Sab, That is a very good question. And I wish I had a concrete answer. Perhaps, the pronunciations is not the most important thing.
After all, no one knows 100% how Jesus name was pronounced in those days. We have an idea, but no concrete answer.
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
Wonderment
Pistoff:
I agree that misusing Jehovah´s name or Jesus name is not good. I disagree though that using it to represent The Name that appears nearly 7,000 is to corrupt the readings. If it is bad, why was it there in the first place? Do you believe the Bible to be God´s Word?
I don´t see anyone here complaining that Jesus´ name in English is not even close to either the Hebrew or Greek. A double standard does not justify exclusion of the divine name. If someone said: Jehovah´s name should not be in the NT, I would accept that. But to say that using God´s name will corrupt scriptural readings, is not supported by scripture itself when it appears right there 7,000 times.
Should we eliminate Jesus name because it annoys some people? Never may that happen! No one can read the Psalms in their original context and not walk away with a warm feeling of the grandeur of God´s name. Don´t let resentment cloud your judgment!
We don´t have full details of a lot of things in scripture, even textually speaking. Should we drop bible reading because there has been some tampering by individuals who made some effort to tamper with the Inspired text to make Jesus the equal of God? Bruce Metzger of the UBS Greek text comments about Christological debates during the first few centuries and how most of the tampering was done by individuals attempting to make Christ appear as God. Metzger does not like JWs, but knows about the many attempts by those who favored making Jesus God. Now, should we stop using Jesus name because of that fact? Should we stop using Jesus name because some people don´t like it? Should we stop using Jesus name because, as we use it, it does not come close to the original pronunciation?
Granted, we may be closer to knowing the pronunciation of Jesus name than of Jehovah´s name at this time. But by having that knowledge right now, are people moving in droves to change their habits of pronouncing Jesus name to conform to the originals? I don´t see any movement yet. I will keep using Jesus name, even if it was not the way Hebrews or Greeks called it. I will keep using Jehovah´s name as well, even if dislike the WT and is off the mark from the originals. To be consistent we would have to do big changes with just about all names in the Bible.
And talking about annoyances, have you noticed the double standard in many translations with using red letters for Christ. If you think about it, we can see that it is odd. Not consistent. For ex., the Bible before me right now (KJV), has red letters at Joh 12:28 for Christ and black letters for the Father: Jesus says before a large crowd to his Father: "Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it and will glorify it again."
Now, did not Jesus say that ´the Father was greater than him?´ If true, to be consistent, why not use a bold color when the Father speaks? At Joh 12:28, Jesus is asking the Father to glorify his name, and when the greater of the two speaks, the version has regular black letters for the Father, God. I find that not only annoying, but disrespectful to the Father whom Jesus was subject to. I find that as annoying as JWs using Jahs name as a lucky charm.
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
Wonderment
Thanks MarcusScriptus for your answer. I appreciate that a lot.
In answer to PSacramento: I stated that the NWT and KIT are some of my favorites. I stopped liking the WT system about 20 years ago, and I have rejected quite a bit if not most of their theological conclusions. However, I want to stay open and be fair as possible. My personal experience has been mostly positive with their bibles. I know they are anathema to the orthodox. But again I repeat: "The orthodox do not possess all the truth. We do well to test the spirits." (Lutheran, Professor of Chicago, Danker) This does not mean that I can´t see the faults within the NWT. I do. There are plenty of them. But its virtues outweigh its faults. And I enjoy so many other bibles as well.
It would be a mistake to close our minds completely to this source of information just because we experienced hardship there. It would be a mistake to conclude that the non-JWs are right because they are not JWs, and that the majority rule must be right. It would be a mistake to conclude that everything they have taught must be false. And that everyone else is speaking truth. It is not as simple as that. Satan has made sure the world is confused. The whole world lies under power of the evil one. So I take truth from whatever source. Those teaching lies will have to stand before judgment in due time. I find falsehood within the Watchtower system as well as in other religions. I find rays of truth coming from different sources as well. Truth is not a franchise, like McDonalds, or Burger King, etc that only they can sell their unique products. Truth is different... it is in the Bible. Anyone, from any religion has access to the truth, including you and me. To the degree we adhere to Scripture , we mirror that truth. Bible versions ultimately may not be our savior by itself. Mark Twain was once asked: Are you not troubled by the many things you don´t understand in the Bible? Mark Twain answered: "Not at all, I am troubled by the things I understand." So it far more important to live what we understand than trying to destroy someone who hurt us.
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
Wonderment
PSacramento,
You asked, Do u own the NWT Interlinear? Who was the question addressed to?
Anyways, personally I do. It has been my favorite bible for many years. It is a gold mine. Of course, I am aware that many ex JWs may disagree with that statement, but I stand by it. As a reviewer once stated, it shows "unusual competence of the Greek language."
Nowadays, with judicious use of all sorts of bible helps, anyone with some knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek alphabets can do wonders. I am referring to those of us lacking Ph. D´s. Anyone can check anything and everything for accuracy. Formal training is great, but those that haven´t done it can still benefit a great deal from all those bible publications of the last few centuries and some effort on our parts. People before printing came to age didn´t have those helps. And here we are arguing which is better.
Someone said the Kingdom Interlinear is out of print. The WT Society is on a severe diet, it seems. Whoever owns one, should treasure it, or if someone has one that don´t want it, I´ll take it. I also like Paul R. McReynolds interlinear. It is a very useful book, and it sports a concordance that takes about half the book space. He did a great job. The Concordant interlinear is good too, but more difficult to use, and the print is not as good as the others. I use many bibles for my studies. Usually keep those I mentioned close by and some of the following: Those that have a few versions (the popular evangelical ones and J.B.) within their covers, Young´s Literal Translation, Rotherham for its Empahasized Bible, Byingtons for its fresh, unique renderings, the Message Bible, New American Bible, Diaglott, Apostolic Bible whith Septuagint, 21st Century for its dual literal/free nature, and a few study bibles (NIV, Living T.), Latin Vulgate, etc., plus some bilingual translations such as Valera-King James. I have some others, but those I mentioned get more use.
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
Wonderment
I personally found Jason D. BeDuhn´s review well done and reflected sound scholarship. I am glad someone had the guts to boldly say it as he saw it. It takes courage to do so, knowing that he would be harshly criticized. I also think he was fair.
I agree with Leolaia (I think it was her who said it) when she said that focusing on a few scriptures does not prove which is the most accurate translation. But neither are the reviews of countless others who have focused on similar issues. Neither was Colwell´s study years ago of which translations were the most accurate. By the way, the NWT did well in that study, when one takes all those instances of problematic readings. Colwell didn´t have access to the NWT at the time. but I myself took his research and went scripture by scripture to check on the NWT. Later, I found out that others did the same thing.
Since, we will never be fully happy with studies such as these (they are interesting and insightful) it is up to us to do our own research and try to stay open-minded as possible. The use of Hebrew and Greek concordances are a must to get to the bottom of it. I don´t recommend commentaries much, though I use them sparringly, just to see other people´s viewpoint. I really appreciate all your comments. God bless ya all!
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
Wonderment
wannabefree:
I think the translator may have his own views of the NWT, and may not be all that good. I think what he meant was probably that the NWT is hated or considered a-no-subject in his religious world, whatever that may be, and he does not want to compromise himself somehow before his peers.
My experience though is that although I dislike very much WT tactics, I have grown very fond of the NWT and the Kingdom Interlinear. I don´t think this assesment is based on emotion, but based on my experience and research. I put the translation to the test in the past, and I was pleased with what I found overall, not all, but confident that most criticism of it is based on emotional, and theological reasons, not textual based. I find even that ex JW´s carry a lot of anger and resentment, and would like to see the NWT disappear, much less admit is a good version.
