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

Juan Miguel:

You are so right that if a Catholic or Protestant render a controversial scripture (of potential trinitarian interpretation) such as John 8:58 or Jn 1:1 as the JWs do, it does not mean they stopped being Trinitarians. I could not agree more with u on that point. I may have perhaps expressed it wrong in the 1st place. Yes, if a Catholic or Protestant render Jn 1:1 "divine" it does not mean he believes that JWs are right and that they no longer believe in the trinity. The same if they render as Jn 8:58 as I have been, or I was.

What I was trying to get across is that some here in this forum and elsewhere, strongly believe that the NWT is corrupt because they differ from the popularly accepted versions. My point is that there are Catholic and Protestants who, though trinitarians, understand the technical grammatical issues as JWs do, and render it likewise, and hardly no one accuses them of corruption as they do with NWT. And some of these Catholics and Protestants go into lenghty explanations that go against the popular grain, and many folks either don't know about it, or else accept it as "good" and "impartial," but turn around and hastily try to demonize the NWT.

I believe in fairness and balance. I don't think any one religious group has absolute truth, no matter their lofty claims. I believe only that Christ is the way to God and the truth. To the degree that any religious group adhere to Scripture, they will correspondingly reflect divine truth. I see some here, ex-JWs converting overnight into a Catholic or Protestant religion, as if they suddenly saw the light, and everything in their rediscovered world is truth and the WT Society can only represent corruption. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, different religious views CAN be considered as potentially rightful exegesis. I am convinced that 100% of what the WT Society teach is not heresy, just as I feel that Catholic and Protestants or Jewish are NOT 100% right. It is so easy to get caught up in the belief that truth can be franchised.

My main objection to the WT Society's teaching, has do to with their broad effort to manipulate members into their mold... have them serve WT interests slavishly and support their humongous infrastructure. Their cunning manipulation in their shunning practice, their deceit in dragging a virtually "house-to-house" preaching mode with every member is ugly. And Mt 24:45 is the most abused scripture in their arsenal. Of course, many of their doctrines need to be revisited, and changed.

still thinking: I like your attitude. Keep using the versions u already have. Some of my favorites besides the ones u have are: Young's Literal Translation, Jerusalem Bible, Douay, The Message, Schonfield, Today's English Version, NIV, Phillips, The Bible in Living English, American Standard Version, Kingdom Interlinear, Paul R. McReynolds Interlinear, Rotherham, The Living Translation, Kenneth Wuest, The Bible in Basic English and Concordant Greek text. There are many others I could recommend as well.

Just remember, none are perfect. All reflect their personal religious views. And all of them are right and wrong in some places. But comparing bible versions is one of the best things a bible student can do to enrich their spiritual lives.

Blessings!

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

TTSWYF,

Even if Jews understood Jesus was claiming divinity at Jn 8:58, it does not mean they were right for doing so. At Jn 5:18, Jesus was misunderstood by Jews as well, claiming that he was breaking the Sabbath and that by calling God his own Father, was making himself equal to God. Now, the question is, Was Jesus actually breaking the Sabbath? I don't think so? Do you?

Notice, the other accusation Jews brought up: By calling God his own Father, they concluded Jesus was making himself equal to God. Was he? He defended himself not by saying, "You are right, I broke the Sabbath, and I am making myself equal to God." No! Jesus instead tells them that "The Son is not able to do anything of himself...that all may honour the Son according as they honour the Father; he who is not honouring the Son, doth not honour the Father who sent him." (5:19,23, Young'sLT) Verse 30 says that: "I am not able of myseff to do anything...because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me." Later in the chapter, Jesus told them that they were not seeking the glory of the only God (or, God alone) as he himself was doing. (44) Also, they had not heard his voice, or seen his figure or appearance. (V. 37) So, it seems Jesus was not confirming their erroneous take of him, rather, he corrected them by saying in so many words that he was different than the Father, and logically, that he was not making himself equal to God. What is your take?

