by Bleep 103 Replies latest watchtower bible
The NWT should be called the NWI.
There is a difference between a translator and an interpreter. A translator must closely adhere to the written or spoken text faithfuly. An interpreter is allowed to put his own two cents in order to explain a passage so that it makes sense in other cultures and languages. You can interpret Lord as Jehovah, but you cannot translate Lord into Jehovah. Lord is a title. Jehovah is a proper noun of someone.
.
Attention to the contemporary timing of the nwt reveals that it was a necessary development, for the dual purpose of saving face and promoting the wt specific doctrine. Being unable to refute theological argument that is based on The Bible, they needed their own version as a necessary means to support the work and pride that they have overtime developed in the dark message.
bang
Faraon said, regarding the use of "Jehovah" in the NT of the NWT, that "you can interpret Lord as Jehovah, but you cannot translate Lord into Jehovah. Lord is a title. Jehovah is a proper noun of someone."
That is irrefutable and I think it would have been more accurate for the NWT to have had "Jehovah" as a footnote. But I would add to that the following observations:
Many of those who criticise the NWT for using the name "Jehovah" in the NT are apparently oblivious to the fact that many English translations, including the Authorised Version, have replaced the Name in the O.T. with "Lord" almost 7000 times. If one is to insist that the NWT is an interpretation and a paraphrased version then that same label must be applied to those translations which replace "Jehovah" in the O.T. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
One of the reasons that the NWT Committee felt justified in concluding "Jehovah" was originally written in the N.T. is the use in early Greek manuscripts of "nomina sacra", the abbreviation of sacred words (normally by contraction) with a horizontal line placed above as a warning that the word cannot be pronounced as written. So, for example, KYRIOS (meaning "LORD") is written KS with a line above it and THEOS (meaning "GOD") is written THS with a line above it. This practice is almost universal in Greek manuscripts of the N.T. But not in Greek manuscripts of the O.T. In the Sinaitic, Alexandrian and Vatican codices of the fourth and fifth centuries they have these sacred abbreviations instead of the tetragrammaton in the O.T. But in earlier Greek manuscripts such as those found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls the tetragrammaton is never substituted, but is written in old Hebrew characters (even though the rest of the text is Greek), in Aramaic script, or in Greek letters as IAO or similar. So something happened to change the representation of the tetragrammaton in Greek bibles after the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.
Actually, that wasn't true of all Greek bibles as the Jewish scribes continued to write God's name, both in the LXX and other versions. And the early Jewish Christians had no reason to change that. But as the Christian church became more gentile than jewish, towards the end of the first century, the significance of the Name diminished and was substituted by the abbreviated form of "kyrios" or "theos". When this was first done the abbreviated form preserved the sanctity of the divine name but this significance was also soon lost and many other contracted words (such as spirit, man, cross) were added to the list. We know this happened to the Greek O.T. and as the Greek N.T. uses the same abbreviations in the same context there is good reason to believe it happened there.
Now, with this background let's consider the objection that "you cannot translate Lord into Jehovah". This is a simplification because the word translated is not KYRIOS but KS with a line above it, which has far more significance as we have seen. The fact is that if we disregard the NWT there is no English translation which conveys to the reader the sacred nature that these abbreviated words had for those who read them in the original language.
Having said that much I should also say I agree with pseudoxristos that reference to various Hebrew translations of the New Testament in support for using "Jehovah" is misleading to the average reader. It is not wrong in itself to show that other translations have also felt there is sufficient evidence to justify using God's name, but the impression given to the casual reader is that these are ancient manuscripts and that is simply not true of the majority. The one exception to this is the translation of Matthew by Shem-Tob ben Shaprut in the fourteenth century as there is some evidence he translated from a copy which contained God's name. But apart from that I agree the references to Hebrew translations add no weight to the case.
RobertF, you asked how I know the NWT serves a Bible student well who is interested in what was actually written. You also asked how much I know about Greek.
