new revised New World Translation (page 7)

sacolton

This just infuriates me to no end!

They have inserted their agenda as if it were part of the original text. That's just WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Most JWs will overlook it as a minor matter. But in reality, there is no reason why they should make this so-called "mechanical" change WITHOUT a disclaimer. Either they are deliberately trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, or are so smug thinking that no one would notice. There's no other explanation.

Aurelius

With the release of the 2006 "mechanically adjusted" version obviously the last paragraph is NO longer the case

Rbi8 = (2007 CDRom) New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References

Appendix:

***
Rbi8p.15806CWiththeBloodofGod’sOwnSon***
6C
WiththeBloodofGod’sOwnSon
Ac
20:28—Gr.,d??t??a?µat??t???d???
(di·a´
touhai´ma·tostoui·di´ou)
1903 "with the blood of His own Son" TheHolyBiblein
ModernEnglish, by
F. Fenton, London.
1950 "with the blood of his own [Son]" NewWorldTranslation
oftheChristianGreek
Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1966 "through the death of his own Son" Today’sEnglish
Version, American Bible
Society, New York.
Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in the KingJamesVersion and DouayVersion, "with his own blood." That has been a difficult thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSy h (margin) (followed by Moffatt’s translation) read "the congregation of the Lord," instead of "the congregation of God." When the text reads that way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, "with his own blood." However, ?BVg read "God" (articulate), and the usual translation would be ‘God’s blood.’
The Greek words t?? ?d??? (toui·di´ou) follow the phrase "with the blood." The entire expression could be translated "with the blood of his own." A noun in the singular number would be understood after "his own," most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in AGrammarofNewTestamentGreek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: "Before leaving ?d??? [i´di·os] something should be said about the use of ? ?d??? [hoi´di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1 11 13 1 , Ac 4 23 24 23 . In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20 28 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’"
Alternately, in TheNewTestamentintheOriginalGreek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: "it is by no means impossible that ???? [hui·ou´, "of the Son"] dropped out after ???????? [toui·di´ou, "of his own"] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind."
The NewWorldTranslation renders the passage literally, adding "Son" in brackets after ?d??? to read: "with the blood of his own [Son]."

song19

Rev. 22:19
and if anyone takes anything away......doesn't the older Bibles (This is obviously my old Winess one say?) "OR ADD" then God will take his portion away...etc. etc.

They haven't changed this one have they?

tfjw

Found this in the April 1, 1993 Watchtower where the author failed to use the brackets around the word "other" when citing Colossians:

Colossians 1:16 says that "by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth." (page 11, article: "Follow the Light of the World") - available on the 2006 CDROM.

Narkissos

Interesting.

It's certainly inconsistent with their former policy -- and sneaky if they have not announced the change clearly -- but from the broader perspective of "honesty in translation" I don't think it is necessarily a bad move.

As I have probably pointed out a number of times before, I think the notion of signaling "words added for meaning / clarity" (by brackets, italics or otherwise) is very misleading. When a 4-word sentence in Hebrew or a 6-word sentence in Greek is rendered as a 10-word sentence in English, that doesn't necessarily mean that 6 or 4 words have been added. It may just mean that English needs more words than Hebrew or Greek to express the same thought. The main problem with signaling some of the English words which have no verbal equivalent in the original language is that it gives the reader the illusion that the words which are not signaled correspond strictly to the original expression, and are therefore undisputable.

Whatever the version they use, Bible readers must realise that they are reading a translation, and that every bit of it is, in principle, open to debate -- not just a few words arbitrarily made to stand out as "added".

daniel-p

But in this case, the word "other" is misleading in comparison to the original text. Not only that, but by removing the brackets completely, it gives the impression that nothing has been added to "clarify" the meaning. So, not only are they misinterpreting, but covering the signs of their misinterpretation to those who have no other edition to compare it with.

Deputy Dog

Nark

Whatever the version they use, Bible readers must realise that they are reading a translation, and that every bit of it is, in principle, open to debate -- not just a few words arbitrarily made to stand out as "added".

I can agree some what with you, but this changes the meaning.

In other translations I'll reread the passage without the "added" words and most of the time the verse still makes sense.

tfjw

By their keeping the added words in place but removing the brackets, it has become nothing more than a paraphrase.

Narkissos

Let me illustrate: this is how the NWT passage should read were all [other] variations from the Greek text pointed out:

He is [the] image

of the invisible God, [the] firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] [things] were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the [things] visible and the [things] invisible, [no matter whether they are] thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] [things] have been created through him and for him. 17Also, he is before all [other] [things] and by means of him all [other] [things] were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is [the]beginning, [the] firstborn from the dead, that he might become [the one] who is first in all [things]; 19 because [God] saw good [for] all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] [things] by making peace through the blood [he shed] [on] the torture stake,[no matter whether they are] the [things] upon the earth or the [things] in the heavens.

My point is that there are many more formal variations than would appear from the former NWT use of brackets, several of them being seriously open to debate. When brackets are used, the reader tends to assume that whatever is not in brackets is the original text...

new revised New World Translation

Share this