these four translations is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the NW is attacked for adding the innocuous "other" in a way that clearly indicates its character as an addition of the translators... But the NW is correct. "Other" is implied in "all", and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit... It is ironic that the translation of Col. 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the "added words" are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek." Chapter Eight : A discussion on Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1, 2: ".. the position of those who insist "God" and "Savior" must refer to the same being... is decidedly weakened." Chapter Nine : A discussion of Hebrews 8:1: "so we must conclude that the more probable translation is "God is your throne..., " the translation found in the NW... It seems likely that it is only because most translations were made by people who already believe that Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred." Chapter Ten : A discussion on John 8:58: "Both the LB and the NW offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom. The other translations fail to do this." "There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here, contrary to what the TEV tries to suggest by putting quotations marks around "I am."" "The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of "I am", and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate." "All the translations except the LB and NW also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English. These changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators." "No one listening to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression "I am," which, if you think about, is just about the most common pronoun-verb combination in any language." "The NW... understands the relation between the two verbs correctly... The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to be found in the... NW." Chapter Eleven : A discussion of John 1:1: "Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god." "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs. ... Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek" "Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John." "John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his Gospel." "All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun." Chapter Twelve : A discussion of holy spirit: "In Chapter Twelve, no translation emerged with a perfectly consistent and accurate handling of the many uses and nuances of "spirit" and "holy spirit." The NW scored highest in using correct impersonal forms of the relative and demonstrative pronouns consistently with the neuter noun "holy spirit," and in adhering to the indefinite expression "holy spirit" in those few instances when it was used by the Biblical authors." Summary : "... it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared...the translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produced by single individuals." "Jehovah's Witnesses... really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch... building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this practice can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in may of the Protestant translations." "...Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament." Commenting on bias in translation : "To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their "truth" enough. To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly that say conforms to expectations or accepted forms of modern Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, faith" == The one your denomination is using. All Bible translations have their merits and their shortcomings in the sense that they fall short due to the limitations of human language (not the errors which many would fallaciously wish to believe abound) and Hebrew and Greek do not always readily transfer over into English or other languages. The only exception to the above is specifically the New World Translation of the Jehovahs Witnesses, which, regardless of learned men prepared to vouch for it, is not at all accurate but is full of their own bias, contrary to what is stated above. John 1 verse 1 being just one of a multitude of examples. Behind the translation issue, is that of the original manuscripts, the KJV being based upon the Majority text which means that, even today with many more manuscripts having been discovered than in 1611, it follows the most accurate ancient version. The NIV is very popular today due to its more understandable language. So, to summarize, the NIV for understandability, with the KJV to check it for accuracy, Or, if you don't mind the language just stick to the KJV.

What Bible version is closest to the original Bible manuscripts?

The New World Translation, published by Jehovah's Witnesses is considered the most accurate translation from original texts. One notable difference between it and other Bibles is that it uses God's name, Jehovah. It does this in the over 6000 places that it was wrongfully removed. Also this Bible has been translated to not only be the most accurate, but also to make it readable using modern day language. It has been translated, in whole or in part, to nearly 100 languages. Many Bible scholars outside of the Jehovah's Witness organization have spoken highly of this translation. Examples include, Edgar Goodspeed, Dr. Jason BeDuhn, Dr. Rijkel ten Kate, Dr. B. Kedar. Also the popular game show, Jeopardy, made the claim that this translation was most accurate. While this Bible is not a word for word translation, this would be very cumbersome as grammar from one language to another differs, it does make every effort to translate not only the words but the points being made throughout the texts. Both Hebrew and Greek are very specific languages translating into modern languages that may have one word with many meanings or only one word where their words were many to convey different shades of meaning. The New World Translation makes every effort to consider those shades of meaning and then word their texts so as to give an accurate portrayal of what the writer was trying to say. This allows for easier reading as well as the opportunity to better understand this most valuable book. No try NKJV

Who wrote the Jehovah's Witness bible?

Answer 1:Jehovah's Witnesses have translated the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. There are a few things that are debated in the New World Translation by other Bible translators like rendering the divine name, Jehovah, or the wording of certain scriptures like John 1:1. However, most educated scholars believe it to be an overall accurate rendering of the original texts. There are many things that are judgment calls when it comes to translating from ancient Hebrew and Greek into modern English, so naturally not everyone will agree with the renderings.Another No, the bible was written by some 40 men living in the orient, the last of whom died over two thousand years ago. The bible contains 66 separate books and that canon (or which books are accepted as sacred) was fixed many thousands of years ago.Like many religious and academic organisations, Jehovah's Witnesses have translated the 66 books making up the bible, from it's original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) into various languages including English.Answer also:"Why Have We Produced the New World Translation?For decades, Jehovah's Witnesses used, printed, and distributed various versions of the Bible. But then we saw the need to produce a new translation that would better help people to learn the "accurate knowledge of truth," which is God's will for everyone. (1 Timothy 2:3, 4) Thus, in 1950 we began to release portions of our modern-language Bible, the New World Translation. This Bible has been faithfully and accurately translated into over 100 languages.A Bible was needed that was easy to understand. Languages change over time, and many translations contain obscure or obsolete expressions that are difficult to understand. Also, ancient manuscripts that are more accurate and closer to the originals have been discovered, resulting in a better comprehension of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.A translation was needed that was loyal to God's word. Rather than taking liberties with God's inspired writings, Bible translators should be faithful to the original text. However, in most versions, the divine name, Jehovah, is not used in the Holy Scriptures.A Bible was needed that gives credit to its Author. (2 Samuel 23:2) In the New World Translation, Jehovah's name has been restored where it appears some 7,000 times in the oldest Bible manuscripts as illustrated in the example below. (Psalm 83:18) The result of years of diligent research, this Bible is a pleasure to read, as it clearly conveys God's thinking. Whether you have the New World Translation in your language or not, we encourage you to get into a good routine of reading Jehovah's Word every day.-Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:2, 3.A reliable translation must:• Sanctify God's name by restoring it to its rightful place in the Scriptures.-Matthew 6:9.• Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God.-2 Timothy 3:16.• Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text.• Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering would distort or obscure the meaning.(Exerpt taken from the brochure "Who are Doing Jehovah's Will Today on Jehovah's Witnesses official website)

What is the most accurate Bible translation?

A tetragrammaton - four letters that translate as YHWH - is used to represent God's name and appears nearly 7000 times in the original Hebrew scriptures (otherwise known as the Old Testament). All modern translations omit God's name, replacing His name with Lord, Most High or The Eternal, except for Jehovah's Witnesses Translation.Compare various translations of the Bible for yourself. See Psalms 83:18.The only persons who consider the New World Translation to be accurate are the Jehovah's Witnesses. No scholar of Greek considers it so because it is not at all accurate but is in fact full of renderings which fit Jehovah's Witness theology but not the Greek. Some words and phrases are even rendered differently in different places so they fit the theology rather than accuracy.The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. is the most accurate translation of the Bible. Rendered from the original languages this Bible does not omit God's name, which in English is pronounced Jehovah.The accuracy of Bible translation is that the facts are not rendered to mean other things or symbols, for example the Torture Stake, (Most bibles render this as the Cross).The New World Translation was not written solely for Jehovah's Witnesses. That Translation is taken from the original KoineGreek that was used in the time of Jesus Christ and his Disciples. That Translation translates from the Koine Greek---word for word. An interesting fact is that if you read other Translations such as The Emphatic Diaglott, you will see the name "Jehovah" 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures, in at least 38 other languages, also use a vernacular form of the divine name. Another interesting fact is that hundreds of thousands, from many various religions, became Jehovah's Witnesses, using either the King James Version, or the Catholic Douey version. One of the best books you could buy, to discern the accuracy of the New World Translation, is a book called "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" The Author of this book is Jason David BeDuhn. He is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. In his book, he compares the New World Translation with others including The King James, the Living Bible, The Amplified Bible, The New American Bible, The New American Standard Bible, The New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, and Today's English Version. In reading the book, the Author made it perfectly clear that The New World Translation was the Most Accurate of all the Translations.Regarding other translations, the way you will answer the question ultimately depends upon the Greek text used as the basis. For comparisons sake the old faithful KJV (King James Version) can be compared with the NIV (New International Version). The latter is