Posts by Wonderment

48

No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003

by dgp in

i copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .

it is not necessary for bible translators to know.

by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.

Wonderment

dgp:

Excuse me, but I don't understand your question. Is the "individual consulting G & H originals" a reference to the NWT Committee?

117

Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 in

i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.

revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.

because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.

Wonderment

VanderHoven7: "it is clear that Jesus accepted the title God (Ho Theos) as part of worship of himself (John 20:28)"

No, it is not that clear. In the same chapter Jesus speaks of ‘his God’ and ‘the God of everyone else.’ (20:17) Just 3 verses later, John sums up the correct message for all: "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God..."

Previously, he had stated the ‘he owes his existence to the Father’ (6:57), ‘the Father being greater than him’ (14:28) and that ‘the true worshippers will worship the Father [not the Son] with spirit and truth.’

John 20:28 has been controversial among leading scholars. Some see it as hebraistic idiom addressed to God in a moment full of emotional drama. We humans say, or hear others say all the time, Oh my God! when something dramatic happens, as when the Twin Towers came crashing down 9/11. Just about everyone was saying: Oh my God!

Thus for Thomas to experience Jesus' appearance after his death was no less dramatic. What do u expect him to say? "Oh, Son of God"? That is not what humans say under shock (though some in America say, "Jesus Christ!") But generally, in a shocking or dramatic situation it is not unusual to invoke "God" in such manner. And in hebraistic fashion, Thomas saying "the God of me and the Lord of me" would be the acceptable jewish statement to make without making Jesus identical with God. Remember, John cleared the matter by his main statement: "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." John could easily have said that Jesus is ho theos. We should not change this statement otherwise. I will stick with Jesus' statement that "true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth." And don't forget as previously posted, that Christ gave the creation credit to God, not himself.

117

Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 in

i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.

revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.

because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.

Wonderment

GOrwell:

That is fine with me.

117

Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 in

i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.

revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.

because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.

Wonderment

It should be noted that in Rev. 5:12 it says that the Lamb "is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing," but it does not mention proskyne'o as one of them. A similar statement is made in -v. 13- by every creature in heaven and earth in regards to the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb. Again it does not mention proskyne'o as one of them. It is in v. 14 that it says: "And the four living creatures went saying 'Amen!' and the elders fell down and worshipped."

So, it does not say directly that God and Christ both received worship. If you understand it in a way that both should receive it, that is fine. But v. 14 does not say that Christ received woship, at least not directly.

However we understand who is the object of proskyne'o (worship or obeisance) being done by by elders in v. 14, what is true is that Christ is portrayed as subordinate in the book of Revelation. In the very first verse, it makes a difference between God and Christ by saying that Christ received a "revelation" from God to pass on to "his slaves" the things that must take place. Does God ever need someone to give him a "revelation."? I don't think so! Verses 4 & 5 shows a distinction between "the One who is and who was" and Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness and the Firstborn from the dead. One can argue that God can be a Witness, but God dead? No! God does not die! Ch. 3:14 talks about Christ being "the beginning of the creation by God." Some oppose the translation "creation by God," but is there really that much difference between saying that Christ is the beginning of the creation of God, or by God? It does not matter! God is the creator, not Christ. Other scriptures show that Christ was the agent of creation of everything else. Christ attributed the creation to God. See previous post. Ch. 5 supplies a vision of the One sitting on the throne and the Lamb subordinately. Ch. 14 gives us another vision where Christ is NOT depicted as the Supreme Being. Ch. 19 again describes the Word as "of God," not God Supreme. And the last chapter of Rev. speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. If Jesus was identical to God almighty, why portray him always as subordinate. Never mind holy spirit!. It is not seen anywhere in the throne, or close to it.

Interestingly, Jesus himself applied the word proskyne'o when a slave who owed the king a lot of money asked for mercy, and rendered him worship or obeisance. (Mt. 18:23-35) Some in this forum would like to believe that proskyne'o is rendered only to God, hence, Christ is God. Well, Jesus himself shows us one way we should understand proskyne'o. And to me, Christ is a higher authority than some "scholars" claiming the contrary.

