This document is about the principles of translation of the NWT.
Translations are works of men and therefore not immune to examination and criticism. The translators of the New World Translation (hereafter “NWT”) state that accuracy in translation is very important to them. “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.” — Forward in NWT 1984.
In Appendix A1 of the NWT (2013 edition) they provide their principles of translation:
- Sanctify God’s name by restoring it to its rightful place in the Scriptures. — Matthew 6:9.
- Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God. — 2 Timothy 3:16.
- Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text.
- Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering would distort or obscure the meaning.
- Use natural, easy-to-understand language that encourages reading. — Nehemiah 8:8,12.
Claims of being highly accurate (more accurate than other translations) is a testable claim. There should be nothing to fear from such a test. In school it is only students who haven’t studied that are afraid of tests. Students who know they have mastered the material do not fear an exam. The one who withdraws from an examination is the one who fears failing it. As Judge Rutherford once wrote: “Error always seeks the dark, while truth is always enhanced by the light. Error never desires to be investigated. Light always courts a thorough and complete investigation.” ( Millions now living will never die 1920).
The book Reasoning from the Scriptures rightly observes that “It is true that some translations of the Bible adhere more closely to what is in the original languages than others do. Modern paraphrase Bible have taken liberties that at times alter the original meaning. Some translators have allowed personal beliefs to color their renderings. But these weaknesses can be identified by comparison of a variety of translations.” (p. 64). If it can be shown that the NWT has consistently changed the translation to support Watchtower doctrines it will support the thesis that the NWT “has allowed personal beliefs to color their renderings”. The reason they may have done this is because it is easier to convince people of the truth of a doctrine if you send them to check the book you have edited to support those very same doctrines.
The Watchtower’s Greek Interlinear can be one good resource to check for accuracy of a translation. Here is what they said about that publication:
*** w69 9/1 p. 518 Rich Blessings Poured Out at “Peace on Earth” International Assemblies *** Toward the end of the assembly week, announcement of the publication of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures came as a most pleasant surprise to the delegates. This volume enables Christians to determine the accuracy of any translation of the Greek Scriptures and to get the real sense of the Greek text, even though they may not be familiar with Greek. How so? In that it shows in its left-hand column the actual Greek Bible text, and then under each Greek word the basic English equivalent. In the right-hand column appears a revision of the New World Translation.
How can translators affect their translations?
- The same word in the original can be translated differently in certain contexts even if it has only a single meaning in the original. This can result in making a distinction that is not supported by the original text.
- Different words in the original can be rendered the same. This can result in losing a distinction that exists in the original text.
- Words can be added in certain contexts. This can change the meaning of the text.
- Words can be removed or ignored in certain contexts. This can change the meaning of the text.
- Arbitrarily choosing one definition from a dictionary and ignoring other legitimate definitions. This can limit the range of meanings of a word in the original and target languages.
- Punctuation and capitalization can be used to influence the meaning of the text.
- Prepositions, grammatical cases and tenses can be translated differently which can change the meanings of words in a sentence.
If such changes can be determined to have been applied in a random or inconsistent manner then it is possible that the changes happened inadvertently. But if the contexts correspond consistently and repeatedly to doctrines important to the translators then it becomes certain that their doctrines have been the guiding principle and that these have a higher authority than the best and oldest manuscripts.
Doctrines can be better defended if the text of the Bible explicitly supports the doctrine. The task of translation runs the risk of changing the meaning from the original. This must be avoided at all costs because the translator is merely a conduit of information, not the source. The Bible writers themselves were aware of this danger and warned against changing the meanings of texts: (Deu 4:2; 12:32; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; Gal 1:6-9; Rev 22:18-19; Prov 30:5-6). A translator must be aware of their own biases and take care that they don’t change the meaning of the translation in favour of their biases instead of remaining accurate to the original. However, seeing as the Watchtower Organization claims that Christendom holds to unscriptural teachings and only they have the correct teachings it could be tempting to harmonize any difficult passages in the Bible with teachings of the Watchtower organization.
In the Introduction of the NWT 1984 edition they wrote: “This 1984 revised edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures richly enhances accurate Bible knowledge by means of several distinctive features such as … an appendix.” By looking at this Appendix of the NWT you can discover some of the topics the Watchtower Society thinks that “Christendom” has translated or interpreted incorrectly. These include:
- 1. Jehovah’s Distinctive Name (1A-1J)
- 4. Condition of the living and the dead (hell)
- 5. Scriptural Clarifications (5B Christ’s Presence - Parousia; 5C “Torture Stake”)
- 6. Jehovah and Jesus — Two distinct persons
Hypothetically speaking, it could have been a temptation of the translators of the NWT to harmonize their translation with their doctrines. How? Well, they could choose words to hide or obscure the deity of Christ. They could translate the same word differently in key verses to obscure any similarity between Jehovah and Christ (eg. worship, Lord, “I am”, “in”). They could translate words inconsistently in certain passages in order to prevent the reader from reaching certain conclusions. They could use cross references to direct a reader’s attention toward passages that agree with the translation choices and thus misdirect a reader’s attention away from passages that would challenge it. They could insert words (such as “other”) in key passages to support their doctrines when those words don’t exist in the original. Did they? Let’s study the biblical text to examine these topics.
***
w69 6/1 p. 329 Choosing a Modern Bible Translation ***
Regarding the translator of the Bible into English, it has well been said that his chief responsibility is to render the
Biblical meaning as accurately as possible into appropriate English. This is a position that hardly can be argued against...
This article goes on to criticize several translations for being inaccurate: “However, at times translators betray unfaithfulness to the original text. ... Concerning the Bible translator Phillips we are told that he disregards “the first, second and last rule of the translator: that he be faithful to the original. ... Another modern translation that can be charged with a lack of faithfulness to the original is Moffatt’s New Translation of the Bible.” This language is really surprising when you consider that the NWT has deliberately inserted words into their translation that change the meaning of the text and have no support from the original language manuscripts. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
| Affects which doctrine | More info | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Christ | more |
In the NWT, every time the Greek word προσκυνέω “proskuneo” is used in reference to God,
it is translated as “worship” (Rev 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:4; John 4:20, etc.). Every time “proskuneo” is used in
reference to Jesus, it is translated as “obeisance” (Mat 14:33; 28:9,17; Luke 24:52; Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is
the same word in the Greek (see Grk-Engl Interlinear). Especially compare the Greek word “prosekunēsan” used with
reference to God in Rev 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mat 14:33; 28:9; 28:17. What is
the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating “proskuneo” as “worship”, how would the
verses above referring to Christ read? Perhaps they should have followed their own advice: *** w69 6/1 p. 330 Choosing a Modern Bible Translation *** However, some translations, ... are doubly inconsistent in that they use more than one English word to translate Haiʹdes, one of these being “hell”; and they translate both Geʹenna and Haiʹdes by the English word “hell.” Among those that are consistent in this matter are the American Standard Version and the New World Translation. a—Matt. 5:22; 10:28; 11:23; 16:18. |
| Christ | tetra table |
The NWT translates the Greek word κύριος “kyrios” as “Jehovah” 237 times in the New Testament (Mat 3:3; Luke 2:9; John 1:23; Acts 21:14; Rom 12:19; Col 1:10; 1Thess 5:2; 1Pet 1:25; Rev 4:8; etc.). Why is the word “Jehovah” used when it does not appear in the Greek text? It seems that they have used the word “Jehovah” in those verses to misdirect the attention away from seeing that the NT writers apply OT passages to the Lord Jesus. |
| Christ | 1 Peter 2:3 contains a quote from the OT (Psa 34:8) which uses the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew. Based on stated principles of the NWT this should be one of the places they should have used the word “Jehovah” in the English text. They didn’t. Why? 1 Peter 3:15 also quotes the OT (Isa 8:13) and it also contains the Tetragrammaton. | |
| Christ | John 19:37 quotes Zec 12:10. In this verse the speaker is Jehovah and the best MSS use the words “look on Me whom they pierced”. The NWT translates this as “look to the One whom they pierced”. | |
| bodily resurrection | To what was Jesus referring to by the term “this temple” in John 2:18-19? See John 2:21. | |
| Christ | The NWT translates the Greek words ἐγώ εἰμί “ego eimi” as “I am” consistently 45 times it appears (John 6:34,41; 8:24; 13:19; 15:5; etc.), except in John 8:58 where it is translated as “I have been”. What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If “ego eimi” was translated in John 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would John 8:58 read? | |
| afterlife | Verily I say to you... | The phrase ἀμήν λέγω ὑμῖν “Truly I say to you, ...” occurs 76 times in the New Testament. We know this is an expression by the sheer number of times it occurs and because it always occurs in the same form, except for in John, who doubles the “amen” part to ἀμήν ἀμήν λέγω ὑμῖν “Truly, truly, I say to you”. In the NWT, when there is a comma in this phrase it is placed after the word “you” except in Luke 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word “today”. Why is the comma placed after “today” instead of after “you” in this verse? If the translation of this phrase in Luke 23:43 was consistent with the translation of this phrase in all the other verses in which it appears (see concordance), and the comma was placed after the word “you”, how would it read? |
| afterlife | Nature of the dead | Heb 9:27 reads in the NWT: “and as it is reserved for men to die once for all time...”. The phrase “for all time” does not appear in any Greek manuscript (see the Greek-English Interlinear). Compare the Greek in Rom 6:10 which uses the greek word “εφαπαξ” (ephapax) which means “upon one occasion (only):—(at) once (for all).” The word for “once” in Heb 9:27,28 is “ἅπαξ” (hapax) which means “one (or a single) time (numerically or conclusively):—once” |
| various | The NWT translates the Greek word ἐστί “esti” as “is” in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mat 26:18, 38; Mark 14:44; Luke 22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as “means” in Mat 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; and Luke 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word “esti”? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word “esti” as “is” in these verses, what would these verses say? | |
| Christ | other | In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word “other”, even though it doesn’t appear in the original Greek (see Grk-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? Is the word “Jehovah” a name? See Exo 6:3; Ps 83:18, and Isa 42:8. How would the verse read if the word “other” had not been inserted? |
| Christ | other | In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word “other” 5 times even though it is not in the original Greek (see Grk-Engl interlinear). Why is the word “other” inserted? How would these verses read if the word “other” had not been inserted? Compare these verses to John 1:3 and see if they agree on how many things were created by another creator. |
| Christ | other | Phil 2:9-11 the NWT inserts the word “other” in the phrase “every [other] name” because it is inconcievable for the WBTS that Jesus’ name could be above the name of the Father. Yet Jesus himself said that God had given him his name (John 17:11-12). |
| Christ |
In Titus 2:13 and 2Pet 1:1, the NWT inserts the word “the” before the word “Savior”. Why was it inserted? The original Greek does not contain an article in these places. How would the verses read if the word “the” was not inserted? In addition, in both verses the word “Savior” is in the nominative case in the Greek, yet in the NWT and the English gloss in the Greek-English Interlinear, they have inserted “of” (genitive case) in front of the word “Savior”. This is to support the WTS doctrine that Christ cannot be called “God”. So they ignore the original Greek and change the translation. | |
| Christ | In Luke 4:12, the NWT translates “kyrios” (Grk-lord) as “Jehovah”, which makes the verse read “… ‘You shall not put Jehovah your God to the test.’” See Grk-Engl Interlinear. Why is kyrios translated as “Jehovah” in this verse? Was the devil, in Luke 4:9-11 putting Jehovah to the test or JESUS to the test? | |
| Christ | various | 1 John 5:20 NWT has “But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us insight so that we may gain the knowledge of the one who is true. And we are in union with the one who is true, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.” The words “in union” and “by means of” both use the same Greek word ‘en’ (see Grk-Engl interlinear). The NWT has not consistently translated “en” as “in union with” or “by means of”. 93 verses use “in union with” in the 2013 version. The phrase “by means of” occurs 76x. |
| God | In the OT the NWT adds the word “true” to God (Elohim) about 386 times to make the phrase “true God”, when in the Hebrew this phrase only appears once, in 2 Chronicles 15:3. | |
| Holy Spirit | In Genesis 1:2 the NWT translates “Spirit of God” (רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים = ruach elohim) as God’s active force. The phrase “Spirit of God” occurs 14 times in the OT yet is translated only this once as God’s “active force”. Why? | |
| Holy Spirit | Galatians 6:18 (NWT 2013) The undeserved kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ be with the spirit you show, brothers.
