Interesting NWT Stuff

by SYN 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • SYN
    SYN

    Got this in one of my XJW mailing lists, have a lookie guys! Flame away!

    EXAMINING TRANSLATIONS WITH JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
    By Rachel D. Ramer

    Would you trust a medical doctor who, in the name of humility, refused
    to reveal where he or she went to medical school? Of course not So why do
    Jehovah's Witnesses trust the "translators" of the New World Translation
    (NWT) who are so "humble" that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society won't
    reveal their names or credentials? In technical fields such as medicine,
    engineering, and translating, lack of training can cause physical -- or
    spiritual -- death. Displaying credentials is not pride, but accountability.

    Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses read in the foreword of NWT (1984
    edition) these seemingly comforting words: "It is a very responsible thing to
    translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages of Hebrew,
    Aramaic and Greek into modern speech ... The translators of this work, who
    fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a
    special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as
    accurately as possible."

    With such a statement, why should Jehovah's Witnesses question their
    translation? Yet, observant Christians can help them do just that: Although
    it is essential for translators to know the languages they are translating,
    this doesn't mean we have to know Greek or Hebrew to catch the differences in
    translations. Simple observation can be powerful.

    Observing The Difference

    Jehovah's Witnesses will often refer to NWT's John 17:3, "This means
    everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of
    the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). In response, say
    to the Jehovah's Witnesses, "That sounds different to me." Then read the
    verse in a credible translation such as the King James Version (KJV), the New
    International Version (NIV), or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), all
    with a close variation of "that they may know You." Read all three if the
    Witnesses doubt the consistency. Mere agreement among translations bears
    weight.

    Discuss the difference between knowing a friend or taking in knowledge
    of someone, like studying Abraham Lincoln. Then read Jesus' words in John
    5:39 & 40: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by
    them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about
    me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (NIV).

    In NWT's Matthew 10:32 & 33, Jesus says, "Everyone, then, that
    confesses union with me before men, I will also confess union with him before
    my Father," instead of "confesses me before men." This takes the emphasis off
    of Jesus and puts it on something Jesus represents. Witnesses will insist
    there is no difference. Ask them what it means to confess Jesus and what is
    its purpose? It is primarily to acknowledge who He is -- not what He stands
    for -- the very issue the Watchtower wishes to cloud!

    Only The Context Knows For Sure

    When two visiting Witnesses emphasized the importance of the name
    Jehovah, they brought to my attention the verse: "Everyone who calls on the
    name of Jehovah will be saved" (Rom. 10:13, NWT). I responded, "I've read
    that the Old Testament word for Yahweh or Jehovah is never used in the New
    Testament1 Why would your translation say 'Jehovah'?"

    "It's only common sense," one answered, "to use the name Jehovah since
    this is a quote from the Old Testament referring to Jehovah" (see Joel 2:32).

    "Except," I countered, "in Romans, Paul was just referring to the
    'Lord Jesus' specifically. When he used the term "Lord" in verse 13, he meant
    Jesus. He knew he was quoting the Old Testament He was equating Jesus with
    Jehovah."

    Most Jehovah's Witnesses are fooled by their organization's use of
    Greek lexicons or expository dictionaries. William Vine's Expository
    Dictionary of New Testament Words was appealed to 52 times in their
    encyclopedia, Insights on the Scriptures, even though Vine strongly disagreed
    with their teachings.2 From sources such as these the Watchtower can
    sometimes obtain an altered wording for a critical passage and feel justified.

    It is advisable to point out to Jehovah's Witnesses the critical
    importance of context in Bible translation. The context may show that the
    wording the NWT chose, though technically possible, is senseless. Hebrews 1:8
    reads, "But about the Son he [the Father] says 'Your throne, 0 God, will last
    forever and ever ... '" (NIV). Yet NWT says, "But with reference to the Son:
    'God is your throne forever and ever ... '"

    Dr. Ron Rhodes explains, "We must acknowledge that the Watchtower
    translation 'Go is your throne' is grammatically possible from Greek text.
    But -- as scholars unanimously agree -- it is entirely foreign to the
    context."3

    The word "but" at the beginning of verse indicates a contrast to the
    previous verse, where angels are discussed, and implies that the Son is
    distinct from angels. If the correct translation is "God is your throne," how
    is that distinct from angels?

    This repeated conflict between other translations and the New World
    Translation should eventually become disturbing for the Witnesses. You can
    then ask them about their translators. They will not be able to obtain names
    or credentials. (This information has been published through the writings of
    former Witnesses who once worked at the Watchtower headquarters. Discussing
    former Witnesses - or any source that opposes their theology -- with your
    visitors might usher them to the door since they are warned to steer clear of
    this information. The longer they stay, the more influence you may have.)

    What About Those Scholars?

    While they may never learn the names of their translators, they may be
    given the names of scholars with quotes favorable toward NWT. Edgar J.
    Goodspeed, who contributed to the Revised Standard Version, stated in a
    letter to the Watchtower, dated 8 December 1950, "I am ... much pleased with
    the free, frank, and vigorous translation (NWT). It exhibits a vast array of
    sound, serious learning ... "4

    Yet, when Bill Cetnar from the Watchtower headquarters visited Dr.
    Goodspeed in 1954 to elicit his full endorsement, Dr. Goodspeed had other
    comments. Cetnar writes, "Dr. Goodspeed was asked if he would recommend the
    translation for the general public. He answered, 'No, I'm afraid I could not
    do that The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar."5
    Nevertheless, the Watchtower still uses Dr. Goodspeed's letter as an
    endorsement.

    Robert M. McCoy and Dr. S MacLean Gilmour from the Andover Newton
    Quarterly are quoted with what sounds like enthusiastic reviews until the
    context and entirety of their words are read.6 Similarly, Thomas N. Winter
    from the University of Nebraska gave a glowing endorsement in 1974,7 but on 3
    October 1980 he wrote, "I am not happy with the use now being made of the
    review," and he went on to note a few problems, such as Jesus' words in John
    8:58 (which NWT translates as "I have been"). Winter commented, "No way to go
    here but 'I am.'"8

    A more recent endorser is Dr. Jason 0. BeDuhn, who used the
    interlinear version of NWT in his course, "The Development of the Jesus
    Tradition," at Indiana University. In a letter to the Watchtower Society,
    dated 12 May 1997, he stated that "it is the best interlinear New Testament
    available," and "it gets past traditional renderings that harmonize, gloss,
    and over-interpret passages in light of later dogma."9 In other words, NWT
    appeals to scholars who consider the deity of Christ a later, inserted
    doctrine.

    Yet Dr. BeDuhn makes note, "I am sure you are aware of historical
    objections to the (re)insertion of 'Jehovah' into the translation. Of course,
    no Greek Gospel manuscripts support this, but I will not quibble with you
    about that"10 (emphasis added).

    Dr. Benjamin Kedar also endorses the NWT. He made it clear to the
    Watchtower, however, that he no longer wishes to answer questions concerning
    his stance.11 His comments are limited to the Old Testament and are not
    influential concerning the identity of Jesus. Other names produced by the
    Watchtower are not names of scholars.

    Perhaps BeDuhn and Kedar are unaware of the lack of credentials that
    plague this organization's translators. Bill Cetnar explained that of the
    supposed translators, only F. W. Franz, fourth president of the Watchtower,
    had any schooling in this area, and his abilities to translate were proven
    inadequate in a Scottish Court in November 1954.12

    Each Encounter Is Fragile

    Recently, when two more Witnesses came to my door, I told them I would
    love to study the Bible with them. Yet I had told them I had discovered,
    through other visitors, that the New World Translation was very different
    from the translations I already had. Could they check on the credentials of
    the translators? If not could we have a Bible study without that translation?

    They insisted it was not different so I gave examples. This provided a
    dilemma for them. Essentially, they had an assignment: find out about the
    translators. The burden of proof is with the Watchtower Society.

    How we relate to Jehovah's Witnesses can quickly scare them away or
    can invite further discussion. Notice, I did not say NWT is inaccurate, but
    different Since I am not a scholar, I don't claim to decipher the Greek and
    Hebrew, but I can read. I can tell that NWT is unlike the other translations.
    This gives them a second assignment read other translations. Jehovah's
    Witnesses, most likely, are not going to change their minds in our living
    rooms. Yet if they become uneasy about their "translation" -- if they open
    the pages of accurate translations out of curiosity -- truth gains a foothold.

    Rachel D. Ramer Is A Freelance Writer,
    Who Lives In Richmond, Indiana.

    1 See Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses
    (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993), 49.
    2 Gary Busselmen, "New Light from Old Books end Dead Opposers," Free Minds
    Journal, March-April 1996.
    3 Rhodes, 93.
    4 Edgar J. Goodspeed, in a letter to a member of the Watchtower Society's
    headquarters staff, dated 8 December 1950.
    5 Bill Cetnar, Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses Who Love the Truth
    (Kunkletown, PA: w. I. Cetnar, 1983), 69.
    6 Detailed quotes are included in Ian Croft's article, "The New world
    Translation and Its Critics," Bethal Ministries Newsletter, September-October
    1988, 2, 8.
    7 Thomas N. winter, The Classical Journal (April-May 1974): 376.
    8 Thomas N. winter, in a letter to M. Kurt Goedelman of Personal Freedom
    Outreach, dated 3 October 1980.
    9 Jason 0. BeDuhn, in a letter to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 12
    May 1997.
    10 Ibid.
    11 Benjamin Kedar in a letter dated 16 February 1996; addressee is blacked out
    12 Cetner, 68-69.

    CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
    Phone (949) 858-6100 and Fax (949) 858-6111

    Peace, Mona
    [email protected]

    Perhaps Today Ministries; PO Box 125; Bowdoinham, Maine USA 04008
    http://www.livecomputers.com/perhapstoday/index.html

    The earlier in the forenoon you take the sun bath, the greater will be the beneficial effect, because you get more of the ultra-violet rays, which are healing. - The Golden Age

  • Dutchie
    Dutchie

    Thank you. I enjoyed reading this very much.

  • TheOldHippie
    TheOldHippie

    only F. W. Franz, fourth president of the Watchtower,
    had any schooling in this area, and his abilities to translate were proven
    inadequate in a Scottish Court in November 1954.12
    **************************************************************'
    Just a quick note; I am sure you have seen, for example thru Greg Stafford's books and thru other articles, that the Franz point has been misrepresented or misquoted by others. He was NOT asked to translate from Hebrew into English, but from English into Hebrew - and as others have commented upon, that is an entirely different thing than the other way around. Close to all comments, though, try to tell that he was unable to translate from Hebrew to English, whereas what he said was that he would not try to translate from English to Hebrew. And that, I may add, has no bearing at all as to his abilities in Greek.
    Just to set matters straight.
    Reading BeDuhn's comments on the comments of other theologians is also helpful to see what are comments on the NWT made because of linguistic reasons, and whatare comments made because of theological reasons. Stafford's and Furuli's books are also helpful in this respect.
    Thiede's "Eyewitness to Jesus" deals with much of the same, that objections to an early Matthew come from liberal theological circles, because they have been taught so at universities and have their minds set to the necessity of Matthew having to be later, and therefore they from beforehand exclude the possibility of his being written earlier. The arguments for an early Matthew come from papyrologists and linguistics, who are not theologically biased. I strongly recommend the book, not so much for its arguments for an early Matthew, but for seeing how translations, theologians, historian setc. "function" in their mindset.
    Peace.

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost
    Would you trust a medical doctor who, in the name of humility, refused to reveal where he or she went to medical school? Of course not So why do Jehovah's Witnesses trust the "translators" of the New World Translation (NWT) who are so "humble" that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society won't reveal their names or credentials? In technical fields such as medicine, engineering, and translating, lack of training can cause physical -- or spiritual -- death. Displaying credentials is not pride, but accountability.

    Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses read in the foreword of NWT (1984
    edition) these seemingly comforting words: "It is a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern speech ... The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible."

    However, this is also true of other translations.

    Cheers,
    Ozzie

    "If our hopes for peace are placed in the hands of imperfect people, they are bound to evaporate."

    - Ron Hutchcraft Surviving the Storms of Stress

  • GermanXJW
    GermanXJW
    Perhaps BeDuhn and Kedar are unaware of the lack of credentials that plague this organization's translators.

    That reads to me: they should have better kicked the men than writing about the contents of the NW. => ad hominem

  • artful
    artful

    Thanks for the info SYN.

    I have recently been re-reading the NT in the New English Bible and when I ran across the very familiar scripture in John 17:3, I was struck by the difference between "knowing" (NEB) vs. "taking in knowledge" (NWT). For years (in my former dub life) this was one of my favorite scriptures for using in the preaching of the 'good news'. The idea of course was to impress upon non-dubs that 'taking in knowledge' of God and Jesus by means of the WT publications was vital for their everlasting life. What a stark contrast the correct rendering of John 17:3 provides!

    I believe that the same concept of 'knowing' someone vs. 'having knowledge' of them can be illustrated with the example of Jesus 'knowing' God as 'Father' (signifying a close or unique relationship) versus having 'knowledge' of God (eg. that his name is Yahweh).

    cheers
    artful

  • TheOldHippie
    TheOldHippie

    The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures reads here:

    "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge[Gk ginosko]of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

    The criticism often leveled here is against the rendering of 'ginosko' as "taking in knowledge".

