The New World Translation is a Mess

by Amazing 144 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Amazing

  Hillary Step,

  I have no theological bias for any translation. While I accept the traditional definition of God's nature, I cannot say what exactly God's nature is, nor can I say that the Trinity is an adequate definition. My use of John 1:1 is a risk because of its controversy, but it is the easiest way to get the most comments from scholars regarding the NWT.

  The "mess" comes from a more indepth review of verses that are botched betond belief, or are deliberately twisted to milead the reader to accept JW theological views. I recallposting a couple of examples above ... 1 Tim. 4:1 is a classic example.

  I am currently out in Oregon visiting with family, so my comment time will be limited, especially with an extremely sticky keyboard. But, if you like, I can post many more examples as a result of my own limited-time study.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  Amazing

  Little Toe,

  I love Leo's comments. ... I would put it the following way: it could be rendered that the Logos is not the Father but he's exactly the same as the Father in every way, including Divinity/longevity. ... John is at pains to show that the Logos is face to face with "God" and yet somehow is exactly the same as "God".

  • In the beginning was the Logos - When everything started the Logos was already around.
  • And the Logos was with God - So was "God", as distinct from the Logos.
  • And the Logos was God - You cant tell them apart.

  This last point is an important one because, depending of what you believe "God" to be, there's an expectation that you must accept that the Logos is exactly the same, and hence the Trinity doctrine had its foundation. This is an elaboration and deepening on "if you have seen me you have seen the Father". ... When you put it in an esoteric (e.g. proto-gnostic) context it makes sense. If you try to put it in a corporeal context you come up with two entities and a difficulty rationalising Monotheism. I sometimes wonder if it can be understood if you haven't "met" them though, but I would say that with my gnostic leanings, wouldn't I?

  Excellent development! Hence, this may dovetail with a definition I proposed earlier. That is: Just as there is one humanity with billions of members, each fully human, yet separate and distinct persons; likewise, there is one divinity, with three members, each fully divine, yet separate and distinct persons. Divinity is a nature of which there is one, and humanity is a nature, of which there is also just one. Is this definition the correct one? I don't know, but is perhaps is one way to explain or define a possibility.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  Narkissos

  Just as there is one humanity with billions of members, each fully human, yet separate and distinct persons; likewise, there is one divinity, with three members, each fully divine, yet separate and distinct persons. Divinity is a nature of which there is one, and humanity is a nature, of which there is also just one.

  Tritheism. Anathema sit.
• 

  Amazing
• 

  Amazing

  Nark,

  Tritheism. Anathema sit.

  If you mean "three Gods" I did not say that, and my proposed definition gave an adequate example of how one might construct the concept. One humanity, many persons, not a poly-humanity. One God, three persons, not a polytheism, or tritheism,or poly-divinity. What part of the comparison is not clear?

  Jim Whitney
• 

  LittleToe

  Jim:

  Excellent development! Hence, this may dovetail with a definition I proposed earlier. That is: Just as there is one humanity with billions of members, each fully human, yet separate and distinct persons; likewise, there is one divinity, with three members, each fully divine, yet separate and distinct persons. Divinity is a nature of which there is one, and humanity is a nature, of which there is also just one. Is this definition the correct one? I don't know, but is perhaps is one way to explain or define a possibility.

  That was how I eventually arrived at the Trinity doctrine, for I have to confess having come at it the hard way - not wanting to believe it and not having a human teacher. The next step was kneading in the omniprescent quality of a "Divine" person.

  I came to the conclusion that "God" is everywhere and everywhen all at once, since Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all involved in prayer in the Christian tradition (ergo it seems they must be). If that is a peculiar quality of being "Divine", since corporeal humans don't possess it, then there's an additional sense in which the Divine persons may be considered "Godhead", beyond the species factor.

  The only difficulty with this approach in an orthodox setting is that it then lends itself to a further heretical step of considering what happens to a "glorified" human, since "we shall see him and shall be like him" (1Joh.3:2)? Do we all eventually become part of that Godhead, or do we just enjoy it vicariously through Christ?

