I am here reminded of the saying "A little knowledge is dangerous".
NWT informative Pamphlet FYI
by Adonai438 12 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Disillusioned JW
I notice that vast majority of the criticism of the NWT pertains to statements regarding the subject of the divinity of Christ, but relatively few claims pertaining to other matters. Does that mean the NWT is a very good translation in regards to verses that having nothing to do with the subject of the divinity of Christ? If not, what are more examples of those other kinds of purported problems?
One thing I really appreciate about the NWT is that is does not use any archaic speech, such as thou, thee, thine, didst, etc., even in prayers and other conversations with the god of the Bible. From what I can determine it was the very first English Bible to do so. The RSV still used the archaic language in prayers and and other conversations with the god of the Bible, as did all of the editions of the NASB prior to the "Updated" edition of 1995. The first NIV complete Protestant Bible came out after the first NWT complete 'Protestant' Bible and the first NIV NT came out after the first NWT NT. I suspect the introduction of the NWT, due to it modern speech, contributed to the NIV being introduced. Prior to the NIV, one of the main "selling" points of the NWT to non-JWs was its modern speech.
I for one, in high school and during most of my adult life, struggled in comprehending the archaic language used in the KJV during those infrequent times I read it. In high school English literature class when I had to read works of Shakespheare I had a very hard time understanding them because of the archaic language (including the archaic slang). In contrast I could understand the language of the NWT since it is the same language of English spoken in the USA in this century and in the prior 20th century.
-
Disillusioned JW
The first post in this thread (apparently quoting a pamphlet of a Christian ministry) says "Unfortunately, in utilizing this translation, the Witnesses never informed their members that the translation was flawed or that Wilson was a Christadelphian ..." The fact is, in at least one WT publication the WT did tell JWs that Wilson was a Christadelphian. The WT book called Theocratic Aid to Kingdom Publishers (copyright 1945) includes some study lessons pertaining to various translations of the Bible. In one of those lessons, on page 261 of the book, the WT says "Benjamin Wilson, a Christadelphian, published a translation of the Greek Scriptures in 1864, in New York, and designated his work The Emphatic Diaglott. It has so many features of great value, such as a Greek text with an interlinear word-for-word translation in one column and an emphatic English translation in another, that a detailed consideration of its uses in analytical study is undertaken in Lessons 68 and 69."
However though the WT and others have said that Benjamin Wilson was a Christadelphian, a number of websites (including ones written by Christadelphians) say he was never a Christadelphian, and some of those sites say he started a church that had some doctrines different from the Christadelphians. From what I have read I think Wilson's church was the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith (COGAF) and not the Christadelphians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wilson_(biblical_scholar) says "Benjamin Wilson (1817–1900) was an autodidact Biblical scholar and writer of the Emphatic Diaglott translation of the Bible (which he translated between 1856 and 1864). He was also a co-founder of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith.[1]"