Editing New World Translation (section)

== Critical review ==
{{BibleHistory}}

Biblical scholars have noted the New World Translation's attempts at accurate conservative translation, its [[critical apparatus]], and its use of modern [[critical editions]] of the [[biblical manuscript]]s. Criticism of the New World Translation focuses mainly on [[Christology|Christological]] issues in its rendering of the New Testament: the translation of the word ''[[Kyrios]]'' (Greek: Κύριος) as "[[Jehovah]]" —usually translated as "Lord" by classical translators, its rendering of passages related to the doctrine of the [[Trinity]] and the divinity of Christ such as [[John 1:1]], and for its difficult-to-understand [[formal equivalence]]. Critics of the movement claim that the NWT is scholastically dishonest.

=== Overall review ===

In its review of Bible translations released from 1955 to 1985, ''The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary'' listed the ''New World Translation'' among the major modern translations.{{sfn|Bratcher|1996|pp=292}}

In 1982, [[Renewal theologian|Pentecostal theologian]] [[Gordon Fee]] and [[Douglas Stuart (biblical scholar)|Douglas K. Stuart]] in their ''How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth'' refer to the ''New World Translation'' as being an "extremely literal translation" filled with "heretical doctrines".<ref>{{cite book|title=How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible|first1=Gordon D.|last1=Fee|first2=Douglas K.|last2=Stuart|publisher=Zondervan|date=1982|isbn=9780310373612|quote=Among the whole Bible translations not discussed are some that are theologically biased, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (1961). This is an extremely literal translation filled with the heretical doctrines of this cult|pages=41|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=blUgAQAAIAAJ}}</ref> In 1985, [[Alan Stewart Duthie]] responded to the assertion by Fee & Stuart that the NWT is "filled with the heretical doctrines of this cult",{{sfn|Duthie|1985|pp=20}} stating that although "there are some heretical doctrines to be found ... [it] does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'".{{sfn|Duthie|1985|pp=70}} Duthie adds "if your purpose is to study the Bible in detail [...] then you can be recommended to use [[New Jerusalem Bible|NJB]] or [[New American Bible|NAB]] for their accessibility and commentary features, or study edition of other translations. If your study interest is more in the original wording, then you could use [[Revised Standard Version|RSV]] or NWT or [[NASV]]".{{sfn|Duthie|1985|pp=114}}

In October 1996, James B. Parkinson compared various translations and gave scores for accuracy for 30 Old Testament translations and 51 New Testament translations.{{sfn|Parkinson|1996|pp=}} Parkinson gave a score of 76 to the NWT Old Testament (1960).{{sfn|Parkinson|1996|pp=}} For the New Testament he gave the NWT (1950) overall: 75, manuscripts: 99 and translation: 66.5. He scored the ''[[Kingdom Interlinear Translation]]'' (1985) overall: 80, manuscripts: 99 and translation: 73.5.{{sfn|Parkinson|1996|pp=}} Parkinson stated, "the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT, 1950) offers a relatively accurate translation from a different theological perspective. Like Rotherham, though, it is often not smooth reading."{{sfn|Parkinson|1996|pp=}}

[[Jason BeDuhn]] stated in 2003 that the differences between Jehovah's Witnesses' theology and that of mainstream denominations, "creates a hostile atmosphere in which every representative of that mainstream theology charges that any variation in the NW from more familiar translation must serve the ulterior motives of distorting the 'truth'".{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=38–39}}

In 2004, [[Anthony Byatt]] and Hal Flemings published their anthology ''{{'}}Your Word is Truth', Essays in Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1950, 1953)''. They included essays responding to criticism of the ''New World Translation'' from non-Witnesses, and a bibliography of reviews of the work.{{sfn|Williams|2006|pp=54}}

[[George D. Chryssides]] stated in 2019 that the unfavourable criticisms by [[H. H. Rowley|Harold Henry Rowley]] (1953), Julius R. Mantey (1974) and [[William Barclay (theologian)|William Barclay]] (1953) "were extremely vague", but that [[Bruce M. Metzger]] (1953) "mentioned a few specific passages which he believed were wrongly translated."{{sfn|Chryssides|2019|pp=232}}

=== Old Testament ===

Regarding the ''New World Translation''{{'}}s use of English in the first volume of the ''New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures'' (''Genesis to Ruth'', 1953), biblical scholar [[H. H. Rowley|Harold Henry Rowley]] was critical of what he called "wooden literalism" and "harsh construction". He characterized these as "an insult to the Word of God", citing various verses of Genesis as examples. Rowley concluded, "From beginning to end this [first] volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."<ref>H.H. Rowley, How Not To Translate the Bible, The Expository Times, 1953; 65; 41</ref> He added in a subsequent review that "the second volume shows the same faults as the first."<ref name="Gruss1970">{{cite book|last=Gruss|first=Edmond C.|title=Apostles of Denial: An Examination and Exposé of the History, Doctrines and Claims of the Jehovah's Witnesses|url=https://archive.org/stream/ApostlesOfDenial/1970_Apostles_Of_Denial#page/n222/mode/1up|date=1970|publisher=Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.|isbn=978-0-87552-305-7|pages=212–213}}</ref> While a member of the denomination, [[Rolf Furuli]]&mdash;a former professor in Semitic languages&mdash;said that a literal translation that follows the sentence structure of the source language rather than target language must be somewhat wooden and unidiomatic. Furuli added that Rowley's assessment based on his own preference for idiomatic translations ignores the NWT's stated objective of being as literal as possible.{{sfn|Furuli|1999|pp=293–294}}

Samuel Haas, in his 1955 review of the first volume of the NWT in the ''Journal of Biblical Literature'', stated that he did not agree with the introduction of the name Jehovah: "religious bias is shown most clearly in the policy of translating the tetragrammaton as Jehovah."{{sfn|Haas|1955|pp=282}} He concluded, "this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages."{{sfn|Haas|1955|pp=283}}

In 1960, [[Frederick William Danker]] wrote, "not to be snubbed is the ''New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rendered from the Original by the New World Translation Committee''... 'the orthodox' do not possess all the truth, yet one does well to 'test the spirits'."{{sfn|Danker|1960|pp=194}}

In 1981, biblical scholar [[Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein]] stated that the Old Testament work is largely based on the formal structure of biblical Hebrew.{{sfn|Kedar-Kopfstein|1981|pp=262}} In 1989, Kedar-Kopfstein said, "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the 'New World Translation.' In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. ... Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the 'New World Translation' any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."{{sfn|Andrews|2018|pp=18}} In 1993 Kedar-Kopfstein said that the NWT is one of his occasionally quoted reference works.{{sfn|Kedar-Kopfstein|1994|pp=17}}

=== New Testament ===

[[Edgar J. Goodspeed]], translator of the New Testament in ''[[The Bible: An American Translation|An American Translation]]'', positively evaluated the New World translation.{{sfn|Chryssides|2019|pp=232}} According to the October 15, 1999 issue of ''[[The Watchtower]]'', Goodspeed wrote to the Watch Tower Society in 1950 stating, "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."<ref>{{cite magazine|date=October 15, 1999|page=31|title=A Milestone for Lovers of God's Word|magazine=The Watchtower|publisher=Watch Tower Society}}</ref>

[[Steven T. Byington]] said in 1950, "Jehovah's Witnesses have made their own translation of the book for which they consider 'New Testament' an illegitimate name. It is well supplied with faults and merits."{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=588}} Byington reports that he agrees with the translation of some words and not others.{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=588–589}} Regarding the introduction of the name Jehovah instead of lord, Byington says: "fifteen pages of the preface present the arguments to justify this. I think the justification insufficient; but the 'Jehovah' does not shock a reader".{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=588}} He also says that the arrangement of the verse numbers escapes confusion "by making its verse numbers much lighter" and adds that "the use of a cheap quality of paper enables the publishers to cut the price below the already low price of the" [[Revised Standard Version]].{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=589}} Byington concludes: "the book does not give enjoyable continuous reading; but if you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines."{{sfn|Byington|1950|pp=589}}

In 1952, religious writer Alexander Thomson wrote of the ''New World Translation'': "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. ... We heartily recommend the ''New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures'', published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."<ref>Alexander Thomson, ''The Differentiator'', 1952, 55, 57 Nos. 2, 6</ref> In 1959, Thomson added that on the whole the version was quite a good one, even though it was padded with many English words which had no equivalent in the Greek or Hebrew.<ref>The Differentiator (June 1959), cited in Ian Croft, "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: Does It Really Have the Support of Greek Scholars?", Perth, Western Australia, ''Concerned Growth Ministries'', 1987, p. 2</ref>

[[Allen Wikgren]] (member of the ''[[New Revised Standard Version]]'' committee, as well as the committee which produced the [[United Bible Societies|USB]] Greek text) said in 1952, "independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such as Verkyl's New Testament (1945) and the Jehovah's Witnesses' edition of the New Testament (1950)".{{sfn|Wikgren|1952|pp=99}} 

In 1953, former [[American Bible Society]] board member [[Bruce M. Metzger]] stated that the translation was written to support Jehovah's Witness doctrines, with "several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek",{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=74}} and cited 6 examples (John 1:1,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=74–76}} Col. 1:15-17,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=76–78}} Phil. 2:6,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=78}} Titus 2:13,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=78–79}} 2 Pet. 1:1,{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=79}} and Rev. 3:14{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=79}}). In 1964, Metzger again reviewed the NWT and concluded, "on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators (their names are not divulged). They refer not only to modern translations [...] but to ancient translations as well. Frequently an intelligent use of a critical information is apparent".{{sfn|Paul|2003|pp=85}}{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=151}} Metzger noted that the consistency in the decision to translate "the same Greek word by the same word in English has a specious show of faithfulness to the original tends to produce a certain woodnness, resulting in the distortion of the effect of the original".{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=151}} Metzger considered the [[Names and titles of God in the New Testament#Some modern adaptations of the New Testament|rendering of Κύριος as Jehovah]] in the New World Translation to be indefensible: "Some of the translations which are simply indefensible include the following. The introduction of the word 'Jehovah' into the New Testament text".{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}} He added, "it is entirely without critical significance to be told that modern translations of the New Testament" render 'Lord' by the Tetragrammaton.{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}} Metzger also criticized the NWT's renderings of 3 verses: John 1:1{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}} and Colossians 1:16,{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}} as in 1953, and adds Jude 11–15.{{sfn|Metzger|1964|pp=152}}

[[J. Carter Swaim]] in 1953 wrote that "objection is sometimes made to new translations on the ground that to abolish archaic phrases tends to cheapen the Scripture".{{sfn|Swaim|1953|pp=39}} Referring to the ''New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures'' he added: "it is a translation that has its own peculiarities, and its own excellences too. The Witnesses, who are enthusiastic in the spread of their tenets, regard this as one of their most effective devices".{{sfn|Swaim|1953|pp=40}}

Theologian [[William Barclay (theologian)|William Barclay]] concluded in 1953, "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible... It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest".{{sfn|Barclay|1953|}}{{sfn|Rhodes|2001|p=94}}

In 1954, [[Unitarianism|Unitarian]] theologian [[Charles Francis Potter]] stated about the ''New World Translation'': "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word ''[[stauros]]'' as [[Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion#Jehovah's Witnesses|'stake' instead of 'cross']], and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen."<ref>''The faiths men live by,'' Kessinger Publishing, 1954, 239. {{ISBN|1-4254-8652-5}}.</ref>

Frederick E. Mayer wrote in 1954: "It is a version that lends support to denial of doctrines which the Christian churches consider basic, such as the co-equality of Jesus Christ with the Father, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the survival of the human person after physical death. It teaches the annihilation of the wicked, the non-existence of hell, and the purely animal nature of man's soul."<ref>{{cite book|last=Mayer|first=Frederick E.|title= The Religious Bodies of America (1st edition) |date=1954|publisher=Concordia Publishing House|edition=1961 Revised|isbn=978-0-75860-231-2|pages=469}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Gruss|first=Edmond C.|title=Apostles of Denial: An Examination and Exposé of the History, Doctrines and Claims of the Jehovah's Witnesses|url=https://archive.org/stream/ApostlesOfDenial/1970_Apostles_Of_Denial#page/n222/mode/1up|date=1970|publisher=Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.|isbn=978-0-87552-305-7|pages=210}}</ref>

In 1961 [[F. F. Bruce]] stated: "some of its distinctive renderings reflect the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses (e. g. 'the Word was a god" in John 1:1)".{{sfn|Bruce|1961|pp=184}} He also stated that "some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good".{{sfn|Bruce|1961|pp=184}}

In his review in ''[[Andover Newton Theological School|Andover Newton]] Quarterly'' Robert M. McCoy reported in 1963: "in not a few instances the ''New World Translation'' contains passages which must be considered as 'theological translations.' This fact is particularly evident in those passages which express or imply the deity of Jesus Christ."{{sfn|McCoy|1963|pp=29}} He concludes: "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. This translation, as J. Carter Swaim observes, has its peculiarities and its excellences. All in all, it would seem that a reconsideration of the challenge of this movement to the historic churches is in order."{{sfn|McCoy|1963|pp=31}} 

In 1963, theologian [[Anthony A. Hoekema]] wrote, "Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself."<ref>Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventism, William B. Eerdmans, 1963, {{ISBN|0802831176}}, pp. 208–209</ref>

[[Samuel MacLean Gilmour]] said in 1966: "in 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation of The New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament translation is now far advanced. The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed —a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek and that made the Westcott and Hort Greek text basic to their translation. It is clear that doctrinal considerations influenced many turns of phrase, but the work is no crack-pot or pseudo-historical fraud".{{sfn|MacLean Gilmour|1966|pp=26}}

In 1967, Robert H. Countess wrote that the "NWT has certain praiseworthy features—for example, an ''[[critical apparatus|apparatus criticus]]''—everyone must admit", but described the NWT's rendering of "a god" at John 1:1 as "most unfortunate for several reasons".{{sfn|Countess|1967|pp=160}} In 1982, in his critical analysis ''The Jehovah's Witness' New Testament'' he wrote that the NWT "must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly."<ref>Robert Countess, The Jehovah's Witness' New Testament, A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1982, {{ISBN|0875522106}}, pp. 91–93</ref> Rolf Furuli, while a member of the denomination, responded, "Countess ascribes to the NWT translators rules for translation which they have never expressed, and then he shows inconsistently the translators have followed these rules [...] His account of the NWT, therefore, is not a balanced, scholarly presentation; rather, it surrenders both to emotionally inspired caricature and a partisan spirit".{{sfn|Furuli|1999|pp=294–295}}

Julius R. Mantey, the co-author of ''A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament'' and ''A Hellenistic Greek Reader'', said in 1980 that the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is "a shocking mistranslation" and "Obsolete and incorrect".<ref name="Mantey"/>

In 2003, theologians John Weldon and [[John Ankerberg]] reviewed the ''New World Translation'', stating: "it is our goal in this article to briefly critique the English translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT)".{{sfn|Ankerberg|Weldon|2003}} Weldon and Ankerberg accused the ''New World Translation''{{'}}s translators of renderings that conform "to their own preconceived and unbiblical theology",{{sfn|Ankerberg|Weldon|2003}} citing several examples that they considered to support theological views in favor of accurate translation.{{sfn|Ankerberg|Weldon|2003}}

The 2003 edition of the ''[[New Catholic Encyclopedia]]'' states, "[Jehovah's Witnesses] are allowed no other books than the Bible and the society's own publications, which includes its own translation of the Bible with an impressive [[critical apparatus]]. The work is excellent except when scientific knowledge comes into conflict with the accepted doctrines of the movement. In their so-called ''New World Translation'', the term ''[[Kyrios (Biblical term)|Kyrios]]'' is rendered Jehovah instead of Lord everywhere in the New Testament (237 times) except at Philippians 2.11, where St. Paul refers the word to Christ."{{sfn|Catholic University of America staff|2003|pp=751}}

In 2004, historian [[Jason BeDuhn]] examined New Testament passages in which he believed "bias is most likely to interfere with translation"{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=165}} from nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world".{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=viii}} BeDuhn compared the ''King James'', the ''(New) Revised Standard'', the ''New International'', the ''New American Bible'', the ''New American Standard Bible'', the ''Amplified Bible'', the ''Living Bible'', ''Today's English'' and the NWT versions in Matthew 28:9, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:15–20, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, John 8:58, John 1:1.{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=pp. 163, 165, 169, 175, 176.}} For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn said that the ''New World Translation'' was "not bias free",{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=165}} adding that whilst the general public and various biblical scholars might assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias, he considered it to be "the most accurate of the translations compared",{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=163}} and a "remarkably good translation".{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=165}} He added that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation".{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=165}} Despite his positive review, BeDuhn said the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy",{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=169}} and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God".{{sfn|BeDuhn|2003|pp=170}} In rebuttal, Thomas Howe strongly criticized BeDuhn's positive review of the ''New World Translation'', stating that BeDuhn's main goal is to deny the deity of Christ.{{sfn|Howe|2010|pp=326 (back cover)}} According to Howe, "in this critical evaluation, BeDuhn's arguments are challenged and his conclusions called into question".{{sfn|Howe|2010|pp=}}{{sfn|Howe|2015|pp=}}

In 2008, Kenneth J. Baumgarten and Kevin Gary Smith published an article in the [[South African Theological Seminary]]'s journal, ''Conspectus'', entitled, "An Examination of the Consistency of the New World Translation with the Stated Philosophy of the Translators", in which they studied the use of "the Greek term θεός in reference to Jesus Christ" and concluded that "in seven of the nine sample texts, the NWT violates one or more of its stated translation values and principles. They said the most common violation is its pervasive tendency to subvert the most natural understanding of the Greek text in favour of a 'preferred religious view'."{{sfn|Baumgarten|Smith|2008|pp=}}

George D. Chryssides noted in 2016 that the New World Translation's rendering of passages about Christ's role in the creation of the world—for example, [[Colossians 1|Colossians 1:15-17]]—are phrased in such a way as to suggest that Christ was created and not, as the [[Nicene Creed]] states, "begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God."{{sfn|Chryssides|2016|pp=140}}

=== Commentary about non-English versions ===

[[Cees Houtman]] wrote of the Dutch translation in 1984: "respect and knowledge are the requirements that a translator must meet. It was noted above that in the past distrust was often expressed regarding the translation work of persons belonging to a different modality or denomination and there was a fear of the theological points of view being reflected in the translation. A purely objective evaluation of translations, however, must conclude that only in very exceptional cases can passages be pointed out in which the confessional (or political and social) point of view of the translators shines through. Even the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of the critics. In this context, one should also note, for example, that [[Remonstrants]] and [[Mennonites]] were able to use the SV [([[Statenvertaling]])]. Scripture and religious beliefs tend to come to light in notes and introductions to translations."{{sfn|Houtman|1984|pp=279–280}}

The [[Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft|Evangelical German Bible Society]] reviewed the German-language edition of 1986 and described the NWT as a "translation that is accurate in many respects, but tendentious in the sense of the special teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses".{{sfn|Haug|1993|pp=34–35}}