  This is perhaps one reason that I prefer the Panentheistic view to the Pantheist view. Since God is everywhere, we must be in God and He in us right this very second ("in him we live and move and have our being" Acts.17:28). Yet there remains an otherness about the extremity of the concept of the Divine that, while I wouldn't call it separate, even yet remains more. No wonder, then, the Kabbalists talk of Ein Soph.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Since no medieveal copy of the bible agrees in content and there were massive divisions in interpretation from Jewish history through Christian aren't we supposed to re-write the bible according to our inspiration anyway??
  
  If the WT organisation is inspired (or should I say if they could make up their minds whether they are or not) then they have a duty to re-write the scripture to not only make it easier to understand but to clarify the doctrinal position they think it espouses (early copyists and scribes did this in many cases.)
  
  Since the bible itself is a handbook of a religion rather than the religion being the child of the book(discuss!) then surely the handbook can be updated (to receive new light - the way books of scripture got added in the first place), re-interpreted to clarify meaning (for example to record the fulfillment of prophecy - something the NT is full of) and brought up to date to approximate cultural change ('sod pottage' means nowt to most people today so would be badly translated - something modern day biblical versions attempt to do - ergo it is less important to get a grammatically perfect copy but more important to convey the same meaning as much as our language and culture could grasp it.)
  
  In other words we are talking about authority here - if any church feels it has a link to God it should feel no qualms about re-writing the bible to match the divine inspiration they receive - God the Father would know if His son Jesus was actually just a manifestation of himself (trinity), was a God (polytheism) or was a man chosen to become/join with the Christ (adoptionism) or indeed any other flavour of belief. Indeed one might be rather upset with a chosen religion that dared to present an interpretation upon which salvation would hang but didn't dare put it in writing in the great book.
  
  If the NWT is a mess so be it - I still think they are justified in re-writing it to fit their doctrine(just like the anglicans, protestants, catholics, mormons, born agains and other religions have done either by adopting a favoured translation or sponsoring one.) The real problem as far as I can see is the proclamation of a God who relies on a human translation team to describe him (did Moses proclaim God or did he get a team of translators to look at any possible records lying around and make thier best educated efforts??) when the JWs claim that they were able to translate the scriptures 'better' due to greek speaking members of the translation team etc.. I'm stunned by their admition that God didn't actually help - He wasn't really needed.
• 

  Narkissos

  Jim,

  One humanity, many persons, not a poly-humanity. One God, three persons, not a polytheism, or tritheism,or poly-divinity. What part of the comparison is not clear?

  It is perfectly clear... as a definition of tritheism, i.e. a subcategory of polytheism. Three individuals of man-kind are three men (or women), three individuals of the horse-kind are three horses, three individuals of the unicorn-kind are three unicorns, three individuals of the god-kind are... three gods.

  Monotheism implies that there is only one "individual" of the God-kind -- or, rather, that the categories of "kind" and "individual" do not apply to God: remember Thomas Aquinas' formula, deus non est in genere. As I have suggested before, I think you are mistaking the notion of Trinitarian person (hypostasis or persona) for the everyday definition of "person".

  As (1) it is not the first time we are going through that and (2) you seem to care for Catholic (or, for that matter, ecumenical) orthodoxy, I sugest (again) that you take your "comparison" to the nearest Catholic systematic theologianand see what he tells you about it.

  I grant you that this kind of thinking can find some support in the ante-Nicene Fathers (Justin, Tertullian) and of course "heresiarchs" even later (Nestorius from a Christological perspective, Roscelin from a nominalistic perspective) but it has been consistently rejected by Catholic "orthodoxy". That's a problem for you, not me.
• 

  LittleToe

  Didier:
  I agree. It is only when you take the discussion beyond species and individuals that you arrive at an orthodox view. I wonder if there isn't some latitude in considering that rather than the three individuals being examples of a species, they are deemed the entirety of the co-existant race.

  As another sidebar, I have also given consideration to whether a creator needs to be more complex than His progeny. Following that thought: when an amoeba splits, which part is the parent and which part the child?

  Just a few musings...
• 

  Leolaia

  This theological discussion is going far afield from the NWT, by the way.....

  But, for what it's worth,

  Following that thought: when an amoeba splits, which part is the parent and which part the child?

  I have thought of the amoeba situation as well, although this scenario is contrary to the "distinction without division" concept....