At John ch. 10:30 onward, Jews again misunderstood Jesus' statement that 'he and the Father were one thing." Then, they wanted to stone him for blasphemy, because he was making himself "god" (or, a God, without the definite article in Greek). Were Jews correct in interpreting Jesus statements that he was claiming full divinity or equality with God? No! He defended himself by saying 'that if men of old were called gods, and the Word of God came against them,' why would they want to stone him when he was just claimingto be NOT God, but God's Son? (Jn 10:33-36)

At Jn 8:58, many trinitarians do not see Jesus claiming divinity. Many do, but not all. Actually, some trinitarians argue that those who believe Jesus was claiming divinity by using ego eimi are wrong. Here is a sample:

Seventh Day Adventist (Trinitarian): "I existed before Abraham was even born" (The Clear Word)

Evangelical Protestant: "I was alive before Abraham was born" (The NT in Plain English)

Catholic: "Before Abraham existed, I was existing" (Sao Paulo, Catholic Center)

Evangelical Protestant: "Before Abraham was born, I have been" (NASB, 1971, Alternate reading)

Jehovah Witness: "I came into being before Abraham" (21st Century NT)

Evangelical Protestant: "I have existed before Abraham was born" (Moffatt NT)

Jewish: "I existed before Abraham was born" (H. Schonfield)

Modern Israel: "Before Abraham was, I have been" (N.H. Snaith)

Syriac, 4th or 5th Century: "before Abraham was, I have been" (Agnes Smith)

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

Terry:

I agree with u that The Message and Young's Literal Translation are worth obtaining. I use them both quite a bit. I like them both, thought they are apart in objectives. I can't say how much I appreciate these bibles. They are both a breath of fresh air. I recommend them as well to all participants in this forum. Robert Young was a master of semitic languages. Some say he was fluent in 19 languages. If true, he was more than an ordinary scholar.

I am of the opinion though, that the NWT is not as bad as it is portrayed here. It shows a lot of depth in the Hebrew and Greek dpt. I know most here disagree with me. But I really enjoy the NWT as I enjoy Young's, The Message, the NIV or some other version.

I tend to recommend a variety of bible versions from different religious persuasion, instead of sticking with one translation angle, like JWs, and evangelicals tend to do. I recommend a variety of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and of course, don't throw your NWT away. It is good to have balance, and consider different angles of interpretation.

Cheers!

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 said:

ego eimi -means 'I am', it does not mean 'I have been' There is no other place that the WTS translated ego eimi to mean I have been except John 8 ;58. Anyone who disagrees is not informed and is continuing a lie....there's no such thing as lying for the truth. It is a contridiction.

Ego eimi means basically "I am." There is no denying that. But no one can deny as well that in certain contexts it can be rendered with an English perfect indicative, or even a simple past form, I was.

Grammarians Dana & Mantey explain: "Sometimes the progressive present is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present...This use is generally associated with an adverb of time, and may best be rendered by the English perfect...Ye have been with me from the beginning. Jn. 15:27." ( A Manual Grammar of the NT, page 183)

One more example from John 14:9, where Jesus says to Philip: "So much time with you I am (Greek, eimi) and not you have known me, Philip?" Now, how would you translate that into modern idiomatic English? Give it a try, and then check with other bible versions.

NWT rendering of Jn 14:9: "Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me?"

I will show u another example taken from the Septuagint (LXX): Ge. 31:48 where Jacob says to Laban, in Greek, "These mine twenty years I am (ego eimi) in the house of yours." (Or, "These twenty years of mine I am in your residence.") Go over it and see if u can come up with your own translation in modern English that makes sense.

"I have been in thy family these twenty years" (LXX, Charles Thomson)

"These twenty years of mine I was in your household" (A New Translation of the Septuagint)

"These twenty years have I been in thy house" (LXX, Sir Lancelot Brenton)

And Mathew 26:26 reads literally: "This is the body of me." However, lexicons allowthat estin can also be rendered, "means" or "represents" in certain contexts.

NWT: "This means my body"

Mace: "this represents my body"

An Understandable Version: "this is [i.e. represents] my [physical] body" (Brackets his)

New Simplified Bible: "this (represents) (means) (exemplifies) my body." (Parenthesis his)

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

Thanks Juan Miguel for your kind comments. Thanks everyone else for theirs too, including TTSWYF. It is good to see how people view things, and give us a chance to learn from others.