I don't think it is necessary to know Greek or other languages in which the Bible was written in order to determine the worth of a translation. Just as a judge in court can determine on matters in which he is not an expert by examining what experts have to say and allowing for their bias in the case, so can anyone avail themselves of books on grammar, concordances, dictionaries and with a bit of diligence and common sense can reach reasonable conclusions about the accuracy of what they read. I can read biblical Greek but not as fluently as I read English. And almost certainly not as fluently as the scholars I "dismissed". Actually, it was Professor BeDuhn who "dismissed" them - I simply conveyed his comments on what they had to say.
What tools do I use to determine the worth of the NWT ?
I have a number of grammars: "A Grammar of the Greek N.T." (A.T.Robertson), "Grammar of New Testament Greek" (J.H.Moulton) and "Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek" (Thackeray).
I use a "Concordance to the Greek Testament" (Moulton, Geden & Moulton), "Concordance to the Septuagint" (Hatch & Redpath), a "Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament" (J.B.Smith) and "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible".
On the matter of translation I have "Biblical Translation" (W.Schwarz), "Notes on Translation of the New Testament" (F.Field), "The Theory and Practice of Translation" (Nida & Taber), "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation" (R.Furuli), "Interpreting the Hebrew Bible" (Emerton & Reif), "Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek" (T.Boman) and a number of issues of "The Bible translator" to which I subscribed.
There are also a number of other Bible aids but it is not necessary to have all this in your home. My local library is an amazing resource for research and the internet provides many translations for comparison.
I also read what others have to say about the NWT:
In 1950, 1951, 1953 and 1955 "The Christian Century" carried reviews of the NWT as parts of it were released. Of particular interest was the May 9, 1951 edition (Volume 68, Number 19, pp.587-589) which carried an article "How Translators Work - Behind the Scenes in the Preparation of a New Version of the New Testament" by Steven Byington. After the first review in 1950 the NWT Committee provided an extended comment on the points raised and Byington replied to these. This article "gives an illuminating glimpse into the way in which translators of the Bible work".
There is an article by Bruce Metzger in "The Bible Translator" of July 1964 in which he says: "On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators (their names are not divulged). They refer not only to modern translations, including various English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese translations, but to ancient versions as well, including the Old Latin, Old Syriac, Vulgate, Armenian and Ethiopic versions. Frequently an intelligent use of critical information is apparent...The decision to render, so far as practicable, the same Greek word by the same English word has a specious show of faithfulness to the original, but the application of the principle with any degree of consistency tends to produce a certain woodenness, resulting in the distortion of the effect of the original." I would be interested in the context where this same man speaks of it as "pernicious", "frightful", and "reprehensible".
In "The Bible Collector" of July-December 1971 there were three articles on the NWT from different points of view by Edmond Gruss, Dennis Light and Harry Sturz. Gruss, a critic of the WTS, concludes his article: "While this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to color many passages."
It is not only the translation itself but also the critical apparatus which I have found helpful to identify alternative renderings e.g. the Latin, Syriac or Greek which may sometimes be the more accurate reading. I know that it serves its purpose because every time I have made the effort to thoroughly research a portion of scripture I have found they have good reason for rendering it so. I have not always agreed with their rendering but it has always provided solid food for thought.
Earnest
Earnest,
I'm sorry, but obviously all the reference sources you point out hasn't opened your eyes to how blatantly distorted to NWT is compared to other translations.
JW's have altered their Bible to fit their man made theology, rather than letting the Bible dictate theology.
Just one example can be found at Revelation 15:4. The KJV reads:
"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest."
The NWT translates the Greek word "hosios" as loyal!!!!!!!!!!! The word "loyal" is not even found anywhere in the KJV, and their isn't even a definition that comes remotely close to "loyal" according to Strongs for the word "hosios". Here is the full text from the NWT:
Who will not really fear you, Jehovah, and glorify your name, because you alone are loyal? For all the nations will come and worship before you, because your righteous decrees have been made manifest.
This is a gross distortion!!! Obviously, the Governing Body had a hard time with this one, because if they had been forthright and presented it as the Greek author had intended, it would be a serious blow to their anti Trinitarianism thinking, because clearly Jesus is also spoken of as the Holy One in Acts 2:27, with the same Greek word for Holy being used! Since Revelation says that God is alone holy, and Jesus is also spoken as such, it clearly shows for their not to be contradiction in Scripture that Jesus has deity!
The most incredulous aspect of this is if the author's intention was the convey the meaning of "loyal", he would have used the Greek word for "faithful", which is "pistis" or "pistos".
I'm sorry Earnest, but you really must do more research before emphatically trying to sell your deceptive JW apologetic approach.
When doing Bible study, I have found that by reading, and comparing other translations, you do get a better picture of what may be the real flavor of what the writer was trying to convey.
If you dont have other Bibles available, go to the public library and check it for yourself. I have found the NWT to be a very good/accurate Bible translation.
When you think of it, the writings in the Bible are very old, and do we today fully understand all the nuances of ancient language?
If you consider the Bible important in your life. you then should really test it for yourself.
frogit
You can chech some questions to JW, including some about their dishonesty in translation at
http://www.worldzone.net/family/johnanderson/questions.shtml
Didn't someone named Greeber, a psychic and spirit medium, write that version of the Bible?
Wait just a minute....Whether YHWH appeared in the Hebrew text or the LXX Greek text, it was spoken as 'Lord' [Adonai, Kyrios], remember? The correct way to pronounce YHWH was lost because of dis-use, wasn't it? So when the text was read, the reader said 'Lord'. It seems reasonable to me that the NT writers used what was spoken, 'Lord', when they wrote and copied their manuscripts because they were comfortable with who Jesus is.
As far as the NWT, I agree with those who have said the translation committee used other English translations and changed passages according to wts theology. [It doesn't matter really because a jw has to believe what they tell him the passage means anyway.] If they did not consult other translations, and they were not qualified translators, then there is the possibility they were divinely inspired to translate Hebrew and Greek texts by God's Holy Spirit. Anybody want to go with that one?
Libby
ps libra spirit I think the name you mean is Gruber?
Edited by - Liberated on 2 August 2002 21:35:59
stocwach:
Thanks for raising your question about the NWT of Revelation 15:4 but I think its a bit premature to conclude that it is translated "loyal" to avoid describing God alone as "holy". After all, there is no difference in the argument that both God and Jesus are holy to saying that both God and Jesus are loyal (but God alone is holy/loyal). The flaw in your argument is that the same word is used to describe Christians at Titus 1:8 so Revelation must be referring to God as holy/loyal in an absolute sense.
In Vine's "Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words" he refers to two adjectives which are translated "holy". The first is "hagios" from where we get the English word hagiography referring to the lives of the saints or holy men. The second is "hosios" which is the adjective used in Rev.15:4. Vine says that the meaning of this word is associated with "righteousness".
One method to understand what the original writers mean by the words they use is to consider how the same word is used elsewhere, especially in scripture. This adjective occurs eight times in the New Testament, namely at Acts 2:27; 13:34,35; 1 Timothy 2:8; Titus 1:8; Hebrews 7:26; Revelation 15:4 and 16:5 [missing from the AV]. The AV translates it as "holy" in all instances except Acts 13:34 where it is translated as "mercies". What is also interesting is that two of those eight verses (Acts 2:27; 13:35) are quoting from Psalm 16:10 which uses the same Greek adjective in the Septuagint translation.
The Hebrew word here is "chasidh" and this word is so translated in a further twenty-five places in the Septuagint. In most instances the AV translates it as "holy" or "godly" but at 2 Samuel 22:26 and Psalm 18:25 it is translated as "merciful" (similar to the "mercies" of Acts 13:34). The "Hebrew and English Lexicon of the O.T." by Brown, Driver, Briggs gives the meaning as "kind" or "pious". It elaborates on the word "pious" saying "pious, either as exhibition of 'duteous love' toward God, or because 'kindness', as prominent in the godly, comes to imply other attributes, and to be a designation of the godly character."
The book "Aid to Bible Understanding" explains that the related noun is "more comprehensively rendered 'loving-kindness,' or, because of the fidelity, solidarity and proved loyalty associated with it, an alternate translation would be 'loyal love'." So at Micah 6:8, for example, the AV says to love "mercy", the NW to love "kindness" and the NEB to love "loyalty".
Of course the Greek does not necessarily have an identical meaning to the Hebrew word it translates - there may not be an exact equivalent. But it would have to convey a similar meaning to the readers. So also, in English, there appear to be no words that express the full meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words, but loyalty, including, as it does, the thought of devotion and faithfulness, when used in connection with God and his service, serves to give a close approximation. (Aid to Bible Understanding, p.1084)
Liberated:
Just when the Jews stopped speaking God's name is not altogether clear. At the time the temple was destroyed in 70 the whole superstructure of the Jewish nation was wiped out. More than a million were killed and close on 100,000 sent into exile. Eventually, the remaining Jews formulated a worship that revolved around the synagogue rather than the temple and started setting down in writing what eventually became the Mishnah. It is from these writings that we have the prohibition on speaking God's name but what must be remembered is that the Council was now predominantly the Pharisees and priestly class who were so fond of making rules. All the Jewish sects which were so much a part of life in the time of Jesus had effectively been submerged in the anxiety to preserve some semblance of a nation after the destruction.
There is reason to believe that there were some who were not using God's name prior to 70 but the evidence we have indicates this was amongst the priestly class. Unless you want to use 'Life of Brian' as your authority we really do not know what the common people did. With the great number of divisions within Judaism it would be surprising if none of them continued to use God's name. Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion who translated the O.T. into Greek after the time of Christ continued to use the name in their Greek translations. A thousand years later there remained a sect of the Jews who continued to use God's name. So, there is little reason to believe the early Christians would have felt themselves bound by the traditions of the Pharisees.
Earnest
Edited by - Earnest on 3 August 2002 8:55:55
Sorry Ernest, but you first lose all credibility when you use the biased "Aid to Bible Understanding" as an apologetic reference source. You expect us to believe that all the Bible translators throughout the centuries in their using "holy" as the primary meaning for "hosios" have it wrong, and instead, an organization that has blatanly false prophesied on numerous occasions throughout the years and flip flopped on doctrine finally got it right 35-40 years ago by saying "loyal"? Since you appear to like doing research, show me just one more Bible translation that uses Revelation 15:4 NWT rendering.
I'm curious to hear what your ridiculous justification is for the NWT blatant use of also adding words to text (which the Bible condemns btw--you are aware of that earnest) in order to change the context when it again, doesn't fit with manmade JW theology. Let's use the examples of:
Philippians 2:5, adding the word "other" (again, this is not just an alternative word translation choice by the NWT--a Greek word doesn't even exist where this has been inserted!!!!!!!!). This one verse as it ACTUALLY APPEARS IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK (not the NWT) in the NT easily stands alone as one that clearly refutes your apologetic justification for "Jehovah" being used in the NT. Obviously this would be contrary to JW theology and a serious blow, so the GB conveniently approved (thank's to Fred Franz I'm sure) a little addition to the text.
Hmmmm, let's see, then we have 1 Colossians 1: 15-17, where the word "other" is again inserted, but this time a total of 4 times!!!!!!!!!!! Obviously the ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT is a serious blow to JW anti-Trinitarianism, so again, the words were conveniently inserted to fit the theology. Ernest, how in good conscience can you be apologetic to such a deceitful organization??????
Still not convinced at the heresy evidence here? Ok, how about this: In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9,28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek .Especially compare the Greek word "prosekunhsan" used with reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. Here the NWT selectively gave different meanings to the same Greek word to fit their theology!!!!!!!!! It's interesting that in the 8 times that "hosios" occurs, the NWT in that case was consistent in translating it to "loyal", obviously because it wasn't in conflict with their theology.
Earnest, I could go on and on and on with additional blatant distortions in the NWT, but these alone are sufficient to cause you to really take a hard look at the obvious bias of the translation, which proves it cannot be trusted as a valid translation, especially knowing that the average person that JWs are quoting to in field service have no idea of these consistenties, yet will presume the Bible must say these words, and say " I guess JW's are right". It's utter deception, and the Bible specifically forbids it.