based on the Nestle-Aland Greek text and accurately reflects that in modern language. The KJV uses what is called the Majority or Received Text and renders that in what some regard as outdated English, but it is, if gotten used to in my opinion superior. The question regarding which is the correct Greek text to base a translation on is difficult and complicated but nevertheless important. Many important differences arise from the different text used as the NIV basis. For this reason alone the KJV is best, despite somewhat dated English, as it better reflects the original revelation and does not omit some very important truths, either omitted or altered by the Nestle-Aland Greek text underlying the NIV, and most others which follow this textual type.I agree that the New World Translation is only considered to be accurate by Jehovah's Witnesses. The translation was produced by a number of JW translators who had a very elementary understanding of koine Greek and who approached their work of translation with JW presuppositions. Thus, the Greek New Testament was translated through JW lens, and was not allowed to speak for itself. However, I would disagree that the KJV is the most accurate English translation. The KJV translators used the Greek New Testament known as the Textus Receptus (the Received Text) which was produced originally by Erasmus in 1516. Unfortunately, because he was under pressure from his publisher John Froben to produce a Greek New Testament, Erasmus used only 6 Byzantine-type Greek manuscripts to develop his New Testament. None of these manuscripts had the last 6 verses of Revelation, so Erasmus had to back-translate these verses from the Latin Vulgate, resulting in the fact that discrepancies that had crept into the Vulgate were now included in the Textus Receptus.Most notably, the Vulgate used the phrase "the book of life" when the majority of Greek manuscripts have "the tree of life" in Revelation 22:19. Erasmus also added the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7b-8a) to a later edition of his Greek New Testament from the Vulgate, even though none of the 6 Greek manuscripts that he used included this later Latin addition. It is also very interesting to note that the Textus Receptus (and hence the KJV) differs with the Majority Text in 1,838 places. The Majority Text is the Greek New Testament derived from agreement amongst the majority of Greek manuscripts, which means that the KJV differs with most of the Greek manuscripts of the NT at all of these places in the text. This is because the KJV is based on a Greek New Testament that was derived from only a small number (6) of late Greek manuscripts which Erasmus had available when he was compiling his Greek New Testament. The reality is that there is no perfect English translation of the Bible. There are a number of translations that aim to be accurate and which are classed as "essentially literal" translations, including the KJV, RSV, NKJV, NRSV, NASB and ESV. For serious Bible study, these translations allow the reader to come the closest to the original language of the NT writers. However, it is important to recognize that perfection can only be found in God Himself, and it is only the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete of John 16:13-15, who can reveal the Word of God to us personally. This is the promise of the New Covenant that is described in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.I agree that the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by Jehovah's Witnesses is the most accurate translation of the Holy Bible. As a basis for translating the Old Testament, (the Hebrew Scriptures,) the text of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955 was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the New testament, (the Christian Greek Scriptures,) the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages. When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation committee requested that its members remain anonymous. That request has been honored. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves. Their only goal was to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures. Note that, over the years, other translation committees have taken a similar. (ie: the jacket of the Reference Edition, 1971, of the New American Standard Bible states: "We have not used any scholar"s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits." Because the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the translation must be appraised on its own merits. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based. In the New Testament, (the Greek Scriptures,) the divine name of God appears. The New World Translation is not the only Bible that does this. The divine name appears in translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew, in passages where quotations are made directly from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott (1864) contains the name Jehovah 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures in at least 38 other languages also use a vernacular form of the divine name.There are hundreds of English translations of the Bible. There are no known translations of the Old Testament that approach 100 percent accuracy. However, one can compare the Masoretic Hebrew text to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint and generally have an approximation of what was in the original autographs. There are no known autographs of the Old or New Testament available in today's world. However, the Concordant New Testament has an accuracy that approaches the status of being practically flawless. A close second is the Aland 27, having the Greek on one page and English on the other. A distant third is the excellent NASB, the New American Standard Bible.So, is the NWT the most accurate "translation" of the Bible? In a word, no. Why? Very simple. It is not true to the words in the original text. You see, I'd have much less discomfort with Witnesses and their bible if they simply translated the text true to the words and then took their own meaning from it. This however, is not what they do, they translate a meaning into the text when that is not the role of translation. Here's an example: John 8:58. Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am." Look at the "I am" part. That's the key. You see, that is a direct allusion to Exodus 3:14 where Moses asks God what his name is and he says "I am." The NWT changes both of these, John to "I have been" and Exodus to "I shall prove to be." The problem is that the very same I am that Jesus uses in this case is the very same I am that he uses when he says I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life, and I am the good Shepherd among others, even in the same chapter. You see, the pharisees and such knew that Jesus was claiming to be God when he said that, that's why they tried to kill him. And that single verse represents everything that I dislike about the NWT. It's not simple prejudice or some misguided religious fanaticism, the NWT is simply not true to the words of the text, forget what the text means, it's not true to the words of the text. There are 237 examples specifically. The divine name never appears in any manuscript of the New Testament, but it appears in the NWT 237 times. It's not in the originals, therefore it should not be there. It's as simple as that. So what is a good version of the Bible to read? Just about any one that suits you except the NWT. I myself prefer the English Standard Version, because it tries to follow the subtle nuances of the original text even following some grammatical errors. There are a few places where I disagree with the translation because of the use of specific words or phrases which I think are significant, but even in those places, it still has the notes at the bottom that says what the word for word translation or alternate translations are. Otherwise, if you'd like to get a good idea of the original text, or just a good read, get a parallel edition that has two to four versions side by side. But honestly, any version that does not confuse the reader with ancient language (KJV) or obscure the truth (NWT) is a good version. It used to be that people complained about the KJV because you couldn't understand it, but that is no longer an excuse.The New World Translation is very accurate and it explains why very well.The truth about "I Am" is explained as follows; Exodus 3:14 "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." Heb.,('Ehyeh' 'Asher' 'Ehyeh'), God's own self-designation; Leeser, "I will be that I will be"; Rotherham, "I Will become whatsoeveer I please." Gr., Ego' eimihoon, "I am The Being" or, "I am the Existing One"; Lat., ego sum qui su, "I am Who I am." 'ehyeh' comes from the Heb. verb hayah' "become; prove to be." Here 'ehyey' is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning "I shall become"; or, "I shall prove to be." The referene here is not the God's self-existene but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Compare Ge 2:4 ftn, "Jehovah," where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb hawah' appears in the divine name.The explanation of John 8:58 is as follows by NWT: Jesus - In existence Before Abraham "before Abraham come into existence, I have been" (prin Abraam' gene'sthai ego' eimi') The action expressed in john 8:58 started "before Abraham came into existence" and is still in progress. In such situation (eimi'), which is the first-person singular present indicatie, is properly translated by the perfect idicative. Examples of the same syntax are found in Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; act 15:21; 2 Co 12:19; 1 john 3:8. Concerning this construction, A grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G.B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: "Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz, when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration; as, [prin abraam' gene'sthai ego' eimi]." Likewise, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J.H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being tat the action is conceived as still in progress... It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Luke 2:48; 13:7...15:29...John 5:6; 8:58." Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that (ego' eimi') is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression 'ani'hu', "I am he," whih is used by God. However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man. - 1Ch 21:17 ftn. Further attempting to identif Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Ex 3:14 (LXX) which reads; (Ego' eimi ho on), which means "I am The Being," or, "I am The Existing One." This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression is Ex 3:14 is different from the expression in Joh 8:58. (See Ex 3:14 ftn above) Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures it is not possible to make an idenfification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.You can find truth in all Bibles.As a street preacher I dislike to use any of the modern Bible translations for the simple reason that they take away from the deity of Jesus Christ, ie Romans 3:23 in KJV says "God was manifest in the flesh," in the NIV NAS RSV, every single one take the word God out and substitute "He" instead. Overall if you can get past the antique vernacular KJV is better. But even NKJV is better than NIV NAS or RSV. At least NKJV acknowledges that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh. Also.. Side note.. If you don't believe that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh then you aren't a Christian anyway..