Jehovah’s Witnesses use the standard 66-book Protestant Bible, but usually use their own translation thereof (they do reference other translations from time to time, but generally use *The New World Translation*). It’s fair to say that the *NWT* is quite, let’s say, *distinctive* in places, and has received a fair amount of criticism. The Witnesses do not in any way claim that the translation of the *NWT* was inspired by God, and are happy to argue their doctrines from other translations if you ask them to. (Indeed, they did so for many years before the release of the *NWT*, and continue to do so in languages which do not yet have a version of the *NWT*.)

Here are some of the distinctive features of the *New World Translation*.

  1. In the specific case of [John 1:1](http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1161/177), which is always brought up in discussions of the translation philosophy of the *NWT*, it’s probably fair to say that the Greek is a little ambiguous, and the *NWT* rendering is defensible. They do, of course, provide a footnote and an appendix article on the subject in *The New World Translation — with References*.<br><br>([John 8:58](http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/129/177) is another controversial passage with major theological implications, but in this answer I intend to focus more on general themes of the translation, not specific verses.)
  2. The terminology is slightly different: what is commonly called the “Old Testament” the Witnesses (and the *NWT*) call the “Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures”; what is commonly called the “New Testament” they call the “Christian Greek Scriptures” (the word *Christian* is intended to prevent any possible confusion with the *Septuagint*, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures). This is, arguably, more neutral terminology than the usual. I like it.
  3. The Greek text of the *New World Translation* is the Westcott and Hort master text, not the *Textus Receptus* used by the *King James Version*. There’s a certain amount of dispute in Bible translation circles about which text is better. (The *NWT* is far from the only translation based on the Westcott and Hort text.) Textus Receptus is based on the majority of ancient manuscripts found. Westcott and Hort is based on fewer, but older, manuscripts. The argument in favour of W&H is simply that older manuscripts are probably better. The argument in favour of TR is that the Bible was copied very carefully and the few old texts which happened to survive merely because they were in Egypt, which has a better climate for this kind of thing, were probably inferior copies. Some also claim that if W&H was the better text, God wouldn’t have allowed it to be lost for so many thousands of years. All of this debate (and yes, I have read a book on the subject, firmly in favour of the Textus Receptus and the related Majority Text) is rendered somewhat moot by the fact that most theologians say that few of the differences between the various Greek texts are theologically meaningful. Footnotes reference other texts and ancient translations (including the Vulgate and Syriac translations) in places, but in general the translation is based on W&H.<br><br>(The Hebrew text is far more standard. The *NWT* uses the Masoretic Text, just like almost everyone else. The footnotes of *NWT Ref* occasionally reference the *Septuagint*, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and various Syriac translations, but in general they use the Masoretic.)
  4. One of the distinctive features of the *NWT* is the use of the name *Jehovah*. The Tetragrammaton (four-letter name of God) appears multiple times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Many translations render this as LORD, following the Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Divine Name (though the Jews do *write* the name in their scriptures). *The Jerusalem Bible* renders the name as *Yahweh*, which is a scholarly “best guess” at the original pronunciation. The Witnesses use *Jehovah*, which is almost certainly not the original pronunciation, but is the traditional rendering in English, found in both religious and secular books for many many years. Certainly including some form of the name is more accurate than bowdlerising it.
  5. One of the even more distinctive, and certainly less defensible, features of the *NWT* is that they also use the name *Jehovah* in the Greek Scriptures, although it is not found there in any extant manuscript. When the Greek text quotes the *Septuagint*, they reinsert the name (yes, *reinsert*, as they maintain that it was there originally). Certainly there do exist editions of the *Septuagint* which contain the untranslated and untransliterated Tetragrammaton, and others which render the divine name as *Pipi*, suggesting that they were copied from an earlier version which contained the original Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew letters of which look a little like the Greek letters for *Pipi*. (I now feel the need for a fantasy novel in which God is called Pipi. It’s a wonderful name.)<br><br>However, *NWT* includes the divine name in other places too. Sometimes support comes from the existence of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures (some of those Hebrew translations used for support are actually fairly recent, so any support they offer is tenuous at best). The name *Jehovah* occurs many times in the *New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures*, each time accompanied by a footnote and an explanation of the rationale in *NWT Ref*.

In general, the footnotes and appendices in *NWT Ref* are about the mechanics of translation, not theology. They are about tricky linguistic points and textual variants.