by passwordprotected 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
http://watchtower.org/e/20080501a/article_01.htm
Of course, they fail to mention adding words like [other], [union] and the name Jehovah to the inspired text.
Tut, tut, more intellectual dishonesty from the "faithful and discreet" slave who never runs ahead of Jehovah.
Couldn't see that one coming! lol
No me either. D'oh! They always sucker me!
I think even an impartial reader will ay that they fall down on the 4 points they list for a good translation.
1)" Accurately convey original meaning." I can show you HUNDREDS of examples where NWT does not,(one or two would damn their translation)
2)"translate literally....." quite often they do this and it obfuscates the thought for us modern readers,and yet they don't do it where it dosn't suit their theology.
3)" comunicate correct sense",in other words change the original to fit our doctrines
4)"use easy to understand .....that encourage reading." It is stilted, uses strange expressions and is NOT easy to read!
Love
Wobble
I should give credit where it is due, I am old enough to remember when the NWT came out, (Jeez I'm ANCIENT!)and before in England we mainly used the King James of 1611.
so Nwt was a vast improvement.
But it has been surpassed in every area since,by later efforts,especially in readability.
Love
Wobble
Who can see past the NIV?
Why can't the quote someone
that is still alive..........Sheeeeeeeeeesh
S.R. Driver was born in 1846..........
Ah yes but he died in 1914
Seemed to have good credentials
Meanings and phrases do change
I don't trust WT to explain it though
Furthermore we have no real idea
as to how the "Original" text was
written. Copies of copies of copies
of copies of copies......................
Remember the game we played in school
sit in a circle and whisper a phrase to the
next to you and by the time it comes
back around it bears no resembalance
to the original
TaDa
Yea we played that game,called Chinese Whispers,The first guy said:
"JW's have the truth" by the time it went round the circle it came out as:
"Dubs speak only Bollocks"
can you believe that?
Love
Wobble
Hmmm.....
Do they really think us evil JWN alumni......ain't gonna hunt down the quote in it's entirety for accurate comparison?
So in that spirit I offer up to the forum's readers 1904's second edition of "The Book of Genesis" by Samuel R. Driver
http://books.google.com/books?id=h_Lx4Kj1yjwC
Here again is the WTS quote:
Professor of Hebrew S. R. Driver says that languages “differ not only in grammar and roots, but also . . . in the manner in which ideas are built up into a sentence.” People who speak different languages think differently. “Consequently,” continues Professor Driver, “the forms taken by the sentence in different languages are not the same.”
on page xxxv
Something like 100 families of language are known, all entirely unrelated to each other, i.e. all so differing from each other that none could have arisen out of any of the others by either development or decay, and each comprising mostly a variety of individual languages or groups of languages 1 . Languages belonging to different families, now, differ from each other not only radically in vocabulary and grammar, but also, very frequently, in a manner which it is more difficult for those, like ourselves, familiar with only one type of language, to realize, viz. ' morphologically,' or in the manner in which ideas ure built up into a sentence. Different races do not think in the same way; and consequentlythe forms taken by the sentence in the languages spoken by them are not the same. The five main morphological types of language arc the 'inflectional' (W. Asia and Europe), the 'agglutinative' (Turkey, Central Asia, Pacific Islmds, many parts of Africa), the 'incorporating' (BivqucX the 'isolating' (E. Asia), and the 'polysynthetic' (America)'. These morphological types ure characteristic of particular races: thus the different families of language spoken in America, though utterly unrelated t'> each other, are nevertheless all 'polysynthetic.' It will follow, also, from what has been said respecting the nature of 'families' of language, that they must either have arisen independently, in virtue of the fatuity of creating language possessed by man (below, p. 55), at different centres of human life 3 , or more probably, perhaps, have been developed gradually, at the same time that races were developed, out of some very primitive, inorganic type of speech*.
On page 133 (because the word 'roots' are not found the section above, I found a similar sentence that perhaps the WT writer borrowed from)
That the narrative can contain no scientific or historically true account of the origin of different languages, is apparent from many indications. In the first place, if it is in its right position, it can be demonstrated to rest upon uuhistorical assumptions: for the Biblical date of the Flood (see the Introd. § 2) is B.c. 2501, or (lxx.) B.c. 3066 ; and, so far from the whole earth being at either ao. 2501 or B.c. 3066 ' of one language and of one (set of) words,' numerous inscriptions are in existence dating considerably earlier even than B.c. 3066, written in three distinct languages, the pre-Semitic Sumerian (or ' Accadian'), the Semitic Babylonian, and Egyptian. But even if VVellh.'s supposition that the narrative relates really to an earlier stage of the history of mankind, be accepted, it would be not less difficult to regard it as historical. For (1) the narrative, while explaining ostensibly the diversity of languages, offers no explanation of the diversity of races. And yet diversity of language,— meaning here by the expression not the relatively subordinate differences which are always characteristic of languages developed from a common parent-tongue, but those more radical differences relating alike to grammar, structure, and roots, which shew that the languages exhibiting them cannot be referred to a common origin,—is dependent upon diversity of race. It is of course true that cases occur in which a people brought into contact with a people of another race have adopted their language ; but, speaking generally, radically different languages are characteristic of different races, or (if this word be used in its widest sense) of subdivisions of races, or sub-races, which, in virtue of the faculty of creating language distinctive of man, have created them for purposes of intercommunication and to satisfy their social instincts 2 . Differences of race, in other words, are more primary in man than
I love google books... don't you!!!
Yeah, i love google too.
