I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT

by yogosans14 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Wonderment

  Quoting Mantey, Bowman, Rhodes is not the solution in search of truth. These guys do quite a bit of twisting quotes themselves. They are not reliable sources. The WT is no saint either. Both parties are right sometimes and wrong other times. Evangelical sources attacking the WT are way off at times that it is surprising there are plenty of takers out there.

  The McKenzie quote by the WT in my opinion is fair use. McKenzie was clear with the statement the WT quoted. That he is a Trinitarian, and doesn't agree with the WT interpretation overall is besides the point. Mckenzie is not that all clear on various trinitarian texts to have Rhodes quote it for full support.

  Harner too presents a picture somewhere between the WT position and traditionalist views. Actually, Harner says or implies that the traditional translation "the Word was God" is a no-no. The part the WT quoted was done correctly -- to indicate that the predicate of Jn 1.1c is not definite. And I ask, what is the opposite of "definite"?

  What about Baptist Mantey? Mantey's letter is more of an embarrasment to his scholarship (his Greek grammar is a favorite of mine) by revealing he let his emotions do the talking in respect to the WT. His letter was not articulately done, not to mention obvious exegetical mistakes within, which even other scholars would dispute.
• 

  Wonderment

  Phizzy, you provided various quotes from which I would like to comment briefly.

  Metzger, a Presbyterian, focused mainly on the theological slant of the NWT -- particularly those texts which dealt with Christ's deity. On the translation side, he admitted the following:

  " On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators ...Frequently an intelligent use of critical information is apparent."

  Barclay mentioned ‘intellectual dishonesty’ of the WT for translating Jn 1.1 as they did. But two decades later, Barclay acknowledged that the Greek did allow for such translation. Whether Barclay changed his mind, or whether he himself was ‘intellectually dishonest’ in his initial criticism, I leave you to decide.

  Rowley too was not kind to the WT either. His harsh NWT criticism for being so literal could well have been said of other literal translations. He is said to have written his NWT criticism before the actual release of the NWT occurred. What happened here?

  And since the time Mantey made his deriding comments about the NWT ‘not being scholarly’ for translating Jn 1.1c as they did, various scholars have openly said that if we go by grammar alone, the rendering "a god" is just as legitimate - a complete turn-around from the previous generation of scholars.
• 

  Wonderment

  Mantey: "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament."

  According to Walter Martin, Mantey carried the KIT with him as he traveled. This brings up a question. Why would a scholar of his caliber bother to take the WT KIT with him if it was so badly translated? Me thinks, he found a lot of good in it which he did not want to admit publicly. If that wasn't the case, and his motive was to criticise it at every oportunity he got, it would show that Mantey was emotionally obsessed in proving the WT wrong, which would indicate he wasn't much different from WT and Evangelical fanatics.
• 

  designs

  From a JW to a Baptist wow.

  The thing with the NT, that we know, is a lot of hands got in on the editing. The stories are made up if not corrupt. The stories tell of a Judaism that did not exit. The multiple writers were making up several religions one of which-Pauline Christianity became dominate in the Western world..
• 

  menrov

  If someone wants to prove a point or doctrine, that someone will search for support and will select statements that support his point or doctrine as much as possible. All translations of the bible were done with an "agenda". The NWT or rNWT is not different. What is different, is the explanations provided by the translator regarding his choice of translations. The NWT is very selective in providing a reason why a certain verse is translated as it is. The NET translation has an explanation for about every verse, so reader at least knows why the words are translated as they are.

  Did the trinity brochure contain misquotes? I guess that not all quotes were accurate, but likely just within the limits of the law.

  Regarding John 1:1, if it is "a god" does this mean a god like Satan is a god or like Wealth/Money which is represented as a god? And if godly, why treat Jesus as he is a mere angel (Michael)? If one is a god, that one is more than an angel.

  Further, if it is translated as "a god" then why not consistently done throughout the bible. The word Theos, presumably used here, is used over 300 times (according to biblehub / Strong). Greek also does not use comma's or punctuations, which means it is up to the translator to add them, which can be at times very arbitrary. Look for example at Romans 9:5, which also contains the word THEOS:

  NWT:

  To them the forefathers belong, and from them the Christ descended according to the flesh. God, who is over all, be praised forever. Amen.
  The verse is by use of a period split into 2 sentences.

  Check here http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/9-5.htm to see how other bibles translate this. About all of them translate it as one sentence.
• 

  designs

  Professor BeDuhn out boxed Evangelical apologist Rob Bowman for 12 rounds in their debate.
• 

  Vidqun

  Yes, the Society do cherry-pick quotes that suit them and their agenda. But in this case, I agree with Wonderment. Things are not that simple. I think Mantey did not want to be associated with a cult, so one can sympathize with his situation. But he was certainly biased and not exactly truthful.

  In the eighties, while a Witness, I had a few useful discussions with two theological students, concerning a few problematic scriptures, John 1:1, amongst others. After the discussion, one informed me of one of their Greek textbooks that agreed with my stance as a Witness. He actually gave me a copy of the book. In it there’s an interesting footnote:

  In ancient manuscripts which did not differentiate between capital and small letters, there would be no way of distinguishing between Өεὸς (‘God’) and θεὸς (‘god’). Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god,’ or ‘The Word is the god.’ The interpretation of John 1.1 will depend upon whether or not the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god. It will be noticed that above rules for the special uses of the definite article are none of them rigid and without exceptions. It is wiser not to use them as a basis for theological argument until the student has reached an advanced stage in the knowledge of the language. For a full treatment, see Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Part III, 8, esp. para. 273; Moulton-Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, III, 182 ff. [1]

  ---

  [1] J. W. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, p. 35, footnote 2.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  In my opinion, the ONLY reason to study this subject is to prove the WTBTS/GB as dishonest. Attempting to find "THE TRUTH" is a maze of mirrors. Even the most learned XIAN cannot fully explain their beliefs. In the end it's "Praise the LORD, Jesus saves, the LORD works in mysterious ways!!" Your entire life will be spent trying to decipher the indecipherable, meanwhile you burn in the fire of time, your soul shriveling away as you pray to find your car keys. We don't need all the answers. We simply need to show that the WTBTS lies and is not "THE CHANNEL" of truth. Once you eliminate the impossible..... DD
• 

  NeonMadman

  According to Walter Martin, Mantey carried the KIT with him as he traveled. This brings up a question. Why would a scholar of his caliber bother to take the WT KIT with him if it was so badly translated? Me thinks, he found a lot of good in it which he did not want to admit publicly. If that wasn't the case, and his motive was to criticise it at every oportunity he got, it would show that Mantey was emotionally obsessed in proving the WT wrong, which would indicate he wasn't much different from WT and Evangelical fanatics.

  I can think of a couple of reasons why Mantey might have done that (if, indeed, he did - I'd be interested in seeing the quotation from Dr. Martin).

  First, it may have been something about which he was confronted frequently, therefore felt he should have the book with him in case it came up.

  Second (and more likely, imho), the KIT contained a perfectly good reproduction of the Westcott and Hort critical text of the NT. The Watchtower had nothing to do with producing that Greek text; they simply lifted it in toto as the "original Greek" in the KIT. If I recall correctly, the KIT sold for $2.00 when it was first issued - probably a whole lot cheaper (and hence more replaceable, if something happened to it while traveling) than other critical text editions available at the time. The only part of the KIT that was actually the work of the WTS was the NWT rendering in the margins. The interlinear English renderings were probably simply taken from various lexicons. So the KIT could have just been an inexpensive means of carrying the W&H Greek text while traveling.
• 

  piztjw

  The circus oversneer was in the area recently and had this to say about the NWT.

  "We did not translate it to fit our beliefs, as some claim, but rather molded our beliefs to fit what the Bible actually says."

  Then he proceeded to use Romans 13:1 as proof. He claimed that it was only because of the NWT that JW's came to the correct understanding that the "superior authorities" were governments and not Jehovah and Jesus. Yet he forgot to mention that a simple search of their own WT library CD shows that prior to 1929, long before any NWT, they believed those authorities were in fact the governments. For well over twenty years they preached condamnation of other religions for believing the same teaching they initially believed, and then suddenly reverted back to their original interpretation in early sixties. What a muh-roon!