by Amazing 144 Replies latest jw friends
greendawn, I'm not in any way disagreeing with your theological interpretation of this verse: what I'm saying is that it is not mistranslated in the NWT.
Narkissos, thank you for reminding me of the ontological/hypostatic/economical aspects of the Trinity doctrine.
The first sentence of this thread was "The New World Translation (NWT) contains thousands of serious errors." After that a long-winded discussion mainly about 1 verse has ensued.
So what about the other "thousands" of serious errors. (I actually have considerable doubts about whether there are actually "thousands" of errors in their translation that could be considered "serious".)
Jeremiah 29:10 is plainly botched, replacing 'for' with 'at' to skew the implication of the 'seventy years'. A consideration of the context of chapters 28 and 29 invalidates their translation.
So that's 2 serious errors (though I don't care about John 1:1 either way). We just need at least another 1,998 to validate that claim of 'thousands'...
To echo what Jeffro said... Okay, we can all agree "thousands or serious errors" is not accurate. So are there hundreds of serious errors? Are there tens of serious errors? Can we truly say if there is more than a handful of errors, serious or not? There will never be a consensus on a discussion like this, because as already pointed out, the target is a moving target. The ancient texts are flawed, because they are all hand copied and altered, so that really makes this whole thing an excercise in wasting time.
Hebrews 11: 13-16 is also interesting because it reveals that ancient faithful like Sarah and Abraham were looking forward to a heavenly homeland whereas the dubs claim that they were looking forward to an earthly one and will be resurrected here on earth. The Greek word patris which means homeland, country, was translated as "place" the original said (verse 16) "they were reaching out for a greater heavenly homeland (patris)" and the dubs translated "they are reaching out for a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven." They are trying to obscure the fact that the old testament saints were not expecting to be resurrected on earth but to be in the heavenly city of God. Not an earthly homeland belonging to heaven as they are trying to imply.
Most of the so-called errors are merely biased translation, but a little mud can stick the other way, too. It would be erroneous to claim that the NWT didn't have biased translation, though.
Time to catalogue? Lets start the ball rolling with:
237 errors in using the name "Jehovah" in the NT.
LT,
237 errors in using the name "Jehovah" in the NT.
In all fairness, one decision was made to include this name in the NWT, so that is one error repeated 237 times.
In view of the numerous issues relating to the translation of ANY ancient manuscript, why do we not just admit that all Bibles are a mess and full of thousands of errors and that the NWT is full of thousands of errors compounded by thousands of errors, that were compounded by thousands of errors from the early manuscripts, which themselves were full of thousands of errors.
Forever your diplomat - HS
Jeffro,
Is that a serious error? While it may not be a word-for-word literal translation, any one of those instances would only be a "serious error" if the 'person' being referred to is not actually intended to mean God (or for the Trinitarians, 'God, the Father').
I would define a serious error as something that distorts the meaning.
If some written information refers to 'the manager', and someone translates the information and writes 'Bill' there instead, and the target audience is aware that Bill is the manager, then that wouldn't really be a serious error. On the other hand, if they write Bill in place of references to any manager, those instances would be serious errors.
Every substitution of "Jehovah" to kurios in the NT is definitely an error (actually, an intentional falsification -- and I use that word sparingly), but it is more or less "serious" depending on the context. In some places (e.g. Romans 10) it simply destroys the argument. In others (e.g. Luke 1--2) it hardly changes the meaning.
There is a good case that kurios in Paul consistently refers to the Son, and theos to the Father -- at least there are many examples of this distinction and no unambiguous one against it. I let you appreciate what the substitution of Jehovah to kurios does to the Pauline texts. Even from a unitarian standpoint.
greendawn,
Patris does not occur in v. 16, but in v. 14 where the NWT translates "a place of their own". Imo Hebrews 11:13-16 is about as problematic to the JW doctrine in the NWT than in any other Bible.
There is a good case that kurios in Paul consistently refers to the Son, and theos to the Father -- at least there are many examples of this distinction and no unambiguous one against it. I let you appreciate what the substitution of Jehovah to kurios does to the Pauline texts. Even from a unitarian standpoint.
Not sure if I understand your point entirely, but an example from Paul show that "kurios" is most obviously a reference to YHWH is 1 Cor. 2:16. To go a step forward, it would be odd for Paul to use "kurios" as a reference to the Father here- when it is usually reserved for Christ. Especially when we consider the text he was probably looking at from the LXX, which the available evidence shows- used a form of the Tetra. Scholar David Trobisch also uses Paul as an argument for the DN in the NT at 1 Cor. 3:16-18, he writes:
"Paul sometimes bases his argument on a quote from the Jewish Bible and carefully makes a distinction between JHWH and Christ. After the nomina sacra are introduced, however, both may be respresented as ks, and may be interpreted as synonyms by the readers.I want to demonstrate the shift using the passage quoted above from 2 Corinthians. The text continues, "But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed." It can easily be documented that Christian readers tend to interpret "Lord" as a reference to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Assuming that 2 Corinthians 3:16 alludes to the wording of Ex 34:34, and assuming that the exemplar of the Jewish Bible in Greek that Paul uses contained the tetragram, it may be safely concluded that the following verses contain the tetragram as well. If kurios is preceded by an article, the word probably refers to Christ, but in all other instances Paul's original letter showed the tetragram
2 Cor 3:16-18 (own translation) But when one turns to JHWH, the veil is removed. Now the Lord Christ is the Spirit of JHWH, and where the Spirit of JHWH is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of JHWH as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from JHWH, the Spirit.
