by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible
Mondo 1,
I figured that much, but let´s not suppose that the people who read several translations and interlinears are morons........clergy done that some couple of years ago and burnt a few people for it.....
You posed a question, loose end still stands, bro.
cheers
Borgia
I don't see any loose ends and I didn't say people are morons, but if a person doesn't understand anything about the original language of a text or how an Interlinear is translated, they came come to numerous false conclusions about the quality of a translation.
Mondo 1,
These were your comments:
Frannie,
An interlinear translation is a completely different type of translation and should not be used by those without at least a basic understanding of Greek and translation principles. You would find the same "issues" that you see with the NWT with any other Bible too if they were compared without understanding what is going on in the text.
Mondo
Frannie,
Let me give you an example. Look in the NASB at John 14:9 and you'll see the words "have been." Yet look in the interlinear and see "am." Is the NASB wrong and dishonest? Or is there a reason that it is translated differently that a person who does not know anything about Greek would not understand?
Mondo
Mondo,
Although I agree with you that knowledge is essential for understanding, people can use their ability to reason and come to their own conclusions. Especially when they have access to : ground text, dictionaries, concordances, interlinear translation and other bible translations.
I agree with you that every translation is just a translation and to correclty(complete thrust/meaning) understand the bible text in greek one should be able to natively understand it, which I do not profess to do by the way.
Now let´s turn to that gem of an example you gave. How does the rendering in present or perfect tense influence the meaning of the text? What exaclty is the point here? Now tell me that by failing to have a basic understanding of greek and translation principles I am coming to the wrong conclusion.........
Trying to answer these above questions might be used as a starting point for further investigation.Tons of research material are available. And I can consider arguments pro and contro for myself. For example, you and Narkisson seems to have profound knowledge of the greek language and translation principles. That´s ok. But you both do not seem to agree as far as your conclusions are concerned. So, I outweigh arguments pro and contra and will come to a conclusion myself. And on the fly I may pickup some knowledge of greek and translation principles without becomming or professing to be a scientific learned person.
What is the basis for salvation? Is it not faith in Jesus? Tell me that without the correct understanding of the text in collosians 1:15,16 (your understanding that supposedly will be) I cannot be saved because I drew the "wrong" conclusion....
And as I have pointed out before: WBTS inserts an extra word [also], like this word is imperative to correclty understand the essence of the text. If a translator is inclined to add words in a text which clearly shows the meaning without it, what impact does that have on texts which are open to multiple interpretations, or may be used to support other doctrine than that the translator holds dear?
Let me give a an example: Fil 2:6. NWT renders it in a totally different way than the interlinear other translations. Mind the brackets in the NWT.
Phi 2:6
(ALT) who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto,
(AOV) Hy, wat in die gestalte van God was, het dit geen roof geag om aan God gelyk te wees nie,
(ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(DSV) Die in de gestaltenis Gods zijnde, geen roof geacht heeft Gode even gelijk te zijn;
(EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(GEB) welcher, da er in Gestalt Gottes war, es nicht für einen Raub achtete, Gott gleich zu sein,
(GLB) welcher, ob er wohl in göttlicher Gestalt war, hielt er's nicht für einen Raub, Gott gleich sein,
(ISV) In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping.
(KJV+) Who,3739 being5225 in1722 the form3444 of God,2316 thought2233 it not3756 robbery725 to be1511 equal2470 with God:2316
(LBLA) el cual, aunque existía en forma de Dios, no consideró el ser igual a Dios como algo a qué aferrarse,
(LITV) who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
(Webster) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
NWT: , 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
Where are the brackets?????????
(Who[, although, he was] existing in God’s form[, gave] no consider[ation to a] seizure[, namely that he should] be equal [to] God.)
Please, tell me which translation is the close to the original text:
??3739 R-NSM = (ha/hay)/ho) the
e?1722 PREP = (en) in
µ??f?3444 N-DSF = (morphe) Form, Shape
?e??2316 N-GSM = (theou) god god
?pa????5225 V-PAP-NSM = (huparcho) exist; come into existence
???3756 PRT-N = (ou) not
a?pa?µ??725 N-ASM = (harpagmos) robbery
???sat?2233 V-ADI-3S = (hegeomai) think, judge, consider, govern
t?3588 T-ASN = (to) = this, that
e??a?1511 V-PXN = (einai) exist; being
?sa2470 A-NPN = (eesos) gelijk equal
?e?2316 N-DSM = theoo god
I´m sure they have a reason for doing so. These reasons may be found on the WT cdrom in numerous places and the interesting thing about it is that it only refutes some other exotic translation of the "consider robbery" part and it tries to refute trinitarian concept, which this text clearly does not show and therefore is a no brainer. Stil leaves with the basic question as to the textual reasons to do so. Given the above proof, it must be a hell of a reason.
