New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger 75 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_44.asp?FROM=biblecenter

  Question #44

  QUESTION: Who were Westcott and Hort?

  ANSWER: Two unsaved Bible critics.

  EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]

  It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.

  Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "

  Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."

  Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.

  It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.

  They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.

  It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.

  Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
  ______________________________________________________________
• 

  logansrun

  I believe FF Bruce translates John 1:1 as "...and the Word was what God was." I've heard a few scholars report that that is their prefferred way of translating that verse.

  Bradley
• 

  Earnest

  Hi Undisfellowshipped,

  In your posts regarding E.C.Colwell's support for the Westcott & Hort Greek Testament you say (and cite) much that is critical of these two scholars and I have addressed these issues in a thread, Westcott & Hort - Saints or Sinners ? While you are as entitled to believe what you will as the next man, I do find it surprising that in an earlier post on this thread you recognise Colwell's scholarship to the extent of quoting him several times regarding the use of the article in NT Greek but when he is critical of the King James version you describe his remarks as "100% false". You also say :

  From my research, I have found out that Westcott and Hort were Occultists, and that their Translation was not very accurate to the majority of the Manuscripts.

  I will still address your suggestion that Westcott and Hort were Occultists on the other thread but would just give their answer to your objection that "their Translation was not very accurate to the majority of the Manuscripts". They say :

  The community of text implies on genealogical grounds a community of parentage: the Antiochian Fathers and the bulk of extant MSS written from about three or four to ten or eleven centuries later must have had in the greater number of extant variations a common original either contemporary with or older than our oldest extant MSS, which thus lose at once whatever presumption of exceptional purity they might have derived from their exceptional antiquity alone.

  In other words, if of ten manuscripts nine agree against one, but the nine have a common original, the numerical preponderance counts for nothing. After the split of the Eastern Orthodox churches with Rome the study of the Bible text and copying of Bibles in the Roman Catholic Church was limited to Latin until the sixteenth century. In that thousand year period the Eastern Orthodox Church produced thousands of Greek bibles but they were limited to variations of the "Byzantine" text which had ended up in Constantinople. So, although there are far more Greek texts of the Byzantine type their numerical superiority is irrelevant in determining an accurate text because they all derived from one family of texts.

  May I also just touch on one aspect of the reams of material you produce regarding New World Translation errors. I am thinking particularly of your post on 21 June to DJ about the Scriptures where Jesus says that He is "I AM". You refer to ten scriptures and are clearly suggesting he is using it as a title, implying he is the same one referred to at Exodus 3:15. But a consideration of many of these (and others) shows quite clearly the expression "I am" is just being used to say who the person is e.g. "I am Joe Smith",

  For example, you refer to Matthew 14:27 which says :

  "But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Have courage! I AM; do not fear."

  But the context is : "When they caught sight of him walking on the sea, the disciples were troubled...and cried out in their fear. But at once Jesus spoke to them with the words: 'Take courage, it is I [ego eimi]; have no fear.' In reply Peter said to him: 'Lord, if it is you [su ei]...'"

  And, in fact, even the KJV renders this verse :

  But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

  Consider the other passages where the expression is used:

  Matthew 8:9 "I too am a man" [ego anthropos eimi]

  Matthew 20:15 "...Is your eye wicked because I am good?" [ego agathos eimi]

  Matthew 22:32 "I am the God of Abraham..."

  Matthew 24:5 "...'I am the Christ'"

  Matthew 26:22 "...'Lord, it is not I [meti ego eimi], is it?'"

  Matthew 26:25 "...'It is not I [meti ego eimi], is it, Rabbi?'"

  Mark 6:50: for they all saw Him and were troubled. But immediately He spoke with them, and said to them, "Have courage! I AM [it is I - KJV]; do not be afraid."

  Mark 13:6: For many will come in My Name, saying, 'I AM,' [I am Christ - KJV] and they will deceive many.

  Mark 14:61, 62 "'Are you the Christ...?' Then Jesus said: 'I am...'"

  Luke 1:18 "...I am aged [ego gar eimi] and my wife is well along in years"

  Luke 1:19 "In reply the angel said to him, 'I am Gabriel...'" [ego eimi Gabriel]

  Luke 7:8 "For I too am a man" [ego anthropos eimi]

  Luke 19:22 "...You knew, did you, that I am a harsh man..." [ego anthropos austeros eimi]

  Luke 21:8: And He said: "Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My Name, saying, 'I AM,' [I am Christ - KJV] and, 'The time has drawn near.' Therefore do not go after them.

  Luke 22:70 "'Are you, therefore, the Son of God?' He said to them 'You yourselves are saying that I am.'"

  Luke 24:39 "'See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself..'" [ego eimi autos]

  In John's gospel the expression "I am" occurs more than thirty times but with the possible exception of John 8:58 they are all in the same context as the above.

  John 6:20: But He said to them, "I AM [It is I - KJV]; do not fear."

  John 8:24: Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM [I am he - KJV] , you will die in your sins."

  John 8:28: Therefore Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM [I am he - KJV], and from Myself I do nothing; but just as My Father taught Me, these things I speak.

  John 8:58-59: Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM [I am - KJV] . " Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the Temple, having gone through their midst, and so passed by.

  John 13:19: From now on I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe that I AM [I am he - KJV].

  John 18:3-9: Then Judas, having taken the detachment of soldiers, and attendants from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things coming upon Him, went out and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." Jesus said to them, "I AM." [I am he - KJV] And Judas, the one betraying Him, was standing with them. Therefore when He said to them, "I AM," [I am he - KJV] they stepped back and fell to the ground. Then He asked them again, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene." Jesus answered, "I have told you that I AM! [I am he - KJV] Therefore if you seek Me, allow these men to go," so that the word might be fulfilled which He said, "Those whom You have given Me I have lost none."

  It is hardly an error for the NWT not to treat these verses as titles.

  Earnest
• 

  Mr. Kim

  Can all of us agree that there is a God? Or is splitting hairs that important?
• 

  Earnest

  I have found the textual evidence [for the reading "If you ask me anything in my name..." at John 14:14] sufficiently strong to write to the WTS about this verse and will share the reply when it comes.

  The WTS responded as follows :

  We thank you for your letter in which you draw to our attention the translation of John 14:14 according to the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. You wonder why the word "me" of the literal word-for-word translation is omitted in the regular rendering of the New World Translation.

  The reason for the difference relates to the different Greek versions. Although the Westcott and Hort text, used as the basis for the Kingdom Interlinear, includes the word "me," there are other Greek versions which omit the word. Among these is the Greek text used as the basis of The Emphatic Diaglott, which reads: "If anything you may ask in the name of me, I will do." The Rotherham translation reads: "If anything you shall ask [me] in my name the same I will do." By enclosing the "me" in brackets, Rotherham explains that the word is supplied, suggesting that there is some disagreement as to whether or not it should actually appear in the Greek text. Our prayers, of course, ascend to Jehovah through Jesus Christ. He had already told his disciples in the preceding verse that "whatever it is that you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son." Since the ascension of Jesus to heaven and the outpouring of the holy spirit at Pentecost 33 C.E., holy spirit has been given to individuals on earth through Jesus Christ and, in turn, our prayers ascend to the Father through Jesus Christ. So, while our petitions are just to the Father, we are, in effect, asking Jesus Christ to help us with our spiritual and material needs. So whether a translator wishes to put in the extra "me" or not, the meaning is the same. - Please see also John 15:16; 16:23.

  A similar view is taken by many other translators. For example, the footnote, noting the authorities that read "me," is added to the New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, Today's English Version, the Revised Authorised and Weymouth. But they still leave it out of the main text as does the New World Translation. Others that leave "me" out without any explanation include Young's, The Twentieth Century New Testament, Fenton, Darby, Schonfield, The Jerusalem Bible, Barclay and the careful translation by C. B. Williams. Interestingly, although Alford included it in the textual apparatus of his Greek Testament, and showed that the authorities rejecting it were 'relatively late,' yet in the New Testament translation published in 1869, he did not consider it necessary to amend the Authorised Version rendering. So the vital question of context must be considered in addition to all other factors and in this case a large number of translations have taken that as decisive. In Moffatt's translation, which includes "me," this explanation is offered in the Moffatt New Testament Commentary on John, by G. H. C. MacGregor, page 308: "It seems redundant with 'in my name,' and moreover, the only prayer of which this gospel speaks is prayer to the Father in the name and spirit of Christ not prayer to Christ direct."

  We trust the above information proves helpful to you and explains why the New World Translation is justified in rendering John 14:14 as it does. We take this opportunity to send you our warm Christian love etc.

  In the translations that I have at home "me" is included in the main text in the Revised Version, in George Lamsa's New Testament According to the Eastern Text, and in the Confraternity Version. In the New English Bible it is not in the main text but the footnote reads "Some witnesses insert me".

  My conclusion is that whether or not the decision to drop "me" was theological rather than textual, the fact that neither the New English Bible nor the Jerusalem Bible included it in the body of the text gives a lot of weight to their decision. Neither the inclusion or exclusion of "me" in this text should be described as a translation error but may be regarded as a theological predisposition.

  Earnest
• 

  onacruse

  Earnest, that was a quick turnaround!

  The basic line of reasoning is much the same as the letter I received (written by Merton Campbell...did your letter come from Brooklyn? [nomb])

  I'll need to read this more thoroughly a bit later. Thanks for sharing this!

  Craig