NWT Scholars

by homme perdu 166 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion writes:

  I do accept biblical standards and heartily embrace the two-three witness burden of proof concept. So, what, where, who are your witnesses to the identity of the Committe.

  A long time ago a brother named Norm Swif told me and who made up the NWT committee. He worked on the original NWT alongside the NWT committee. He knew each member personally.

  More recently ex-governing body member Ray Franz provided the same names as making up the NWT committee.

  I asked the WTS if these men made up the NWT committee. The WTS declined confirmation. When asked if they denied these men made up the original NWT committee the WTS also declined comment.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion writes:

  There are NO witnesses to the identity of the NWT only claims by some people who claim to know because these claimed to have worked on the NWT project.

  There are plenty of persons who know the identity of the NWT committee. But only a few of them have divulged this information.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion writes:

  No doubt there were many people involved in the NWT project from proofreaders, secretaries, priinters etc but such proximity does not endorse, substantiate, prove the identity of the scholars on the comittee otherwise it would not have been possible for a gaurantee of anonymity by the publishing agency namely the WTS of Pennsylvannia.

  Everyone knowing who made up the NWT committee, including the members of that committee, are witnesses to who was on that committee.

  The WTS has not guaranteed anonymity of the NWT committee. The NWT committee requested the WTS keep their names anonymous and therefore the WTS will not confirm or deny who these members are. But this is not a guarantee that the names of members of the NWT will remain anonymous! It is only a promise that the WTS will not divulge this information. Whether individuals who know the members of this committee divulge this information is between those individuals and members of the NWT committee. Some individuals positioned to know these members have spoken, and their testimony has not been denied by the WTS.

  As you apparently believe, when two witnesses testify to the same end then the Bible says the matter is firmly established, unless there is evidential denial.

  There are two witnesses to the membership of the NWT committee. There is no evidential denial to this testimony.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  because when I have challenged others in respect to chronology there is a total reluctance from WT critics to participate.

  You are nothing more than a blatant liar and a charlatan to make this statement.

  If readers, who are perhaps naieve enough to begin to fall for your bluster would take the opportunity of availing themselves of the search facilities both on JWD and Channel C, they would see the nonsense of your lie for themselves. What are you trying to gain by lying with such a bare face? Do you suppose that because a JW leaves the WTS he no longer has the power of recall? You only destroy your own tenous credibility by doing so.

  You have been sauteed and served up on these Boards more times than Bette Midler at a rugby tournament.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion writes:

  ?when I have challenged others in respect to chronology there is a total reluctance from WT critics to participate?.

  Indeed! As HS insists, scholar?s statement is an unmitigated lie!

  Here?s a short exchange that cuts right to the point:

  http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index2.cgi?frames=yes&board=Main&mode=Current&message=9472

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  cynicus

  You are nothing more than a blatant liar and a charlatan to make this statement.

  Who said that you could recognise the tree by the fruit it produced?

  (c)
• 

  AlanF

  Thanks for posting that link to Channel-C, Marvin. Reading over non-scholar's non-responses proves yet again that he's a blithering idiot. I've dealt with a lot of idiotic JWs in online discussion forums but he takes first prize.

  AlanF
• 

  Big Tex

  The identity of the NWT is unknown and further, unknowable. There has been considerable speculation by insiders and outsiders as to their identity but nobody has provided any evidence, oral and written to confirm the speculation. Hence,it is the greatest of all mysteries and will remain so forever. What a powerful testimony to the most accurate, brilliant translation ever produced making our Heavenly Father rejoice.

  Surely you are joking. The way you post makes me think more and more you must be some type of parody.
• 

  Satanus

  There has been considerable speculation by insiders and outsiders as to their identity but nobody has provided any evidence, oral and written to confirm the speculation. Hence,it is the greatest of all mysteries and will remain so forever. What a powerful testimony to the most accurate, brilliant translation ever produced making our Heavenly Father rejoice.

