NYN ["now"] at Romans 8:1 New World Translation
"The NWT also omits key words on occasion, when retaining them in the text would seem to contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is Romans 8:1, "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," which omits the word "now." This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that JWs do not believe anyone can claim to be free of condemnation "now."
Answer: Literally, Romans 8:1 reads: "Nothing really now[Gk, NYN]condemnation to-the(ones) in Christ Jesus."
Has the New World Translation "omitted" the Greek word NYN, from their translation. No! First of all it should be known that the adverb NYN can have two uses. One, it has a temporal use, it is used of time, whether of the present, or in contrast with the past(Acts 7:52; Col.1:24)or with the future(John 12:27; Rom.11:31.). A second use is of "logical sequence." See Vine and Abbott-Smith lexicons. The latter says of this second use "often difficult to distinguish from the temporal sense" and offers "now," "therefore," "however," "as it is" as to it's meaning in certain places. It is in this sense that it appears the New World Translation understands it at Romans 8:1. It should be recognised that the English word "therefore" which is used in English in the sense 'for this or that reason,' 'consequently' and 'hence' is equivalent to that of the Greek NYN when used, not infrequently it should be pointed out, in a more material meaning, rather than temporal, 'in accordance with the present situation,' 'as matters now stand.' So the NWT has not omitted to translate NYN as some ignorantly claim!
But it also can be pointed out that before the word NYN here we have the illative particle ARA It basically means "then" as of inference, not time.(See Romans 7:21 where it also occurs as the second word and is translated "then" NWT.) Interestingly Arndt and Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1957 edition, on page 547, under the word "NYN" says...c.[NYN] used w[ith] other particles...[ARA N[YN] so or thus now Ro.8:1." This supports the NWT where it takes the two particles together as being resumptive: the connecting between what precedes to that which follows.
Note that this Lexicon translates ARA NYN as "so," one word and as "thus now," two words.
This supports the New World Translation where it takes the two particles together as being resumptive: the connecting between what precedes to that which follows and which translates ARA NYN here with the one word "therefore."
Concerning the translating of two particles with one or two(or more)English words. Please compare the New American Standard Version at Mark 16:19 and Luke 3:18. In each the Greek sentence contains"..MEN OUN," which word for word translates as "indeed therefore," at the beginning of the sentence. This is primarily a resumptive phrase as ARA NYN can be at Romans 8:1. In the former scripture this translation reads "So, then," two English words. But in the latter scripture as "So," just one English word. Just as it is acceptable for this translation to do so with these Greek particles, that is, translate them either with one or two words, so it is with the New World Translation with ARA NYN at Romans 8:1. What is important is that the meaning is conveyed accurately. The New World Translation does this at Romans 8:1.
So, along with the New World Translation here at Romans 8:1 we have the translations such as the:
Jerusalem Bible: "The reason, therefore, why those who are in Christ Jesus are not condemned..."
Complete Jewish Bible: "Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation......"- D. H. Stern, 1998.
The New Testament in the Language of the People: "So then there is no condemnation at all for those who are in union with Christ Jesus." C. B. Williams.
and that of William F. Beck who uses the word "now" in the sense of "therefore(NWT)," "for this reason" rather than its temporal sense when he translates:
"Now those who are in Christ Jesus cannot be condemned."-The Holy Bible: An American Translation.
The critic of the New World Translation here also stated that it's translation at this place was, "evidently motivated by the fact that JWs do not believe anyone can claim to be free of condemnation "now."" This can not be the reason as the very text at Romans 8:1 says that "those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation" which of course would mean that annointed Christians were no-longer under condemnation then, at that very time. The fact is that Paul's arguement up to this point was that the perfect and holy Law of Moses did condemn- for no-one could keep it perfectly. Yet, now, free from that written code they had become slaves to "God's law(7:25)." This "law" had set them free from the condemnation that the old "Law" had brought them. The critic is wrong then on two accounts-with his charge that the NWTTC "omitted" to translate the Greek NYN and his falsely claiming that "those in union with Christ Jesus" are not free from "condemnation" 'now' from the New World Translation of this text.