The 'New' New world translation... A review .

The 'new' New world  translation: A review

Known as the silver sword because of its colour, this is not an update it is a new translation. With a new translation philosophy and approach. We will look at various features of this edition and make comments from more than one perspective.

The bare facts

Sturdy but soft grey cover, with the wording inset into the binding and not printed on it. A new WT invented font and crisp layout with even presentation. This is different to the old NWT which originally had uneven and untidy typesetting. Launched with an 'app'  (JW app )which also includes other bibles from the watchtower, this NWT is not just a revision it is effectively a new translation.

Features of the Bible

Full bible with centre references, summary (outline of contents) of each book in advance. At the front is a section of 20 questions  that people ask with colour drawings and short answers. at the rear is a concordance and a glossary of terms. following this the usual various charts and maps with two important (for the JWs) chapters on the divine name in the Hebrew and. Greek scriptures.
Differences to the 'old' NWT.

But you would say that...

"I plead innocent of course.
If I say otherwise, I'll be trapped behind iron for the next few years at least."

When a defendant files an innocent plea, you can't just believe them. When a salesman heaps praise upon his product, you look for independent reviews before snapping up the offer. When a hopeful politician questions the character of the incumbent MP, you start to question their own integrity instead. In each case the person's report is suspect because they're clearly biased, and bias always tints their perception of  reality and sometimes pushes them to outright lie. They may be right, but it would be a mistake to take their word at face value.

However, it would be an even bigger mistake to dismiss every form of opinion as bias. A witness in aforementioned courtroom would be invaluable in finding the truth. Of course they will have their own rather definite account on whether the accused committed the crime; an account formed not by what is in their own interest but by what they saw and heard at the scene. While some may have subtle biases of their own, a witnesses word should be trusted much more readily than a defendant's. Similarly, if an expert were arguing for a policy, it would foolish to ignore their decades of training and years of research into the matter because they support one side rather than the other. You can't trust an expert to settle the matter with a word, but you should at least pay attention to what they have to say.