In 2004, [[Xabier Pikaza]] wrote of the Spanish translation, "Traducción del Nuevo Mundo ... is the name given by Jehovah's Witnesses to their version of the Bible, which is based on the conviction that the other versions, in all languages, are somehow tainted by the presuppositions of the various churches and Christian confessions. Only this version would reflect the exact content of the Scriptures in the original languages, because 'The Bible is the Word of God as long as it is well translated'. It is not a direct translation from the original languages, but is made from the English text (published in 1960), although the editors claim to have faithfully consulted the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The edition, in two columns, is very well cared for; it includes a critical apparatus and numerous intertextual references. Many Catholic and Protestant scholars have accused this Bible of flaws and biased interpretations. But, on the whole, it offers a reliable vision of the Word of God, which can lead men to the New World, that is, to the Messianic Kingdom".{{sfn|Pikaza|2004|pp=778}}

Sverre Bøe in 2011 said, "the Norwegian version of The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) by Jehovah's Witnesses intends to be 'accurate', literal and precise, and in many respects it really is. A number of dogmatic concerns, however, break with such principles, often based on an anti-trinitarian understanding".{{sfn|Bøe|2011|pp=169}}

=== ''Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures'' ===

[[Thomas Nelson Winter]] considered the ''Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures'' to be a "highly useful aid toward the mastery of ''koine'' (and classical) Greek," adding that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."{{sfn|Winter|1974|pp=376}}

Julius R. Mantey stated that the KIT "changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation."<ref name="Mantey">Julius Robert Mantey, Depth Exploration in the New Testament, Vantage Press, 1980, {{ISBN|0533045355}}, pp. 136–137</ref>

According to the February 1, 1998 issue of ''The Watchtower'', Jason BeDuhn ordered copies of the KIT for his students at [[Indiana University Bloomington]], and wrote that "it is the best interlinear New Testament available".{{sfn|Andrews|2023|pp=124}}<ref>{{cite magazine|magazine=The Watchtower|publisher=Watch Tower Society|date=February 1, 1998|page=32|title="It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available"}}</ref>

=== Controversial passages ===

Much criticism of the ''New World Translation'' involves the rendering of certain texts in the New Testament considered to be biased in favor of specific Witness practices and doctrines.<ref name="pentonbible" /><ref>Robert M. Bowman Jr, ''Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses'', (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Book House, 1992)</ref>{{sfn|Haas|1955|pp=283, "This work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages."}}{{sfn|Ankerberg|Weldon|2003}}<ref>Rhodes R, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Zondervan, 2001, p. 94</ref>{{sfn|Metzger|1953|pp=}}{{sfn|Metzger|1964}} These include:

* the use of "torture stake" instead of "cross" as the [[instrument of Jesus' crucifixion]];{{sfn|Paul|2003|pp=85}}<ref name="pentonbible" />
* the use of the indefinite article ("a") in its rendering of [[John 1:1]] to give "the Word was ''a'' god";{{sfn|Paul|2003|pp=85}}<ref name="pentonbible" /><ref>C.H. Dodd: "The reason why [the Word was a god] is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole." ''Technical Papers for The Bible Translator'', Vol 28, No. 1, January 1977</ref>
* the term "public declaration" at Romans 10:10, which may reinforce the imperative to engage in public preaching;<ref name="pentonbible" />
* the term "taking in knowledge" rather than "know" at John 17:3 (in the 1984 revision), to suggest that salvation is dependent on ongoing study;<ref name="pentonbible">{{Citation|author=Penton, M. J.|title=Apocalypse Delayed|publisher=University of Toronto Press|edition=2nd|year=1997|pages=174–176}}</ref>
* the placement of the comma in Luke 23:43, which affects the timing of the fulfillment of Jesus' promise to the thief at [[Calvary]].<ref name="bottingbible">{{Citation| last = Botting | first = Heather| author2 = Gary Botting| title = The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses| publisher = University of Toronto Press| year = 1984| pages = 98–101| isbn = 0-8020-6545-7}}</ref>