Is it any different from the 2013 or other revisions or the 1961 original?
>>18250345It's different. Best part about having one is that you can open the introduction and show JWs that their "bible" is translated from roman catholic manuscripts (they removed that in the new edition).
>>18250455What Catholic manuscript are you referring to?
>>18250539The New World Translation NT is made from the Westcott and Hort text, which was based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus (found in the Vatican, probably the forgery given to Erasmus) and Codex Sinaiticus (found in a catholic monastery, forgery produced by Constantine Simonides).
>>18250345Compared to most English Bible translations the NWT in general is very dodgy however its old testament is arguably better than the KJV old testament (and any similar such Bibles) since the KJV old testament is based on the latin vulgate which is based on the Masoretic text (a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Tanakh from around 7-10th century AD that is very inaccurate/altered compared to the septuagint and dead sea scrolls and some Codexes which other more recent Bibles rely on including the NWT)The NWT's new testament however is extremely bad since severe liberties are taken with it to impose JW Watchtower doctrine onto the text i.e. Jesus being a created being, Jesus not being God, the JW Governing Body somehow being foreshadowed etc.e.g.the seriously egregious mistranslation of John 1:1 saying 'and the Word was a/the god' instead of 'the word was God' as it clearly says in the original Greek. The NWT NT also replaces the word 'worship' with the synonym 'obeisance' whenever describing Jesus being worshipped to dodge the fact that Jesus is being worshipped as a divine entity/to create the illusion he is being offered some lesser, other kind of devotional praise that doesn't hint that he is divine. The NWT NT also brazenly uses the name Jehovah wherever the original text says LORD/Adonai on the basis that God's name is supposed to be openly used and was hidden in the original text. During Acts when describing the apostles as being spiritual leaders 'on behalf of Jesus' the NWT changes it arbitrarily to that 'we (the apostles) are substitutes for Jesus' on the basis of the JW Watchtower doctrine that the modern-day Governing Body (the five guys in New York) are somehow the modern successors to the apostles and are stand-ins for Jesus (despite condemning the Catholic church as being false Christianity and the antichrist for doing the same thing with the Pope)(cont.) 1/2
>>18250750The 2013 revision gets even further away from the original text by being less ambiguous that 'the Word was a god' as well as strangely changing any instance of God's 'undeserved loving-kindness' (grace) to 'loyal love' (due to recent doctrinal changes where Jehovah is more devoted to his flock than the other way around and Witnesses being considered Abraham-tier 'friends of Jehovah' rather than just followers). Other than this, some areas of wording in the 2013 revision are just more simple/modern English-esque than the 1984 version.To my knowledge there isn't really any difference between the original 1961 version and the 1984 NWT other than that the 1984 NWT has additional study aids, footnotes and cross-references.2/2
>>18250345why is your bible thick? holy
