This page shows that the Watchtower's "New World Translation" is not a Bible or translation and answers the question, "Why not?"

The answer is very simple, because none of the five men (Franz, Schroder, Gangas, Knorr, Henschel ) who served on the "translation committee" had more than a high school education. Not one of them could translate Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. If they had put their names in the forward to the "translation," they would have been laughed out of town. In contrast to this the forty seven translators of the Authorized King James Version (AKJV) were the most scholarly men alive at that time or perhaps ever since. They had the academic credentials that qualified them to serve on a translation committee. Would you go to the butcher if you needed heart surgery just because he cuts on hearts every day? Don't you think the matter of translating the Word of God should be done by people that have the proper qualifications to do that kind of work? Watchtower leaders are guilty of false scholarship and have deceived millions with their bogus version of the Bible.

Pilate saith unto him (Jesus), What is truth? (John 18:38 KJV)

Pilate was not looking for a philosophical answer like, the Bible or Jesus Christ. He simply wanted to know the practical definition of the word. People today are asking the same question? WHAT IS TRUTH? They do not know the answer, therefore they are easily lead into falsehood. The simple dictionary definition answers the question precisely. TRUTH IS: CONFORMITY TO ACTUALITY OR THAT WHICH CORRESPONDS WITH FACT AND REALITY."
Is the Watchtower's New World Translation a conformity to actuality? No! Why not? Because not one of the five men that served on the "translation committee" had more than a high school education and none of these men had the academic skills necessary to translate from Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. The New Testament writers wrote in their own languages. They did not make translations. If one cannot translate, then he cannot make a translation. Translation work requires far more than just being able to read a foreign language. "The New World Translation" is not a genuine Bible or a Translation. It is simply a Watchtower text book that is used to deceive millions of people. Watchtower leaders have been from the very beginning in rebellion against the Word of God. Their so called "translation" is an attack on the Biblical teachings of Scripture.
False scholarship and quotational dishonesty can be proven at all levels of Watchtower literature. Some examples will follow on these pages. Their Reasoning from the Scriptures book, Should You Believe in the Trinity booklet, and the Appendix to John 1:1 in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) in addition to the "New World Translation" were written as functional tools. They are not factual and lack both truth and reality. These publications are provided for Jehovah Witnesses by Watchtower leaders to intimidate those who challenge their false claims. Arguments are presented in their writings at a level where most people are not knowledgeable enough to respond. The appendix to John 1:1 in the (KIT) deals with Greek syntax. The publishers who use this material do not have anything more than a superficial understanding of what they say, but it's sufficient to trap the unsuspecting person who opens their door. Passing counterfeit information is much like passing counterfeit money--only people who have been trained to recognize the genuine, really know the difference. Most people who are following the Watchtower leaders do not know that they are being deceived by quotational dishonesty and false scholarship and some who do know, just don't care.

Dr. J. A. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Watchtower's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation. Obsolete and incorrect. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1, The Word was a god."

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaskl of Zurich, Switzerland:"This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase, the Word was a god."
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets at Greek grammar In their mistranslation of John 1:1."
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would agree to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses... I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
Dr. Walter A. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation, 'a god' instead of 'God', is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language many of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible--The committee worked under him.]
Dr. B. F. Westcott (whose Greek text--not the English part--is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv.24. It is necessarily without the article.... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which affirms the true deity of the Word. ...In the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God.' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text--not the English part--is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "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."Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction--'a god' would be totally indefensible."[Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.. this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.'--John 20:28."
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct. ...I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."