Translations and Translators

by Pahpa 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pahpa

  The N.W. translation has come under a lot of criticism for its biased and incorrect renderings.

  It is a fair evaluation. But it is not peculiar to that translation alone. Most translators have

  personal beliefs that color their decisions on how a verse should be translated. If one

  has strong trinitarian leanings, then this person tries hard to incorporate his beliefs

  into his rendering. Since the majority of translators had religious preferences, it is

  reflected in their works. This is evident in most translations.
• 

  mrsjones5

  Yes?
• 

  PSacramento

  Every translation has some bias in it, yes.

  That is why every translation has a list of translators and who they are affiliated with.

  Hebrew and Greek can't be translated literally into english and as such you need a blend of literal translation and a translation of what each verse means in context with the chapter and in context with the "book" AND in context with the author.

  It takes a lot of skill and understanding to be a translator and what the NWT gets props on is being a literal translation (most of the time).

  Most of the reviews I have read that said good things about the NWT ALSO said enough bad things to be, at best, neutral.

  The NWT is NOT a BAD translation per say, sure they drop the ball a few times and they take it into their own hands to insert words and meanings into the mouths of the writers, they even go against their own rules of translations when a verse will go against their doctrine, sure they use the lest applicable translations of common words like "stauros" ( Cross) and "proskueno" ( Worship) and put their own less common ( but still valid) terms instead, but that is really NOT the big issue with the NWT.

  The main issue ( beyond the animinity of the translators0 though NOW we know who they were) is that the NWT is PUSHED as being the more correct when it is NOTHING of the sort.
• 

  Terry

  Words printed on a page cannot have meaning. They must be given meaning.

  It is imputed.

  In the case of the Holy Bible there is a great deal which is imputed!

  For instance, we can trace back through time to a point where no translating was going on at all.

  Guess what we find? Nothing!

  There is this empty space where there is no New Testament at all.

  In its place there are people telling stories about Jesus and there is the Septuigent (Greek) version of the Hebrew bible.

  Now what do you suppose this means?

  It can only mean one thing: During the gap between Jesus and writing about Jesus there was an empty space of storytelling and hearsay.

  The gap could last about 60 years or so.

  You know what is particularly interesting?

  We can't even find one shred of the first writings at all! Not even the first copies of the first writings!

  We have a postage stamp sized manuscript from a copy of a copy of a copy, but, that isn't much to go on, is it?

  The copies of copies of copies consist of what was written down (we don't actually know by whom--it is imputed to be actual eye/ear witnesses)

  LATER.

  But--here is a really, really interesting fact: Modern day theology pretends we KNOW WORD FOR WORD exactly what was said and done....

  (wait for it.................wait for it...............) EVEN THOUGH NOTHING CAN BE PROVED TO EXIST beyond the copies of copies of copies translated and corrupted and revised and redacted over centuries.

  Jesus is quoted word for word (in Aramaic) as saying:

  New International Version(©1984)
  About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

  Does it strike you as odd and puzzling and amazing that this is about the only time JESUS IS EXACTLY QUOTED IN THE LANGUAGE HE SPOKE!

  Did somebody make all the rest up?

  How would we know?

  How would we prove it?

  Enquiring minds want to know.................intellectually dishonest minds don't give a flip.....they just accept anything and call it "faith."
• 

  PSacramento

  For those that view the bible as Historical, those points are not really of any consequence Terry.

  For those that view the bible as inerrant, yes, those points must be addressed beyond simple historicity.

  People that view the bible as with out errors and contridictions and without change in theology or that the message of God was understand the same from the very beginning to the very 'end", yes those people need to address those issues and more.
• 

  Pahpa

  Most of the philosophical and historical works of ancient history that

  we have today are also only "copies" of the original. Yet, most scholars

  and translators have no difficulty in accepting them as genuine. It is

  usually when the Bible is involved that critics bring up these issues.

  One has to wonder what motive critics have in using a double

  standard when evaluating these documents.
• 

  Ding

  The implication that the original text of the New Testament has been hopelessly compromised by variants simply isn't true.

  We don't have originals of any ancient writings (not just the Bible), but we do have copies from scribes from different parts of the world who couldn't have copied from each other.

  In other words, their copies of the texts are independent of each other, which provides a check of reliability.

  In addition to that, there are writings of church fathers that quote many, many scriptures, which provides a further check.

  Greek scholar F.F. Bruce has stated:

  "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."

  Greek scholar Bruce Metzger has said:

  1. "... Scholars work very carefullly to try to resolve [variants in manuscripts] by getting back to the original meaning. The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church. Any good Bible will have notes that will alert readers to variant readings of any consequence, but again, these are rare."

  2. "I don't know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy [because of variants]."

  Sir Frederick Kenyon, former director of the British Museum and author of The Palaeography of Greek Papyri", states:

  "In no other case is the interval of time between the completion of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as that of the New Testament... The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."

  Norman Geisler and William Nix write:

  "The New Testament... has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form that any other great book -- a form that is 99.5 percent pure."

  As far as Terry's point about the quotation of "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani," the reason it's quoted in the original language is to explain why the crowd thought Jesus was calling for Elijah to appear: "Eloi, Eloi..." (Matthew 27:47)
• 

  PSacramento

  Ding is correct and a little FYI:

  Bruce Metzger was Bart Ehrma's teacher and mentor.

  In terms of Historocity, the Bible stands without par in many ways.

  The simple fact that we KNOW of the inconsitencies and that they have been discussed ( ad nauseum) for ages gives evidence that errors and concerns have been addressed before and are being addressed now.