Amen.” The Greek does not have a word that can be translated as “show”. The word “you” is in the genitive case, as in “your spirit.” |
In these and other instances the NWT has deviated from its stated claim and goal of being an accurate translation.
John 1:1 NWT uses the phrase “a god.” In the Study Bible (appendix 2A Jesus - A Godlike One; Divine) they claim: In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as those listed in the accompanying chart. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering. (huh? where?) Other cases (in John chapter 1) that use an anarthrous noun of the word “God” but don’t get translated by that principle just claimed include: John 1:6,12,13,18. In the verses 3-18 the word “God” appears 5 times and each time without an article.
The phrase (NWT 2013) “In the beginning was the Word ...”. When all things began, where was Jesus? He “was” [past tense] already there. If Jesus was a created being, then the verse would have to read: “In the beginning the Word came to be...” or “the Word came into existence”. Instead what it says is that at the point of the beginning, the Word already was. The WT uses a translation called “The Emphatic Diglot” by Benjamin Wilson as support for their choice. Benjamin Wilson was a Christadelphian, who deny the Deity of Christ, so he obviously had a religious conviction that influenced his choice of words. Another translation they have used for support is one done by Johannes Greber, an ex-Catholic and a self-confessed spiritist. He was given help for his translation during seance sessions with his wife, a medium. Isn’t it ironic that the spirits and demons agree with the NWT’s choice of translation for John 1:1 on who Jesus is? Normally, the WTS rejects everything connected with spiritism, except for if and when it supports their cause. They have quoted Johannes Greber in their publications at least three times.
The NWT (1984) uses the lower case form of “god” in several places in the NT, even some that refer to Christ. It seems that the NWT prefers to place Christ on the level of men and pagan gods than on par with God. This despite that scripture declares that Christ is the very image of God (John 14:9,10; 2Co 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3).
| Used of Christ | Used of men and pagan gods |
|---|---|
| John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. | John 10:33-35 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified |
| John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in
the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. |
Acts 7:40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make gods for us to go ahead of us. For this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’ |
| Acts 7:43 But it was the tent of Moʹloch and the star of the god Reʹphan that YOU took up, the figures which YOU made to worship them. Consequently I will deport YOU beyond Babylon.’ | |
| Acts 14:11 And the crowds, seeing what Paul had done, raised their voices, saying in the Lyc·a·oʹni·an tongue: “The gods have become like humans and have come down to us!” | |
| Acts 19:26-27,37 Also, YOU behold and hear how not only in Ephʹe·sus but in nearly all the [district of] Asia this Paul has persuaded a considerable crowd and turned them to another opinion, saying that the ones that are made by hands are not gods. 27Moreover, the danger exists not only that this occupation of ours will come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Arʹte·mis will be esteemed as nothing and even her magnificence which the whole [district of] Asia and the inhabited earth worships is about to be brought down to nothing.” (Acts 19:37) 37For YOU have brought these men who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess. | |
| Acts 28:6 But they were expecting he was going to swell up with inflammation or suddenly drop dead. After they waited for a long while and beheld nothing hurtful happen to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god. | |
| 1 Corinthians 8:5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” | |
| 2 Corinthians 4:4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. | |
| Galatians 4:8 Nevertheless, when YOU did not know God, then it was that YOU slaved for those who by nature are not gods. | |
| Philippians 3:19 and their finish is destruction, and their god is their belly, and their glory consists in their shame, and they have their minds upon things on the earth. |
In order to avoid the personality of the Holy Spirit the NWT has changed the translation in 2Co 13:14. It reads (in the NWT) “The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of YOU.” In the original Greek Jesus Christ, God and the Holy Spirit are all in the genitive case which is usually translated with the English word “of”. However, the NWT changes the mention of the holy spirit to “the sharing in” to create a greater contrast between Jesus Christ and God, and eliminate the parallelism. This leads the reader to think that this difference lies in the Greek text when it does not.