[Romans 3:23 actually says; "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"] 1 Timothy 3:16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: 'He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in [the] world, was received up in glory.'Street Preacher is saying that Jesus is God in the about statement, and of course he has his right to his opinion. Let me share with you some bible facts that will guide you to a better understanding.John 14:28 I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.Mark 10:18 Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God2 Corinthians 1:1-3 & 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus ChristJohn 20:17 I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and YOUR GodMark 13:32 & Mat 24:36 is talking about the end, Armageddon, and as Mark & Matthew stated, Nobody knows when it is coming but God the Father, the angels do not know and the Son Jesus does not know, so if God and Jesus was the same as in a trinity, they both would know wouldn't they.Mark 13:32 & Matt 24:36 the hour nobody knowsthe angels nor the Son, but the FatherGod taught Jesus everything before he came to earth as a man.John 5:19-30 & 8:28-30 Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, Father taughtMatthew 10:32-33 I will confess union with my Father who is in the heavensHebrews 5:5-10 Christ did not glorify himself, godly fear, he learned obedienceJohn 17:1-26 Father, glorify me alongside yourself, that I had before the world wasJesus was Gods first creation and a master worker as Prov. 8:22-31 states.Prov 8:22-31 & 1 Col 1:15 & Rev 3:14 & Heb 1:6 Jah produced me as the beginning of his wayNow there is only one Armageddon, but the Bible talkes about the same thing here in these scriptures but uses different names "Lord Jesus, Michael the arch angle, son of man"2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8 & 1 Peter 3:22 the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angelsRevelation 12:7 Mi´cha·el and his angels battled with the dragonMatthew 13:41 The Son of man will send forth his angels,Jesus has many names, some are teacher, rabbi, son of man, lord, and of course Michael the archangel. Jesus angle name was Michael before he came to earth as a man. In Jude 9, it talks about Moses body when he died, Satan wanted to do something with Moses body and Michael told him that he did not dare to bring judgment against him, "he could have or he would'NT have said that". Now why do you thing Michael an angle could bring judgment against Satan another angel. Well, if you remember in John 5:22 "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the son, "or Jesus" God gave Jesus the power to do the judging, so with this power he could have judged Satan for this act, but Jesus "Michael knew that it was not time for judging" This scripture shows that Michael and Jesus are the same person because God gave Jesus "Michael" the power to judge.Jude 9 & John 5:22 Mi´cha·el the archangel, he did not dare to bring a judgment against himThe following scriptures are when Jesus was on the torture stake. Jesus was a perfect man and he did not inherit death from Adam because he was God's direct son, a perfect man. So in order for him to die, God had to allow it to happen. When God took his protection away Jesus felt his spirit leave him and he yelled out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me"Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 & Psalms 22:1 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"Some people may say that Jesus said that he is God as stated in John 10:30 by saying "I and the Father are one" but as you can see in Gen 2:23 & Matt 19:5, 6 & Ephesians 5:31 that when you get married you and your wife are not becoming one person but one in mind, or in thinking, one in spirit, "one the same page" so to speak. John 10:38 and John 17:21 explain it better by using the word union. As I have shown you below, using and comparing the scriptures will help you come to a better understanding of the true meaning or what God is trying to convey to us in the Bible. Use the Bible to interoperate itself, it does not contradict itself as2 Timothy 3:16 states "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness."John 10:30 I and the Father are one."Genesis 2:24 & Matt 19:5, 6 & Ephesians 5:31 man must stick to his wife, they must become one flesh.John 10:38 believe the works, the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father."John 17:11 in order that they may be one just as we are.John 17:21 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am inunion with you, that they also may be in union with us,The work that the New World Translating Committee put into this translation is astonishing. This Bible does not fit any agenda of the Jehovah's Witness Church, but is just an amazingly clear and accurate work. As a Bible enthusiast myself, I find many contradictions in versions and translations of the Bible on a regular basis, but have yet to find any in the NWT. I thought that perhaps John 1:1 was a misinterpretation at first, but after an unbiased second look, I found it to be in line with the original Greek theos'(a god) and not ton-theon' (the god). If this verse had meant to say that Jesus Christ WAS GOD, or THE GOD, then this would still contradict with many other verses and would require thought. Don't deprive yourself of a great translation because of some dislike of Jehovah's Witnesses. But if you just can't bring yourself to read this Bible, then I would have to say the NIV is pretty accurate, aside from a few things of course.There is no single most-accurate translation of the Bible as they all have their strengths and weaknesses, and the English language is constantly changing. One of the most accuratetranslations of the Bible is, surprisingly, still the King James, as it follows the hebraic sense, tenses, pronouns, and transliterates titles rather than translates them, but it is not the most readable today - after all, it is nearly 400 years old - , so the most accurate modern translation is the NASB (New American Standard Bible).Either the Revised Standard Version (RSV) or the New International Version (NIV) are the most accurate. This is because they take into account the latest manuscript discoveries and use English that is currant and not archaic. (Some English words have a different meaning now than they had in the time of King James when the KJV - King James Version - was translated.

