A deeper examination of The New World Translation (page 2)

Finkelstein

Scholar JW is pretentious bullshiter emeritus.

(Emeritus) He doesn't even know what the term is used in identification.

Most brainwashed JWS are arrogant as well corrupt in their self made identity, they are the most righteous people you know. !

My areas of interest at both universities has been in Religious Studies and Philosophy but in the earlier years I studied Koine Greek under John Lee at the University of Sydney for the sole purpose of understanding the correct translation of John 1:1. John Lee had written a letter concerning this subject which he gave to the entire class which in no way contradicted the NWT' rendering of this text. I am not Greek scholar but I also have had a long association with the Ancient History Documentary Research Centre at Macquarie University in Sydney and this Centre is producing a series of volumes titled 'New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity' which eventually will replace Moulton and Milligan's 'Vocabulary of the New Testament'.

My studies of NT Greek over many decades has proved to me that the NWT is a brilliant piece of scholarship and is the most accurate translation of the Bible ever made.

scholar

Finkelstein

I thank you for your nice words.

scholar

shepherdless

In addition to the above,I notice that the scholar who presented that video ridiculing the NWT mentioned about Aspect of Verbs with reference to John 8:58. Whilst living in Sydney and attending the many symposiums and conference on Ancient History and NT Greek at Macquarrie University at Ryde, Ken Mc Kay had published his research in 1994 along with other work on this subject by Fanning and Stanley Porter who have also published on this subject. Thus the serious reader should check what these three scholars say on John 8:58

scholar JW emeritus

Diogenesister

Scholar Your point? I did my undergraduate degree majoring in Religious Studies and Philosophy at Deakin University and a postgraduate Masters degree in Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney and i do live in Australia.

Your degrees in no way gives you expertise in either of the Biblical languages. Indeed your courses it dont even seem to require any Greek, let alone Koine or New Testament Greek. Im sorry I’m not being pedantic for the sake of it, it’s just you are dismissing the views of someone with specific expertise in Koine Greek on the basis of your scholarship.

However I do accept your point that this gentlemen’s religious beliefs may colour his understanding.

I recommend the you tube channel “Digital Hammurabi” with Dr. Josh, Megan and guests who, incidentally, state that Paul certainly had no conception of the Trinity and that it was a concept of the 3rd century on.

fulltimestudent

Well, I'm not sure who's going to feel what about my comments, so I have to explain a little.

In my old age I had a brainstorm and wanted to study Chinese history. I knew nothing about academic procedures. but applied to two universities, Sydney and Macquarie. Never heard from Sydney, but Macquarie offered me a place. That was good in one way, as the then head of the Chinese department (Prof. Daniel Kane) had lived and worked in China and was a source of first hand explanations.

But the choice of Chinese subjects at MU was very limited and without doing language I could not get a degree. (Didn't want to do Chns L as I figured I'd likely die before speaking Chns fluently). Danny Kane suggested that the Ancient History dept. also taught a lot of Chinese/Asian topics, so I could maybe achieve what I wanted by broadening my vision a little. So I did that.and changed my focus to China in its Asian setting.

Of course, in AH I also found a lot of West Asian topics (NB. The main world religions are Asian with Asian thought patterns) which was fortuitous as I was able to include some covering Judaism/ Xtianity etc. I wont list them all but included the Dead Sea Scrolls . Church and State in late Antiquity. The NT in its Times. Early Christian literature in its times.

I also did another 6 study units at Sydney U. (Sydney U is much better for China Studies ) So I finished up with a major in Ancient History (All with and Asian focus and a minor in Japanese Studies. But I sure know a lot more about Asia than I did 10 years ago.

And after all that, this is the point I want to make.

A lecturer for some of those study units was a Dr Chris Forbes. I asked him one day, have you ever come across the NWT? He said he had read some of it, so I asked what he thought of it? He replied that he thought it was a "lively" translation. So I asked what about John 1:1? He responded that too often in NT translation, the original text can have more than one meaning, a problem that makes translation difficult. (a problem, I think that makes YHWH look a bit of a numbskull).

Dr Forbes is the member of a conventional church (not sure which one) and whether or not he believes in the trinity i don't know. Although, of course, I assumed he is Jesus oriented and not YHWH oriented, but that's just how I saw him.

In spite off that anecdote, I do not think that MU's staff generally would not be anti-trinitarian.

So make what you want from my story.

Footnotes:

1. MU's Ancient History department was strongly influenced by one E.A. Judge, certainly a conventional Christian.

2. The AH department held up my degree, because I did not do one subject (focusing on Rome) that they held to be essential. However, in the end they agreed to my degree.

scholar

Diogeneisister

Not at all. I reject the other criticism of the NWT not on the basis of my degrees which do not include that of Koine greek but on the basis of my expertise of Koine Greek acquired by my doing a undergraduate course in NT Greek, knowledge of the subject and experience in using the NWT over many decades in company with the scholarly literature in relation to the subject.

This scholar is obviously very much ill-informed on issues tangential to the NWT such as the use of the Jehovah in the NT, Verbal Aspect and translation exegetical issues.

scholar

fulltime student

Yes I am acquainted with Chris Forbes, Edwin Judge and Stuart Pickering, John Lee and Greg Horsley and others all have or had an association with Macquarrie University which as an institution is at the forefront in NT Greek scholarship.

I understand that Forbes is an Anglican

He responded that too often in NT translation, the original text can have more than one meaning, a problem that makes translation difficult. (a problem, I think that makes YHWH look a bit of a numbskull).

True alternative renderings can be problematic but the insertion of the Tetragram into the NT is an example of the NWT being forward-thinking, advancing scholarship, proof of its brilliance.

scholar

Wonderment

Hey guys, don't be so hard on scholar. A theological viewpoint cannot be solved solely on a Ph.D.

For instance, the NASB, a translation well-respected among Evangelicals presents Jesus at John 8.58 saying, "I am." On the other hand, James Moffatt translates these very words as, "I have been." No one will dispute the academical background of either the NASB Committee, or Moffatt's. The translators of both have Ph. D degrees. Who is right?

Look at the clause in Jn 8.58 again: "BEFORE Abraham was born, I am." Who of us would say in proper English, "Before my son was born, I study parenting."

Interestingly, the NASB early versions had a marginal note for the text conceding that "I have been" was a valid rendering. Did the scholar in the video reveal this? Why did he hide this information from his viewers? It is not only Moffatt who saw a problem in the traditional translation of this verse. More recently, The Eastern / Greek Orthodox New Testament rendered this verse as "I am." The translator believes in the Trinity, so he sets out to make a connection between Jn. 8.58 and Isaiah 41.4 & 46.4. He believes that the name YHWH is applied to Jesus in various places. Nevertheless, he concludes his footnote with these words:

"Apart from these theological considerations, this construction is also fairly idiomatic (John 14:9; 15:27) and could be properly translated as ‘I have been [in existence] before Abraham was [even] born.’ -- See also 9:9 and compare with Micah 5:2," (Brackets his. Emphasis mine.)

We can see then, that theology drove this translator to render the verse as "I am," since he himself acknowledged that there in the text is the presence of an idiomatic clause... a present tense used with a past expression. Other translators have done the same thing here. Not disclosing this fact is dishonest.

The same thing can be said of the other points of discussion in the video. It is up to us to decide which interpretation makes more sense. I respect both scholar, and the guy of the video. But the video scholar kept a lot of things to himself.

scholar

Wonderment

Well said. Interestingly, Ken Mc Kay in his A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek,p.94 superbly translates John 8:58 "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born".

scholar

A deeper examination of The New World Translation

Share this