New World Translation

by MsD 69 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Wonderment

  james_woods:

  "Perhaps they "could have" done it in two years, Wonderment - but they didn't. How long they took proves nothing."

  It may not "prove" anything, notwithstanding, any major Bible translation project takes more than 5 years. The NIV project had a cost of millions of dollars and many years of work to accomplish what they did. But the 6 simple steps suggested by a poster here is not realistic with what we know of the time the NWT project took. Even for a corporation of the magnitude of the WTBTS, projects requiring a long time and resources are weighted carefully.
• 

  Jeffro

  Wonderment:

  If the NWT Committe had done what you are suggesting, they could have done their version in two years, not fourteen, which is the time they took to do their original version.

  There was some degree of levity to my comments, which you evidently didn't detect. However, in principle, my statements about the NWT's approach are correct.

  All translations fall short somewhere, because they are done by imperfect humans with limited knowledge.

  As opposed to... an invisible magic friend in the sky??
• 

  *lost*

  bumped
• 

  Splash

  Reading the Bible this week I found another 'insertion' in the NWT that doesn't even have the [] around it, and I'm looking at a NWT that DOES still use [] for inserted text.

  It's at Rom 16:7

  NWT - Greet An·dron'i·cus and Ju'ni·as my relatives and my fellow captives, who are men of note among the apostles and who have been in union with Christ longer than I have.

  This makes Junias a male apostle, but it is a womans name.

  Other renderings:

  KJV - Salute Andronicus and Iunia my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

  Revised - Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow–prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

  Douay - Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

  ASV - Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

  In fact in the 17 versions I have checked, only the NWT includes the gender 'men', to support their teaching that no women could have any positions in the congregation.

  Splash
• 

  *lost*

  well done Splash. It's all coming together now
• 

  Wonderment

  Splash said: "In fact in the 17 versions I have checked [at Rom. 16:7], only the NWT includes the gender 'men', to support their teaching that no women could have any positions in the congregation."

  Did you check -- The Revised Standard Version; The Twentieth Century NT; Goodspeed NT; Common Edition NT; Moffatt's NT; Worsley NT; and the NT of William Paul and Walter L. Porter? They too have "men" in their translations.

  The NIV and ESV Study Bibles favor an understanding of a "woman" in the context at Ro. 16:7.

  On the other hand, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia are inclined to believe it was a "man" being referenced here. They wrote:

  "One to whom, with Andronicus, Paul sent greetings at the close of his letter to the Romans (Rom 16:7). The name may be masculine, ‘Junias,’ a contraction of Junianus, or feminine ‘Junia’; it is Iounian, the accusative form, that is given. In all probability this is the masculine, ‘Junias.’ Paul defines the two as (1) ‘my kinsmen,’ (2) ‘my fellow-prisoners,’ (3) ‘who are of note among the apostles,’ and (4) have been ‘in Christ before me.’”
• 

  transhuman68

  LOL, Splash has a point though- there is no 'men' in the original text: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom16.pdf

  Bart Ehrman thinks so too:

  Bart Ehrman- Misquoting Jesus

  We might consider briefly several other textual changes of a similar sort. One occurs in a passage I have already mentioned, Romans 16, in which Paul speaks of a woman, Junia, and a man who was presumably her husband, Andronicus, both of whom he calls “foremost among the apostles” (v. 7). This is a significant verse, because it is the only place in the New Testament in which a woman is referred to as an apostle. Interpreters have been so impressed by the passage that a large number of them have insisted that it cannot mean what it says, and so have translated the verse as referring not to a woman named Junia but to a man named Junias, who along with his companion Andronicus is praised as an apostle. The problem with this translation is that whereas Junia was a common name for a woman, there is no evidence in the ancient world for “Junias” as a man’s name. Paul is referring to a woman named Junia, even though in some modern English Bibles (you may want to check your own!) translators continue to refer to this female apostle as if she were a man named Junias.
• 

  Bobcat

  Wonderment:

  BDAG agrees with ISBE, saying 'probably a man, a shortened form of Junianus, but from a lexical point of view it is possible to be a woman.' (Not exact quote, but the gist.)

  I thinking too, probably male, but possible otherwise as it is listed as one of the gifts given in Eph. 4:7-13 which included others who tuned out to be women (prophets e.g.).

  Probably one of those arguments that can never be settled at this time for lack of defining evidence.

  Take Care
• 

  Wonderment

  Bobcat said: "Probably one of those arguments that can never be settled at this time for lack of defining evidence."

  I agree! Thanks for your comments.
• 

  Bobcat

  Wonderment:

  And I appreciate your comments too. You're fair-minded.