This thread about the NWT translation work being done in the shadows is probably due to a couple of reasons. Though it is evident that at least one, perhaps two members of the NWT Committee had enough knowledge to tackle translation work (perhaps Franz and Gangas), none of those alleged members had a Master's, much less a Doctorate degree. Yes, it would be embarrassing to publicly acknowledge they had no college credentials. I have no doubt that F. Franz was capable as he said, of 'applying himself furiously to the task of having a command in Greek.' There are far too many witnesses confirming that he was good with languages. I myself heard him speak in three languages, two of which I could follow along with his speech. The second language being Spanish, and he definitely had command of that one. Yet, he was self-taught on that one. If he mastered the Spanish and Portuguese the way he did on his own, no doubt he excelled on his 'applying himself furiously to have a command in Greek.' I heard him personally twice speak in a few languages, without reading a manuscript, and citing more than a full chapter verse by verse in those foreign languages.

Raymond Franz also later admitted that Fred Franz was "unusually disciplined" in the study of bible languages. Whether it was all Fred Franz's language command, or if he benefited from Gangas being a native Greek speaker, we will not know. Before someone snaps back telling me that Gangas knew modern Greek... yes, it was, however, it would not be insurmountable for Gangas to apply himself in Koiné Greek as a contributor. He worked as a translator in Bethel as a translator of English to Greek, Greek to English, and he also served as a Spanish translator when necessary. Gangas was no dummy. Different sources confirm that it is far easier for a native modern Greek speaker to pick up whatever differences there are with Koine, than it would be for a non-Greek speaker to learn koine. Gangas spoke Greek, something other Greek scholars cannot do. Whatever the explanation, the fact is someone in Bethel had a command of Greek good enough to get Andover Newton Quarterly to admit the NWT exhibited "unusual competence in Greek." Another interesting tidbit is, that some tried to make E.G. Goodspeed. a highly respected Greek scholar from Chicago Univ. condemn the NWT, and all they could get from him was a criticism of some Hebrew renderings. On the Greek he held fast to what he had stated in a letter to the WT, i.e. 'that the NWT displayed depth of knowledge... sound serious learning of which he could testify,' and that he was pleased with the NWT NT.

Also, it should be stated, that the WT started anonymity way before the 1940's, which was when (specif. 1942) when they made it sort of a general rule not to publish the names of the authors of their publications. That is at least 8 years before the NWT was published. Furthermore, scores of bible versions throughout bible history have published many editions anonymously. The 20th Century NT being one of them.

Someone here asked whether the Jews' reaction to Jesus saying "ego eimi" (Jn 8:58) was proof enough that he must have been claiming divinity. The Jerusalem Bible says that Jesus was claiming "a divine mode of existence," (Spanish Jerusalem Bible footnote) which would indicate that Jesus was not claiming divine equality with God by saying ego eimi. The English JB has a footnote which says: "The claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v.58) is, for the Jews, blasphemy, for which the penalty is stoning. Lv 24:16." So it seems these scholars understand Jesus claiming "a divine mode of existence," but stopping short of identifying himself as the "I am" of Ex 3:14, where translators erroneously go by the reading of the LXX rather than the Hebrew, for theological reasons.

Grammarian Kenneth L. Mckay tells us that "the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction." (Expository Times 107 p. 302)

And let us not forget John 10:33-36, where Jews wanted to stone Jesus for just claiming to be, not that he was the God (no Greek article), but God' Son. Hence, Daniel Mace New Testament and James L. Tomanek NT render 10:33 as "a God."

Jesus finished his argument by saying that he was only claiming to be God's Son. (10:36) In harmony with Jesus' own claim, it is more reasonable to take ego eimi, not as a claim of full divinity with God, but as stating: "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born," (Grammarian K. McKay's translation) or, "I was alive before Abraham was born!" Simple English Bible.

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

Juan Miguel said:

Making up terms like "anti-JW"ism and ranting about anything else doesn't change the fact that the New World Translation isn't even a bit as good as the worst of Christendom's Bible translations (like Catholicism is supposed to be), nor the fact that the "god" of the Watchtower does his translating in the shadows.

The thought that "the NWT is not even a bit as good as the worst of Christendom's Bible translations" seems to be a common feeling in this site.

I disagree! The NWT has faults just as every other version out there. U may choose to ignore those faults, but they are there. What's more, many of the English versions are a "rehash" of previous versions following the line of KJV who copied William Tyndale for the most part. Now, there are fresh translations done from the original, such as NIV, NWT and Byington's. There are others, but they constitute a minority. The new English Standard Version is a rehash of previous versions. So when we have a chance to get a "fresh" translation, we should be grateful, not condemning. Yes, the NWT shows its theological colors. So does every other translation out there.

