The New World Translation is a Mess (page 6)

Mad

Tophat wrote:"MAD! Are you saying that NO Bible translation can be trusted?"

Mad: No- just that it pays to use a different translation from time to time- and look up any discrepancies in Bible Dictionaries and Concordances- most online now! It's just ridiculous to me to have this NWT roast- when it is a superior translation- JW or NO JW! These postings are a farse; these people think they know so much- and they DON'T- they are making the mistake they accuse me of; letting 'expert's's do their thinking for them about the NWT...to praise it would be to denounce their religions and/or sponsors.

DanTheMan

The addition of quotation marks to "Samuel" in 1 Samuel 28...

Oh yeah, that one really bothered me when I was a JW. So blatant.

But you know how it is. One of those little doubt-inducing things that you squirrel away up in the attic until they weigh so much that they crash through the floor into your living room, lol.

Frannie Banannie

The NWT brackets (like the italics in the KJV, if I remember correctly) unduly attract the reader's attention to those apparently "added" words, which is often misleading. First, because some of those "additions" are necessary in the normal process of translation; second, because the reader wrongly concludes that in the absence of brackets/italics the text s/he reads is formally identical to the original, which is almost always wrong.
The problem is not in the principle of "adding words," but that some additions (as mentioned in previous posts) are unnecessary or outright wrong. It requires a case by case study.

Narkissos, as I said in my previous post on this thread, I'm not qualified to take on the verbiage of scriptural content....however, it makes no difference to me whether the words in brackets were mere articles of speech to clarify the context or actual verbs and nouns (which some bracketed words ARE) or which bible they're in. I figure if one religion can do it and ALL religions profess to be the true religion, then they're probably all guilty. And crapping up the scriptures, IMO, began when a council of men met centuries ago to decide amongst themselves what would and would not be contained in the "holy" scriptures. Scholars though they might all be, it smacks of "big brother-ism" and I don't approve of it. If there is truly a divine deity over mankind, he's not to be found in a book, the contents of which are controlled by mankind. Ergo, I don't have a bible of any denom. or interpretation.

At risk of getting my head chopped off! LOLOL...then you might as well throw away every translation of the Bible you have, and, if really intent on understanding the original Bible, then become fluent in Hebrew and Greek...after, of course, you have determined which collection of original manuscripts is satisfactorily accurate...and then, be satisfied that you have simply approximated the approximate approximation of those writings.
Frannie , how 'bout you take off his head instead of mine?

Craig. .If you'll check out my reply to Narkissos here you'll see that's precisely what I did....threw them allaway.

Frannie

onacruse

roflmao...

Narkissos, I [feel] your pain!

hillary_step

Mad,

It's just ridiculous to me to have this NWT roast- when it is a superior translation.

Quite a declaration. Now prove it.

I will not fall in line with the description of the NWT as 'a mess', but I will under no circumstances agree to it being described as superior without proof. It is not the worst translation I have read, but it is by no means the best.

Before you jump to the obvious line of defence, I have read the NWT numerous times. Also, bear in mind that you have on this Board, indeed in this thread, persons who in some way or the other actually worked on this translation.

Now...prove your assertion and please do so without resorting to preaching. We need facts.

HS

Frannie Banannie

I [feel] your pain! LMAO!

[Smart-]

GermanXJW

John 1:1 is controversial. There are also various Bible translations that translate it in line with the NWT. It depends whether you believe in the Trinity or not. I do not really care. I tend to agree with someone above who said that all translations have their biases and flaws. To me it is now like a comparison between the different translation of "The Lord of the Rings" we have in German. Discussion about them gets fiercy, too, at times.

Amazing

GermanXJW,

My frustration with getting the most comments from scholars, I have to use John 1:1 in searches. However, you said something that echos the sentiments of a number of ex-JWs:

John 1:1 is controversial. There are also various Bible translations that translate it in line with the NWT.

What Bible translations agree with the NWT on this point? I have found none. There is no credible Bible translation or version that agrees with the NWT on John 1:1. Furthermore, while various translations have a measure of bias, no one is really able to demonstrate it, except in the case of the NWT, and perhaps the revised Bible by Joseph Smith. The NWT is a deliberate fraud with designed biases built in to prop up a religion, whereas other translations only have minor unintended biases of the translators ... but their work is peer reviewed by other scholars who will contain any extremes. The NWT has no such check and balance.

Far too many ex-JWs somehow still seem to think that the NWT is a credible translation. Or that it was not a half bad product. Any high school graduate can take some lexicons, concordances, and several translations, and recreate a Bible that they call a "translation." Credible scholars know the difference as evidenced above by the large number of well known scholars who disagree with the NWT.

Death to the Pixies

What Bible translations agree with the NWT on this point? I have found none. There is no credible Bible translation or version that agrees with the NWT on John 1:1. Furthermore, while various translations have a measure of bias, no one is really able to demonstrate it, except in the case of the NWT, and perhaps the revised Bible by Joseph Smith. The NWT is a deliberate fraud with designed biases built in to prop up a religion, whereas other translations only have minor unintended biases of the translators ... but their work is peer reviewed by other scholars who will contain any extremes. The NWT has no such check and balance.

Actually it is easily demonstrable, Harner who you quoted in your list says "the Word was God" is an incorrect translation, but yet notice the list of bibles you quote that translate it "The Word was God".You obviously take Harner as authoritative, so this shows the mainstream bibles are biased in thier rendering. You can't translate it defintely than explain it to be "not definte", that is absurd.. The compiler of this list also has a bias that is easily shown. You are a contradiction waiting to happen on this issue bro.

The NWT also accepts the gloss "The Word was divine" in their appendix which agrees with Goodspeed and Moffatt. Of course Harner as you apparently do not know does so as well.. Regardless of their theology, they, like the NWT, understand that the "Word was God" is a contradiction of the preceeding clause. So unless you plan on going all "Narkissos" on this verse, you have some explaining to do using Harner in the context of a John 1:1 "Word was God" anti-NWT rant.

hillary_step

Amazing,

Far too many ex-JWs somehow still seem to think that the NWT is a credible translation. Or that it was not a half bad product.

I think much of this has to do with not being invested in the subject theologically, as I am not. I do not believe the NWT to be a 'superior' translation, as like most translations it has an obvious bias in certain ways. I also do not think that it is, as you described a 'mess', I think for a translation made by amateurs it is a brave attempt at literalism. I have no axe to grind theologically as I have no belief in the Bible as an 'inspired' book, perhaps that is why my opinions of it are more measured.

I am still awaiting comment from Mad asking for proof as to why he refers to it as an 'superior' translation. I suspect that I will be met with silence.

HS

The New World Translation is a Mess

Share this