Londo111 said:
"Matthew 5:3 is still horribly translated."
Would you care to explain to us how this text ‘is horribly translated’? We need a better explanation...
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
35
The new translation of John 17:3 seems like a major shift.
by paul from cleveland inup until now, everlasting life was dependent on "taking in knowledge".
it was a perfect fit for a publishing house to interpret that scripture that way.
if we didn't keep up with the endless stream of publications from the watchtower our salvation would be in jeopardy.
-
-
-
32
List down all the changes in the new NWT Bible vs the old NWT that has signifance to the JW beliefs
by UBM101 ini hope this thread can be a compilation of all the changes made.
it could serves as a good reference for those who want to help the loved ones to wake up.
please list down here all your findings if you don't mind.
-
-
Wonderment
Saved_JW said (Underline added):
"The issue of being Anointed
RNWT / Psalms 23
5 You prepare a table for me before my enemies. You refresh my head with oil; My cup is well-filled.
NWT [1984] Psalms 23
You arrange before me a table in front of those showing hostility to me. With oil you have greased my head; My cup is well filled.
This seems to be an obvious recognition of the terrible translation in the 1984 edition in its use of the word "Greased". This was an obvious attempt to remove the fact that David was an ANOINTED one of Jehovah. Yet another example of the Watchtower to translate the bible according to thier presupposed doctrinal assertions. They simply cannot admit that Old Testament individuals were annointed so they alltogether obfuscate the fact that to have our head "greased" or "refreshed" is to be a symbol of anointing. Here is the ESV Translation [which is a literal translation of the bible]
Psalms 23 ESV
5 You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows."Another opinion from a scholar:
The NET Bible: “The verb [ dashan ] is often translated ‘anoint,’ but this is misleading, for it might suggest a symbolic act of initiation into royal status.”
-
32
List down all the changes in the new NWT Bible vs the old NWT that has signifance to the JW beliefs
by UBM101 ini hope this thread can be a compilation of all the changes made.
it could serves as a good reference for those who want to help the loved ones to wake up.
please list down here all your findings if you don't mind.
-
-
Wonderment
Are you not asking too much? There are far too many.
I have already found dozens of changes in just a few minutes.
Here is one:
Malachi 2:16, (Old Version):
"For he has hated a divorcing, Jehovah the God of Israel has said..."
(New Version) "For I hate divorce,” says Jehovah the God of Israel..."
The first words changed from third person to first person.
They have done away with the Hebrew perfect, and the Piel infinitive construct. Now they render similarly to other Bible versions.
Conclusion: The reader loses big time on the Hebrew, but gains readability. Which is better or worse?
-
79
So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be?
by sir82 ina normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
-
-
Wonderment
smiddy,
Who said tha ONLY GB members can work on translation work? Most likely, for this type of publication the GB will reach out to others for help. People are mistaken if they feel that only GB members can do it. It is very likely, they won't.
Why would they hold back from using individuals from Greece or Israel who are knowledgeable with biblical languages as well? After all, the NWT is available in modern Greek, and modern Hebrew (New Testament for now). Who says these people have no interest in studying biblical languages too, or in helping out the NWT Translation Committee if needed? Someone here mentioned once that he had personal knowledge of a JW in Greece who was a translator, and was equally at home with both modern and biblical Greek, and in fact had assisted Bible translation work for decades.
Many comments made here that the NWT Committe can't read Hebrew or Greek is mostly bias against the WT Society. There is no proof the Society can't come up with someone who can read Greek. By the way, George Gangas was Greek, spoke fluent Greek, and learned Spanish after he learned English in his twenties. Can someone tell me how Gangas could not learn to read biblical Greek (being Greek himself), but yet was able to learn Spanish fluently as a third language? Oh, please!
-
79
So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be?
by sir82 ina normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
-
-
Wonderment
Jemba:
For the same reason that most Bibles are updated... Language changes, new discoveries, new scholarly works available (like more recent Hebrew-Greek Texts), plus the fact, that humans involved in the translation process learn new things as time goes by, and feel the need to share those with others. Who stays still? If we stay still, we die.
Besides, who wants to keep using the Vulgate, Tyndale's, the King James' Version, Moffatts translation or some other every day, when there are dozens of new versions which are more up to date than those for instance? Not to mention, that everyone working with theirown versions are convinced of the rightness of their biblical interpretation, even if they are "wrong" to others.
-
79
So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be?
by sir82 ina normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
-
-
Wonderment
5go: "From what little I read of the thing it looks like someone put it through a standard grammar check program and replaced older and inconveint words with new ones."
It is not as simple as that. As the NWT expressed it: "There is no benefit in self-deception."
-
79
So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be?
by sir82 ina normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
-
-
Wonderment
Apognophos said: "Just to be clear, I don't really believe that the original Committee was qualified enough to do their own translation (and in any case they used pre-existing scholarly works as a guide)."
How can you be so sure? The only people who seem so sure of what you said are anti-JWs, mainly dubious Evangelicals, per Ray Franz. Even the info Ray Franz provided was not complete, and virtually admitted that Fred was self-taught. He later told many others that his footnote was blown out of proportion, and that he felt that Fred had enough knowledge to make a creditable translation. It is not clear who else worked with Fred. It is a kept secret, just as the practice of what many Corporations are working on next it is not made publicly known.
