The new bible did NOT remove the previously [bracked inserted words], it only removed the brackets, so it's even more deceptive..

by EndofMysteries 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EndofMysteries

  Many said how they removed the bracketed words, etc. No they did not.

  Here is an example, an older bible in Exodus 18:16 would say this....."I must make known the decisions of the [true] God and his laws."

  The word "true" is NOT in the original manuscripts, it's inserted, hence the [ ]. The new edition reads like this.....

  "I must make known the decisions of the true God and his laws." So now it makes it seem that the word "true" was part of the original scripture, so it's more deceptive.

  A true reading of the scripture would be "I must make known the decisions of the elohim and his laws." (elohim is translated to god/God in english bibles).

  http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo18.pdf
• 

  Heartofaboy

  Has the borg listed the changes in the NNWT & explained their reasons for doing so?
• 

  DATA-DOG

  I don't think they have, and they probably won't. They won't even cite the instances in the Dead Sea Scrolls or other ancient manuscripts that they claim warrant the use of JEHOVAH 5 or 6 more times in the RNWT. You just need to accept what they say as fact.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Brackets encourage thinking when reading: "Why are those brackets there?"

  Since it's obvious that the Governing Body are "spirit-directed," there's no point in questioning a word or phrase they insert with stinking brackets.
• 

  Bobcat

  Having the brackets can be misleading. The poster Narkissos pointed this out on some of his posts of years gone by.

  His reasoning was that translation itself is not a word for word process. To give an example, in John 17:3 the old NWT renders ginoskosin as "taking in knowledge." The revised NWT renders it "coming to know." The Greek word has the basic meaning of "know" or "knowing." One could argue that if you were going to use brackets, it should read "[taking in] knowledge," or "[coming to] know." But someone else might just as correctly argue that the whole phrase, "coming to know," IS itself the translation into english of the greek word.

  Narkissos' point was that using brackets, only sometimes, might give the impression that every other unbracketed English word has a single original language word associated with it, when, in fact, it often doesn't.

  Having said that, I wish they had kept them in because some of the bracketed material was interpretational. For example, Matthew 2:2 (old NWT) says in part, ". . . For we saw his star [when we were] in the east,. . ." The revised NWT says, "For we saw his star when we were in the East." The positioning of "in the East" is ambiguous in the greek text of Matthew. It could be referring to the star. Or, it could be referring to the Magi. (But see my posts # 434 & 437 here for a completely different understanding.) The NWT takes it upon itself to decide that its readers will understand it to refer to the Magi by inserting "[when we were]." It is for occasions like this that I wish they had left them in. I would at least be cued in that there is some interpreting going on.

  An opposite example can be found at 1 Thess 5:3, "Whenever it is that they are saying . . ." "It is" is not in the greek text. But it has never been bracketed. So they simply added a verb ("is") and an associated object ("it") to make it read how they wanted with no brackets to indicate the addition. (But see my post # 337 on this thread for additional.) So, even when they used the brackets it was a halfway or hit-and-miss device.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Bobcat:

  His reasoning was that translation itself is not a word for word process. To give an example, in John 17:3 the old NWT renders ginoskosin as "taking in knowledge." The revised NWT renders it "coming to know." The Greek word has the basic meaning of "know" or "knowing." One could argue that if you were going to use brackets, it should read "[taking in] knowledge," or "[coming to] know." But someone else might just as correctly argue that the whole phrase, "coming to know," IS itself the translation into english of the greek word.

  Even though one might differ in how to render ginoskosin, some as "knowledge" or "coming to know" or "taking in knowledge" (etc), what matters is that the original Greek text has a word there that clearly carries the meaning of "knowledge" in one way or another. Some might take issue with the exact phrasing (should we render it "coming to know" or "taking in knowledge"), but nobody can argue that the idea of "knowledge" simply isn't in the text. It is there, but its just not a word for word, which is fine.

  On the other hand take for example Colossians 1:17:

  1984 version: "Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,"

  2013 version: "Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

  In this case the word "other" is inserted. The 1984 version admits it, the 2013 does not. The problem here is they go far beyond elaborating on a "sense" of an existing greek word. In this case, the greek contains no word in the text that can justify the insertion of "other". It is the WT theology being pushed into the text.

  As an extreme example, how about we translate John 17:3 as this:

  "This means everlasting life, their giving monetary gifts to the governing body, and their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

  Now, as the translator, I'll argue that it is true those words are not in the original, but what do you expect? Translation is not a word-for-word business after all. I, as a wise translator, just filled in the proper meaning of the text.

  MMM
• 

  JWdaughter

  Is the WT bible supposed to be an idea for idea translation or a word for word translation?
• 

  DATA-DOG

  JWdaughter, The WTBTS says that ideas are the most important thing. The problem is what MeanMrMustard so correctly referred to.

  MMmustard!! I am sure that Bobcat would agree.

  DD
• 

  pronomono

  As explained at the AGM, it's supposed to be an idea translation because word for word would be too confusing.

  For example, if we tell someone from a different region we are shooting the breeze, they may think we are taking a gun and shooting at thin air when in reality we are just having a relaxed conversation with friends. All languages have their idioms and phrases that say one thing but mean another, or mean something totally different in another part of the world.
  
  So the Society is trying to translate the thoughts and not the words. Unfortunately, this gives them even more room to make changes because everybody and their momma can argue what was meant by certain words 2,000 years ago and no one can prove anything since the original writers are no longer here.

  MrMustard's explanation is more scriptural, though.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  I believe it is presented as a literal - word for word translation...but somehow, when important to support their particular doctrines, ideas/words get added.

  "Methods of Translation

  1. Literal translation. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James Version (KJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB).

  2. Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Examples: New International Version (NIV), Revised English Bible (REB).

  3. Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but possibly not precise. Examples: The Living Bible (TLB), The Message."