Most Accurate Bible Translation Question on Jeopardy with Alex Trebek and Jehovah's Witnesses Apparent Continual Spreading of this Myth, +Jason BeDuhn

WOW, I have gotten so many, I repeat MANY searches directed to this blog on this question. I did a quick search myself and discovered that my blog is the second in line on GOOGLE on this subject.

You can check the archives for this blog for the email forward I received from my cousin. He is a Jehovah's Witness, and apparently received this email from someone else, likely a JW also. Seeing all of you here leads me to believe you either got the same email or one similar.

Now, I'd love to go into just how many issues I have with the New World Translation of the Bible, however, there are just so many questionable verses, it would be exhausting to explore them all. This is a quick and simple post, so please don't leave a bunch of comments about how I've not done my research.

Many well educated scholars have called the NWT a poor translation, a woeful mistranslation, and a few other choice words I'll not mention here. Some others, very minor controversial scholars have praised it kinda. For instance, an Arizonan professor, Dr. Jason BeDuhn recently wrote a book in which he praised the NWT as the best translation. This is what you might have heard about in those annoying email forwards. This would be a compelling case, however Dr. BeDuhn also had some sharp criticism toward the NWT for it's insertion of Jehovah into the text where it otherwise does not exist. You would not know this however because Jehovah's Witnesses don't point that out for obvious reasons. I could provide a list, but facts are, BeDuhn is in the minority opinion, extreme minority.

Anyway, on to the issue of the Jeopardy Question.

I cannot find any evidence that the question about whether the most accurate version of the Bible is on Jeopardy ever occurred. Honestly, I don't expect to. I seriously doubt a secular game show would ever touch the question. Surely, if such a question ever existed, (I recieved the email months ago) it would have appeared on YouTube by now, which it hasn't, and you can do your own search, but I didn't find it.

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.

So that's all I got to say about that, for now. Keep studying, keep checking. Email forwards are almost invariably dishonest. No Jeopardy question by Alex Trebek, Jason BeDuhn is in the minority opinion, and the New World Translation is NOT the most accurate "translation" of the Bible. Much more to be said, but this is just a quick post that explores a single verse, and points out the obviousness of the Jeopardy! question. Please do read other posts on the subject, there are several.

WiredForStereo

I Am Challenged Once Again by Jehovah's Witnesses' Deceptive Quoting

If you check a few posts back, the one before the "Why I am not a Jehovah's Witness" one, you can see the email I was forwarded by a JW relative.

Upon further research, I have discovered that the book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" does exist, authored by Jason David BeDuhn. After I gave a scathing reply to my relative about how disgusted I was with the supposed (entirely fabricated) Jeopardy question, and the quoting of this book, my relative replied in a very long, probably quoted from somewhere else, email. In it, my relative claimed that he had found the book, and that it existed and that it said what his former email said.

This is true.

However, it is yet another example of Jehovah's Witnesses selective and deceptive quoting. The very same book that they claim backs up the NWT as the best translation, also sharply criticizes the NWT for it's use of the word "Jehovah" in the New Testament, when it clearly does not exist in the original manuscripts. I tried to point this out to other JW's, but they would not listen.

I ran into this peculiar habit when some proselytizing JW's gave me a copy of the [edit] booklet "Should you Believe in the Trinity?" I did a bit (a surprisingly small bit, I didn't have to look far) of research and found hugely glaring examples of selective and deceptive quoting on the part of the Watchtower Society. Specifically, they quote a book that says that the use of the Cross for the crucifixion of Jesus instead of their "torture stake" was due to influence of pagan religions. It is true that this particular book says this. The book also says however that the following elements of Christianity were also derived from paganism: Virgin birth, son of God, dove, baptism, 12 disciples, resurrection, miracles, and others. All these things JW's believe in, but they quote from a book that supports a single point while ignoring the very same book that attempts to discredit their entire religion.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the HardCoreTruth.
WiredForStereo