  Perhaps the heavenly father himself came down from a higher floor in the brooklyn elevator, like in the george burns movie about god, and deposited those partial nwt volumes on the gb conference room desk. How else to explain the above explanation? Kind of like the stork/baby story for kids.

  S
• 

  Earnest

  Earnest : 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.

  Narkissos : As everybody except the JWs "differs with the WTS theologically," you are formally right of course.

  Hi Narkissos, . Yes, my statement was the bleeding obvious but I had in mind that there are a number of scholars who recommend the NWT without any apparent theological interest. For example, at the time the NWT in English was first published the Christian Century had a number of articles by Stephen Byington with qualified praise for the translation. More recently Jason Beduhn has published Truth in Translation which also speaks highly of 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

  I must agree I also have some reservations about the translation of John 1:1 as it seems deliberately provocative, but the verse certainly means far more than the traditional (KJV) translation conveys and the NWT addresses that.

  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

  Agreed, with the qualification "where it destroys the argument of the text".

  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".

  A Supplement to Concordance to the Greek Testament, fifth edition revised by H.K. Moulton, says "in view of the importance and varied significance [of en]...a superior number is attached to each individual citation indicating its probable significance. In many cases, of course, there is room for more than one opinion." It then gives eighteen different meanings, or significance, to en namely : (1) Local, (2) Time, (3) Among, (4) Within, (5) Instrumental, (6) Relational, (7) Metaphorically local or temporal, (8) Attendant circumstances or adverbial phrase, (9) Clothing, (10) Agent, (11) In Scripture, (12) in heaven, in the heavens, in the heights above, (13) in the kingdom of the heavens / of God / of my Father (14) Semitism, (15) in [union with] Christ / the Lord etc., (16) = into, (17) Indirect object, (18) Amounting to.

  But, the significance given to en in John 14:10 ("I am en the Father and the Father is en me") is also given to en in John 6:56 ("He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains en me..."), 14:20 ("...I am en my Father and you are en me..."), 17:21 ("in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are en me and I am en you, that they also may be en us..."). Interestingly, when it speaks of Jesus being en the disciples it suggests the meaning is "within", but when the disciples are en Jesus, or Jesus is en the Father the probable significance is not "within" but "in [union with]". I think the NWT has it right.

  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.

  Interesting example, I had never noticed it before and suggest it is similar to Luke 23:43 where the translation is correct but the punctuation completely changes the meaning.

  Earnest
• 

  Narkissos

  Earnest,

  I agree that there are some helpful aspects to the NWT, especially the overall formal consistency which is the positive side of an otherwise painfully overliteral translation. I could appreciate that when I learned Hebrew and Greek with the French NWT in mind.

  I think you didn't get my point about the translation of en. I didn't criticise "in union with" generally -- although I do find it weak, flat, and I always regret the unnecessarily loss of a metaphor. What I said is it does not work in reciprocal propositions, for it is a naturally commutative formula.

  "I am in union with you" already implies "you are in union with me". The two sentences together form a useless repetition.

  "I am in you" does not logically imply "you are in me". The two sentences together create a new meaning.

  On your last remark: as an integral part of the target language, ponctuation is very much a part of translation.
• 

  ellderwho

  so it was necessary to have a translation free of that bias to allow readers without a knowledge of the original languages to appreciate the breadth of meaning in ambiguous passages

  Are you kidding? What does a Jw conclude after reading Colossians 1:16.NWT How about 2 Peter 1 " by the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ" NWT. See also KIT

  Titus 2:13 " glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus. NWT.

  Note: the KIT shows strongs #4990 as "of savior" in both Peter and Titus, is that not misleading or biased? This is done to convey the thought of seperation of "great God and savior" thus the word "of" is inserted along with brackets for the word "the" these little things done in the NWT, you consider this "to appreciate the breadth of meaning"?

  When Col.1:16 is read without brackets a Jw has to reconcile what Christ has created.