What do Jehovah' Witnesses believe?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah is the one true God and the Grand Creator of all things and is the father of Jesus, his only-begotten son.Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God, and instead of adhering to a creed based on human tradition, they hold to the Bible as the standard for all their beliefs.They worship Jehovah as the only true God and freely speak to others about him and his loving purposes toward mankind. Anyone who publicly witnesses about Jehovah is usually identified as belonging to the one group-"Jehovah's Witnesses."They believe, not that Jesus Christ is part of a Trinity, but that, as the Bible says, he is the Son of God, the first of God's creations; that he had a prehuman existence and that his life was transferred from heaven to the womb of a virgin, Mary; that his perfect human life laid down in sacrifice makes possible salvation to eternal life for those who exercise faith; that Christ is actively ruling as King, with God-given authority over all the earth since 1914.They believe that God's Kingdom is the only hope for mankind; that it is a real government; that it will soon destroy the present wicked system of things, including all human governments, and that it will produce a new system in which righteousness will prevail.They believe that 144,000 spirit-anointed Christians will share with Christ in his heavenly Kingdom, ruling as kings with him. They do not believe that heaven is the reward for everyone who is "good."They believe that God's original purpose for the earth will be fulfilled; that the earth will be completely populated by worshipers of Jehovah and that these will be able to enjoy eternal life in human perfection; that even the dead will be raised to an opportunity to share in these blessings.They believe that the dead are conscious of absolutely nothing; that they are experiencing neither pain nor pleasure in some spirit realm; that they do not exist except in God's memory, so hope for their future life lies in a resurrection from the dead.They believe that we are living now, since 1914, in the last days of this wicked system of things; that some of the generation who saw the generation that saw events of 1914 will also see the complete destruction of the present wicked world; (the new overlapping generation teaching Watchtower 15th April 2010) that lovers of righteousness will survive into a cleansed earth. Only Jehovah's Witnesses have any hope of surviving this impending endThey earnestly endeavor to be no part of the world, as Jesus said would be true of his followers. They show genuine Christian love for their neighbors, but they do not share in the politics or the wars of any nation. They provide for the material needs of their families but shun the world's avid pursuit of material things and personal fame and its excessive indulgence in pleasure.They believe that it is important to apply the counsel of God's Word in everyday life now-at home, in school, in business, in their congregation. Regardless of a person's past way of life, he may become one of Jehovah's Witnesses if he abandons practices condemned by God's Word and applies its godly counsel.Jehovah's Witnesses believe all other religions to be false, and are deeply involved in preaching. They do not believe in the work of politics, as it is not important in their life, so they rarely vote. They do not sing the national anthem or salute the flag.Homosexuality, premarital sex, and abortion are considered sins to Jehovah's Witnesses. Most do not drink or gamble. They do not celebrate Christmas, birthdays, and they avoid Thanksgiving. However, they do celebrate anniversaries and observe funerals.Please see the Related Link(s) below for more beliefs.Jehovah's Witnesses have a very comprehensive website where they post the Bible for online study along with their publications that are useful in understanding what the Bible Teaches.On their website, they have a specific page that outlines their core beliefs.Here is what it says:What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe?As Jehovah's Witnesses, we strive to adhere to the form of Christianity that Jesus taught and that his apostles practiced. This article summarizes our basic beliefs.God. We worship the one true and Almighty God, the Creator, whose name is Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18;Revelation 4:11) He is the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.-Exodus 3:6; 32:11; John 20:17.Bible. We recognize the Bible as God's inspired message to humans. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16) We base our beliefs on all 66 of its books, which include both the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament." Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that Jehovah's Witnesses built "their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there." *While we accept the entire Bible, we are not fundamentalists. We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.-Revelation 1:1.Jesus. We follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and honor him as our Savior and as theSon of God. (Matthew 20:28; Acts 5:31) Thus, we are Christians. (Acts 11:26) However, we have learned from the Bible that Jesus is not Almighty God and that there is no Scriptural basis for the Trinity doctrine.-John 14:28.The Kingdom of God. This is a real government in heaven, not a condition in the hearts of Christians. It will replace human governments and accomplishGod's purpose for the earth. (Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:9, 10) It will take these actions soon, for Bible prophecy indicates that we are living in "the last days."-2 Timothy 3:1-5; Matthew 24:3-14.Jesus is the King of God's Kingdom in heaven. He began ruling in 1914.-Revelation 11:15.Salvation. Deliverance from sin and death is possible through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. (Matthew 20:28; Acts 4:12) To benefit from that sacrifice, people must not only exercise faith in Jesus but also change their course of life and get baptized. (Matthew 28:19, 20; John 3:16; Acts 3:19, 20) A person's works prove that his faith is alive. (James 2:24, 26) However, salvation cannot be earned-it comes through "the undeserved kindness of God."-Galatians 2:16, 21.Heaven. Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, and the faithful angels reside in the spirit realm. *(Psalm 103:19-21;Acts 7:55) A relatively small number of people-144,000-will be resurrected to life in heaven to rule with Jesus in the Kingdom.-Daniel 7:27; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 5:9, 10; 14:1, 3.Earth.God created the earth to be mankind's eternal home. (Psalm 104:5; 115:16;Ecclesiastes 1:4) God will bless obedient people with perfect health and everlasting life in anearthly paradise.-Psalm 37:11, 34.Evil and suffering. These began when one of God's angels rebelled. (John 8:44) This angel, who after his rebellion was called "Satan" and "Devil," persuaded the first human couple to join him, and the consequences have been disastrous for their descendants. (Genesis 3:1-6; Romans 5:12) In order to settle the moral issues raised by Satan, God has allowed evil and suffering, but He will not permit them to continue forever.Death. People who diepass out of existence. (Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) They do not suffer in a fiery hell of torment.God will bring billions back from death by means of a resurrection. (Acts 24:15) However, those who refuse to learn God's ways after being raised to life will be destroyed forever with no hope of a resurrection.-Revelation 20:14, 15.Family.We adhere to God's original standard of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, with sexual immorality being the only valid basis for divorce. (Matthew 19:4-9) We are convinced that the wisdom found in the Bible helps families to succeed.-Ephesians 5:22-6:1.Our worship. We do not venerate the cross or any other images. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19; 1 John 5:21) Key aspects of our worship include the following:Praying to God.-Philippians 4:6.Reading and studying the Bible.-Psalm 1:1-3.Meditating on what we learn from the Bible.-Psalm 77:12.Meeting together to pray, study the Bible, sing, express our faith, and encourage fellow Witnesses and others.-Colossians 3:16;Hebrews 10:23-25.Preaching the "good news of the Kingdom."-Matthew 24:14.Helping those in need.-James 2:14-17.Constructing and maintaining Kingdom Halls and other facilities used to further our worldwide Bible educational work.-Psalm 127:1.Sharing in disaster relief.-Acts 11:27-30.Our organization. We are organized into congregations, each of which is overseen by a body of elders. However, the elders do not form a clergy class, and they are unsalaried. (Matthew 10:8; 23:8) We do not practice tithing, and no collections are ever taken at our meetings. (2 Corinthians 9:7) All our activities are supported by anonymous donations.The Governing Body, a small group of mature Christians who serve at our world headquarters, provides direction for Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.-Matthew 24:45.Our unity. We are globally united in our beliefs. (1 Corinthians 1:10) We also work hard to have no social, ethnic, racial, or class divisions. (Acts 10:34, 35; James 2:4) Our unity allows for personal choice, though. Each Witness makes decisions in harmony with his or her own Bible-trained conscience.-Romans 14:1-4; Hebrews 5:14.Our conduct. We strive to show unselfish love in all our actions. (John 13:34, 35) We avoid practices that displease God, including the misuse of blood bytaking blood transfusions. (Acts 15:28, 29; Galatians 5:19-21) We are peaceful and do not participate in warfare. (Matthew 5:9; Isaiah 2:4) We respect the government where we live and obey its laws as long as these do not call on us to disobey God's laws.-Matthew 22:21; Acts 5:29.Our relationships with others. Jesus commanded: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." He also said that Christians "are no part of the world." (Matthew 22:39; John 17:16) So we try to "work what is good toward all," yet we remain strictly neutral in political affairs and avoid affiliation with other religions. (Galatians 6:10; 2 Corinthians 6:14) However, we respect the choices that others make in such matters.-Romans 14:12."Copyright Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York"