Wonderment- is there any current true scholar [phd at least] who agrees with the watchtower position in regards to John 1;1 , or are they all 19th century armchair translators who had other professions?
The New World Translation Quote from an Elder
TTWSF...have you actually read this thread? Or doesn't it say what you would like it to?
You've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the NWT the "Rolls Royce" of Bibles.
Two points: The Rolls Royce is approximately twice as old as the NWT. This is the 100-year anniversary of the Flying Lady.
Second point: The Rolls Royce factory and their many loyal owners have not had to feel ashamed of what they created in 1914 and expunge it from public record. The early cars are worth over a million dollars in good condition.
James - 1995 Silver Dawn.
Jason BeDuhn is Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington.
By the way, Dr BeDuhn has taught Greek for years. He has the necessary qualifications to express his viewpoint. Can you best that?
Can I best that, woderment? Cute. The qualification is one that would justify his evaluation of "bias." I simply point out that the NWT is quite infamous for placing YHWH in many places in the NT without a shred of justification except their own bias against the divinity of Christ. To understand that the JW bible does exactly this and stil find a way to claim it is the least biased translation out there is a perfect example of missing the point. For that matter, the selective use of brackets within the NWT is a similar case -- words like "other" may be legitimate readings, but placing them into the text itself is pretty cheesy.
Remember - Paul taught the people from "house to house".
Not "in your houses".
"Do You Know the King James Version?" that there is no sound basis for any Christian to believe that the King James Version or any other translation is the exclusive version of the Bible's Author." Scan: N.
In the book "Creation," published in 1927 by the Watchtower Society, Joseph Rutherford proclaimed that the "King James Version" was the most "masterful and perfect" version of the Bible! Rutherford states:N.
"In the year 1611 A. D. what is commonly known as the Authorized Version was produced. It is otherwise known as the King James Version, because King James of England was the prime mover in having it prepared."
Doubtless there has never been a more masterful and perfect English publication than the Authorized Version of the Bible.
Scan of page 117.
TTWSYF asked: Wonderment- is there any current true scholar [phd at least] who agrees with the watchtower position in regards to John 1:1?
Yes, Jason BeDuhn, (Ph.D) holds a similar exegetical position to that of the WTS.
Sulla said of BeDuhn's sympathetic comments of the NWT: The qualification is one that would justify his evaluation of "bias." I simply point out that the NWT is quite infamous for placing YHWH in many places in the NT without a shred of justification except their own bias against the divinity of Christ. To understand that the JW bible does exactly this and stil find a way to claim it is the least biased translation out there is a perfect example of missing the point.
Sulla: Jason BeDuhn compared 9 bible versions where theology plays a role in bias. He found the NWT to be a sound bible translation, showing less bias in some cases to mainstream versions. He has made it clear he is not a JW, and he took the NWT to task in many cases, pointing out places where the NWT showed bias. One such area he disagrees with the NWT Committee is in the realm of using the divine name in the NT. I got the impression Dr. BeDuhn was fair in his assesments of the various bible versions discussed.
Ibidem, (of previous post where Robert Young was mentioned in Mantey's letter as support of the traditional reading of John 1:1).
Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary was published after his printed translation, which explains how the last part of John 1:1 should be understood:
"AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. ‘and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.’"
Somehow, Mantey forgot to mention this fact, or chose not to criticize Young because of Young's well-known expertise in many ancient languages.
Interestingly, within the Watchtower Society's own publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969) the word "other" does not appear within the actual Greek translation of Colossians 1:16-20.N.