New World Translation Brackets!!

by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mondo1

  I'll respond to both of you at the same time here.

  First, on a brief note, I would not argue that prwtotokos is purely chronological. The firstborn was inheritly preeminent, receiving a double portion.

  Second, loelaia, the example is a bit different than what we see in Colossians 1:15-16, for in the text in question, we are in a single sentence. Your example is rather different, for we see the comments of Matthew in narration, and then Satan is quoted directly.

  I am aware of no example where change in gender ever occurs when there is a subject defined by an adjective-noun and then a substantival adjective (where the noun is elided) of a different gender is used to refer back to that same subject. I'm not saying there isn't one, but I'm not aware of it, so I don't well see how the argument being presented to the contrary can carry too much weight.

  Further, we need only look to verse 20 to see ta panta used substantivally in a sense less than "all creation." This further leads to understanding the same in verse 16 in a way lesser than pashs ktisews.

  Finally, I don't think that this at all takes away from the force of hOTI. Jesus is both first in time and the preeminent one of all creation because ta panta was created in him. Preeminent because of his role in it coming about, first in time because of his existing for it to be done.

  Mondo
• 

  gold_morning

  Have you wondered why the importance of the "name game" wasn't and issue with Jesus? If it was so important he would have taught us to use it and it would have been written in Greek so that Jehovah's Witnesses would not be inserting the Hebrew name Jehovah in the Greek scriptures.

  When he taught us to pray...he said... Pray THIS WAY........"OUR FATHER WHO....."

  Father and Abba is indearing. It denotes a closeness and relationship.... or better yet being part of a family. Not everyone can call someone "father or daddy". I heard something interesting this weekend. The person who spoke name's was keith. He said say this sentence of his little boy speaking to him in two different ways. I forgot his exact example.

  "Keith, will you push me on the swing"

  or

  "Daddy, will you push me on the swing."

  You tell me which has a touching personal meaning though both are correct.

  Gold_morning
• 

  Frannie Banannie

  An interlinear translation is a completely different type of translation and should not be used by those without at least a basic understanding of Greek and translation principles. You would find the same "issues" that you see with the NWT with any other Bible too if they were compared without understanding what is going on in the text.

  Mondo, you sound like the WTS heirarchy with that superiority complex over less well-educated mental pygmies that they take over their peons.

  This is the same reasoning the WTS employees to arbitrarily insert the article [a] in John 1:1, which causes it to finally translate in the NWT as "the words was [a] god."

  You're saying the Interlinear translation "should not be used by....." WTF, Mondo? I'm not smart enough to understand the English part of the translation after it's already undergone the translation principles by those who deem themselves to be educationally elite?

  Mondo, I may not have a formal education, but I do have a degree of intelligence and I'm not freakin' blind and have actually learned to read something that's already been translated AND I CAN see and understand the affect that a "bracketed word" inserted into the text has on the meaning.

  And what issues about something "going on in the text" could there possibly be, Mondo? Has the already translated text somehow miraculously taken on an animate life and the reader must watch out for portions of text turning cartwheels, which only the educationally elite are trained to do? Putting an educationally elitist "holy pooh-bah" (use that ol' tricky dicky head shake when pronouncing the words in parens to give 'em the right inflection) spin on translations is meadow-muffinically annoying and usually unnecessary.

  Just think, Mondo, if no educational elitists had put their own spin on translations and left the originals alone, we might have preserved the language instead and ALL be able to understand what was actually written.

  Frannie (getting off soapbox now)
• 

  Mondo1

  Frannie,

  Let me give you an example. Look in the NASB at John 14:9 and you'll see the words "have been." Yet look in the interlinear and see "am." Is the NASB wrong and dishonest? Or is there a reason that it is translated differently that a person who does not know anything about Greek would not understand?

  Mondo
• 

  Frannie Banannie

  Let me give you an example. Look in the NASB at John 14:9 and you'll see the words "have been." Yet look in the interlinear and see "am." Is the NASB wrong and dishonest? Or is there a reason that it is translated differently that a person who does not know anything about Greek would not understand?

  Mondo, that's ASS-U-MIng any translations are correct. I've seen the same Greek verb translated two different ways on two different pages. The text is so ambiguous that the verb can be considered correct in either context. However the use of the verb in one set of scriptures as DIFFERENT than the other has been utilized to disguise the fact that the WTS actually fits the depiction of the anti-christ in the Greek scriptures. And that's because of the original tampering with the translations, if you ask me. I don't believe anyone can actually count on how they believe the scriptures translate. Every religion will favor a translation that puts a spin on the scriptures that is preferable to them or coincides with that religion's teachings and doctrines.

  I edited my original reply to your statement, btw.

  Frannie
• 

  Narkissos

  I am aware of no example where change in gender ever occurs when there is a subject defined by an adjective-noun and then a substantival adjective (where the noun is elided) of a different gender is used to refer back to that same subject. I'm not saying there isn't one, but I'm not aware of it, so I don't well see how the argument being presented to the contrary can carry too much weight.

  Hmm... I think I'm starting to understand where you misunderstood me (in my first post on this thread: perhaps I expressed myself poorly).

  I never meant to say that ta panta was a grammatical backwards reference to the pas in pasès ktiseôs, but that both expressions (each being taken as a whole) worked as synonyms (at the semantic level).

  Further, we need only look to verse 20 to see ta panta used substantivally in a sense less than "all creation." This further leads to understanding the same in verse 16 in a way lesser than pashs ktisews.

  How so? In v. 20 I see nothing less than absolute cosmic restoration (or restitutio ad plèrôma, in one early Gnostic perspective). At least in the underlying hymn which determines the meaning of ta panta.
• 

  stapler99

  I'm not sure if this is the type of thing you mean, but the two places I can remember interpolations like this are Genesis 4:8 After that Cain said to Abel his brother: [“Let us go over into the field.”] So it came about that while they were in the field Cain proceeded to assault Abel his brother and kill him. Matthew 16:1 Here the Pharisees and Sadducees approached him and, to tempt him, they asked him to display to them a sign from heaven. 2 In reply he said to them: “[[When evening falls YOU are accustomed to say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is fire-red’; 3 and at morning, ‘It will be wintry, rainy weather today, for the sky is fire-red, but gloomy-looking.’ YOU know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but the signs of the times YOU cannot interpret.]] 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jo´nah.” With that he went away, leaving them behind. I think in the first case (single [s) the translation commitee were trying to show off how accurate and literal their translation is (bit like you/YOU), even if the added words were necessary for the understanding in the English translation. The second case looks like trying to mark a passage as apochraphyl. I would imagine that most uses of brackets like this aren't actually an attempt to change the meaning for doctrinal purposes.
• 

  Leolaia

  Mondo1....Okay, here is a better example of what I'm talking about:

  dia touto tén noétén pasan ktisin [feminine singular] en heautói periekhei, hina panta [neuter plural] en tói einai menéi téi periektikéi dunamei perikratoumena

  "He comprehends in himself all encompassing creation, in order that all things may remain in existence controlled by his encompassing power" (Gregorius Nyssenus, Refutatio Confessionis Eunomii, 126).
• 

  Outaservice

  I think if you look at the predicate nomative adjectively, the adjective becomes an advance pronoun and thus would render all of the above posts ultra-claritive! But if the verb or adverb is a proactive then the subject is considered misantropic or as French translators would say 'purlieu' in structure. So, that should end the argument right there!

  Outaservice
• 

  Perry

  From what I understand----the main translator (Fred Franz) of the NWT from the WTS.....was not a Greek scholar

  I believe that someone once said that he was a geek scholar. In a WT scribal error, an "r" was erroneously added. The overall grain of his life goes against adding this "r". Furthermore, Franz himself never claimed to be a Greek scholar which lends credence to the alternate meaning.

  It is easy to see how subsequent pimply faced WT scholars (writers) simple followed the error without checking the proper credentials.

  Ok...... back to the pros!