According to this reconstruction, idenitifying Christ as the spirit of JHWH establishes the connection between JHWH and Christ. Turning to JHWH in the Old Testament is the samea as turning to Christ now. Because the names of God are represented by nomina sacra, the readers of the Canonical edition arrive at the same conclusion faster. For them 2 Cor 3:16 means that as the Jews turn to the Lord (Jesus), the veil is removed from their reading of the Old Testament.
The editors did not mind this misrepresentation of Paul. The effect on Christian readers- that Jesus and JHWH become synonyms- was probably intended." (First Edition of the New Testament pg. 67)
There are arguments against this, but it is not a weak point to consider.
Amazing:
Here are what a number of well known scholars have to say about John 1:1 and/or the NWT:
Dr. J. Johnson: California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct..I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.
I wonder if I might just take up this quotation from a "well known scholar" who you considered to be more objective than others as he claimed to be neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian. Three times you challenged Onacruse to write/debate/contact Dr. J. Johnson as to whether there was justification for translating John 1:1 as "the Word was a god". As I had never heard of Dr. J. Johnson I did wonder on what basis he spoke with such authority and so attempted to contact him. Unfortunately, the Department of Religious Studies at CSULB does not seem to have heard of him either. I wonder whether you have any further information about him as it is unusual for someone without a dogma to defend to be as dogmatic as you suggest Dr. Johnson to be.
And as I have raised my head above the parapet, I would also just comment on the use of 'Jehovah' in the NT. This would be an error (or 237 errors if you wish) if it were a translation. But it is usually explained in the foreword that 'Lord' has been replaced with 'Jehovah' in these texts, so it is not a matter of translation at all. A similar liberty has been taken by a number of translations which replace 'Jehovah' with 'Lord' or 'God' in the OT. My own view is that provided this is explained to the reader it is a case of 'let the buyer beware' rather than mistranslation.
Earnest
Ernest,
I wonder if I might just take up this quotation from a "well known scholar" who you considered to be more objective than others as he claimed to be neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian. Three times you challenged Onacruse to write/debate/contact Dr. J. Johnson as to whether there was justification for translating John 1:1 as "the Word was a god". As I had never heard of Dr. J. Johnson I did wonder on what basis he spoke with such authority and so attempted to contact him. Unfortunately, the Department of Religious Studies at CSULB does not seem to have heard of him either. I wonder whether you have any further information about him as it is unusual for someone without a dogma to defend to be as dogmatic as you suggest Dr. Johnson to be.
Some of the quotes are made by Trinitarians. So, yes, I felt that such comments from a not-Christian would be of interest as they are less likely to hold a bias. As for Dr. Johnson's whereabouts, universities do not always keep good records, especially if the faculty person was a contract teacher. Carl T., an an expert in psychology or therapy who posted on this board could not be found as a full time instructor at his university. Yet,he was there, and I personally met one of his support staff members. I will go back to my sources and see what they have to say. Since the other quotes are good as far as I know, then I have no reason to think that any would not have been authenticated. I will try and find out what happened and then post a clarification or correction as soon as I do find something.
And as I have raised my head above the parapet, I would also just comment on the use of 'Jehovah' in the NT. This would be an error (or 237 errors if you wish) if it were a translation. But it is usually explained in the foreword that 'Lord' has been replaced with 'Jehovah' in these texts, so it is not a matter of translation at all. A similar liberty has been taken by a number of translations which replace 'Jehovah' with 'Lord' or 'God' in the OT. My own view is that provided this is explained to the reader it is a case of 'let the buyer beware' rather than mistranslation.
There is no justification for using the word "Jehovah" in the NT. Watchtower rationale in its foreword is baseless, because the Apostles rarely quoted an OT scritpure verbatum, but rather paraphrased or used partial phrases. They rarely made direct mention of an OT book or writer. Since there are many NT verses that are similar, one has to wonder which ones the Apostles may have meant. This is not a sound rationale to assume that an NT verse must carry forward the name "Yahweh." Additionally, the Society did not always follow its own rule, and used "Jehovah" in place like 1 Tim 4:1 where it does not belong, and no OT verse corresponds to it. I can provide more examples. The translators who replaced "YHWH" in the OT with "Lord" followed an old Hebrew practice used while Israel was still God's people, and thus saw it as a legitimate practice. They were consistent throughout its nearly 7,000 uses. However, the Catholic Jerusalem and some other Bibles have since restored "Yahweh" to the OT. The NT, however, shows that all name recognition has been turned over to Jesus Christ. So, any tampering with the NT with name additions to suit one's religious bias violates the NT intent to focus on Jesus Christ.
Jim Whitney
Amazing,
As I work in a college, I can verify that adjunct or contract faculty would not be listed in a faculty/staff directory. Or a faculty member who has retired or moved to another college would no longer be listed (as information is updated to be current, not to supply history).
Regarding the use of the name Jehovah in the NWT, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation cites as authority the fact that the Tetragrammaton appears in Hebrew translations of the NT (from a later time period than the existing Greek manuscripts). However, what the Kingdom Interlinear and the WTS fail to mention is that they have NOT inserted the name Jehovah in EVERY place where the Hebrew translations have placed the Tetragrammaton. Why? Could it be because many of these examples would SUPPORT the doctrine that Jesus and Jehovah are the SAME GOD?
To read more about this, go here: (This reference links to actual copies of the Hebrew translations)
http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/hiding.html
Ruth