I agree with scholar Jason BeDuhn when he says that 'the NWT is in some ways better than the standard translations.' I do question the motives of detractors when they show hatred for a particular version. To be fair, we would also have to indicate other version's faults, or at least acknoledge them. What most people seem to be doing here is, they carry the WT hatred (Remember that I am a WT victim too) and spread it all over the NWT without justification. Another thing that is being carried out by some here in this forum, is that they are placing far too much weight on what some reputable scholars say of the NWT. Those are just "opinions." A Master or PhD does not prove they have the right exegesis. What Colwell said in the past, is his opinion. What Walter Martin, or J. Mantey said in their condemnation of the NWT only proves they are evangelically defensive. Other (trinitarian at that) (scholars have pointed out their linguistic technical errors on those scriptures where theology is involved. Let's be careful!

I wonder how many of the NWT detractors have done what Rolf Furuli from Oslo Univ. has done. That is, he took the NWT verse by verse and compared it with the Hebrew text, and he walked away with a good impression. Furuli is a JW, and a scholar. Others, not JWs, such as BeDuhn and F.F. Bruce, Metzger, Goodspeed they criticized certain elements of the NWT, but admitted being impressed with their scholarship. If a scholar writes that the NWT NT displays "an unusual competence in the Greek" (Andover Newton Quarterly), why not try at least, to see the good in the translation's effort? Why see the NIV as a good effort, but see the NWT as a perversion, when both teams reflect their own understanding of Scripture?

The truth is that the NWT is not as "holy" as some JWs would have u believe, at the same time the NWT is not nearly as bad as portrayed here. It is easy to get caught up in religious bias. We are all guilty of that to some extent, including myself. Thus, this advice is sound: 'But examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good.' (The NASB) Hey, did u notice that this rendering sounds "wooden," just as the NWT does in some places?

Blessings!

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:

There u go again with your wishful thinking that 99% is against "a god" rendering. It is not true. About 1 in 5 or 6 scholars explain John 1:1 in a way that u would not like. Even when they render it "God" they often explain there is a difference. Take the Net Bible for instance. Wallace, a main contributor of it, would translate it "God," because he is a Pentecostal trinitarian. However, he emphasizes the QUALITATIVE nature of the Word instead of making a case of identification as u are doing. In other words, though he prefers "God" as a rendering (as a trinitarian), he explains it should not be understood the way many folks (you ?) understand it. Robert Young translated it "God," but in his commentary he explains that the literal reading is "more lit. and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word." A Greek Grammar popular with universities all over says on Jn 1:1: "In such a construction, the subject and the predicate are not equivalent." (James Allen Hewett) Thus, it is wrong to insist that God and Christ are equivalent. So brother, check your facts carefully before committing yourself. It could be that u are running about looking for support from staunch trinitarians, instead of from more-open minded, more flexible trinitarians.

Two well known Catholic bible translators in Spain translate it "God," nevertheless, they explain in their commentary that "a God" is allowed and perhaps the preferred literal rendering. And so on... reads those links fully, since u are far from getting it. (New Spanish Bible)

As u are citing Rowley, it should be said that he said those words withing the context of fluid translations. In other words, most literal translations would not measure up either. Have u ever used NT versions such as the one by Kenneth Wuest? If u think that Rowley is right about wooden translations such as NWT, check that one out. Of course, Wuest is a trinitarian, so he might be "safe from your criticism."

Yes, ego eimi means basically "I am." But anyone who insists that it cannot be rendered in certain instances, such as the one in Jn 8:58 where an idiom is used with an adverb of time in the clause, indicating a rendering where the English perfect indicative is not only an acceptable rendering, but a more correct translation considering the idiom used. Check the Greek text and what grammarians explain before making claims that can make u look uninformed. Scholars are human and err. A case in point is that the great William Barclay condemned the WT claiming at one time that "a god" rendering is impossible as a Greek translation. Well, Barclay had to take his comment back when other scholars proved him wrong. He later admitted that "grammatically it is possible."

Oh, yes, since u seem to revere Mantey, let me say that what I wrote above is what Mantey explained in his grammar, with the exception he did not mention Jn 8:58 especifically, but similar scriptures with same construction. Again, it is in one of those links. By the way, I got the Grammar in my shelf. I have looked it up personally. Mantey was a Baptist, so he did not want to include Jn 8:58 with the group. By the way, Mantey was in awe of Charles B. Williams as a Greek scholar, his former Greek teacher. How do u think Williams translated Jn 8:58? Hint: He did not translated it as "I am." I will let u find that one out by yourself, because I get the feeling u would rather hear it from them.

By the way, why do u "hate" the NWT? We all can try to be a bit more impartial and see the good anywhere it happens.

My children are JWs, and I have suffered shunning not only from them, but from a legion of former "friends." My married daughter has never invited me to her house, which I have never seen. That is more than 9 years. It hurts! However, I can look beyond the anger that I sometimes feel toward the WT, and see the good side of it. And I enjoy using the NWT with my other bible versions. Chill out!

Blessings brother!

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

TTSWYF, I have not only checked that link, but I have most of those books on my shelf. Most of your argumentation is flawed. The NWT was prepared for JWs, not for Christendom. It is reasonable then, that Christendom will use their own versions with the college credentials they so desperately demand. You are also downplaying Scribd. Scribd is used by all sorts of people, scholars and companies. Even books are distributed through it. It is sad that u judge the quality of a writing by the univ. credentials. Other people without a Masters or PhD may, and DO have brilliant ideas. Don't believe me? If u would have read one of those links I provided u, the one about if the NW translators know any greek?.. you would have seen a list of some prominent people with little or no formal training outdoing the formally trained individuals. So, to reject an article, because u don't see high credentials splattered all over the place is an argument of special pleading. After all, how many worldly educational degrees did Jesus' disciples have to engage in bible authorship?

It is not true that ALL trinitarian scholars translate Jn 1:1, "the Word was God." And it is not true either that most non-trinitarians would render it "a god," or "divine." Sorry, but u are misinformed. I cited Mantey because u did used his name as an authority at least twice, and I just pointed out that Mantey himself contradicted himself many times, theologically speaking, and other scholars have pointed out his flawed theological statements. But apparently u have no knowledge of these. His Grammar is good though. It is a model of succinctness with good coverage on many grammar issues.

On the NWT, I disagree that it is a poor translation. Yes, it is wooden, and biased. But so are many of Christendom's versions. Anyone who grabs the Hebrew or Greek text line by line and compares it to their translated versions, can see it all over the place, just as u can with the NWT. They are all biased to some point. But both translations as sources do a respectable job at it. And I appreciate their honest efforts. One example of bias of mainstream versions is seen when they drop the use of the divine name for petty reasons. Just as it is objectionable to add the divine name in the NT when it does not appear in the text as we have it, it is no less offensive to remove it from the bible. In fact, I would say it is even worse. All those credentials on the jacket of their versions don't help the cause. I agree with the NWT here, and with bible translators JB, Byington, that it is important to convey the original divine name into a modern version. It appears most versions refrain from using the divine name in the OT because they want no one to connect them with the "hated" JWs. And it also makes it easier to have Jesus appear as the Supreme God. It is a scheme. So, if u believe in the Trinity, u will agree with them and defend their cause. I don't.

Juan Miguel: ¡Te expresas muy bien! I understand your presentation of the Trinity makes it clear that many distort their views. It is also true, that many distort JWs publications on the subject. The problem with the common trinitarian argument that God is only one God, but three persons in one, is that I can't find that statement anywhere in the bible. It is more akin with middle eastern philosophies than it is with Scripture. "Insinuations" that the Trinity is truth is not enough for me to accept it. At one time I was a JW, I haven't gone back in nearly 20 years. I have moved away, and I see many of their errors, but it seems to me that their stand that Christ is subordinate, and never the equal of Jehovah is more scriptural, than Christendom's stand.The trinity seems more as heresy, than scriptural.

Thus, the NWT will always be criticized, because the Trinity teaching is at the core of this denunciation. Those who appeal to "credentials" as evidence that is not apt for the masses, are making theirs a case of special pleading.

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 no connection whatsoever with Curtains.

If you would have throroughly read those links I suggested, you would not have made some of those comments. For instance, Wallace, Dixon and Harner are well known grammarians. BeDuhn is a respectable scholar as well.

Citing Mantey's threats to the WTS means so little. It means he (and only he, because Dana did not complained publicly) was not in agreement with the way the WT quoted them. It does not mean the WT was wrong with the quote. That is in itself arguable. Mantey was a highly emotional Baptist scholar, who not only hated the WT, as some do in this site, but was clearly wrong in so many of his statements. I like his Grammar very much, but when theology got in his way, he easily became fired up. If u want to find out about some of his errors read those links. His argument that 99% of scholars disagree with the WT is wrong. If u look up those links and refer to the one on John 1:1, you will see that there are plenty of scholars disagreeing with Mantey. And that list of Jn 1:1, although quite extensive does not report ALL scholars with a similar view. I venture to say that about 1 in 5 scholars veer away from the traditional reading. Of course, I may be off, but definitely is not even close to 1%. That 1% is a hoax in itself. And it seems u fell for it.

Colwell is another scholar cited frequently in support of the deity of Christ. However, other scholars have reviewed his work and concluded he is wrong in many places. Wallace, a Pentecostal grammarian, and trinitarian at that, takes Colwell to task, as has done others.

And coming back to the 99% argument, that is a very dangerous premise. Throughout history, many a times the majority had views, which time proved a minority was right. The earth being flat was one of them. If u lived 600 years ago, and someone came up to u and told u he believed the earth was round, would u have told him?: "Take a hike, 'cause 99% of people can't be wrong."

Similarly, 400 years ago, many scholars were sure that in some way their religious view was the correct one. A few hundred years later, we find out some of those scholars were wrong with some of their views. Understand this: The majority view is not always right.

When Jesus walked upon earth, was the majority religious view the correct one, or was it the "unlearned" minority that stuck with Jesus? In fact, the bible says that "the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one." And that Satan is the "ruler of this world."

So be careful when attempting this 99% right argument. Mantey was surely wrong with it. U don´t have to be a victim of his hatred.

As to the WT being wrong in so many things, I have no doubt. But I believe in fairness, and try to analyze sources of information from different angles. I am convinced that EVERYTHING the WT teaches is not necessarily wrong. I believe religious people interpret the bible right and wrong at different places at different times. Many a times, when people condemn the WT, I conclude: Not so quick. They may be right on this one. The NWT is branded as a piece of junk by some ex-JWs. I know better. I have examined the NWT in so many places against the Hebrew and Greek text, and I find, someone in the WT had sufficient knowledge to tackle bible translation. It does not matter much to me if 99% condemn it, I found out by myself that that is not true. I don't like WT politics and their self-interest moves to control and dictate as they please any more than u do. But to conclude they can't be right in some things, it would be a mistake. I still listen to what they have to say. And most definitely, I listen to the Baptist, Catholic, and the Jew. I don't place all my faith in one worldly basket. Only Jesus is the way to God. (Not Mantey, or Colwell, or Metzger, etc)

The religious folks in general are right and wrong in some things. Humility helps us to listen to all sides and consider all angles. I admire many scholarly works, but I see them as limited helpful bible guides, not the final word. What today a scholar may consider truth, in 50 years from now, it may look only as a flawed argument.

Some of the much publicized arguments against the NWT have been addressed by other scholars with a different angle. Surely some in the audience know what I am talking about. People may have their favorite argumentation for a given passage, but common sense and context will finally dictate the correct rendering.

In Jn 1:1, it literally says that 'the Word was with the God, and god was the Word.' So, if the Word was with God, he could not be that same entity. Verse 2 tells us that 'this one was in the beginning with God.' There is a difference then, between the Word and God. Verse 14 says that 'the Word became flesh.' Not God, but the Word. Verse 18 says that 'no one has seen God at any time, but the only-born God has explained the Father.' Thus, if no one has seen God at any time, and some of mankind has seen Christ, then logically, Christ is not the God, but someone like God, a god himself, or divine being. Trinitarians will dislike this view, to put it mildly, but the important thing is: Was Christ ever uncomfortable by saying he was just "Son of God"? Was he ever uncomfortable saying: the Father is greater than I am? Did Christ feel regret when he said that his Father was his God and everyone else´s too? (Jn 20:17)

Did Jesus have a problem saying that 'his Father was the only true God'? No, so why shoud we then? Why should we insist on making Christ the equal to God in every way, when Christ himself did not have a problem of admitting that he was subject to his God. After Christ went to heaven, he still was subject to God, and even had to receive a "revelation" from God. (Rev 1:1) Almighty and all-knowing God NEVER has to receive a "revelation" from God. God needs no intermediaries. But Christ can be a Mediator. God NEVER needs to be a mediator. God is supreme, and Christ told us he owes his existence to God. (Jn 6:57)

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