Posts by Wonderment

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Wonderment

TTWSYF,

I have looked into it. Thoroughly... and I believe you easily fall for misinformation. Citing Julius Mantey for support is poor scholarship. The argument that u posed on John 1:1, is not true. Harner, Wallace, Dixon, BeDuhn and others do not support your argumentation. See all articles below where your arguments are dealt with. Check out below the distortion brought about Colwell and Mantey. Mantey's objection proves little as to the wrongness of WT quoting its work. We all should strive to be less gullible!

I do have a problem with some of WT ethical actions, just as u likely do likewise, but the NWT holds up under scrutiny. It is better that what some here will ever admit. Just giving some credit where it is due. Of course, I have other favorite translations that I enjoy as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35318309/The-correct-translation-of-John-8-58-List-of-alternate-readings-to-I-am-I-have-been-I-was-I-exist

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34916458/The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48234022/Does-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Any-Greek

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Wonderment

TTSWSF,

>>When you study the the 1st section of John [a john? ;) ] 1;1-18. Theos occurs 8 times in versed 1,2,6,12,12 & 18. The NWT translated God as God 6 times, translated 'the God' once and 'a god' once.

This argument don't hold up. It is the same argument that's being passed around erroneusly.

The construction of John 1:1c is different from those other texts. Even translators other than WTS do the same thing in chapter 1 of John. There is a good reason for that.

See below for a throrough explanation of John 1:1c.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34916458/The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Wonderment

The NWT is much better as a translation than most here are willing to admit. Most of the NWT criticisms are based on religious bias, hate, and misinformation. Quite a bit of distortion too. Let us not be so naive! Give credit where it is due!

Check the link below for a more complete picture:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48234022/Does-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Any-Greek

32

New World Translation into other languages; anyone knows of any critics?

by dgp in

perhaps this is the wrong place to post such a question, but, is anyone aware of any criticism of the new world translation as rendered into other languages, say, spanish, portuguese, french?.

if you open a non-english version of the nwt, you find that they very clearly say you're holding a translation from english into whatever the target language is, only "checking against the hebrew and greek originals".

this is to say, there is a pecking order that begins with the translation from the original languages into english, and then another, from english into all others.

Wonderment

I have read some criticisms of the NWT in other languages, mainly in Spanish. There is nothing new in these other languages criticisms that are worth repeating.They usually mimic the English criticisms.

I have the 1987 NWT edition in Spanish before me, and it uses brackets throughout. Most here are making a big deal about brackets used or not used in the NWT. A lot of translations do not use them, except in a few cases where it is absolutely necessary.

I have compared the NWT in various languages, and evidently, the translation teams have some leeway in their translation choices.

When the WT Society says the NWT editions are based mainly on the English one, with comparison with the Hebrew and Greek texts, they are saying the truth. I have seen numerous cases where they just don't translate English to the other target languages, but instead go with the original text. In my opinion the WT does a good job dealing with the NWT. I can not say the same thing with some of their other publications, but they are careful with the bible. I give them credit here.

For more info on the NWT translation work, go here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48234022/Does-the-New-World-Translation-Committe-Know-Any-Greek

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i 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

MarcusScriptus: Thanks again for your insightful post.

truebelieverbob: I appreciate your bold stand on behalf of the NWT and WT. I too think that the J. BeDuhn´s book is perhaps the most fair review of bible versions yet. However, I wouldn´t go too far to the other side defending the WT. Let us not forget, that the WT is a humongous organization, hence, they respond to a lot of issues as the politicians do. "Unity at all costs" seems to be the driving force of their existence. The end result can be dangerous. They set policies in their org. that are driven more by what they seek to accomplish to unify their structure, than by what the Bible actually supports. They will never admit to that.

And to mention the NWT, as much as I like their bibles, I do see places where they have stretched the meaning of a word so as to communicate better with their constituency. So, cleverly, they used some renderings where it is difficult to prove them wrong, but we have to ask honestly whether the original writer really meant what the NWT communicates to us. For ex. Joh 17:3 with "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you..." As support the WT quotes some scholars that seem to support that rendering. However, did Jesus really mean that we as his followers must start ´taking in knowledge´ as religionists do of their religious systems? Does a true Christian has to go thru months of studying the Bible with another book so as to know God? I think not. That is stretching the whole statement of Jesus. Back then it was like: Believe in Christ, and you shall be saved. That simple! For the WT it can´t be that simple. You have to go thru loops of men to get the approval for baptism.

Another example: Rom 10:10. "With the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation." Ask any Witness what that means, and he may tell you that preaching from house-to-house is essential for salvation. So you see. The Greek may allow "public declaration" as a meaning there of the orginal, but it may allude to baptism, where one publicly declares ones faith in Christ´ as our Savior.

Now, before anyone else comes rushing to condemn the NWT, remember other Bible versions do the same thing, but in other places where it suits them.

Therefore, we should keep our minds open to fairness and truth, from whatever the source.

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i 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

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.

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i 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 in

jw
friends

i 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 in

jw
friends

i 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 in

jw
friends

i 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!