Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches (page 4)

paradisebeauty

I'm from Europe and never heard of this translation vs. version / revision thing.

Clambake

Once having a back room meeting with an elder about the importance of my wife having her blood directive in order I asked the elder to give me a brief summary of the book of romans.

He asked why.

Then I was how about the book of acts then.

He told me I don't know where you going with this.

I then told him I don't think you could pass an entry level christian theology class in university. You are grossly under qualified to speak about spiritual matters and this meeting is over.

CalebInFloroda

@never a jw

It's just a wild guess, but it is exactly what I thought of when I first read the 2013 NWT.

The NRSV is unique in that it is a combination of formal and dynamic equivalence, each approach used just when it is called for to produce what the NRSV motto stated was being "as literal as possible, as free as necessary." You can't find another translation like it...that is not until the 2013 NWT showed up.

The NRSV made a controversial choice that failed in almost every major translation that tried it: inclusive language. Part of the reason it failed in other Bible translations was not just because conservative Christians rejected it, but because it couldn't function in formal equivalent approaches. It is hard to incorporate it unless you follow the NRSV's pattern.

The 2013 NWT abandoned the previous word-for-word, formal equivalent approach of the original NWT for one that matches the NRSV, a mixture of formal and dynamic rendering. It also adopted inclusive language, although not as extensively.

These "improvements" to the text match not just some of the unique choices of the NRSV but its cadence as well. Note this comparison of Romans 6.1-3:

NWT:

Consequently, what shall we say? Shall we continue in sin, that undeserved kindness may abound? Never may that happen! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, how shall we keep on living any longer in it? Or do YOU not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

NWT 2013:

What are we to say then? Should we continue in sin so that undeserved kindness may increase? Certainly not! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, how can we keep living any longer in it? Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

NRSV:

What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

The NWT not only updates the language but cuts down the wordiness of the sentences. The cadence or rhythmic flow changes. It actually flows...flows like a famous other translation on the market, the NRSV.

Up till now only the NRSV used this combination of rendition that produced a text with concise renderings and inclusive language. Suddenly in five years, the NWT has made the same type of decisions for its revision...on its own with no formal training?

When the NRSV was released in 1989 it caused a stir because no one had thought of making a translation just this way the NRSV committee did. No other Bible version follows the same combination. It's innovative for its "literal as possible, free when necessary" approach and attention to gender-specific and inclusive terms.

Where would a team of non-scholars get the idea to do the same thing? Look again at the passage from Romans above. Where do you think?

CalebInFloroda

@paradisebeauty

Thank you for that comment. Perfect example.

This mistake did not "cross the pond," so to speak. It stopped before even reaching the east coast of America. It was merely the mistake of someone who couldn't stop saying "version" when he meant "revision." Unfortunately a lot of people among the JWs believe everything they hear and exactly in the way they hear it.

Again, it was the "Spanx" instead of "yoga pants" thing. A stupid, very stupid mistake.

Bonsai

Very informative thread! Although I've lost all faith, I can't call myself an atheist because it's threads like this that prove to me that I've learned just enough to know that I don't really know anything at all. It makes me so sad that in this small lifespan that I have, I won't have the time to figure everything out.

The "good book" says that god is not a god of confusion". If only that were so.

sparrowdown

I'm beginning to think the only "truth" I learnt as a JW was bullus shitus.

TTWSYF

For my brief 2 cents.

A translation [of anything written] is the responsibility of the translator to translate the writing into whatever language he or she is translating to.

A version [of anything written] is when the translator actually changes the translation to reflect a particular attitude that the translator wants to get across.

Informative thread...

Island Man

"Those are the evil apostate words of the "wise and intellectual ones" of christendom's clergy! Jehovah's humble people speak the pure language!"

</satirical JW response>

CalebInFloroda

@Bonsai

If I might offer you an alternative philosophy from Judaism.

Unlike that text you quote from the New Testament, Jews will be the first to tell you that the ways of G-d are not easy to figure out. If there is a G-d and that G-d is truly transcendent, logic dictates that confusion is definitely to be expected.

Jews argue with G-d. We do not believe in submitting. Like Jacob our relationship is one where we battle G-d and challenge G-d and struggle for our answers. Jacob was given the name "Israel" because of this attitude, and we are the children of Israel.

If you want to make the most of your lifetime, I would suggest not to pray and wait for some heavenly sign to drop out of heaven. If you want things figured out, you need to do it yourself...you CAN do it yourself.

As Jews are fond of saying, pray as if everything depends on G-d, but act as if everything depends on you.

CalebInFloroda

Oh, and the answers don't have to be "G-d" to be answers. They only have to be true and right for you.

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

Share this