I have left behind the details. However, john1:1 is one that i remember and hasn't been mentioned, yet. It's a biggy, the nature of jesus. Wt says he's an angel, bible says he's god, by nature.
S
Why is the New World Translation inaccurate/not reliable?
by XPeterX 31 Replies latest social humour
-
-
jgnat
erbie, when the translation was done they made the revolutionary move of removing the thee's and the thou's. Thinkaboutit. A plain-English version. Of course now we have a great many more to choose from.
What I find so awkward is their removal of "grace" and replacing it with..what is it? Unmerited favour or somesuch?
-
PSacramento
Actually, unmerited favour is a good "translation" of Grace, but the NWT has "undeserved kindness".
-
ozziegal
Zech 12 : 10 KJV says...and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced...NWT says 'the one' instead of 'me'
-
-
Phizzy
In the NWT the very stilted, often dry, or strange sounding "English", which is of course American English, arose because of a desire to follow the Heb/Aramaic/Gk as closely as possible, so not substituting idioms that we would use etc
This often gives a very literal rendering, not necessarily an easily understandable one.
When the Theology of the "original" that Freddie and Cronies referred to did not suit them, they of course put in their own and changed much.
It is noteworthy that according to legend, Freddie Franz and Co used mainly the English as published by Westcott & Hort , then compared renderings in mainly other English Translations, when in doubt using Dictionaries and other text books to get at the root meaning of a word or phrase.
If that really were the process, then it is not a Translation at all, it is a plagiarising of the work of many others, with many instances of flagrant changes to the accepted texts. Westcott and Hort's text was pretty dated as far as scholarship had gone by the time Freddie consulted it, and of course a tremendous quantity of work has been done since, all ignored by the WT apart from a few minor changes.
If you wish to seriously study the Bible, I would avoid the NWT .
-
exwhyzee
Marked....thank you for this post.
-
DATA-DOG
Pterist, Let me see if I am grasping this..
WTBTS's view:
"For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should you yourselves in any way go free of punishment? You will not go free of punishment, for there is a sword that I am calling against all the inhabitants of the earth,' is the utterance of Jehovah of armies.""
The answer to our original question, 'Does the servitude begin when Jerusalem is destroyed?' has been right here all along - in the very same chapter where the 70 years of servitude is mentioned. After stating that Judah will become a devastated land, and that the nations will serve Babylon for 70 years, did you notice that the starting point of the 70 years is directly pinpointed?
1914 is essential for the WTBTS and 607 is needed for 1914, hence the NWT rendering of Jeremiah 25:29.
-
JeffT
There is a notable failure to insert the name Jehovah when it doesn't suit them. Several of the Hebrew translations they used to determine where to put the name use the tetragramaton at 1 Cor. 12:3. If the NWT translators had been consistent that would read "No one can say 'Jesus is Jehovah' except by Holy Spirit."
-
Ding
I think Freddy started with the fact that existing translations said a number of things that conflict with WT doctrine.
One of the key ones, of course, is John 1:1 "... and the Word was God."
That wouldn't do.
So he found those problem passages and figured out ways to reword them so that they to appear to say what the WTS believes.
The WTS wants to emphasize the name "Jehovah," so Freddy added it into the NT despite the fact that YHWH doesn't appear in any Greek manuscript.
Why? Well, it must have been there because the WTS doctrine says true followers of God must use the Name.
Instead of "grace," he wrote "undeserved kindness."
Freddy's emphasis was on "undeserved."
Why? Because the WTS wants JWs constantly focusing on their unworthiness.