Posts by Wonderment

46

The New World Translation is not a translation,

by Jaime l de Aragon in

the new world translation is not a translation, is mere adaptation, to avoid paying royalties to biblical issues as, king james and other.

beware the glare of lights.

the translation they call "new world translation ... blah blah blah" is not a translation is an adaptation that have been made, it is not a translation, so we say it is anonymous, you can not know their authors and a thousand stories more, would not pay royalties for use other translations like the kjv, and other.

Wonderment

Phizzy

The "competent" scholar is Alan S. Duthie*.

(*Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Ghana; MA in Greek and Hebrew from the University of St. Andrews; a Ph.D in linguistics from the University of Manchester; and a BD from the University of London)

Dr. Duthie hinted one does not need to know the background of the translators to judge the final product. " <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } -- If we know who the translators or the publishers of a particular Bible translation are, does it help us to decide whether that translation is good or bad? There is no substitute for examining the characteristics of each translation itself." (Bold and italic letters his)

Interestingly, Dr. Duthie mentions a few Bible translations done by translators with little formal training in biblical languages. Here, he does not mention the NWT at all. Surprisingly, considering that out of all bible translators known for having little formal training or none, the NW translators are most prominent, but Duthie seems not to make that the breaking issue. Why should we?

Even if we accept Ray Franz's known statement of the NWT anonymity and competence of the NWT Committee, or lack of, no ones knows for certain whether the Committee consulted other language experts in the process or not, since the project was done away from public view. All intent to focus and expose the identity of the NWT seems to be motivated more by personal bias than by any reasonable outcome of work produced by anonymous translators.

Citing a Baptist cult-expert Walter Martin as solid authority for the rejection of the NWT is somewhat like quoting the Catholic Pope as final authority when judging a Mormon doctrine or product. I don't understand Martin's manifested arrogance toward the NWT product, considering his Ph.D accomplisment has been brought into question before.

46

The New World Translation is not a translation,

by Jaime l de Aragon in

the new world translation is not a translation, is mere adaptation, to avoid paying royalties to biblical issues as, king james and other.

beware the glare of lights.

the translation they call "new world translation ... blah blah blah" is not a translation is an adaptation that have been made, it is not a translation, so we say it is anonymous, you can not know their authors and a thousand stories more, would not pay royalties for use other translations like the kjv, and other.

Wonderment

What is this nonsense that the NWT is not a translation? Please!!!

One definition of "translation" is defined as "a rendering from one language into another; also: the product of such a rendering." (Merriam-Webster) And another: "the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language. 2. a version of such a rendering: a new translation." (dictionary.reference.com, bold letters theirs)

A competent scholar has this to say about the subject of translation: "...quite a few skills seem to be needed [in the process of translating]. He (or she) needs to have competence in expressing meaning in the destination language, commonly called Target, or Receptor, language...He needs to be competent also in the Source Language (s) (SL) and cultures. In the case of the Bible, this requires competence in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. He should have specialist knowledge of the content of the documents being translated being translated."

Does this scholar believe the NWT translators met these requirements? Apparently so, for he goes on to recommend a few Bible translations, one of which is the NWT. (How to Choose your Bible Wisely, p. 27, 225)

36

Jason BeDuhn regarding Revelation 7 and the Great Crowd

by Sauerkraut in

a while ago i sent an e-mail to jason beduhn, that the society is quite fond of.

they like to quote him in publications.

so when i started researching the great crowd and the accuracy of the earthly hope doctrine i thought i might write him and ask him what the exact meaning of "before the throne" (revelation 7:9) and "temple" (7:15) is.

Wonderment

Leolaia said: "That means that the NWT translators did not approach their project without already established interpretive traditions towards various passages in the Bible."

Leo, I agree! ... but how is this any different from the practice of most translators?

The English Standard Version says in its Introduction: "The doctrinal perspective of the ESV Sudy Bible is that of classic evangelical orthodoxy, in the historic stream of the Reformation. [...] The ESV Bible tranlstion work involved more than 100 Bible scholars and advisors....all of whom are committed to historic Christian orthodoxy. [...] And so to our triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) ... Soli Deo Gloria!--To God alone be the glory!]"

Now, if you look into their translation, you will see evidence throughout that they kept their intention. Seems to me the ESVBible ‘approached their project with already established interpretive traditions towards various passages in the Bible.’ The same could be said of the NIV project, or any other.

36

Jason BeDuhn regarding Revelation 7 and the Great Crowd

by Sauerkraut in

a while ago i sent an e-mail to jason beduhn, that the society is quite fond of.

they like to quote him in publications.

so when i started researching the great crowd and the accuracy of the earthly hope doctrine i thought i might write him and ask him what the exact meaning of "before the throne" (revelation 7:9) and "temple" (7:15) is.

Wonderment

Thanks 4 sharing the letter with us!

Although BeDuhn have said many good things about the NWT, he has, at times, stated his objections to the NWT. In fact, when Dr. BeDun sent a letter praising the virtues fo the NWT and the KIT, he also mentioned some specific NWT renderings that could be improved. When the Society quoted BeDuhn, they skipped those unfavorable comments, but BeDuhn holds no grudge, and even mentioned that it is standard practice when quoting to cite the positive things said about a product, while skipping any mentioned negative statements. It appears that BeDuhn is kind and level-headed.

Christ Alone provided a link of scholars being misquoted by the WTS. Although some of the counter arguments provided by the website are true and informative, and should not be ignored, I find that it is lacking in subjectiveness, and does not always provide a true picture of the whole matter. Caution, then, is advised anyone longing to find a balanced view of critical issues in a tendentious site, just as we should do when judging WTS' beliefs. Thanks Christ Alone for the link! I agree the WTS does not always cite authorities truthfully.

23

Where has the the society changed the bible to reflect their teachings?

by loosie in

i am having a discussion with a jw who has contacted me on facebook.

we are discussing the changed the wt society made to hte bible.

in short he says he has a hebrew friend and that friend says the nwt is correct and no changes have been made.

Wonderment

sd-7 said: "No possible basis in the Greek text can be found for changing the word "And" to the word "Yes". The change clearly reflects their need to give a position to the anointed that doesn't exist at least in the context of these verses.

I learned that from a website myself, was surprised when I verified it and checked the Greek text. Subtle changes like that really get overlooked, but after seeing that one, I stopped using the New World Translation and realized it just can't be trusted."

I suggest you look up the Greek word kai in an exhaustive concordance such as NIV, RSV, or NASB and see how these versions render the conjunction kai. You may be surprised how freely the NIV renders kai.

Yes, The NIV may not render kai as the NWT does at Rev 20:4,5, but you may have to stop using the NIV and a host of other versions if you go by any-one instance of mis-translation. All translations fail the Greek text in one place or another, thus, basing our translation choices by one instance of mis-translation can cost you dearly.

May I suggest caution when using other websites to determine your final Bible translation decisions?

23

Where has the the society changed the bible to reflect their teachings?

by loosie in

i am having a discussion with a jw who has contacted me on facebook.

we are discussing the changed the wt society made to hte bible.

in short he says he has a hebrew friend and that friend says the nwt is correct and no changes have been made.

Wonderment

Christ Alone said: "Here is a REAL Greek scholar [Dana Mantey] that talks about the New World Translation:"

This REAL Greek scholar has his own religious agenda to defend...in his case, a Baptist one with their own twisted fundamentalist views. I have seen his writings and WT criticisms, and own his Greek Grammar.

His Grammar is excellent, but his theological argumentations can easily be proven wrong by even other scholars of Evangelical persuasion. Thus, I can recommend his Grammar without hesitation, but not his anti-cult diatribes.

I have also seen the other video clip with the scholar and the one questioning him. Again, there are so many points the scholar skips in his argumentation against the NWT. It's what they don't tell you, or don't want you to know.

A common attack as seen in the video clip against the John 1:1 rendering (a god) is at least partially faulty, because they make assertions that are only valid within the strict Evangelical belief. To prove the NWT wrong at John 1:1, they often claim that the NWT is inconsistent with the way the Committee handles the indefinite article in translation. The problem is that the argument put forward is one the WTS have never claimed. They often quote Robert Countess for support for this NWT error. What they don't tell you is that Countess' argument is flawed. Even Robert Bowman Jr., a known WT critic, admits Countess exposition of the NWT NT is not fully accurate. Another clue of their intentions can be seen when they totally omit the fact that other scholars often side with the NWT renderings. They make it sound like only unlearned lunatics will come up with readings such as those found in the NWT. Not so.

A case in point, which happens to be discussed in this thread as well: It has to do with the way Bible translators deal with the Greek term proskyneo commonly translated "worship." No one will argue that the Greek word can, and should be translated as "worship." But if anyone claims that translating it as "render obeisance" or "doing "homage" in some contexts is wrong, then, that writer is not being totally honest. At most, you could say that the NWT is biased by choosing to render proskyneo differently when the reference is to Christ. Even so, that statement is subject to question, since someone could argue that Christ himself stated: "the Father is greater than I." Hence, proskyneo rendered to Christ could be understood as some Greek dictionaries define it, similarly as it appears in the NWT.

Another point missed by NWT critics is that the English word worship had a broader meaning in the days of KJV translators than it does today. Thus, the understanding of worship in the early days of English translations may have been closer to the meaning as defined in biblical reference works, rather than the common limited meaning attributed to the Greek term by mainstream churches.

3

Any one have the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures Vol?

by jimsmypoint in

i need the hebrew scriptures series, the new world translation of the christian greek scriptures, also the compilation of the 6 volumes of the original nwt.

the links atlantis posted seems not working now, anyone still have these ?

thanks a lot.

Wonderment

jimsmypoint:

Could you be more specific as to what you are looking for in the original volumes? Perhaps you can get more feedback if you say a bit more.

37

Looking for a new Bible translastion to read

by eyesropen323 in

what would everyone recomend as far as what bible translation to read instead of the jw new world translation?.

Wonderment

Ding: "NIV (New International Version) and NASB (New American Standard Bible) are both good."

Both "Evangelical."

Ding, I point that out, not as a contradiction, but as an observation. The NIV, in my opinion, is a high quality translation work. It achieves what few translators have accomplished, namely, to communicate the originals writings from another era and culture, in a meaningful way to modern readers. And the NIV Study Bible is one of the best anywhere.

37

Looking for a new Bible translastion to read

by eyesropen323 in

what would everyone recomend as far as what bible translation to read instead of the jw new world translation?.

Wonderment

Correction for above post, second paragraph:

Many Bible readers approach Bible purchases with the notion of finding those that agree with their theology.Those with a Catholic tendency, will purchase Catholic versions, while those "Evangelically" inclined, will likely end up with mainly Protestant versions, and so on.

37

Looking for a new Bible translastion to read

by eyesropen323 in

what would everyone recomend as far as what bible translation to read instead of the jw new world translation?.

Wonderment

It all depends on what you are looking for. Looking for a Bible translation to replace the NWT is not necessarily the best approach. The best thinking approach would be of one adding to your knowledge by obtaining additional versions.

Many Bible readers approach Bible purchases with the notion of finding those tThose "Evangelical" inclined, will likely end up with mainly Protestant versions, and so on. The problem with that approach is that the person will be blocking or restricting himself/herself from possible new provoking religious insights from various other sources.

Thus, I recommend to get Bible translations representing various religious persuasions... some Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and yes, the JWs Bible (NWT) kept for study and research purposes. Doing so allows one to keep the mind more open to other views, letting each argument stand on its own, and hence, reducing personal bias as we gain Bible knowledge.