New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

by Quendi 64 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    But no one (To my knowledge) who was able to speak from a position of authority has ever claimed it was forged, faked or plagiarized.

    I don't think anyone said that it was forged or faked or anything else for that matter.

    There is no "copyright" on the bible and unless one takes an offical translation like the NIV and puts THEIR name on it, I don;'t think that using other bibles to compare trnaslation while working on your own, qualifies as any of that.

    I am just saying that it wouldn't be too hard for many people to do just that and make their own "official bible" of their own religion.

    Agreed?

  • TD
    TD

    PSac,

    Agree.

    The idea that it's faked is part and parcel of the "Version" vs. "Translation" question on page 2 and the top of page 3 of this thread. The theory is that no one involved was capable of even simple translation, so they took various interlinears and composed their own English verson based on the interlinear glosses and then billed it as a fresh translation. Ergo, it's faked.

    I haven't commented on this thread because I think the NWT is a great translation. I just don't think it's the abomination it's made out to be on the internet.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Like I mentioned before, I don't mind it so much.

    It is not a very "good read", it is dry and often times emotionless and at times muddled.

    The Portuguese version is more "pleasant" to the reading to be honest and I recall Narkissos mentioning the same thing about the french versions.

    I miss Narkissos posts by the way, we don't have enough posters like him and You for that matter :)

  • Bungi Bill
    Bungi Bill

    TD,

    Firstly, you have a PM!

    As to your pertinent remarks about subjectivity, I would suggest that this runs heavily through most of the matters that get discussed on this board.

    Regarding Bible doctrine and Bible translations, I often wonder how much of a proverbial "chicken and egg" situation we are dealing with here!

    i.e. Just to what extent did one result from the other?

    Bill.

  • shepherd
    shepherd

    "With no real primary scholarship on the NWT committee, I'm guessing that the gang made use of the same tools you mentioned, concordances, lexicons, etc. Then they had to have dozens of translations to refer to. With said tools in hand (no pun intended), I'm guessing Franz & company proceded to cherry-pick the verse translations most favorable to the WT worldview. Hell, anyone with the time and desire could probably put together their own translation that way. You certainly wouldn't need any real knowledge of Ancient Near East languages, society, etc. "

    This is also what I think happened. They wanted their own Bible 'translation', not just for doctrinal reasons, but for copyright reasons. They wanted a Bible they could publish freely in modern English. They wanted one that did not have the biases in translation they did not accept, especially in reference to the Trinity, and they wanted to add a few of their own. So, they looked at a few other translations and concordances, lexicons, etc. to cobble together their own.

    The result is not the terrible translation some claim it to be. It is no better and no worse than many others. But of course, it does support their doctrinal position and that upsets many, even though other translators do the same thing.

    I have to admit, I would never ever use it again because it is tainted just by the fact JWs compiled it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit