Posts by CalebInFloroda

62

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

by CalebInFloroda in

when i began formal study of religion and biblical analysis it was like peeling off layer after layer of dark matter, sticky and putrid that had stuck over my eyes and ears and mouth.

i learned that under the watchtower one only builds a widening gap between yourself and the world of biblical academia and scholars.

i used to think i knew a lot because i learned to quote a few scholars or lexicons as a witness.

CalebInFloroda

@earnest

This might help you understand what I am saying, because we are talking about separate things.

I am merely pointing out that the words "version" and "translation" in English are officially recognized as synonyms of one another, period.

You are saying that the word "version" should apply to translations of Bibles that do not come from renderings made directly from the Hebrew and Greek, as these give you are more accurate rendering of the original texts.

While I agree that such translations are more accurate, the word "version" is NOT used that way in English to differentiate between translations. While you may have thought so, regardless of not being exposed to the mistake made in America, I am talking about what is true from an academic standard regarding the use of labels, not accuracy of translations. You, on the other hand, are talking about accuracy of translations and giving new meanings to labels that are not acceptable in academia.

At this point I merely wish to remind you that the point of this thread is to demonstrate how Watchtower ideology can infultrate our thinking to the point of keeping us from realizing that our views are very far from that of Bible scholars. Any further argument you may have cannot be with me as I once believed exactly as you do now. My understanding was corrected upon entering formal advanced studies in Biblical philology. Therefore you argument is not with me who thought once as you do today but with the world of Biblical scholarship and academia who taught me this.

62

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

by CalebInFloroda in

when i began formal study of religion and biblical analysis it was like peeling off layer after layer of dark matter, sticky and putrid that had stuck over my eyes and ears and mouth.

i learned that under the watchtower one only builds a widening gap between yourself and the world of biblical academia and scholars.

i used to think i knew a lot because i learned to quote a few scholars or lexicons as a witness.

CalebInFloroda

Understood.

But it still doesn't change the fact that these words are interchangeable in both the vernacular and in Biblical academia. And no such understanding according to your concept exists.

While there is a difference between a Bible translated directly from the original Hebrew and Greek and say, a Bible translated from the Latin, the two are still translations and/or versions. They are just translated from different sources, but translation was still engaged in.

I am not saying they are the same, but I am saying that "version" and "translation" are words that are used interchangeably regardless of the source of the Bible. I believe you are very correct in the quality of a translation being higher when done from the original languages, very correct indeed. But this doesn't change the meaning of the words "version" or " translation," and we cannot change their meaning to suit our views, no matter how correct they may be.

Besides there are times when people require a translation from the Latin or even of the LXX. Both the Latin and the LXX are based on proto-Masoretic texts and are closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than the best Masoretic texts we have today. A person may wish to study how this pre-Masoretic tradition may have influenced the way texts were cited by New Testament writers or merely compare them with texts from Qumran or Masada. Such versions based on the Vulgate or the Greek Septuagint would still also be translations, also be valuable despite not being from the Masoretic texts or the best extant New Testament witnesses. They are definitely not translations from the original Hebrew and Greek, but translations and versions nevertheless.

Again this doesn't mean that what you are saying is incorrect on what is more accurate, I'm just saying that the words "version" and "translation" don't differentiate between translations the way you saying. There may be a word for this in other languages to show the difference, but version and translation aren't those words in English as they mean the same thing.

62

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

by CalebInFloroda in

when i began formal study of religion and biblical analysis it was like peeling off layer after layer of dark matter, sticky and putrid that had stuck over my eyes and ears and mouth.

i learned that under the watchtower one only builds a widening gap between yourself and the world of biblical academia and scholars.

i used to think i knew a lot because i learned to quote a few scholars or lexicons as a witness.

CalebInFloroda

Oh, and the answers don't have to be "G-d" to be answers. They only have to be true and right for you.

62

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

by CalebInFloroda in

when i began formal study of religion and biblical analysis it was like peeling off layer after layer of dark matter, sticky and putrid that had stuck over my eyes and ears and mouth.

i learned that under the watchtower one only builds a widening gap between yourself and the world of biblical academia and scholars.

i used to think i knew a lot because i learned to quote a few scholars or lexicons as a witness.

CalebInFloroda

@Bonsai

If I might offer you an alternative philosophy from Judaism.

Unlike that text you quote from the New Testament, Jews will be the first to tell you that the ways of G-d are not easy to figure out. If there is a G-d and that G-d is truly transcendent, logic dictates that confusion is definitely to be expected.

Jews argue with G-d. We do not believe in submitting. Like Jacob our relationship is one where we battle G-d and challenge G-d and struggle for our answers. Jacob was given the name "Israel" because of this attitude, and we are the children of Israel.

If you want to make the most of your lifetime, I would suggest not to pray and wait for some heavenly sign to drop out of heaven. If you want things figured out, you need to do it yourself...you CAN do it yourself.

As Jews are fond of saying, pray as if everything depends on G-d, but act as if everything depends on you.

10

Crazy myths about the way GB is "guided"

by paradisebeauty in

there are a few jw's i know who believe that when the gb takes a decision this is what happens:.

each member goes into a separate room, prays about something.

after that, they get together and they all have the same thought about the issue.. what are the craziest ideas you heard about the way they are "guided".

CalebInFloroda

I come from the days when it was the legend that all the members of the anointed remnant get ideas and mailed letters to the Governing Body.

Sifting through the mail the Governing Body would discover an underlying current in the letters and understand that this was Jehovah leading the "faithful and discreet slave" class--when there was such a thing.

The Governing Body would then have articles written in the magazines based on this "new light" that came from the anointed, acting merely as their mouthpiece and not for them.

62

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

by CalebInFloroda in

when i began formal study of religion and biblical analysis it was like peeling off layer after layer of dark matter, sticky and putrid that had stuck over my eyes and ears and mouth.

i learned that under the watchtower one only builds a widening gap between yourself and the world of biblical academia and scholars.

i used to think i knew a lot because i learned to quote a few scholars or lexicons as a witness.

CalebInFloroda

@paradisebeauty

Thank you for that comment. Perfect example.

This mistake did not "cross the pond," so to speak. It stopped before even reaching the east coast of America. It was merely the mistake of someone who couldn't stop saying "version" when he meant "revision." Unfortunately a lot of people among the JWs believe everything they hear and exactly in the way they hear it.

Again, it was the "Spanx" instead of "yoga pants" thing. A stupid, very stupid mistake.

62

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

by CalebInFloroda in

when i began formal study of religion and biblical analysis it was like peeling off layer after layer of dark matter, sticky and putrid that had stuck over my eyes and ears and mouth.

i learned that under the watchtower one only builds a widening gap between yourself and the world of biblical academia and scholars.

i used to think i knew a lot because i learned to quote a few scholars or lexicons as a witness.

CalebInFloroda

@never a jw

It's just a wild guess, but it is exactly what I thought of when I first read the 2013 NWT.

The NRSV is unique in that it is a combination of formal and dynamic equivalence, each approach used just when it is called for to produce what the NRSV motto stated was being "as literal as possible, as free as necessary." You can't find another translation like it...that is not until the 2013 NWT showed up.

The NRSV made a controversial choice that failed in almost every major translation that tried it: inclusive language. Part of the reason it failed in other Bible translations was not just because conservative Christians rejected it, but because it couldn't function in formal equivalent approaches. It is hard to incorporate it unless you follow the NRSV's pattern.

The 2013 NWT abandoned the previous word-for-word, formal equivalent approach of the original NWT for one that matches the NRSV, a mixture of formal and dynamic rendering. It also adopted inclusive language, although not as extensively.

These "improvements" to the text match not just some of the unique choices of the NRSV but its cadence as well. Note this comparison of Romans 6.1-3:

NWT:

Consequently, what shall we say? Shall we continue in sin, that undeserved kindness may abound? Never may that happen! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, how shall we keep on living any longer in it? Or do YOU not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

NWT 2013:

What are we to say then? Should we continue in sin so that undeserved kindness may increase? Certainly not! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, how can we keep living any longer in it? Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

NRSV:

What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

The NWT not only updates the language but cuts down the wordiness of the sentences. The cadence or rhythmic flow changes. It actually flows...flows like a famous other translation on the market, the NRSV.

Up till now only the NRSV used this combination of rendition that produced a text with concise renderings and inclusive language. Suddenly in five years, the NWT has made the same type of decisions for its revision...on its own with no formal training?

When the NRSV was released in 1989 it caused a stir because no one had thought of making a translation just this way the NRSV committee did. No other Bible version follows the same combination. It's innovative for its "literal as possible, free when necessary" approach and attention to gender-specific and inclusive terms.

Where would a team of non-scholars get the idea to do the same thing? Look again at the passage from Romans above. Where do you think?

62

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

by CalebInFloroda in

when i began formal study of religion and biblical analysis it was like peeling off layer after layer of dark matter, sticky and putrid that had stuck over my eyes and ears and mouth.

i learned that under the watchtower one only builds a widening gap between yourself and the world of biblical academia and scholars.

i used to think i knew a lot because i learned to quote a few scholars or lexicons as a witness.

CalebInFloroda

@Earnest

"...when a Bible is not translated from the original languages it is more honest to refer to it as a version rather than a translation."

Again, that is a made-up JW definition of the term "Bible version."

Take for instance the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV is considered the top-notch Bible translation in American English. It used an ecumenical translation committee made up of thirty men and women who are among the top scholars in the entire world taken from Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, the Greek Orthodox Church and even a Jewish scholar.

Even though this is clearly a translation taken from the original language texts, it is called the NRSV" New Revised Standard Version. This could not be possible if your explanation matched reality.

Jesus and first century Jews spoke an Aramaic mishmash which contained Hebrew, and the Romans involved in the situation spoke Latin. Greek was the language to write things in, not speak. The Greeks had been conquered a couple of generations before, and it was a classical literary idea to keep Greek the language of written documents (the same idea that kept Latin the official language of the Bible for centuries to follow). Koine Greek was called the "lingua franca," a Latin term identifying it as the official written tongue of Rome.

But again, people did not speak or converse in Greek, not when the actual events of the Bible were occurring. As the "lingua franca" Koine Greek was the standard that everyone could translate from, like Latin today. If you write something that you want understood universally, especially in science, write it in Latin. (But even this is changing, and English is fast replacing Latin as the "lingua franca" in the 21st century).

This means that the Bible was a translation of the real events. And by your made-up definition no Bible translation could really be called a "translation." They would all be "versions." But the word "version" doesn't mean "not from the original language," it merely means "taking a unique or different form from another like it."

I have actually traced the origins of this Watchtower "legend," which is what it is. It seems to have originated in the 1970s, before my time, down in Texas with a popular Spanish elder or overseer who spoke English. This JW man gave a talk at an assembly or likely a convention, before even I was associated. The elder was talking about the difference between the NWT and recent Bible "revisions." What he meant to say was that the NWT was not a "revision" of a previous translation but was made directly from the original language texts. However, due to his poor English (and the fact that JWs did not use word-for-word manuscripts to deliver talks back then) the elder said "version" throughout the talk when he meant to say "revision."

This stuck and carried through Texas and many parts of the United States, but not all. New England and much of the East and West Coast was unaffected, and most Witnesses from these parts never heard of such a thing. There is also no mention of this definition in any Witness literature from the 1800s onwards. It was a mistake from someone who couldn't think of the right word, like a recent Governing Body member who said "Spanx," a brand name for women's shapewear when he should have said "yoga pants."

62

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

by CalebInFloroda in

when i began formal study of religion and biblical analysis it was like peeling off layer after layer of dark matter, sticky and putrid that had stuck over my eyes and ears and mouth.

i learned that under the watchtower one only builds a widening gap between yourself and the world of biblical academia and scholars.

i used to think i knew a lot because i learned to quote a few scholars or lexicons as a witness.

CalebInFloroda

@Earnest

If one renders the English text of the NWT into Japanese, doesn't someone have to translate? Regardless if it is translated directly from Japanese or the Hebrew or Greek text, it is still a translation...and a version.

The word "translation" does not mean "directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek." If I translate for my deaf neighbor next door I never use any of those languages. I am using American Sign Language and English. It's translating because I am rendering one language into another.

The NWT and the NRSV and the NABRE are all translations, but they are versions that differ from one another. The terms are synonyms, and believe me that scholars and academics will laugh you to shame if you state the words refer to something different.

The Jerusalem Bible is an English translation of the original French Jerusalem Bible. Only the original French version comes from the original language texts, but the English JB is still called both a translation and version.

62

Basic Bible and Religious Vocabulary the Watchtower Never Teaches

by CalebInFloroda in

when i began formal study of religion and biblical analysis it was like peeling off layer after layer of dark matter, sticky and putrid that had stuck over my eyes and ears and mouth.

i learned that under the watchtower one only builds a widening gap between yourself and the world of biblical academia and scholars.

i used to think i knew a lot because i learned to quote a few scholars or lexicons as a witness.

CalebInFloroda

@Phizzy

I am quite convinced that both the first and especially the revised NWT is the result of borrowing and lifting from other translations and lexicons.

However, what has been lifted from were word-for-word translations, and these are markedly different from paraphrase.

The Living Bible is a well-known example of a paraphrase, which puts the Bible is different words and idioms than what exists in the original text.

To illustrate, the current NWT rendering of John 17.3 is a translation. Even if this was lifted from another version like the NRSV or NIV, because these two Bibles are formal equivalence translations, the end result are the words of a formal equivalent translation.

A paraphrase of John 17.3 would read something like this:

"There is a key to getting to live eternally, but it's simple to find. If you have a relationship with Jesus, and really get to know him and the God that sent him to save you, then you have found that key to live forever."

That is a paraphrase. The word "key" doesn't exist in the original text, nor is the sentence concentrating on the "search and find" paradigm that is central to this paraphrase. But the meaning of the text does indeed come across, employing a different idiom and different vocabulary than chosen by the original author. It is very different from direct word-for-word and even thought-for-thought (dynamic) versions. The NWT always followed a general formal or word-for-word manner of rendering, never paraphrase.

In the end, however, a paraphrase is still a type of version or translation, so there is still no argument. It's just a different type of rendering, and it couldn't lend itself to the type of deep study JWs employed during the Franz era.

My theory is that the original NWT was a revised RSV, and the latest NWT is definitely the NRSV, sometimes shamelessly so.