48

No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003

by dgp in

i copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .

it is not necessary for bible translators to know.

by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.

Wonderment

dgp:

I must have touched a raw nerve. You even accuse me of "lying". Why does it bother you so much that some in this forum actually enjoy using the NWT among the many versions available?

Somehow, you are twisting my statements, or taking them out of context. Yes, it is clear to both of us, I think, that other editions of the NWT into other languages were done from the English one. Notice, though, the WTS never said that the other NWT editions were done from the original languages, only the original English version. I never claimed either that they were. Ever! What they say is that the other multi-language editions were done from the English translation, but consulting the Hebrew and the Greek originals. To what extent they consulted the originals in those other versions, we will probably never know.

That said, my experience as a NWT user, shows that what the WTS have claimed is what I found to be true. Mind you, I don't want to sound like I am a WT supporter. I am not. I have been victimized enough to know the pain and foolishness of following men who claim to have a special divine knowledge. The WTS claims that the NWT English version was done directly from the originals. My experience with the English NWT supports that claim. The WTS also claims that the other multi-language editions of the NWT were based on the NWT English base, but faithfully consulting the original languages. Again, my experience with these other verisons supports that claim.

I repeat what I stated for the benefit of others following this thread: I said that "in many cases,"in some cases," "when that is the case" the translation team chose to follow the Hebrew or Greek original instead of the English base. I have no doubt about that.

I mentioned John 8:58, where the French (add the Italian version) teams in some editions did not translate "I have been" literally, but went with their own rendering, "I was." I also mentioned that the modern Greek team chose to render that same expression as "I exist." That team did not go with "I have been," "I was," or, even with the modern Greek equivalent "I am" (Modern Greek: ego' eimai). By the way, modern Greek have equivalents for those renderings. But these teams surely knew the equivalents of the original English edition, but they chose other. Why? Would you look into this? And in Genesis 31:38, the modern Greek translation team translated the words of Jacob to Laban saying: "These twenty years of mine I was with you." The LXX here has: ego' eimi (I am). And the Hebrew here reads: "I with you" ('anokhi 'immak). And the English NWT? "I have been." Other versions do the same. Now, why are NWT teams showing this flexibility if they don't know what they are doing? Or, if they could not read the originals? Somehow, the translation teams have some individuals who know what they are doing, and apparently there is a team of translators who bridge differences between the English, the originals, and the target languages.

Take the Spanish edition, itself a translation from the English version. That team had knowledge of language peculiarities. Whenever singular anarthrous (without the article, the) predicate nominatives precede the verb, the English NWT usually uses the indefinite article (a) to complete the thought. For instance, at John 4:19 the Samaritan woman says to Jesus according to the English NWT: "I perceive you are a prophet." The Spanish version reads literally: "I perceive you are prophet," with no indefinite article. [...percibo que eres profeta]. The same is done at John 6:70 and 10:1, where they show "calumniador" and "ladrón y saqueador" with no indefinite article. Of course, Spanish has the indefinite article just as English does. Why, then, did the NWT teams chose to render many of these anarthrous nouns with no indefinite article when the English NWT does? Simply because Spanish does not require it to sound natural, as English does. And that is sometimes true of French and Italian languages as well.

At John 10:36, the NWT cleverly chose to render the literal Greek expression, "Son of the God I am" as "I am God's Son." This rendering shows sensitivity to the original, since in English is not so easy to transmit the Greek sense correctly. Now, observe how the NWT Spanish edition renders it: "...Soy Hijo de Dios? [Lit. ...I am Son of God?]." A careful look at this Greek expression shows it is easier to transmit the correct thought in Spanish than it is in English. Many English versions render this incorrectly: "I am the Son of God." However, a few, such as NIV render it correctly. There is no Greek article (the) before "Son" in the original.

Thus, at least to me, it is obvious that the NWT English edition was carefully done by competent translators. Other NWT versions of recipient languages also had some within their translation teams who knew what they were doing, contrary to the belief that some hold here, that they had zero knowledge. The Branch Organizational directive is clear they want to have uniformity across their many multi-language editions, thus, the statement about foreign translators not required to know the original languages. But it does not mean there is no competent communication between those teams and the WT writing staff and translation directors.

117

Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 in

i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.

revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.

because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.

Wonderment

A poster here sustains that Jesus must be God because "worship" is addressed to him. Hello! Worship is a translation from the Greek, and the Greek word meaning is more broad than our understanding of the English term worship. It could range from bowing down in respect before a human, to full reverence, worship to God. Thus, Jesus rightfully could be the object of proskyneo , as well as God the Father. Hence, the sense of proskyneo itself does not prove that the object receiving it must be the Supreme God. Many folk s have a problem understanding this most basic meaning. The context ultimately is the determining factor for the right exegesis.

Another word that is equally misunderstood is the original word(s) for "God." Some here erroneously conclude that God can only be spoken of the Supreme God. But that is not the case. The term God, of itself, does not signal whether a god is true of false. There is a "family" of heavenly beings, called "gods" in the bible. Most of the members of this family are not false gods, they are "gods," that is, powerful divine beings who reflect God Almighty in "godness." There are also false or evil gods, such as Baal and Satan. Those who restrict the meaning of the original words of God to just one entity do so perhaps under a trinitarian premise. I argue that trinitarianism is in itself in conflict with Jewish monotheism.

48

No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003

by dgp in

i copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .

it is not necessary for bible translators to know.

by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.

Wonderment

dgp:

I don't understand why you are disputing something I never said. I never said that translators who worked doing NWT English to foreign languages work was done from the original languages. That was not my intention. I agree with you. The NWT versions into other languages was done mainly from the English version as a base. That is a fact. And that is what you are showing with the Spanish front page of the NWT . However, having done some translation work myself between Hebrew, Greek and Spanish and a few other languages using the NWT, I have also realized it was not a sloppy translation team work. Through the years I have found numerous cases where those teams had a choice of using the equivalent of the original word from the NWT base, and they cleverly chose to use another rendering, just as faithful to the NWT base, but adapted to the target language.

For example, the NWT in English says at John 8:58, "I have been." (rather than "I am"). Well, the NWT in French in some editions read, "I was." When this in turn was done by the Modern Greek edition, they did not use the modern Greek equivalent for "I have been," nor "I was," but rather, "I exist." So, the translations teams are quite flexible, and shows that someone within their translation teams knows what they are doing. This is a doctrinal issue for many, but there are many cases when there was not theology involved and they chose a rendering quite different from the original equivalent in the NWT, but true to the original. Why would they do so, if no one at the WT knows what they are doing, as is often claimed.

I stated: "in some cases," not always. Also, I did not mean to imply that Spanish is so close to Hebrew and Greek and English is not. What I meant, was that English really is more distant to Hebrew and Greek than Spanish is. Spanish is closer to Latin than English. Can we agree with that? And Latin is closer to Greek than English is. Take the definite article. In English is just plain "the." In Greek and Spanish the definite article varies in form depending whether its plural, gender and so forth. Nouns and adjectives are correspondingly inflected as well. Hebrew as well shows more affinity to Spanish than English, such as pronunciation being less variable. Many a times I am amazed how some Spanish versions approximate the Hebrew and Greek better than their English counterparts. This is due in some ways to these languages similarities. There is no denying though, that our Western languages are still remote from those bible languages.

I believe in fairness, and objectivity. The NWT is biased in many places, since it was prepared for JW's, not for mainstream groups. But those other bibles have their biases as well, if not more. None are perfect. However, the common and popular perception that the NWT was done by folks that could not read the originals is plain false.

48

No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003

by dgp in

i copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .

it is not necessary for bible translators to know.

by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.

Wonderment

Mad Sweeney:

"While the original New World Translation was rendered from the ancient biblical languages , all editions in different contemporary languages never were.

Also, the part above in bold is incorrect. There was nobody on the original NWT committee who knew the ancient Biblical languages."

That is NOT totally correct. Some in the NWT Committee had more than a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. All it takes to disprove the common assumption that the NWT was incompetent to do translation work is to "get our hands dirty" and go straight to the Hebrew and Greek, and the more we learn, the more we'll see that someone did have sufficient knowledge to do it. I don't believe those common claims, because I have done myself some digging in the guts of the NWT itself.

Ray Franz, with whom I spoke personally with, told me he was miffed about evangelicals taking his footnote on one of his books and concluding Fred had zero knowledge, and that their motives were inappropiate. He personally was confident that Fred was knowledgeable enough to produce a "creditable" translation. Those were his words. Then he told me of Fred Franz spending hours with a WT Hebrew translator (a female) native in Israel who was surprised at Fred's depth in the Hebrew department. She was able to help her with some translation issues, even though she was experienced translating WT publications from Hebrew to English. Ray himself has told quite a few people that Fred was always able to help him with the Hebrew and Greek difficulties he encountered while preparing Aid to Bible Understanding. Guess what: Ray was no dummy himself. He is an excellent and careful writer who relied on Fred Franz superior knowledge in the language dpt. Ray said he was "unusually disciplined in the language department."

A few scholars who teach Greek use the Kingdom Interlinear in their colleges with their students, and have stated that the KIT is the best interlinear on the market. Guess who worked on the KIT? Ray told me that it was Freddy. Yes, Freddy. And think about this:

E. J. Goodspeed who was quoted by the WTS stating that ‘the NWT exhibits sound serious learning, as he could testify,' and said the "NWT was a scholarly work," was pressured by many evangelicals to come out and condemn the NWT. He never condemned the Greek NT. The only thing negative they were able to get came from an ex-Bethelite, about the grammar of the Hebrew-English portion was "regrettable (in the sense of un-English)." But he translated the Greek NT, not the Hebrew OT. Goodspeed added that 'evidently you WT translators are good scholars.’ BTW, George Gangas spoke Greek, something many trained bible scholars cannot do. Yes, I know that his Greek was Modern not Koine, but it is not that difficult to adapt to their differences.

Frankly, I am puzzled that so many ex-Witnesses fall prey in readily believing the mostly "evangelical" attacks on the NWT without doing deep research themselves.

Also, the WT publication saying that translators need not know Hebrew and English to do translation work must be taken within their context. I have checked the NWT in various languages, and I have seen many cases where the translators didn't just translate from the English carelessly, but went right into the Hebrew and Greek for the translation. They did not use a straight translation from the English. Their translation teams are quite impressive. I know so. Spanish in some cases is closer to Hebrew and Greek and when that is the case, the translation teams cleverly went with the original language instead of the English base.This may sound strange, but I think the WT is more careful with bible translation than with other publications.

So please, let us not be parroting questionable "evangelical" perceptions here for the sake of WT organizational failures.

117

Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 in

i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.

revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.

because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.

Wonderment

Thank you guys for the McGrath and Dunn's references. Hopefully, I will check them out.

117

Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 in

i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.

revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.

because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.

Wonderment

still thinking: No, I have not seen any e-mail from you.

I want to add that by quoting a source about the masculine, neuter gender issue, I am not implying that God and Jesus are like MEN where male sex organs are present. That would be absurd.

However, the Bible was written by humans, though inspired by God, in a way we could understand things. The Bible itself shows a masculine-centered tendency. Thus, it is not unusual to depict God and Jesus as if they were masculine. But we all know they are spirits, not likely to be carrying around male genitals. What I find odd, is that while the NT speaks of God and Jesus in masculine terms, popular bible versions often change the neuter gender references of the spirit for masculine ones. The NWT generally reflects the Greek better in this matter. Why is that?