Brothers here talk about this or that, how the NWT took liberties with a certain scripture, but I find the NWT actually take less liberties with the original text than mainstream versions. I pray that I can stay fair and see the good in people and bible translations. When I go deep into textual studies, I find that the translator[s] of the NWT were very conscious of textual nuances and had deep knowledge overall. It is evident not only in the translated main text, but also, by the judicious use of footnotes which reveal a lot of intellectual depth.
Many times I find that the NWT translator[s]s had deeper knowledge of textual issues than some of their critics. So I don´t believe at all, as has been stated often that the NWT was done by a committe that couldn´t read the originals. Someone had to. And I wouldn´t be surprised that F. Franz was one instrumental in the work. I heard him personally speak in a few languages with excellent memory to boot. He had full command of the one language other than English that I know well. If he had that command with this other language -self-taught- I have no doubt that he did at least the same with the biblical languages. Please, don´t repeat the infamous Walsh case. I spoke to Ray Franz, and he admitted to me that it was not that he was not capable of reading Hebrew, but that he felt unconfortable with the grilling he was being put through and felt they wanted to ridicule the WT people and chose not to attempt translating what was asked of him. In fact, Ray surprisingly (not being close to his uncle) sounded like he too was troubled by the incessant Walsh case publicity and the twisting of the facts by WT detractors.
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
Wonderment
Thanks Marcus Scriptus for the Bible translator comments. I appreciated that insight.
Can you provide us with at least the name of the ecumenical version you mentioned?
And Terry, I agree with you that reading the Message Bible is refreshing and revealing. We just have to be a bit more careful because of the many liberties this type of version take. It still one of my favorites. That chapter (Romans 14 ) should be read aloud in every congregation of JWs. It is good!
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
Wonderment
As regards the divine name in the NT, it would have been better to keep the divine name in the footnotes where the NT quotes the OT. I don´t understand though, why all the fuss about whether we should use Yahweh instead of Jehovah because Y. is closer to the Hebrew. Could it be that we as X-JW´s we don´t want to sound supportive of the WT?
Because really, while Jehovah may not be the closest ideal pronunciation of the divine name, to be consistent we would have to change the way we use names in our modern versions. Biblical names as a whole are no match to the originals, yet no one makes a fuss about it -- including Jesus´ name which is not really the way Hebrews or Greeks likely pronounced it. So in my case I conclude as Rotherham did in his last few years of life. He said that he realized that Jehovah is so well known that it communicates better with the modern reader instead of Yahweh which he preferred until then for most of his life. Also Byington came to the same conclusion. I side with their view. If someone decides to ADD the divine name to the NT, they should at least stick to OT quotes. It is possible, after all that the original Greek text did use it.
Metatron mentioned the flags in old times. That is an interesting point, which the WT hides, if is not convenient to them.
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
Wonderment
3Mozzies:
Yes, the KJV/NKJV does a pretty good job with the Greek. They do a better job than the KJV opposers are willing to admit. However, in many places the KJV folks let the Latin Vulgate determine their choices of renderings. Don´t throw the NWT away, because it still gives you good flavor of the originals where KJV falls flat. No one translation alone can give you the Greek, because all translations fail at some point. Talking about Interlinears, I find the best that represent the basic Greek are: The Kingdom Interlinear, the Concordant Greek text, and Paul R. McReynolds interlinear. The Concordant is not the easiest to use, though. I have bought every interlinear I can get my hands on, but those 3 I have found to represent the basic Greek best. The other interlinears are almost loose translations, so I don´t know why those authors bothered to bring another one to the market.
Interestingly, people a lot of times buy translations and interlinears based on the reputation they carry. I find that means very little when it comes to execution. It´s better to stick with the ones that do deliver. No fancy titles, or big reputation, just something that works.
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-