Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Is the New World Translation 1984 Reference Bible a Faithful and Accurate Representation of Scripture?

Introduction: Understanding the New World Translation (NWT) and Its 1984 Edition

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is a Bible version produced by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the publishing arm of Jehovah’s Witnesses. First released in the 1950s, the NWT has gone through various revisions, with the 1984 edition being widely used as the standard reference Bible among Jehovah’s Witnesses until the more recent 2013 revision. The NWT claims to offer a faithful translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, but its accuracy has been the subject of significant debate, particularly among conservative evangelical scholars.

As Christians, the Word of God is the foundation of our faith. Accurate translation is critical because it impacts our understanding of theology, salvation, the nature of God, and our response to His commands. The primary concern raised regarding the NWT, including its 1984 edition, is that it seems to reflect the distinct theological biases of Jehovah’s Witnesses rather than faithfully rendering the original languages. These concerns are amplified in critical doctrinal areas such as the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the insertion of “Jehovah” into the New Testament, where the original Greek manuscripts use the word κύριος (kyrios), meaning “Lord.”

In this article, we will explore these issues in detail and evaluate whether the New World Translation (1984) is an accurate reflection of God’s Word.

The Deity of Christ: A Key Point of Contention in the NWT

One of the most controversial aspects of the NWT is its translation of verses that deal with the deity of Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is not co-equal with Jehovah (JHVH) but is a created being, identified as the archangel Michael in their theology. This belief directly contradicts the historic Christian teaching of the Trinity, which affirms that Jesus is fully God, co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

John 1:1 in the New World Translation

A well-known example of how the NWT diverges from orthodox Christian doctrine is found in John 1:1. In the NWT 1984 edition, this verse is rendered: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” The addition of the indefinite article “a” before “god” is a significant alteration from what the original Greek text conveys.

In Greek, the phrase καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos ēn ho logos) is translated as “and the Word was God.” There is no indefinite article in the Greek language, and the grammatical structure here clearly indicates that the Word (Jesus) shares the same divine essence as God. The NWT’s rendering of “a god” diminishes Christ’s deity and introduces a theological bias that aligns with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine of Jesus as a lesser divine being, separate from Jehovah.

Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that John 1:1 should be translated as “the Word was a god” rather than “the Word was God,” based on their understanding of Greek grammar and the absence of the definite article before theos (θεός) in the second clause of the verse. They support their translation by pointing to the distinction between the articular theos (ὁ θεός), used to refer to Jehovah (the Father), and the anarthrous theos (θεός), used in reference to Jesus. They claim that the anarthrous construction highlights a qualitative meaning, implying that Jesus possesses divine qualities but is not equal to Jehovah. This is seen in the 1984 edition of the New World Translation, where “a god” is used to reflect this interpretation.

To bolster their argument, they reference scholarly works like that of Philip B. Harner, who suggests that an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb in Greek often emphasizes the qualitative nature of the subject. Harner asserts that in John 1:1, theos carries a qualitative meaning, describing the Word (Logos) as having the nature of God without identifying the Word as the same person as God (the Father). Jehovah’s Witnesses also point to other biblical instances, such as Mark 6:49 and John 4:19, where an indefinite article is inserted before an anarthrous predicate noun in English translations to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject (e.g., “a spirit” or “a prophet”).

Their argument hinges on the idea that since these other passages use the indefinite article to express a qualitative aspect, the same should be applied in John 1:1, rendering it as “a god” rather than “God” to avoid identifying Jesus as Jehovah and instead to highlight His divine nature as distinct from that of the Father. This is key to their theology, which distinguishes Jesus as a lesser divine being rather than coequal with Jehovah.

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument for translating John 1:1 as “the Word was a god” instead of “the Word was God” relies heavily on their interpretation of Greek grammar and the absence of the definite article before theos (θεός) in the phrase καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (“and the Word was God”). However, there are several reasons why this interpretation is flawed and why the overwhelming consensus of biblical scholars supports the traditional translation, “the Word was God,” as reflecting the intended meaning of the original Greek text.

1. Greek Grammar and the Anarthrous Predicate Noun

While it is true that the Greek word theos in John 1:1 lacks the definite article, this does not necessarily mean it should be translated with an indefinite article (“a god”). In Koine Greek, the placement of the noun, particularly when it appears before the verb as in John 1:1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), often serves a purpose beyond simply identifying definiteness. In this construction, the word theos is placed before the verb ēn (“was”) to emphasize the nature or essence of the Word (Logos). This positioning does not imply an indefinite or lower status but stresses the quality and nature of the Logos as fully divine.

The grammatical pattern in John 1:1 is known as a qualitative construction, which means that theos is describing the nature of the Logos as divine. Renowned Greek grammarian Daniel B. Wallace explains that in this kind of sentence, the absence of the article with theos is not meant to indicate an indefinite status, as in “a god,” but to highlight the quality of divinity possessed by the Logos. Thus, the translation “the Word was God” properly conveys the qualitative aspect of theos, meaning that the Word shares in the full divinity of God.

Moreover, if John had intended to communicate that the Word was merely “a god” or a lesser divine being, there were clearer ways to express this in Greek. He could have used the term theios (θεῖος), which means “divine” or “godlike,” as used elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Peter 1:3-4), or he could have included an indefinite article in Greek (if such a construction existed). Instead, John uses theos in a way that emphasizes the Word’s participation in the divine nature, without introducing a secondary or subordinate divinity.

2. Context of John’s Gospel and Monotheism

The broader context of John’s Gospel provides further evidence that “the Word was God” is the correct understanding. The prologue of John (1:1-18) sets out a highly theological description of Jesus’ nature and His relationship with the Father. Verse 1:1 opens by asserting the pre-existence of the Word, indicating that the Word (Jesus) was “with God” and “was God” from the beginning. John is not introducing the concept of multiple gods or lesser divine beings, but rather presenting the Word as fully divine, yet distinct in person from the Father.

In John 1:18, we read, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” (ESV). This verse reinforces the idea that Jesus, as the Word, is uniquely divine, being the only one who reveals the Father. John is operating within a strict monotheistic framework—consistent with Jewish belief—that acknowledges only one true God, Jehovah. The assertion that the Word is theos fits into this monotheistic context because John is not introducing a second god but affirming the full divinity of the Word in unity with Jehovah.

The New World Translation’s rendering “a god” would introduce polytheism, an idea that is wholly inconsistent with the Jewish monotheism of John’s audience and with the theology of the New Testament. Jesus is not portrayed as a lesser deity but as fully divine, co-eternal with the Father, which is further developed throughout the Gospel of John, particularly in passages like John 10:30, where Jesus declares, “I and the Father are one.”

3. Theological Consistency within John and the New Testament

The interpretation that the Word was “a god” also contradicts John’s theological themes elsewhere in his writings. In John 1:3, just two verses later, we read, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” This verse establishes the Word as the Creator of all things. If the Word were merely “a god” or a created being, it would be illogical to say that the Word created everything, including Himself. Only someone who is fully divine could have created everything, as this is a unique attribute of God alone.

Further, throughout the New Testament, Jesus is consistently portrayed as possessing the attributes of God, not a lesser god or an angelic being. For instance:

Colossians 1:15-19 describes Jesus as “the image of the invisible God” and states that “in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.”
Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.”

In light of these and other passages, interpreting John 1:1 to mean that Jesus is a lesser god or simply a divine being undermines the consistent New Testament witness that affirms Jesus as fully God. Jesus shares in the very nature of Jehovah, and the New Testament authors emphasize that He is worthy of worship and honor, something that is reserved for God alone.

In contrast, most reputable translations, such as the English Standard Version (ESV), Updated American Standard Version (UASV), and others, correctly render the verse as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This reflects the clear teaching of Scripture that Jesus is fully God, an essential aspect of Christian orthodoxy.

Colossians 1:15-17 and the “Other” Insertion

Another example of doctrinal bias influencing translation can be seen in Colossians 1:15-17, where the NWT adds the word “other” multiple times to imply that Jesus is part of creation rather than the Creator. In the 1984 NWT, this passage reads: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.”

The addition of “other” suggests that Jesus himself is part of the created order, contradicting the clear teaching of the New Testament that Jesus is the Creator of all things. The word “other” is not found in the original Greek text. Paul’s intent in this passage is to affirm Christ’s preeminence and His role as the agent of creation, not to diminish His deity or reduce Him to a created being. The phrase “firstborn of all creation” does not mean that Christ was created but that He holds the position of authority and supremacy over all creation, as explained in the broader context of the passage (Colossians 1:18-19).

The Personhood of the Holy Spirit: Altered by NWT Theology

Another area where the 1984 NWT diverges from traditional Christian theology is in its treatment of the Holy Spirit. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit, teaching instead that He is an impersonal force or power from God. This belief influences their translation of passages that refer to the Holy Spirit in personal terms.

Zechariah 12:10 in the NWT

This verse is pivotal because of the theological implications related to the one who is “pierced,” which many Christian traditions understand as a prophecy about the Messiah. The NWT translation differs from most others, and the changes reflect theological biases that affect the accuracy of the translation.

Zechariah 12:10 – Translation Differences

Here is how the verse is translated in the NWT compared to other mainstream versions:

NWT: “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced, and they will wail over him as they would wail over an only son; and they will grieve bitterly over him as they would grieve over a firstborn son
ESV: “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.”
UASV: “I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication, and they will look to me whom they pierced, and they shall mourn over him, as one wails over an only child, and they will grieve bitterly over him as one weeps bitterly over a firstborn.

Key Difference: “Me” vs. “The One”

In the ESV, UASV, and other standard translations, Jehovah is the speaker, and the text reads “they will look on me whom they have pierced.” This indicates that it is Jehovah (God) who is being pierced, a verse that has been interpreted by Christians as a prophecy pointing to the crucifixion of Jesus, associating Jesus directly with Jehovah.

However, in the NWT, the phrase is changed to “they will look to the one whom they pierced,” shifting the focus away from Jehovah and making it appear as though someone else entirely is the one being pierced. This change breaks the direct connection between Jehovah and the one who is pierced, which is significant because Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the full divinity of Jesus and do not believe that Jesus and Jehovah are the same.

Why the NWT Translation of Zechariah 12:10 is Problematic

Alteration of the Subject: In the original Hebrew text, Jehovah is speaking in the first person, and it is clear that He is the one being pierced (וְהִבִּ֤יטוּ אֵלַי֙ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֔רוּ – “they will look to me, the one they pierced”). The NWT’s choice to render this as “the one” rather than “Me” alters the meaning of the verse and obscures the original intent, which associates the piercing with Jehovah.
Theological Bias: The change in the NWT reflects a theological bias, as Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jehovah and Jesus are distinct beings, with Jesus being a created being rather than fully divine. By changing “me” to “the one,” the NWT translators weaken the connection between Jehovah and the piercing, aligning the translation with their doctrinal position rather than maintaining the literal meaning of the Hebrew text.
Impact on Christological Interpretation: Traditional Christian interpretation sees Zechariah 12:10 as a prophecy pointing to Jesus’ crucifixion, where Jesus (bJeing both God and man) was pierced on the cross. By altering the text, the NWT removes the Messianic and Christological connection that has been historically affirmed by the church.

Conclusion: Why Zechariah 12:10 Highlights a Translation Issue in the NWT

Zechariah 12:10 is a clear example of how theological bias can influence translation choices in the NWT. The change from “Me” to “the one” deviates from the original Hebrew text and disrupts the prophetic connection to the crucifixion of Jesus, which is central to Christian theology. This makes it an ideal verse to highlight in the article when discussing the accuracy of translation in the NWT compared to other reliable Bible versions.

John 14:14 – Translation Differences

Here is how the verse is rendered in different translations:

NWT (1984/2013): “If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.”
ESV: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”
NASB (2020): “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”
UASV: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”

The Key Issue: Omission of με (“me”)

The critical difference between the NWT and other translations is the omission of the word me (Greek: με) in the NWT. The phrase “If you ask me” (ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με) is present in many of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. The omission of με in the NWT changes the nuance of the verse by removing the direct reference to Jesus as the one being asked for assistance.

Manuscript Evidence Supporting the Inclusion of me (με)

Manuscript evidence strongly supports the inclusion of με (“me”) in John 14:14. Key early and authoritative manuscripts contain με, affirming that Jesus was telling His disciples to ask Him for anything in His name:

P66 (ca. 100-150 C.E.) – One of the earliest known papyri containing the Gospel of John, includes με.
P75vid (175-225 C.E.) – The highly respected papyrus manuscript, though fragmentary, supports the inclusion of me.
א (Sinaiticus, 330-360 C.E.) – Considered one of the most reliable manuscripts, includes me.
B (Vaticanus, 300-330 C.E.) – Also includes me.
W (late 4th/early 5th century) – Contains me.

These manuscripts are regarded as some of the earliest and best representatives of the New Testament text, indicating that me was part of the original reading. In contrast, the omission of me is found in later manuscripts like A (Alexandrinus, 5th century), D, K, and other Byzantine text-type witnesses, which reflect a later tradition.

Why the Omission of με in the NWT is Problematic

The NWT’s omission of me in John 14:14 appears to reflect theological bias, not textual fidelity. Jehovah’s Witnesses hold the view that prayers should only be directed to Jehovah (the Father) and not to Jesus. By removing me, the NWT avoids a possible contradiction with John 16:23, where Jesus says, “whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.” This theological perspective may have influenced the decision to follow later manuscripts that omit me rather than the earlier, more reliable manuscripts that include it.

In terms of textual criticism, the inclusion of me is supported by earlier and higher-quality manuscripts. The rationale for omitting me from the text appears to stem from doctrinal concerns rather than objective manuscript evidence. By removing me, the NWT weakens the personal aspect of prayer directed to Jesus, which is an important element in traditional Christian belief and supported by earlier manuscripts.

Footnote Analysis in the NWT

The NWT footnote acknowledges that many manuscripts include me but chooses to align with those that omit it, listing P66, א, B, and W as support for me, which are high-quality witnesses. However, the decision to favor the omission seems inconsistent with how Jehovah’s Witnesses handle textual criticism in other contexts, where they often emphasize the earliest and best manuscript traditions. The NWT’s omission of me here, despite the clear manuscript support for its inclusion, suggests a theological motivation rather than a purely textual one.

Conclusion: Why the NWT is Inaccurate in John 14:14

In summary, the NWT’s omission of me in John 14:14 deviates from the most reliable and early Greek manuscripts. The omission seems to reflect a theological bias rather than a commitment to the best textual evidence. Key early manuscripts, including P66, P75vid, א, B, and W, all support the inclusion of me, making the traditional rendering—”If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it”—the more accurate translation. The NWT’s decision to exclude me compromises the accuracy of its translation, especially in light of the overwhelming manuscript evidence in favor of its inclusion.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

The Use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament: A Theological Imposition

One of the most distinctive features of the New World Translation is its insertion of the name “Jehovah” into the New Testament, despite no manuscript evidence for its inclusion. However, there are 237 places where a quote and reference is made that if the originals did have the divine name, it would have been in these places. The Greek Septuagint Old Testament manuscripts from the first century did, in fact, have the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton (JHVH) is used 6,828 times as יהוה (JHVH). However, in the Greek New Testament, the name “Jehovah” does not appear in any extant manuscript. Instead, the Greek word κύριος (kyrios), meaning “Lord,” is used to refer to both the Father and the Son in various contexts. Jehovah is the correct pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton (יהוה, JHVH) and is perfectly acceptable in the Old Testament. The 16th William Tyndale English translation, the 1611 King James, the 1901 American Standard Version, and the 2022 Updated American Standard Version all have “Jehovah.”

Romans 10:13 – Calling on the Name of Jehovah?

In Romans 10:13, the NWT inserts “Jehovah” where the original Greek text says κύριος (Lord). The verse reads in the NWT: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.’” However, Paul is quoting from Joel 2:32, and in the context of Romans 10, it is clear that Paul is referring to Jesus as Lord (see Romans 10:9, “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord…”). The insertion of “Jehovah” disrupts the flow of the passage and imposes a theological separation between Jesus and Jehovah that is not supported by the text.

Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:21 about doing the will of the Father is consistent with Paul and Peter’s message in quoting Joel 2:32. Both apostles were reinforcing the centrality of Jehovah’s will in salvation, demonstrating that calling on Jehovah’s name, as outlined in Joel, is part of submitting to His plan. Far from replacing Jehovah, their message shows that Jesus is the means through which Jehovah’s will is accomplished, and that calling on His name for salvation requires obedience to Jehovah’s commands, just as Jesus taught.

The consistent use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament sections of the NWT reflects the doctrinal stance of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny the full deity of Christ and maintain that Jesus is distinct from Jehovah in that they believe Jesus to be the archangel, Michael. However, this translation choice lacks textual support and introduces theological bias, undermining the reliability of the NWT as an accurate reflection of the original manuscripts.

Dynamic Equivalence and Doctrinal Bias: A Faulty Approach in the NWT

The New World Translation claims to employ a form of dynamic equivalence, a translation philosophy that seeks to convey the meaning of the original text in contemporary language rather than adhering strictly to a word-for-word rendering. While dynamic equivalence can be a useful approach when handled carefully, the NWT frequently takes liberties that go beyond a simple effort to make the text more readable.

Instead of merely clarifying the meaning of difficult passages, the NWT often introduces words or phrases not present in the original text to support the distinct theological doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The insertion of “a” before “god” in John 1:1, the use of “other” in Colossians 1:15-17, and the substitution of “Jehovah” for “Lord” in the New Testament are clear examples of how the NWT’s translation philosophy is influenced more by doctrinal concerns than by a desire to accurately reflect the meaning of the original text.

In contrast, a faithful translation must prioritize the original meaning of the biblical text, allowing Scripture to speak for itself without imposing external theological interpretations. As stated in Proverbs 30:5-6: “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” The responsibility of translators is to faithfully transmit God’s Word without alteration or addition.

The Authority of Scripture and the Integrity of Translation

The doctrine of the inerrancy and authority of Scripture holds that the original manuscripts of the Bible were without error and were divinely inspired by God. As Christians, we believe that God has preserved His Word throughout the centuries, and accurate translations are necessary for the proper understanding of His revelation. 2 Timothy 3:16 affirms the authority of Scripture: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

When translators introduce bias into the text, they undermine the authority of Scripture and distort the message God intended to communicate. The translation of the Bible is a sacred task, and any manipulation of the text to fit theological agendas, as seen in the NWT, must be carefully examined and rejected by those seeking to understand God’s truth.

Conclusion: Evaluating the Accuracy of the New World Translation (1984)

In evaluating the New World Translation of 1984, it becomes clear that it departs from the original text in key areas due to theological bias. The translation choices made in passages like John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17, and the insertion of “Jehovah” into the New Testament reflect the unique doctrinal stance of Jehovah’s Witnesses rather than a faithful rendering of Scripture. As a result, the NWT cannot be considered a reliable or accurate translation for Christians seeking to understand the full truth of God’s Word. It does no good to talk about their theological bias and then pick out 20-30 verses out of 31,102 verses and infer that the entire Bible is that way. And all honest translators would argue that there is theological bias in all translations. See the main conclusion below.

Is the New World Translation 2013 a Faithful Representation of God’s Word?

Introduction: What is the New World Translation (NWT)?

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is a Bible translation commissioned by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. First released in 1950, the NWT underwent several revisions, with the latest edition published in 2013. It claims to offer an accurate and easy-to-read translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. However, the NWT is a controversial translation among conservative evangelical scholars due to concerns about its accuracy, especially where it diverges from standard biblical doctrine.

In order to evaluate whether the New World Translation (2013) is accurate, we must consider the principles of translation fidelity. A faithful translation reflects both the meaning and the original wording of the text. Translations are typically categorized into three types: formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase. The formal equivalence approach adheres closely to the original languages, aiming for a word-for-word translation. Dynamic equivalence seeks to convey the meaning of the text while being more flexible in wording, often resulting in a thought-for-thought translation. Paraphrase translations focus primarily on modern readability and are less concerned with the original language structures.

The NWT claims to balance accuracy with readability, employing a dynamic equivalence approach. But does it faithfully present the original message of Scripture? In answering this question, we will examine key passages in the NWT, particularly those where theological concerns arise.

Key Concerns in the Translation of the New World Translation (2013)

One of the primary concerns raised by evangelical scholars is that the New World Translation reflects the theological biases of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In several passages, the NWT appears to alter the meaning of Scripture in order to align with their distinct doctrines. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject core Christian doctrines, such as the deity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit, which significantly impacts their translation philosophy. This becomes evident when key verses related to these doctrines are compared to other faithful translations.

The Deity of Christ in the NWT

One of the most significant doctrinal differences between Jehovah’s Witnesses and traditional Christian teaching concerns the deity of Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in the same sense that Jehovah (JHVH) is God. This theological bias becomes clear in how the NWT translates passages that affirm Christ’s divine nature.

In John 1:1, the NWT reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This rendering stands in stark contrast to traditional translations, which state, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The addition of “a” before “god” in the NWT reflects the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief that Jesus is not equal to Jehovah but is a created being, a lesser god. However, the original Greek text does not support this interpretation.

In the Greek, the phrase is καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos ēn ho logos), which translates directly to “and the Word was God.” There is no indefinite article (“a”) in the Greek language, and the structure of the sentence places “God” in a position of emphasis, meaning that the Word (Christ) is indeed fully divine. The NWT’s rendering diminishes Christ’s deity and is not an accurate reflection of the original Greek text.

Another passage that illustrates this issue is Colossians 1:15-16, which, in the NWT, reads: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” The insertion of the word “other” in brackets is not present in the Greek text and was added by the NWT translators to support their belief that Jesus is a created being. Traditional translations do not include this word, rendering the passage as, “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.”

By adding the word “other,” the NWT implies that Jesus himself was part of creation, which contradicts the orthodox Christian understanding of Christ as the eternal Creator, as affirmed in John 1:3: “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” The insertion of words that are not in the original text to fit a particular theological agenda is a serious breach of translation integrity.

The Identity of the Holy Spirit in the NWT

Another significant area of concern is the NWT’s treatment of the Holy Spirit. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit is not a person but rather an impersonal force or power from God. This belief influences how the NWT translates passages that speak about the Holy Spirit.

In Matthew 28:19, for example, the NWT translates Jesus’ command to baptize as follows: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” Notice that the NWT uses lowercase letters for “holy spirit,” in contrast to traditional translations, which use “Holy Spirit” to indicate His personhood.

Moreover, in passages like Ephesians 4:30, where Paul writes, “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God,” the NWT downplays the personal nature of the Holy Spirit by altering the language in various contexts to fit their belief that the Spirit is merely God’s active force rather than a distinct divine person. The idea that the Holy Spirit can be grieved, as stated in Scripture, points to the personal and relational aspects of the Spirit, which the NWT’s translation philosophy seeks to obscure.

The Use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament

Another unique feature of the NWT is its use of the name “Jehovah” in the New Testament, despite the fact that the Tetragrammaton (JHVH) does not appear in any extant New Testament manuscripts. The NWT inserts the name “Jehovah” 237 times in the New Testament, even though the original Greek text uses κύριος (kyrios), which is traditionally translated as “Lord.”

For example, Romans 10:13 in the NWT reads: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.’” However, the Greek text actually says, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved,” with “Lord” clearly referring to Jesus in the broader context of the passage (Romans 10:9-12). By inserting “Jehovah” here, the NWT creates a distinction between Jesus and Jehovah that is not present in the original text, thereby supporting the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology that separates Jesus from God in terms of divinity.

The translation choice to use “Jehovah” in the New Testament has been criticized for lacking manuscript support and for introducing theological bias. No ancient Greek manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton, and thus, its inclusion in the New Testament by the NWT represents a significant departure from the text as it was written by the apostles. This practice is problematic from the standpoint of translation integrity, as it reflects a deliberate theological agenda rather than faithfulness to the original text.

Issues with the Concept of Dynamic Equivalence in the NWT

The NWT claims to use a form of dynamic equivalence in its translation, meaning that it attempts to convey the meaning of the text in contemporary language. While dynamic equivalence is a legitimate translation approach when handled with care, the NWT uses this method in ways that distort key doctrinal truths. As we have seen in the examples above, the NWT frequently inserts words or phrases that are not in the original text to support the unique beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This approach is not consistent with the proper application of dynamic equivalence, which should aim to faithfully represent the meaning of the original text without adding or altering the theological message.

The goal of any Bible translation should be to communicate what God has revealed through His inspired Word, not to reinterpret Scripture in light of human tradition or doctrinal bias. 2 Peter 1:20-21 warns against private interpretations of Scripture: “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Any translation that seeks to alter the original message of Scripture to fit a preconceived theology is, therefore, unreliable.

Conclusion on the Accuracy of the New World Translation (2013)

In evaluating the New World Translation (2013), it becomes evident that the translation reflects significant theological bias, particularly in areas that touch upon key Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament. These translational choices diverge from the original Hebrew and Greek texts, undermining the integrity of the translation as a faithful representation of God’s Word.