Contrary to common belief that the NWT Committee had cero knowledge of the original languages, the translation itself testifies that someone did. There are far too many language particulars and difficulties to deal with, and some hard decisions to be made. The NWT made decisions which show someone had sufficient knowledge in those languages. Some scholars have admitted to that. Why not take their word for once instead of just taking specific statements made by ultra-zealous religious opponents only?
Take Judges 14:3, where alledgedly Goodspeed found the NWT grammar "regrettable." The problem was that the NWT Committee was too concerned back then in the 1950's to follow the Hebrew word for word, and aimed to provide the reader with Hebrew flavor. The text will show what Samson said to his father (Samson was interested in a Philistine woman in this case).
1953: NWT Edition: “Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes.”
1984 Edition: "Get just her for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes."
2013 Edition: “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.”
Which one better reflects the Hebrew better? I would say the 1953 & 1984 Editions provided finer Hebrew details left out in the Revision. However, most people would rather read the Revised reading because it is simply more readable. But to provide the earlier reading, some Hebrew knowledge is required to get the pulse of the original statement with its Hebrew idiom and particular emphasis in a couple of places. The Committee obviously tried to convey the Hebrew closely.
If Goodspeed criticized the translation there, it was the English choice for the Hebrew. He was not attacking the lack of Hebrew knowledge of the translators. Actually, Goodspeed praised the NWT Committee for its depth of knowledge. However, as we all know, the original NWT was very un-English...almost like reading Hebrew with English words. The 2013 Edition smoothed out the Hebrew readings quite a bit, a daunting task which does require some knowledge of the originals as well, unless they are willing to make an ass of themselves, which I doubt is the case here.
I
-
32
The NWT is almost readable now (some random thoughts)
by slimboyfat ini guess there will be lots of interesting little changes, but perhaps the most significant change in the new version of the nwt is overall readability.
there were many, many passages of the old nwt that were virtually incomprehensible unless you had read some watchtower commentary explaining what on earth they were trying to say.
take 1 cor 7:36 in the old nwt for example:.
-
-
Wonderment
Slimboyfat:
Thank you for posting this. I usually appreciate your comments.
In regards to the NWT, some on this board seem to get carried away by WT hatred and lose balance. They have difficulty seeing any good from the WT translator's efforts, while at the same time, have a tendency to glorify everyone else's translation work.
I am looking forward to review the version personally. I often find myself agreeing with many of your comments. Thanks again!
-
20
What is with Jeremiah 5:8 in the NWT
by HowTheBibleWasInvented inas already posted im agnostic... but i find the texts of the bible the world's most famous book.. .
check jeremiah 5:8 out in the nwt.
while thismight now be shocking in the judean prophets what is shocking is this is a mojor addtion to the text to make it sound vile.
-
-
Wonderment
The NET Bible has this to say on Jer. 5:8 which says: "They were like well-fed stallions wild with desire, each lusting for his neighbor's wife." (New Simplified Bible)
NET Bible: "The meanings of these two adjectives are uncertain. The translation of the first adjective is based on assuming that the word is a defectively written participle related to the noun “testicle” (a Hiphil participle ??????????? [ma’ashikhim] from a verb related to ??????? [’eshekh, “testicle”]; cf. Lev 21:20 ) and hence “having testicles” (cf. HALOT 1379 s.v. ??????) instead of the Masoretic form ?????????? (mashkim) from a root ?????? (shakhah), which is otherwise unattested in either verbal or nominal forms. The second adjective is best derived from a verb root meaning “to feed” (a Hophal participle ????????? [muzanim, the Kethib] from a root ???? [zun; cf. BDB 266 s.v. ????] for which there is the cognate noun ?????? [mazon; cf. 2 Chr 11:23 ]). This is more likely than the derivation from a root ????? ([yazan]reading ??????????? [mÿyuzzanim], a Pual participle with the Qere) which is otherwise unattested in verbal or nominal forms and whose meaning is dependent only on a supposed Arabic cognate (cf. HALOT 387 s.v. ?????)."
-
28
What other ancient Greek Manuscripts contained the divine name?
by yaddayadda inthe society in appendix 1a of their 'kingdom interlinear translation of the christian greek scriptures' refers to nine other greek manuscripts as containing the divine name, and they quote from jerome as referring to certain 'greek volumes' containing the tetragrammaton.
can anyone shed any light on what these greek manuscripts and volumes are and their dates of writing?
here is what the society says in full: .
-
-
Wonderment
adamah said:
More disturbing is the deliberate mistranslation of words and phrases from the Hebrew Torah which significantly change the meaning of the Biblical accounts, in order to remove certain pesky details, eg their ignoring the Hebrew phrase (le haskil, 'to make one wise') from Genesis 3:6 (which is found in both the Masoretic and Samaritan Torah), which explains WHY Eve desired to eat the fruit.
The NWT is the only modern translation to 'cherry-pick' from the Septuagint (Hebrew to Greek) or Vulgate (Greek to Latin) specifically for this verse, probably because they wanted to ignore the element which explained Eve's motivation for eating the fruit : Eve wanted to be wise!
The NWT is not the only modern translation to render Gen. 3:6 as it did.
Check:
The Five Books of Moses; The Bible in Living English; Moffatt's Bible Translation; Lamsa's Translation; The Clear Word; Biblia Peshitta; The New English Bible.
It is not unusual for Bible translators to cherry-pick from the Septuagint and the Vulgate throughout the Old Testament, not only in Gen. 3:6.