Subject: Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? |
Bible Note: Can you prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the information you have on these is completely and 100 percent accurate? With out such, it is impossible to make a solid case. As I had previously mentioned, the NWT is not the only translation to not reveal the translators names. It is actually something of a tradition. For example, the New American Standard Bible states: "We have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits." Should we assume that it is not a translation simply because we do not know who translated it? Of course not. Such logic is silly at best. How can a person determine if it is a copy of existing work? By comparing it to such, checking the renderings. For example, the NWT has a vastly superior renderin of 2 Peter 3:10, than say, the NASB, KJV, LITV, etc. As for this Mr. William Russell you mention, I am not even framiliar with whom he is. Perhaps you mean Charlse Russell. First, and foremost, he never claimed to be capable of reading Greek and Hebrew if you reference the court records. Additionally, he was dead nearly 30 years before there was any concept of the NWT. The translation speaks for itself. If you are not able to go back into the original language and see this for yourself, I am slightly more inclined to understand your concern, but it is misplaced. -Tony |