While the NWT may claim to offer a more accurate and readable translation, its departures from the original text in key doctrinal areas reveal a translation agenda that aligns with the distinctive beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses rather than with the message of the Bible as it was originally written. For those seeking a faithful and accurate translation of Scripture, one that adheres to the historical-grammatical method and respects the original languages, the NWT cannot be considered a reliable option. Again, it does no good to talk about their theological bias and then pick out 20-30 verses out of 31,102 verses and infer that the entire Bible is that way. And all honest translators would argue that there is theological bias in all translations. See the main conclusion below.

What is the Difference Between the Literal 1984 New World Translation Reference Bible and the 2013 New World Translation Dynamic Equivalent Translation?

Introduction: The New World Translation and its Evolution

The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, is the translation used exclusively by Jehovah’s Witnesses. It has undergone various revisions over the decades, with the 1984 “Reference Bible” and the 2013 edition representing two key stages in its development. Both versions claim to offer an accurate translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures, but they differ significantly in translation philosophy, textual changes, and readability.

The 1984 edition followed a more literal translation approach, often referred to as formal equivalence, aiming to stick closely to the wording and structure of the original languages. In contrast, the 2013 edition of the NWT moved toward dynamic equivalence, a method that seeks to convey the thought or meaning of the original text in a way that is more accessible to contemporary readers.

In this article, we will explore the differences between the 1984 literal NWT and the 2013 dynamic equivalent NWT, focusing on key theological issues, translation choices, and how each version affects the understanding of key biblical doctrines.

Translation Philosophy: Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence

At the heart of the difference between the 1984 and 2013 editions of the NWT is the translation philosophy employed in each.

Formal Equivalence in the 1984 New World Translation Reference Bible

The 1984 NWT generally followed a formal equivalence approach, which seeks to maintain a word-for-word translation as much as possible. The goal of this method is to preserve the structure and specific wording of the original languages, which allows readers to engage more directly with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text.

However, the 1984 NWT, despite its claim of literal translation, still reflects the theological biases of Jehovah’s Witnesses, particularly in areas concerning the deity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. As we will see, the translation of certain key verses demonstrates a deliberate effort to align with Watch Tower theology, even at the expense of accuracy.

Dynamic Equivalence in the 2013 New World Translation

The 2013 NWT introduced a significant shift towards dynamic equivalence, a method that prioritizes conveying the overall meaning or thought of the original text rather than adhering strictly to a word-for-word rendering. This approach often results in a translation that is easier to read and understand for modern audiences, but it can sometimes distance the reader from the precise wording of the original text.

The Watch Tower Society justified this shift by emphasizing that a more thought-for-thought translation would make the Bible more accessible to a wider audience. However, the danger of dynamic equivalence is that it leaves more room for subjective interpretation, allowing theological presuppositions to influence the translation process.

Doctrinal Concerns: The Deity of Christ

One of the most controversial issues in the NWT is its handling of passages that affirm the deity of Jesus Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is not Jehovah (JHVH) but rather a created being, which is reflected in their translation choices.

John 1:1: A Key Difference in Translation

The 1984 NWT famously renders John 1:1 as: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This translation differs significantly from standard English translations, which state, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The insertion of “a” in the 1984 NWT introduces a theological distinction between Jesus (the Word) and Jehovah, portraying Jesus as a lesser, created god rather than fully divine.

The 2013 NWT retains this same translation of John 1:1. Despite the shift towards dynamic equivalence in the 2013 edition, the translation of key doctrinal passages remains consistent with the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This demonstrates that, while the 2013 edition claims to prioritize readability, it continues to enforce the doctrinal biases seen in the 1984 edition, particularly regarding the person of Christ.

The original Greek in John 1:1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) does not include an indefinite article. The literal translation is “and the Word was God,” with “God” referring to the same divine essence. By adding “a,” the NWT diminishes Christ’s divinity, a critical theological departure from orthodox Christian teaching.

Colossians 1:16: Insertion of “Other”

In Colossians 1:16, the 1984 NWT inserts the word “other” to support the idea that Jesus is part of creation, rather than the Creator. The passage reads: “By means of him all other things were created…” The word “other” is not found in the original Greek text and was added to align with the belief that Jesus himself is a created being.

The 2013 NWT continues this practice, maintaining the insertion of “other” in key passages. The dynamic equivalence method employed in the 2013 edition does not result in a more accurate translation in this case but instead perpetuates a theological bias. This distortion of Scripture is a clear violation of sound translation principles, as it alters the original meaning of the text to fit a doctrinal framework.

The Holy Spirit: Person or Impersonal Force?

Another significant theological issue is how the NWT handles verses related to the Holy Spirit. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit is not a person but an impersonal force from God, and this belief affects how the NWT translates verses where the Spirit’s personhood is affirmed.

Matthew 28:19: Baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands His disciples to baptize believers “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The use of “name” (singular) in this verse indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are united in essence and purpose, affirming the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

The 1984 NWT retains the traditional wording of this verse, but other verses throughout the translation downplay the personhood of the Holy Spirit by avoiding references to the Spirit’s personal attributes.

The 2013 NWT, while retaining the wording of Matthew 28:19, continues to reflect the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theological stance that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. This is evident in verses such as Romans 8:16, where the NWT translates the Greek word for “Spirit” as “itself” rather than “himself,” thus reducing the Holy Spirit to a non-personal entity.

Ephesians 4:30: Grieving the Spirit

Ephesians 4:30 reads, “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” The fact that the Holy Spirit can be grieved points to His personal nature. In both the 1984 and 2013 editions of the NWT, the translation downplays the personhood of the Spirit, aligning with the belief that the Spirit is not a distinct person of the Godhead. This is more hermeneutical than translation accuracy.

Use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament: A Theological Insertion

One of the most notable features of the NWT is its frequent use of the name “Jehovah” in the New Testament, despite the fact that the original Greek manuscripts do not contain the Tetragrammaton (JHVH). This insertion reflects the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theological emphasis on the name Jehovah, which they believe was deliberately removed from the Bible by early church translators.

Romans 10:13: Calling on the Name of the Lord

In Romans 10:13, the NWT translates “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” as “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” However, in the original Greek, the word used is κύριος (kyrios), meaning “Lord,” and the context of the passage clearly refers to Jesus Christ. By inserting “Jehovah” in this and other New Testament verses, the NWT creates an artificial distinction between Jehovah and Jesus, reinforcing their belief that Jesus is not equal to Jehovah.

Both the 1984 and 2013 editions of the NWT make this theological insertion, despite the lack of manuscript evidence for the use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament. This practice highlights the theological bias inherent in the NWT, as it alters the text to fit the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrinal framework.

Readability and Accessibility: A Shift in Style

One of the primary reasons cited for the 2013 revision of the NWT was to make the Bible more accessible to modern readers. The Watch Tower Society acknowledged that certain expressions in the 1984 edition were outdated or difficult to understand, especially for non-native English speakers or those unfamiliar with biblical language.

Simplification of Language in the 2013 Edition

The 2013 NWT simplifies much of the language used in the 1984 edition, making it easier to read. For example, terms such as “fornication” in the 1984 edition are replaced with “sexual immorality” in the 2013 edition, reflecting more common usage. Additionally, archaic phrases are updated for clarity, and certain idiomatic expressions are modernized to make the translation more relatable to contemporary readers.

While this simplification increases readability, it also raises concerns about how much meaning is lost in the process. In attempting to make the text more accessible, the 2013 NWT risks diluting the depth and richness of the original languages, further distancing the reader from the intended message of Scripture.

Conclusion: A Theologically Driven Translation

The differences between the 1984 and 2013 editions of the New World Translation reflect a broader issue within the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to Scripture. While the 1984 edition follows a more literal translation method and the 2013 edition shifts toward dynamic equivalence, both versions are shaped by the theological biases of the Watch Tower Society. Key doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament are altered or obscured, resulting in a translation that cannot be considered a faithful reflection of the original text.

For Christians seeking an accurate and reliable translation of God’s Word, the NWT—whether in its 1984 or 2013 form—falls short of the mark. Faithful translations must prioritize the original meaning of Scripture without imposing external theological frameworks, a standard that the NWT fails to meet.

We need to emphasize the importance of evaluating the New World Translation (NWT) fairly, recognizing that focusing solely on a handful of verses does not provide a balanced view of the entire work. Every Bible translation, including the NWT, reflects interpretive decisions that are influenced by the translators’ theological perspectives. As noted, there are about 31,102 verses in the Bible, and only a small number of them tend to be heavily scrutinized for theological bias. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the overall accuracy of the NWT while acknowledging areas where bias may emerge, just as it does in other translations.

Overview of the New World Translation (NWT)

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures was first published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the 1950s and has undergone several revisions, including the 1984 edition and the more recent 2013 revision. The NWT is the primary translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses and was produced by a translation committee within the organization.

In terms of its overall translation philosophy, the NWT aims for a balance between literal accuracy (formal equivalence) and readability (dynamic equivalence). The translation strives to reflect the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts while using contemporary language that is accessible to modern readers. For many passages, the NWT presents a straightforward, clear rendering that does not significantly differ from other respected translations like the ESV, NASB, or NIV.

Strengths of the New World Translation

Consistency in the Use of God’s Name: One of the key distinctives of the NWT is its use of the divine name, Jehovah, throughout the Old Testament (and selectively in the New Testament). The NWT translates the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) as “Jehovah” in over 6,800 places in the Hebrew Scriptures, reflecting a commitment to the use of God’s personal name. This approach can be seen as an effort to preserve the significance of the divine name, which other translations typically render as “LORD” (in all capitals).

Many translators and scholars debate whether “Jehovah” is the most accurate rendering of the Tetragrammaton, but the NWT’s consistency in using the name provides a level of clarity for readers who want to recognize when the text specifically refers to Jehovah rather than using a generic title for God.
Clear and Readable Language: The NWT excels in providing a readable and accessible translation for modern audiences. The language used is straightforward, avoiding archaic terms and constructions. This makes it easy for contemporary readers to understand the text without needing to navigate older forms of English that can be found in translations like the KJV.
Faithfulness to Hebrew and Greek Texts: For the majority of the Bible’s verses, the NWT adheres closely to the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Westcott-Hort and Nestle-Aland Greek texts for the New Testament. Many verses, particularly those that do not have direct theological implications, are translated in a manner consistent with other well-regarded translations. For example:
- Psalm 23:1 in the NWT reads: “Jehovah is my Shepherd. I will lack nothing,” which closely parallels the familiar wording found in other versions.
- Romans 3:23 is rendered: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” which is identical to many translations.
Accurate Translation of Tenses: The NWT is careful to reflect the tenses of verbs in the original languages accurately. This helps readers understand the timing and nuances of the actions being described, which is important for understanding theological and historical contexts.

Areas of Theological Bias in the NWT

As with all translations, the NWT does exhibit theological bias in certain areas where doctrinal distinctives of Jehovah’s Witnesses play a role in the translation choices. These biases are seen in key passages related to the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and certain eschatological interpretations.

John 1:1: The most widely cited example of theological bias is found in John 1:1, where the NWT translates the verse as “the Word was a god” instead of “the Word was God”. This rendering reflects the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine that Jesus is a created being and not coequal with Jehovah. However, the majority of Greek scholars agree that the original Greek text supports the translation “the Word was God.”
Colossians 1:15-16: In the NWT, the phrase “all things” in Colossians 1:16 is rendered as “all other things,” with the addition of the word “other,” which is not in the original Greek. This choice aligns with the belief that Jesus is a created being rather than the Creator of all things, again reflecting theological bias.
The Holy Spirit: Passages related to the Holy Spirit, such as Ephesians 4:30, are translated in a way that diminishes the personal attributes of the Holy Spirit. In the NWT, the Holy Spirit is often referred to as “it” rather than “He,” reflecting the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force rather than a divine person.

Fair Evaluation of the New World Translation

To provide a fair summary of the NWT, it is important to acknowledge that while the vast majority of its verses are translated accurately and in line with other respected versions, there are certain passages—particularly those that touch on doctrinal issues important to Jehovah’s Witnesses—where theological bias has influenced the translation choices. These instances, while significant, are relatively small in number compared to the overall body of the Bible’s text.

When considering the 31,102 verses of the Bible, the NWT offers a mostly accurate and readable translation for the majority of these verses. Its commitment to using the name “Jehovah” is a distinctive feature that some may find helpful, while others might view it as unnecessary. Nevertheless, in key doctrinal passages, the NWT does reflect the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, leading to translations that differ from the mainstream Christian understanding of certain theological concepts. The fact that almost all verses will be the same as in other translations will help Christians to evangelize Jehovah’s Witnesses when they come knocking.

Conclusion

The New World Translation provides a largely accurate and readable Bible for Jehovah’s Witnesses and anyone else who seeks clarity and simplicity in their Bible reading. However, for readers seeking doctrinal neutrality, it is important to be aware of specific passages where the translation diverges due to theological bias. These areas, while impactful, do not represent the majority of the Bible’s verses. In summary, the NWT should be viewed as a translation that faithfully renders much of the biblical text but requires careful consideration in specific doctrinally sensitive areas.

THE ACCURATE TRANSLATION – UASV

A literal translation is certainly more than a word-for-word rendering of the original language of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The corresponding English words need to be brought over according to English grammar and syntax, but the translation at the same time must be faithful to the original word or as much as possible, for the author may have used word order to emphasize or convey some meaning. In most cases, the translator simply renders the original-language word with the same corresponding English term each time it occurs. The translator has used his good judgment to select words in the English translation from the lexicon within the context of the original-language text. The translator remains faithful to this literal translation philosophy unless it has been determined that the rendering will be misunderstood or misinterpreted. The translator is not tasked with making the text easy to read but rather to make it as accurately faithful to the original as possible.

Removing the Outdated

Passages with the Old English “thee’s” and “thou’s” etc. have been replaced with modern English.
Many words and phrases that were extremely ambiguous or easily misunderstood since the 1901 ASV have been updated according to the best lexicons.
Verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been translated into correct English grammar and syntax, for easier reading. However, if the word order of the original conveyed meaning, it was kept.

More Accurate

The last 110+ years have seen the discovery of far more manuscripts, especially the papyri, with many manuscripts dating within 100 years of the originals.
While making more accurate translation choices, we have stayed true to the literal translation philosophy of the ASV, while other literal translations abandon the philosophy far too often.
The translator seeks to render the Scriptures accurately without losing what the Bible author penned by changing what the author wrote, by distorting or embellishing through imposing what the translator believes the author meant into the original text.
Accuracy in Bible translation is being faithful to what the original author wrote (the words that he used), as opposed to going beyond into the meaning, trying to determine what the author meant by his words. The latter is the reader’s job.
The translator uses the most reliable, accurate critical texts (e.g., WH, NA, UBS, BHS) and the original language texts, versions, and other sources that will help him determine the original reading.

Why the Need for Updated Translations?

New manuscript discoveries
Changes in the language
A better understanding of the original languages
Improved insight into Bible translation

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).