• Sorry I could not find the question on
  • New World Translation
  • I would be rather surprised if they did ask this question. The answer to it would be rather controversial as the various adherents to Christianity would all claim that the particular translation they use is the most accurate.
  • I saw this episode on a re-run one weekend. I had heard about it prior to viewing. I am a JW. The question was in regards to the actual WORD FOR WORD translation. According to Jeopardy, the NWT has the translation that many language scholars have agreed most accuratley represents the ACTUAL Words in the original texts. Many say that the NWT doesn't translate the "meaning" of the bible. A translation of an ancient text shouldn't try to translate meaning, since we are all biased on that matter. however you cannot have much bias when you only translate a text word for word without inferring your ideas into the text.
  • when was it on jeopardy
  • Don't know about "Jeopardy" but I've looked for years for a really TRUE translation and did find one, called an 'interlinear' shows the original language and right about it, a word-for-word interpretation....available in both OT and NT.....of course it doesn't read 'pretty' like the overrated KJV, but it's at least the REAL language, which is what I think you'd wanna read instead of all the 'thee' and 'thou' nonsense i the KJV..............but it's still a debate nevertheless.....I figure you could spend years trying to find 'the best' but for me this was it......
    • mugwort
      Certainly can't beat an interlinear bible for accurate texts.
  • The New World Translation is NOT accurate. I'd think the correct answer might be the 1611 King James.
    • Texasescimo
      Why would you think that? ____ Did you now that the original 1611 KJV had the apocrypha in it? ____ Have you ever seen a copy of the actual 1611 KJV? ____It's language and spelling is more similar to William Tyndale's Bible than the 1769 Version that most people use. _____ ____ ___ Mark 16:17-18 And these signes shal follow them that beleeue, In my Name shall they cast out deuils, they shall speake with new tongues, 18They shall take vp serpents, and if they drinke any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sicke, and they shall recouer.
    • Creamcrackered
      Even though the original KJV contained the apocrypha, they made it very clear that it was there as "historical script," and NOT as scripture. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. They rejected it as divine for seven reasons:- Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. As for your second point, it's pointless. The NWT has removed Jesus Christ from many of it's verses, and has removed many verses. In fact the NLT admits that it has altered the bible with the way it has translated, so instead of using word for word (formal equivalence),translating the meanings of words and phrases in a more literal way), keeping "literal fidelity." it's claims to have used sense for sense (Dynamic equivalence), translating the meanings of phrases or whole sentences) with readability in mind. Formal equivalence approach tends to emphasize fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the original language, whereas dynamic equivalence tends to employ a more natural rendering but with "less literal accuracy." So there's your answer from the very facts of how the NLT was translated.
    • Texasescimo
      Why so you give more weight to the KJV based off of newer manuscripts than you do to the actual older more accurate manuscripts? Are you okay with the SPURIOUS extra words in 1 John 5:7 in LATE manuscripts, commonly referred to as the 'Johannine Comma'?,HCSB,NRSV,NLT,NIV 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. Footnotes 1 John 5:8 LATE MANUSCRIPTS of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (NOT FOUND IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY)
  • Don't know that it really was for sure.
  • *** NWT......Because the context can affect the way a word is translated, the New World Translation uses nearly 16,000 English expressions to translate some 5,500 Biblical Greek terms, and it uses over 27,000 English expressions to translate about 8,500 Hebrew terms. Why this variety in the way words are translated? The translation committee judged that to render the best sense of these words according to the context was more important than to produce a strictly literal translation. Even so, the New World Translation is as consistent as possible in rendering Hebrew and Greek words into the target language.
  • KJV the NLT removes some passages and the name of Jesus Christ out of quite a few passages and so making them lose their meaning and demeaning the role of Jesus Christ.
  • Never. Right off the bat... the clues on Jeopardy are given in the form of a declaration, never as a question, so anyone who watches Jeopardy at all would know right away that something isn't right with the given scenario. Secondly, Jeopardy clues are very rarely controversial, and when they are, it's something far less controversial than this and people make a pretty big deal out of it. Jeopardy has more than 14 million viewers, so, if this had happened, there would be clearly more than a handful of people insisting so, and it would have been all over mass media news. Thirdly, I did some research into this and tracked the claims back to around May of 2009, seemingly from within the JW church. It seems as though it started as a fictional anecdote within a sermon, which likely was not intended to deceive anyone into thinking it was a real Jeopardy clue, but was taken out of context by someone in the congregation (either maliciously or innocently, I cannot be certain) and it spread from there, and by August, some people were claiming to have watched the show on the night when the clue was given, but could not or would not give specifics about which episode it was. From the timeline, though, it can be easily debunked, because all Jeopardy clues from 2009 are catalogued at Finally, and most importantly, Jeopardy staff has addressed this alleged situation: "Dear Valued Viewer, Thank you for your recent letter regarding a Jeopardy! clue. We are always glad to hear from our viewers. The clue "What is the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures?" was never a clue on Jeopardy! Our database containing all our questions and answers does not have any such clue. Scripts of our games show no clues on that topic. Our research on the origins of this "clue" has been traced to an internet rumor. We hope you continue to watch and enjoy Jeopardy! Sincerely, Jeopardy! Writers and Researchers"
  • I don't see why the TV show Jeopardy would ask a controversial question among religious people who perhaps were present at the show or watched it on TV. That's like asking which Religion is the closest to God. Presumably, you are stirring the pot.
  • Any Bible version that is a word for word translation of the original Biblical languages. This includes the NASVU, ESV and any interlinear versions.
    • Texasescimo
      An actual word for word translation would not make sense and as far as I know, are non-existent. Several interlinears are close to being word for word but without modern language fillers, they do not make sense.
    • mugwort
      My extent of knowledge is the NASVU is quite readable imo.
    • Texasescimo
      Do you mean the NASB? That is one of the better translations. English Bible Translations (rated on a scale of 1 to 10 as to literalness) Chart of Bibles rated from "word for word" to "thought for thought" (paraphrase)

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy