NWT Scholars

by homme perdu 166 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Earnest


    ...didnt it seem strange that the NWT is regarded as a biased twisted Bible?

    Those scholars who hold the NWT is a "biased twisted Bible" are, as far as I know, entirely made up of those who differ with the WTS theologically, especially regarding the trinity. It would be interesting if you could provide the names of any critics of the NWT who are not also trinitarians.

    IBoth 607 and NWT are in the same boat. Nothing to back up NWT and nothing to back up 607.

    Although your post was addressed to "scholar" I have responded because you have again indulged in false reasoning. "scholar" supports 607 as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and he supports the NWT as an accurate translation, so you infer there is the same amount of evidence for the accuracy of the NWT as there is for 607 as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. You may as well mention what he has for breakfast in the same breath.


  • Narkissos
    Those scholars who hold the NWT is a "biased twisted Bible" are, as far as I know, entirely made up of those who differ with the WTS theologically, especially regarding the trinity.

    Hi Earnest,

    As everybody except the JWs "differs with the WTS theologically," you are formally right of course. Although it doesn't take an orthodox Trinitarian to criticise the NWT.

    On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, the very first criticisms of the NWT I heard (or at least took seriously) were from within, namely from the brother who translated it entirely into French (he was not exactly a "scholar", but he cared enough about his job to learn the Biblical languages). Of course I have no written proof of it, but if you look at the original French translation (1974) carefully enough you can find some clues. Such as in John 1:1, which he managed to translate La Parole ├ętait dieu (lower case to "god" but no indefinite article). Only in the 1995 revision (presumably by someone else) the French NWT came closer to the English, La Parole ├ętait un dieu.

    As I said earlier, IMO the major fraud in the NWT is the massive importation of "Jehovah" into the NT, especially where it destroys the argument of the text (I sometimes wondered if the NWT translators bothered to read the text or if, in JW style, they just translated "verses" and did not realize the impact of their option on the global reasoning). This case is only indirectly related to the Trinity doctrine.

    Another trinity-connected yet absurd choice from a purely translational viewpoint is the transformation of the paradoxical, reciprocal use of "in", such as "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," into "in union with". Substituting a commutative relation ("in union with") to a non-commutative ("in") makes the whole statement a tautology (which it is not originally). -- To be honest, I've seen the same thing in a couple of "dynamic" translations too.

    A not trinitarian, yet still doctrinal example, is the case of the quotation marks to the name "Samuel" in 1 Samuel 28... How could any translator justify that? It is a doctrinal decision that the text cannot mean what it obviously means.

  • ellderwho
    so you infer there is the same amount of evidence for the accuracy of the NWT as there is for 607 as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. You may as well mention what he has for breakfast in the same breath.

    Perhaps it is a bit of false reasoning, however, the NWT and 607 are both mysterious in their own right.

    607 with no real proof and the NWT with no real scholarly proof. Which they(Jws) say its good enough for us because we say so.

    The Jws are the only group that hold 607 due to timetable implications of their doctrine, and they hold the NWT for doctrine inforcement as well.

    In short the NWT comes from the same Org. that has contradicted itself over and over in the Watchtower, books, and statements over the years and actually inserted words into the NWT(text) but used the KingJames Bible for the first seventy years while their doctrine was formed. Why the change in Bibles?

    Has the WT earned the trust of the scholarly community with all their "flip-flops"?

  • JT

    Raymond Franz was a Governing Body member and certainly was in a position to know who the translators were.

    Are you so stupid as to think that no one aside from the translation committee members themselves knew who the members were? I think not -- you're just moronically stubborn.


