by MsD 69 Replies latest jw friends
jgnat: "Speaking of new and fresh, how about the Good News Translation (1966) and the Reader's Digest Bible (1982) (which reduced the OT by 55% and the NT by 25%)?"
I am not familiar with the Reader's Digest Bible. But the Good News Translation is one of my favorites.
It's not a translation it's a biased paraphrase to support their doctrines.
However, the Walsh case only proves that Fred Franz ‘would not attempt to’ translate Genesis 2:4 from English to Hebrew, not that he couldn't. Was Franz obligated to answer a question from an examiner using sly tactics, irrelevant to the case at hand?
Just prior to that comment however, Franz said that while the translation committee was anonymous, he had personally checked the manuscript for accuracy. It was then he was asked to translate Gen 2:4
George
| Satanic quote : Unitarian | Barclay himself says about the Watchtower quote of him, "The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say." William Barclay. |
Barclay, William: Many Witnesses, One Lord.
Watchtower | William Barclay is quoted in Watchtower magazine, May 15, 1977. This is a satanic, deliberate misrepresentation of what William Barclay actually said. In this case Barclay actually wrote a letter after the Watchtower abused his materials. This is certain proof that the Watchtower is a deceiver when it quotes from sources! Usually the Watchtower misquotes those who have died and are not able to write such letters of protest. |
How the Watchtower quoted the source | "the noted Bible translator William Barclay writes" 'Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them ... When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description rather than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say: 'James is man,' then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos (the Word) with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, 'The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God ... John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'." (Watchtower, May 15, 1977, page 320, quoting from Barclay's book, Many Witnesses, One Lord, 1963, pp. 23, 24). |
What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you: | "In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which istheos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the,logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, "James is the man," then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was." John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'" (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p23-24) "God himself took this human flesh upon him." (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p27) |
Deception Exposed: | Letter written by William Barclay to Donald Shoemaker of Biola College after Shoemaker informed Barclay how the Watchtower had misquoted him: Dear Professor Donald Shoemaker, Thank you for your letter of August 11th. The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point. It was good of you to write and I don't think I need say anything more to make my position clear. With every good wish. Yours Sincerely William Barclay. (Letter written by William Barclay to Donald Shoemaker of Biola College after Shoemaker informed Barclay how the Watchtower had misquoted him, 26 August, 1977) |
Our comments |
|
The word "worship" has changed in meaning through the centuries, so that it was understood differently in the KJV days than it is today.
The word "proskyneo" can mean both "worship" and "obeisance," depending on the context. The term cannot be used as a basis to determine the credibility of a translator by his choice of translation.
Except, Wonderment, where the translator of the NWT chose to use "worship" or "obesiance". Wonder of wonders, "obesiance" was used every time Jesus was worshipped. It was a pattern of selection based on doctrine, not the context of the text itself.
Just a small bit of trivia..
Ok, I learned at least this much as the week-long school for elders:
Pages 308 and 308 of the All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial book has a chart of the sources used for translation of both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. The baseline for Hebrew was the Biblia Hebraica (BHK) and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). The baseline for Greek was the Wescott and Hort Greek Text. There were a number of other manuscripts used, as well. Someone else said it earlier: a lot of copying and pasting.
Interestingly, you can find agreement with the NWT in almost every case with some source or some translation elsewhere. If you happen to have, or are able to borrow the reference version of the NWT, take a look at appendix 1D. There is a lengthy listing of other sources that agree with their use of "Jehovah" in the Greek scriptures. The "J" references refer to those sources, which you can find on pages 9 and 10 in the introduction. All of the references have "corroboration" with external sources. The only exception is 1 Cor 7:17. The external source is not listed in the English version because the last revision was 1984, the there has been a new source that corroborates the use of "Jehovah" in that scripture, and that comes from:
"THE NEW COVENANT COMMONLY CALLED THE NEW TESTAMENT"
- Peshitta Aramaic Text with a Hebrew Translation
(par The Bible Society, Jerusalem 1986)
Apparently, they haven't exactly stopped defending their translation. When viewing footnotes in other translations (e.g. the NET), one may find that the course of translation used by the NWT in many places is one way the word, phrase or verse in question could be translated. For example, using "undeserved kindness" instead of "grace" or "earth" instead of "land", such as at Ps 37:29 (land is used in the most other translations, but Strong's shows that "earth" is a valid translation, too, but it appears the NWT is using an eisegetical translation with this verse to fit the JW theology.) Comparing multiple translations side by side is very useful. That's why http://bible.cc is one of the more useful sites for researching, IMO.
There are definitely some key areas where liberties were taken toward the Society's bias. John 14:14, for example, is one where the word "me" is not omitted from the vast majority of translations, including Westcott and Hort's (though in brackets), but is omitted from the NWT. Or Acts 10:36 where the word "others" is inserted in the NWT in brackets where other translations do not include this word.
One thing I have never agreed with is the anonymity around the translation committee and every tract, brochure, booklet, book and magazine article published. The reason for that is because it's unscriptural to say it's to give glory only to Jehovah. Why do I say that? Take a look at the letters in the NT written by Paul, James, etc. They state unequivocally who it is that wrote them (or at least dictated them.) Why not put a name on the articles? It's not as if they're taking away glory from God by doing so. It's so strange...
Pterist: "Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
In a private letter to a Mr. David Burnett, Barclay acknowledged:
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } PRE { font-family: "Times New Roman" } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } --> " You could translate, so far as the Greek goes; ‘the Word was a God ’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong. I am quite sure myself that that the following is the correct translation." <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } PRE { font-family: "Times New Roman" } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } -->
“20 May 1974," - Book: “Ever Yours: A Selection from the Letters of William Barclay, edited by C. L. Rawlins (Dunbar 1985), pg. 205.
According to Barclay in 1974, it was not "intelectually dishonest" to translate as the NWT did in John 1:1, but theologically it was wrong, not that Greek-wise was not feasible.
jgnat: "Except, Wonderment, where the translator of the NWT chose to use ‘worship’ or ‘obeisance’. Wonder of wonders, ‘obeisance’ was used every time Jesus was worshipped. It was a pattern of selection based on doctrine, not the context of the text itself."
And how is this different from using red letters exclusively for Jesus Christ and not for the Father in some Bible versions? Didn't Jesus say,"the Father is greater than I am"? Was not the glorified Christ subject to the "head" (God) according to 1 Cor. 11:3?
It is odd to read on occasions in these versions where God the Father is speaking to Christ, and the ‘lesser’ Christ gets special attention by having red letters when Christs speaks, but not God who is above him. This red lettering convention seems to be "a pattern based on doctrine, not the context of the text itself."
And how is this different from using red letters exclusively for Jesus Christ and not for the Father in some Bible versions? Didn't Jesus say,"the Father is greater than I am"? Was not the glorified Christ subject to the "head" (God) according to 1 Cor. 11:3? - Wonderment
Insightful observation. Perhaps we should promote another version where the Father's words are blue letter? Except there are those odd dicey lines where we're not quite sure who is speaking.
I don't think this is at all the same level as picking one translation for the Son and another for the Father to support a theological construct.
