by dabster 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
He was saying in effect that the translators had sacrificed accuracy for readability.
They always prided themselves on being the most accurate version. If they really cared, they could have kept printing two editions, an accurate study edition and one for readability.
dabster: "I'm no Greek scholar or New Testament text critic but understand the ESV to be very faithful to the original texts and very readable"
I do like the ESV, but all the Bible versions disappoint somehow, somewhere. That includes the ESV and the NWT. The ESV is committed to orthodox evangelicals. So like the NWT, they started their translation work somewhat biased, though that may be true of all translation efforts.
Take a look at John 1:18, "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."
"the only God" is a translation of μονογενὴς Θεὸς (monogen ē s Theós). If you look closely, you will see that the ESV did not translate the second part of the compound word mono-gen ē s. How accurate is that? Other versions have done better here: "the only-begotten God."
Since the translators wanted to please their target audience, they opted not to display the gen ē s part of the word. Since, the meaning of this part is controversial within the trinitarian community, whether it means "begotten" or "one of a kind," they chose to play coward with it, and not disturb the evangelical faithful with a bold rendering. Is this then the most "faithful" of recent efforts? Not quite! Most translations yield to the fear of men.
Accuracy in a translation is that the translator translates what the author is trying to convey. It is not changing things to fit what we want the author to say, right?
Accuracy in a translation should be paramount. The NWT and the RNWT are laughable translations. No one, and I mean NO Scholar or professor of biblical languages considers the NWT or RNWT translations as a legit translation or an accurate body of work.
Anytime you do an online search a list of accurate translations, you NEVER see the NWT. Does anyone really wonder why?
just saying
ttwsyf
TTWSYF: ¨The NWT and the RNWT are laughable translations. No one, and I mean NO Scholar or professor of biblical languages considers the NWT or RNWT translations as a legit translation or an accurate body of work.
Anytime you do an online search a list of accurate translations, you NEVER see the NWT. Does anyone really wonder why?¨
I take the above as an opinion, not a fact. The truth is that the NWT may be ‘laughed at’ by the majority of scholarly institutions, but not all. Through the years, a number of recognized scholars have said some good things about the NWT where they recognize some of its merits. Do a further research, and you will see. Some even have recommended the NWT to their readers, like Alan S. Duthie. This guy has more linguistic belts holding his pants than most others leading the NWT criticism parade.
But expecting the religious world led by Catholics and Protestants to honor the NWT translation is like asking the Pope to leave the Vatican so he can help improve the NWT or Mormomś cause. Itś not going to happen.
Looking at the majority of the world to support our own personal views for what is right may not be the correct approach. One way to look at this, is to think for a moment what it would be like living in the First-Century. In what camp would we have fallen? In the heavy-trained world of Pharisees, Saduccees, and Greek philosophers who loved to argue, despising the so-called ignorants of their time, OR, would we be able to see the value and intelligence of lesser-trained individuals who became Christians, which in turn followed a Leader with no worldly training, Jesus Christ? Who was God favoring back then?
I am not suggesting that only a particular group today has the truth, because I do not believe so, but only suggesting that worldly standards is no guarantee of rightness. A quality publication can be accomplished without the approval of professors.
Thank you Wonderment for your balanced view, and your informative posts.
Of course it is very doubtful that the NWT is in any way a true Translation, it is really a "version", it seems that the WT of the time had no scholars of the three languages in any real sense. It has been claimed that it was put together by consulting many many translations and versions, and Dictionaries etc etc
This may explain the desire for the "Translation" Committee to remain anonymous.
It was praised quite a lot in a lengthy review at the time by the late Professor F.F Bruce, whose only real criticism was some strange expressions such as "and the Nile fairly stank" such expressions were probably later changed in the revisions of later years. I remeber another scholar, name escapes me, praising it for its accurate transmisssion of the original dioms.
Translation of any Text is fraught with many difficulties, hence we get new ones of many ancient writings as the years roll by.
First thing I noticed about it was the entire first 11 verses of John Ch8 being REMOVED. Maybe over enough time they will start to realize more and more of the bible events never actually happened or are not divinely inspired until there is no bible left..HA! Also the timeline pictures in the very back mentioning 1914 as a "sure" date is real ballsy...and inaccurate.
It's agreed by most scholars that those verses were likely inserted after the original writing, sunny23: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Arguments_against_Johannine_authorship
I agree with Wonderment's stance. I think there are a few reasons you don't see the NWT talked about on a level with other translations, and why it's not on sites like BibleHub.com:
1. The Society's self-seclusion from the world of scholarship. The Society would never stoop to discussing their translation at a Bible conference with worldly scholars. Combined with the anonymity of the Translation Committee, this means that outside scholars cannot have a meaningful conversation with the Society on the reasons for their translation choices, nor will a "Watchtower scholar" be contributing any articles to worldly Bible journals.
2. The insertion of all those "Jehovah"s in the NT tends to ruin that whole side of the Bible. The rest of the translation could be great, but as a scholar, why would you recommend the NWT over other translations that are good and that don't shoehorn that divine name where it doesn't belong?
3. The general non-usage of the Bible except by a small-time religion means that it simply isn't brought to scholars' attention very often.
sunny23: ¨Also the timeline pictures in the very back mentioning 1914 as a "sure" date is real ballsy...and inaccurate.¨
I couldn´t agree more. Publishing the 1914 date this late approaching 100 years of "the last days" in their main translation is a case of special pleading.
It's agreed by most scholars that those verses were likely inserted after the original writing, sunny23:
I knew that, i'm just pointing out the large amount of "false" scripture thats been in their bible from day 1 and has been denied by scholars for years. The Org that thinks it's lightyears ahead of everyone elses findings, doctrines, reasoning, etc has major faults they are still fixing. This whole time they have been touting the "all scriptures is inspired" phrase has been a lie, idiots.
Apognophos:
Very good observations! I liked specially point number # 1 found below:
"1. The Society's self-seclusion from the world of scholarship. The Society would never stoop to discussing their translation at a Bible conference with worldly scholars. Combined with the anonymity of the Translation Committee, this means that outside scholars cannot have a meaningful conversation with the Society on the reasons for their translation choices, nor will a "Watchtower scholar" be contributing any articles to worldly Bible journals."
This reminds me of what actually happened decades ago when "cult expert" Walter Martin, a Baptist, tried to communicate with JWs leaders, 7th Day Adventists and other groups to discuss religious issues which in his religious view they had wrong, but at the same time he was claiming he was open to constructive dialogues, and willing to adjust his personal views on their doctrines.
Guess what happened. The 7th Day Adventists did so with Martin, and Martin toned down his criticisms of them after this encounter. The Adventists were willing to modify some of their views, to the point that Martin from that point on did not consider them the same "cult" they were before.
What about the WT? Not unexpectedly, the WT gave him a cold shoulder. They never reached out to Martin on a personal level. They sent out a written message where they simply told Martin there was nothing constructive to talk about with him, and if there was something he wanted to know specifically about their doctrines all he had to do was to look it up in their publications. Thatś it! Walter Martin was furious with the WT response. Very much like Julius Mantey, another Baptist, who became to despise the WT leaders. The rest is history. These two scholars became the most prominent anti-Watchtower advocates of their time, being quoted the most to this day by not-so-friendly WT opponents.
I am not saying that Martin and Mantey were the most reasonable scholars. They were not. They were highly biased, arrogant, temperamental folks who believed their knowledge levels were above the rest. Still, the WT could have been more humble with these scholars. Give respect where it is due!
