An accurate translation should be phrased in a way which gives the sense of the original in the receptor language. The scripture in Colossians to which oompa refers can mean either that Jesus is inclusive of all creation or that he is exclusive of all creation. Both understandings of this scripture are legitimate grammatically. That being so, if the translator believes that the original writer wrote in the sense that Jesus was inclusive of all creation, that he was part of creation (albeit the first-born), then it would be both correct and necessary to use "other" to show that the original language allowed for this understanding. Translations which do not show this are equally correct but the difference is a matter of theology, not of linguistics.
they never say "bracketed 'other' here" when reading bible either......
by oompa 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
reniaa
nice info earnest :) its so easy to forget all the bibles we use are all just translations and so when there is translation choices the theology of the translator will effect this.
Reniaa
-
DaCheech
so we are in debt to the wt translators as prophets and most accurate reniaa
-
TD
Sometimes it actually works the other direction. The JW's base much of the teaching on blood on a grammatically incomplete phrase in Acts 15: "keep abstaining....from blood."
"Abstain" negates action. Blood is not an action. Therefore an interpolation is required to complete the thought.
Of course anyone who reads this verse in context understands that the mention of blood is a reference to the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law, but when the phrase is invoked as an independent construction that fact is not so clear.
In this case, JW theology hides behind the fact that a "bracketed" verb is really needed for grammatically complete English
-
Earnest
One translation that shows this distinction is the New English Bible which translates Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over a all created things.
with the footnote
[a] Or image of the invisible God, born before...
Quite clearly these translators favour the sense that Jesus is exclusive of all creation but have the knowledge and understanding to allow for the alternative translation.
-
PSacramento
" An accurate translation should be phrased in a way which gives the sense of the original in the receptor language. The scripture in Colossians to which oompa refers can mean either that Jesus is inclusive of all creation or that he is exclusive of all creation. Both understandings of this scripture are legitimate grammatically. That being so, if the translator believes that the original writer wrote in the sense that Jesus was inclusive of all creation, that he was part of creation (albeit the first-born), then it would be both correct and necessary to use "other" to show that the original language allowed for this understanding. Translations which do not show this are equally correct but the difference is a matter of theology, not of linguistics. "
This is quite correct, though I have always been of the view that, IF scripture doesn't call for modification in translation, that it is best to put it in unedited.For the translator to add his/her/their interpretation on a passage that is pretty much clear in terms of language, just on the basis of theology, is not correct.
But, its almost impossible for any translator to NOT do this.
-
Witness 007
If I ever get to give a talk again i'll do a "Dead Poets Society {Robin Williams} Okay turn to Colosians...and TEAR IT OUT! COME ON!
-
oompa
DITTO Sacramento and Earnest...either leave it alone......or acknowlege the [...] when reading.....and for gods sake at least make a footnote with the alternate!!!......to state it as fact is very deceptive and if all brackets have been removed as undisfellowshipped said....it is an abomination..(rev.22:18,19).......has anyone confirmed they have all been removed?...or just some....and is it all nwt's?.....thanks oompa
-
drwtsn32
Also, have you seen the new "updated" New World Translation which removes the brackets completely? It came out in 2007 I believe. I have one. Very deceptive.
Why assume that was done for nefarious purposes? Maybe removing the brackets saved hundreds of dollars of ink on the million bibles they printed.
-
Kudra
Wait- in the brackets-removed version is it only the brackets they removed or the words within the brackets that are removed as well??