    I WAS THinking the same thing,, for this poster to believe that ray who was part of the most exclusive group in wt not to know who had perhaps one of the juciest assignements at bethel is really reaching

    being that the GB handed down assigments all the time, to think that they all sat around the table and no one knew who was working on the bible project only shows how little the avg rank and file jw knows about the org-

    as mentioned lots of folks knew who worked on this or that project

    for example JR Brown for years worked on Questions from Reader- i knew cause being a black man we were proud to know that a "BROTHA" WAS moving up the wt ladder- smile

  • scholar

    Alan F

    Your reply is vacuous as you repeat rumour and gossip. The mentioning of people who worked closely with prominent people such as proof-readers and secretaries proves nothing, All it proves is that certain people worked on or were associated with the NWT project. In order to know for certainty who the scholars on the Commitee were, some archival documents or credible oral testimony should be presented. Raymonf Franz certainly had proximity to the NWT project and those working on it but was only able to produce a list of names without supporting evidence. Until there is substantive evidence the names of the committee remain unknown and unknowable.

    By the way I am not being disembowelled on Channel C as I can quite easily deal with Jonsson and anyone else. My challenge on that board remains unanswered and if you are up to it then why do not you contribute. I remember putting up such a challenge on this board and you never responded, For example, Where is the king list for the Divided Monarchy and What precise calender year for the Fall of Jerusalem. Is it 586 or is it 587? And do not give the baloney that the biblical data is amiss.


    BA MA Studies in Religion

  • Valis

    Thanks for Eman bringing these to our attention long ago..I would like to know who got the whole Apostate thing going for sure..


    Verse NWT KJV
    13:16For before him no apostate will come in. For an hypocrite shall not come before him.
    27:8-9For what is the hope of an apostate in case he cuts [him] off, In case God carries off his soul from him? Will God hear an outcry of his in case distress comes upon him? For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul? Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him?
    36:13-14And those apostate in heart will themselves lay up anger. They should not cry for help because he has bound them. Their soul will die in youth itself, And their life among male temple prostitutes. But the hypocrites in heart heap up wrath: they cry not when he bindeth them. They die in youth, and their life is among the unclean.

    Verse NWT KJV
    35:16Among the apostate mockers for a cake there was a grinding of their teeth even against me. With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.

    Verse NWT KJV
    11:9By [his] mouth the one who is an apostate brings his fellowman to ruin, but by knowledge are the righteous rescued. An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.

    Verse NWT KJV
    9:17That is why Jehovah will not rejoice even over their young men, and upon their fatherless boys and upon their widows he will have no mercy; because all of them are apostates and evildoers and every moth is speaking senselessness. Therefore the LORD shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for
    every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly.
    32:6Because the senseless one himself will speak mere senselessness, and his very heart will work at what is hurtful, to work at apostasy and to speak against Jehovah.... For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD....
    33:14In Zion the sinners have come to be in dread; shivering has grabbed hold of the apostates. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites.
  • Narkissos


    Speaking of "challenge," may I remind you that you just ignored this one on this very thread:

    What a powerful testimony to the most accurate, brilliant translation ever produced making our Heavenly Father rejoice.


    Even the WT would not dare to say that.

    Please start a thread anytime with a few examples to back up this affirmation. It will be fun.

  • Valis

    On a side note,I wonder why the online version of the NWT is not searchable?


    District Overbeer

  • ellderwho
    It's based on your history on this and other boards such as Channel-C, where you're currently being disemboweled.

    Alan, I agree Ive just read the thread. If Scholar(Neil) ever gets around to writing anything, I'd love to see what his peers have to say.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    scholar writes:

    Until there is substantive evidence the names of the committee remain unknown and unknowable.

    Last time I checked the Bible stated that matters vouched for by two or more were considered firmly established. I believe the WTS teaches JWs to believe accordingly. Since we have more than two witnesses to who was on the NWT committee then I fail to see your point. That is if you accept biblical standards.

    When JW elders hear judicial cases the WTS teaches them to accept as valid the testimony of two or three witnesses unless there is denial and supporting evidence. To your knowledge has the WTS ever denied the testimony of witnesses stating who was on the NWT committee? If not then what is your defense that NWT committee members are unknowable? Your assertion sounds like poppycock to me. You do accept the Bible, don?t you?

    Marvin Shilmer

Share this