    Firstly, we have came upon criticism of the NWT here in a book(published in the UK),written by an ex-Jehovah's Witness(which must now be some 30yrs old or more since publication)who claimed that the NWT had wrongly 'altered' the Bible here and it should only be translated as "to know you"(as found in all the major Bible translations before and since.See also The NWT Reference Bible(1984)footnote). The writer attempted to make his point from citing the NT translation of R.F.Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech, which reads:

    "And in this consists the Life of the ages - in Knowing Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent"

    But how he had failed to notice Weymouth's footnote to this scripture alludes us! We say this for Weymouth had written at the bottom of the page to this verse:

    "knowing]Or, as the tense implies, 'an ever-enlarging knowledge of.'"(emphasis mine)

    So Weymouth would not have been critical of the stance taken here by the NWT! Do you, reader, think this critic proved his contention? But since then others have called the NWT's translation here as a "mistranslation."-Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses, 1993, p.44, Ron Rhodes

    Interestingly, in the March 1st, 1992 issue of The Watchtower a one page article appeared 'Taking in Knowledge of God and Jesus'. It asked the question, "Why...does the New World Translation render this verse "taking in knowledge of...God" instead of "know...God," as most other translations of the Bible express it?" The article goes on to say, "..the rendering in the New World Translation is designed to bring out as fully as possible the meaning of that word[ginosko]. The basic meaning..is to"know," but the Greek word has various shades of meaning."

    In agreement with the aforementioned article is what J.B.Rotherham stated in his appendix to his translation, The Emphasised New Testament,under 'Know', page 270, "Important shades of meaning are; "get to know(Jn. xvii.3,7,8,25), "understand"(1Jn.ii.3, 13; iv 16; v.20)and "approve," "acknowledge,"(Ps.i.6; Mt.vii.23; Ro.vii.29; 2 Tim.ii.19)

    The Watchtower article then quotes from no less than 6 Greek-English Lexicons/commentaries.We will quote as the article does re the comments of Marvin R. Vincent on John 17:3 in his Word Studies in the New Testament:

    "Eternal Life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception"

    Vine's Expository Dictionary says,under 'know':

    "GINOSKO...signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely..."

    The Companion Bible says in it's Appendix 132:

    "ginosko=to know(by experence, or effort); to acquire knowledge, become acquainted with; hence to come or get to know, learn, percieve..."

    The Interpreters Bible says on this very verse: "Eternal life(vs.3), the summum bonum in this Gospel, as the kingdom of God is in the Synoptics, consists in the Knowledge of God-yet not the static knowledge of the Gnostics, but a progressive knowledge, "learning to know thee"(note the force of the present tense, [in-order-that you-may-be-knowing you]."

    "...the present tense (GINWSKWSIN) marking that continual growth in the knowledge of God which is characteristic of spiritual life, as physical growth is a characteristic of bodily life."- The International Critical Commentary, St John, vol II, J. H. Bernard, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1928, p.561.-italics ours.

    Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament states: "Should know (ginwskwsin). Present active subjunctive with ina (subject clause), "should keep on knowing." -italics ours.

    Finally, Raymond Brown writes: "[John 17]3...they know you. Although some witnesses have a future indicative, the best witnesses have a present subjunctive; this implies that the knowledge is a continuing action."-The Gospel According to John, The Anchor Bible, Vol.29A.-italics ours.

    Hence, The Complete Bible in Modern English(1922),by Ferrar Fenton reads;

    "And the eternal life is this: to obtain a knowledge of You the only true God, and the Messiah Whom You have sent."

    So if you come across any criticism of the NWT at John 17:3 with how it has rendered 'ginosko' there, you should be able to see that the critic has either not done his 'homework' or else, even worse, does not want to inform you fully of the facts. However, if you, the reader of the NWT Reference Edition of 1984, want, or prefer, the alternative rendering of "to know", then the footnote gives you that choice. It should be noted that the 1st edition of the NWT of 1950 also says in a footnote, "Or, "their knowing you." We wonder why the above 'critics' we alluded to/mentioned did not notice or know that too, or, even worse, if they did know, why they did not inform their readers of that fact. A case of informing or misinforming. We'll let you decide.

    To read some more on this see Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, An Answer to Scholars and Critics(1st or 2nd editions)by Greg Stafford.

  • artful
    artful

    Interesting points TheOldHippie.

    However, you mention:

    However, if you, the reader of the NWT Reference Edition of 1984, want, or prefer, the alternative rendering of "to know", then the footnote gives you that choice. It should be noted that the 1st edition of the NWT of 1950 also says in a footnote, "Or, "their knowing you."
    Surely you are not suggesting that the WTSs intention is that the R&F JW reader has the choice as to which rendering they prefer. I would love to see the look on the congregation overseers face should a dub get up and read the scripture as:
    "This means everlasting life, to know you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

    Not to mention that by far the most frequently used JW bibles (as lovingly provided by the WTS) don't contain any such footnotes. To use your own words:

    A case of informing or misinforming. We'll let you decide.
    cheers
    artful
  • Masterji
    Masterji

    TheOldHippie,

    Thanks Old Warrior.

    You answered well. I will suspend my post on the subject.

    M

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit