Which Bible Translation is Currently the MOST Accurate in Your Opinion?

by Frannie Banannie 90 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  herk

  Gozz,

  What exactly do you mean by "evidence"? Are you looking for a signed statement by the NWT Committee stating "We did the translating"? Ray Franz was a friend of each member of the committee, and one member was his uncle. Having firsthand knowledge of what went on at WT headquarters, Bill Cetnar several years ago also published the names. I was there, and I also knew the translators. What evidence are you looking for beyond what we saw with our own eyes and heard with our ears over a period of several years?

  herk
• 

  simwitness

  As to John 1:1... which, if any, of the available translations most accurately represents what John (the author) actually meant to say??

  Any translation that goes beyond this is an interpetation and has bias.

  Any translation which says "he can't have meant this because Mathew states this" is even further interpeting one authors statements by virtue of another's.

  This is my issue with "all" of the available translations... they all have some form of bias and go well beyond the job of "translating" the work at hand.

  Now, as to my issues specific with the NWT:

  1. Thier reasoning for substituting "Jehovah" when none of the available "originals" support their claim (that the name was left out by the people doing the copying for various reasons). Primarily becuase this smacks in the face their teaching(s) that the bible as we have it today is "the same as" the original, and also because it smacks in the face the divine authorship and protection...

  2. There are other examples of obvious switches to verses that can only serve to support thier specific theology... one that comes to mind is where they insert the word "apostate" in an old testament scripture, (I think it is in proverbs) that clearly is not what the scripture would naturally translate to. Another comes to the reasoniung of the "cross vs stake" argument where they clearly intend to mislead the reader with their proof (an image from an ages old book).

  It is their lies and deciept that they use elsewhere that causes me to question the validity of ALL of their "scholarly" works, and this most definitely includes thier "tranlation" of the Bible.

  Now, if we were to discuss the history of the bible itself, you can see why there is even more reason to question it's "divine nature", outside of translation biases itself.
• 

  herk

  simwitness,

  You make some valid points. There is absolutely no basis for inserting "Jehovah" anywhere in the New Testament. It's even questionable that it should appear so often in the Old Testament. It appears that Jesus did not use the name in public, even when reading from the Scriptures in the synagogue. (Luke 4:17-20) For centuries the Jews had not been saying the name, probably because the correct pronunciation had been lost and due to their fear of taking it in vain. Jesus seems to have respected the custom. In view of the Jewish sensitivity to its use at that time, he surely would have been criticized or even stoned if he had mentioned it. When he said he had made known his Father's name, he was not saying "I taught the Jews your name and how to pronounce it." (John 17:26) He obviously meant that he had informed the people of God's true character and qualities.

  So, I appreciate your observations. I think the NWT has some good renderings in many places, but it also has some serious flaws that would certainly hinder me from recommending it for serious Bible study. I knew the "translators" personally, and I'm certain that every member of the NWT Committee was very poorly qualified for Bible translation. In those places where their renderings are IMO better than average, I credit those translations that were used as a model and guide by the Committee.

  herk
• 

  fearnotruth22

  THE NWT
• 

  Earnest

  As I've nailed my colours to the mast in recommending the NWT I should add that I agree there are some renderings which involve more interpretation than translation, and the use of 'Jehovah' in the NT is a case in point. While the translators may be correct that 'Jehovah' was replaced with 'Lord' by later copyists, that remains a hypothesis until NT texts from the first century are found (if ever). I think a marginal note would have been more accurate.

  As this is not a thread about the NWT in particular I will not address the other criticisms point by point, but have found in most cases that their translation is warranted in terms of language and grammar. It often provides an alternative to the KJV which forces the reader to consider just what the original writer intended. Provided the translation is warranted in terms of language (regardless of theology) that can only be a good thing.

  Earnest
• 

  Kenneson

  Charles Taze Russell and Judge Rutherford had no problem in autographing their works, but I guess "creature worship" got to be too much. Now they're "unknown and unknowable." Does that make the more recent publications more reliable?
• 

  herk

  Charles Taze Russell and Judge Rutherford had no problem in autographing their works, but I guess "creature worship" got to be too much.

  Ve-l-l-y, ve-l-l-y interesteeng! So, in 1919, after coming to the temple for judgment, God and Christ decided to classify the WT Society as the only true religion, even though they were worshipping creatures! That is obviously what the Society is inadvertently saying when they claim that they don't now identify their writers and translators since it would generate "creature worship." If identifying the writers would induce "creature worship" now, there is no reason to suppose that it did not encourage it back then.

  herk
• 

  scholar

  herk

  You claim to know much about the NWT project and one think with all of that inside knowledge that you would have some tangible evidence as to the identity of the NWT committee and the same would apply to Raymond Franz. For such a committee to exist there must be archival material somewhere ans as the committee is still functioning then you would have thought that in a period of over fifties something more definitive would have been revealed. Whatever criticism can be maid about the quality of the NWT, they are to be praised for their preservation of their anonymity.

  scholar
• 

  LittleToe

  Herk:"New light", doncha know

  Scholar:
  Are you expecting Herk to produce signed affidavits from members of the original committe, confirming conversations with him or Ray, regarding the membership of said committee?

  What about some of the other publications. Do you take at face value the folks who were instrumental in researching the Aid book, or Insight volumes? The Commentary of James is another prime example. Has the author been verified in any of the WTS pubs?
  It seems that it's only the "hallowed" NWT that you take issue with.
  How do you feel about these other works?

  In interpolating a name that is does not exist in the original manuscripts (and doing so in places where there is a clearly translatable title), merely on the basis of a predilection, and using a spurious supportive argument for that decision, they invalidate their claims of being "unbiased".
  That being the case, it appears that so do you.
• 

  herk

  "scholar,"

  Whatever criticism can be maid about the quality of the NWT, they are to be praised for their preservation of their anonymity.

  No doubt you feel the same about Osama bin Laden, eh, and all others who hide who or where they are?

  herk