by CalebInFloroda 62 Replies latest watchtower bible
Caleb : This mistake did not "cross the pond," so to speak.
I live in Europe. In the 1970s I lived in Africa. I have no idea of any "translation" v "version" controversy. I was simply distinguishing between Bibles which are translated from the original languages and those which are not. I believe it is an important distinction that Erasmus recognised when he collated mss in the original languages rather than relying on the latin Vulgate.
Understood.
But it still doesn't change the fact that these words are interchangeable in both the vernacular and in Biblical academia. And no such understanding according to your concept exists.
While there is a difference between a Bible translated directly from the original Hebrew and Greek and say, a Bible translated from the Latin, the two are still translations and/or versions. They are just translated from different sources, but translation was still engaged in.
I am not saying they are the same, but I am saying that "version" and "translation" are words that are used interchangeably regardless of the source of the Bible. I believe you are very correct in the quality of a translation being higher when done from the original languages, very correct indeed. But this doesn't change the meaning of the words "version" or " translation," and we cannot change their meaning to suit our views, no matter how correct they may be.
Besides there are times when people require a translation from the Latin or even of the LXX. Both the Latin and the LXX are based on proto-Masoretic texts and are closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than the best Masoretic texts we have today. A person may wish to study how this pre-Masoretic tradition may have influenced the way texts were cited by New Testament writers or merely compare them with texts from Qumran or Masada. Such versions based on the Vulgate or the Greek Septuagint would still also be translations, also be valuable despite not being from the Masoretic texts or the best extant New Testament witnesses. They are definitely not translations from the original Hebrew and Greek, but translations and versions nevertheless.
Again this doesn't mean that what you are saying is incorrect on what is more accurate, I'm just saying that the words "version" and "translation" don't differentiate between translations the way you saying. There may be a word for this in other languages to show the difference, but version and translation aren't those words in English as they mean the same thing.
It is a nice alternative, and I think the Jews go about their relationship with god with the right attitude. If the bible teaches us anything it's that nothing comes easy. God helps those who help themselves and all that. Thanks for the advice.
@earnest
This might help you understand what I am saying, because we are talking about separate things.
I am merely pointing out that the words "version" and "translation" in English are officially recognized as synonyms of one another, period.
You are saying that the word "version" should apply to translations of Bibles that do not come from renderings made directly from the Hebrew and Greek, as these give you are more accurate rendering of the original texts.
While I agree that such translations are more accurate, the word "version" is NOT used that way in English to differentiate between translations. While you may have thought so, regardless of not being exposed to the mistake made in America, I am talking about what is true from an academic standard regarding the use of labels, not accuracy of translations. You, on the other hand, are talking about accuracy of translations and giving new meanings to labels that are not acceptable in academia.
At this point I merely wish to remind you that the point of this thread is to demonstrate how Watchtower ideology can infultrate our thinking to the point of keeping us from realizing that our views are very far from that of Bible scholars. Any further argument you may have cannot be with me as I once believed exactly as you do now. My understanding was corrected upon entering formal advanced studies in Biblical philology. Therefore you argument is not with me who thought once as you do today but with the world of Biblical scholarship and academia who taught me this.
@Bonsai
Always keep in mind that it is not like the JWs teach, about knowing the truth and living in accord with that. Life is about being true to yourself and others.
Besides if the JWs really had the ultimate truth, there were never be any changes to their doctrine. We would not be here having this conversation as the new world would have been here already and both you and I would be dead, me for being a Christ-killing Jew and you for being a faithless atheist!
But the real truth is we are here, both Jew and atheist. And from the Jewish standpoint it isn't faith that matters, it's what you do. You will have a place in the world to come not because you have faith in G-d but because you do good and are good person and try your best. Faith is no replacement for your good actions in making society a better place for you and those around you.
When you do good, there's G-d in the good you do. If you make claim to faith but do nothing for the world around you, there's no G-d in what you do. Which is really more proof of G-d, the way of faith and waiting around for G-d to prove to atheists and Jews how wrong we are before G-d next burns us to a crisp...or a humanitarian who may not believe in G-d but actually does something to alleviate suffering in our world?
There is often a lot more G-d in those who make no claim to faith than there is in those who make claim to G-d only with faith.
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.
Hey Bonsai, who gave you permission to take those words out of my head, that is exactly how I feel. I couldn't have said it any better.
The Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice (faith).
It should be noted that neither Judaism nor Catholicism/Orthodox Christianity can adopt this belief since their religious systems were alive and well before the Biblical texts were written
Caleb, are you saying Catholicism existed before the B.C. Era?
@John Aquila
Remember, the Catholic Church began around 30 to 33 C.E. with the events surrounding the ministry, passion, and claimed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as well as the Pentecost speech of Saint Peter.
By comparison the first text of the New Testament was likely one of the Pauline epistles written around 50. That means the Christian faith existed at least for 20 years without a stitch of New Testament Scripture.
Add to this that the Gospel accounts were very late in coming, around the end of the first century. And finally recall that the settled canon came about in the fourth century. By the time this happened some 300 years had passed since that Pentecost speech in Jerusalem, and the Church was functioning and alive during each and every one of these years.
Christianity shares this with Judaism in that neither religion is based on Scripture. Scripture was written by members of and those who practiced these religions. Then these religions assembled these texts together into canonized collections. This requires the opposite of Watchtower theology:
JW model: BIBLE + STUDY = RELIGION
Historic reality: RELIGION + STUDY = BIBLE
So while I am not saying that Catholicism started before Jesus, I am saying that it was alive and well for centuries before it finalized its own canon of Scriptures in 367 C.E.
I would not call the first century Christians Catholic. They were simple christians.
I think Catholicism began when the roman empire adopted the christian religion as an official religion.
Maybe the Catholics claim that they started with Peter, but I am sure Peter had nothing to do with them and / or their believes.
I think the claim of the catholic church that they started with Peter or that Peter is their founder is similar with the claim that JW's make that Jesus is their head or that Jesus is guiding them from heaven.