Would it be a good principle to include the text of 1 John 5:7-8 as it stands in the Textus Receptus (TR)? The Watchtower Society has used the Wescott & Hort Greek text which does not include a phrase that exists in the TR. In the WT Nov 15, 1950 they give the reason for not doing so: “The New World Translation renders the phrase “the spirit and the water and the blood” because they are there in the authentic Greek text, but it does not render what is not there in the Greek text… The New World Translation does not substitute the one phrase for the other here, but it translates only what is in the Greek. It refuses to violate the Bible rule: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” — Proverbs 30:6; also Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18.” Admirable indeed. When it suits them. Yet, they give themselves permission to insert “Jehovah” into 237 places without any manuscript evidence whatsoever.
The Watchtower discusses the manuscript issues of this passage here.
Here is a discussion from the NetBible on this verse (click on note #20 in verse 7).
| MSS # | Date (century) | Position of the text |
| 221 | (10th) | margin |
| 177 | (11th) | margin |
| 88 | (12th) | margin |
| 429 | (14th) | margin |
| 629 | (14th) | main text |
| 636 | (15th) | margin |
| 61 | 1520 | main text |
| 918 | (16th) | main text |
| 2473 | 1634 | main text |
| 2318 | (18th) | main text |
These are the comments in the NET Bible:
tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima, “the Spirit and the water and the blood”) at the beginning of v. 8, the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in ten late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. These mss range in date from the 10th century (221) to the 18th (2318). They include the following (with dates in parentheses) 221 (X), 177 (XI), 88 (XII), 429 (XIV), 629 (XIV), 636 (XV), 61 (ca.1520), 918 (XVI), 2473 (1634), and 2318 (XVIII). There are minor variations among these codices. The earliest ms, codex 221, includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 177 (11th century), 88 (12th), 429 (14th), and 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). Codex 177’s Comma is in a marginal note that must be dated after 1551, the year of the first Greek New Testament with verse numbers added. The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (the Comma Johanneum) found a place in the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order, but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and in a form significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others. For a recent discussion of the Comma Johanneum, see Rodrigo Galiza and John W. Reeve, “The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8): The Status of Its Textual History and Theological Usage in English, Greek, and Latin,” AUSS 56 (2018) 63–89.
It seems utterly reasonable to have a principle that we should accept and translate the older mss, not the most recent ones. Thus we should not include that portion of the verse. The principle is one of respect for the oldest mss. However, by the same principle of respect, we should then also not use the tetragrammaton because it is not found in any Greek mss anywhere. It is not consistent to use lack of manuscript evidence to exclude 1 John 5:7b but then ignore the manuscript evidence to insert the tetragrammaton where it is not found. If we pick and choose when to follow such principles by using special pleading then we claim that our theories have a higher authority than the oldest and best attested texts.
Charles Russell repeatedly made comments about ancient Greek manuscripts and recognized the principle that the older MSS were more authentic than more recent ones. He recognized that errors could creep in and copyists could insert their own ideas into the text which were not in the originals. Examples of his discussions include (these links jump to the quoted text!): Jan 1880; Feb 1880; June 1880; April 1881; in Jan 1883 this and this. For example, in March 1888 they state: “We quote only what is in the ancient MS.”
In Aug 1, 1896 they state: “But the originals are what we desire, or translations as near to them and their purity as we can obtain.”
Despite the general (starting with Charles Russell) acceptance of the superior value of old MSS, when it comes to the use of the word “Jehovah” in the NT the WTS seemingly forgets this principle and uses recent translations of the NT into Hebrew as justification to insert the word. How do we explain this behaviour? Well, it certainly seems that when something supports their theology then they will mention it; when the same principle works against them, they simply ignore it and hope that their followers never notice. This is called special pleading. Principles only have value when they work for you; if they work against you, you are not obligated to follow them.
The Watchtower organization has commented several times on how translations can be influenced by the religious viewpoints of their translators. WT Oct 15, 1985, p. 21; Reasoning from the Scriptures p. 277
Why did they translate “in him” or “in me” as “In union with...”? Eg. John 15:5-7. Christ cannot be “in” someone because he is an angel not the omnipresent God. Rom 8:9-10. Col 1:15-17 (by means of ...)