(Clearly, but this may be added to another thread about looking for fresh conspiracy theory, chistendom is corrupting the bible text to keep people within the bonds of Babylon the Great. )
The usual explanation and especially conparisson is that Satan did consider to be equal to God and therefore considered a seizure which christ did not. But....the context is not about that. Tell me I came to the wrong conclusion here.
What did I use? Groundtext from several sources, concordances, dictionaries and several available translations. All freely available.
Cheers
Borgia
Reply on the wrong place. so double entry on purpose. and sorry for the greek being corrupted. I did not quite figure out how to do that.... Mondo 1, These were your comments: Frannie, An interlinear translation is a completely different type of translation and should not be used by those without at least a basic understanding of Greek and translation principles. You would find the same "issues" that you see with the NWT with any other Bible too if they were compared without understanding what is going on in the text. Mondo Frannie, Let me give you an example. Look in the NASB at John 14:9 and you'll see the words "have been." Yet look in the interlinear and see "am." Is the NASB wrong and dishonest? Or is there a reason that it is translated differently that a person who does not know anything about Greek would not understand? Mondo Mondo, Although I agree with you that knowledge is essential for understanding, people can use their ability to reason and come to their own conclusions. Especially when they have access to : ground text, dictionaries, concordances, interlinear translation and other bible translations. I agree with you that every translation is just a translation and to correclty(complete thrust/meaning) understand the bible text in greek one should be able to natively understand it, which I do not profess to do by the way. Now let´s turn to that gem of an example you gave. How does the rendering in present or perfect tense influence the meaning of the text? What exaclty is the point here? Now tell me that by failing to have a basic understanding of greek and translation principles I am coming to the wrong conclusion......... Trying to answer these above questions might be used as a starting point for further investigation.Tons of research material are available. And I can consider arguments pro and contro for myself. For example, you and Narkisson seems to have profound knowledge of the greek language and translation principles. That´s ok. But you both do not seem to agree as far as your conclusions are concerned. So, I outweigh arguments pro and contra and will come to a conclusion myself. And on the fly I may pickup some knowledge of greek and translation principles without becomming or professing to be a scientific learned person. What is the basis for salvation? Is it not faith in Jesus? Tell me that without the correct understanding of the text in collosians 1:15,16 (your understanding that supposedly will be) I cannot be saved because I drew the "wrong" conclusion.... And as I have pointed out before: WBTS inserts an extra word [also], like this word is imperative to correclty understand the essence of the text. If a translator is inclined to add words in a text which clearly shows the meaning without it, what impact does that have on texts which are open to multiple interpretations, or may be used to support other doctrine than that the translator holds dear? Let me give a an example: Fil 2:6. NWT renders it in a totally different way than the interlinear other translations. Mind the brackets in the NWT. Phi 2:6 (ALT) who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto, (AOV) Hy, wat in die gestalte van God was, het dit geen roof geag om aan God gelyk te wees nie, (ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, (DSV) Die in de gestaltenis Gods zijnde, geen roof geacht heeft Gode even gelijk te zijn; (EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, (GEB) welcher, da er in Gestalt Gottes war, es nicht für einen Raub achtete, Gott gleich zu sein, (GLB) welcher, ob er wohl in göttlicher Gestalt war, hielt er's nicht für einen Raub, Gott gleich sein, (ISV) In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping. (KJV+) Who,3739 being5225 in1722 the form3444 of God,2316 thought2233 it not3756 robbery725 to be1511 equal2470 with God:2316 (LBLA) el cual, aunque existía en forma de Dios, no consideró el ser igual a Dios como algo a qué aferrarse, (LITV) who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, (Webster) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: NWT: , 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. Where are the brackets????????? (Who[, although, he was] existing in God’s form[, gave] no consider[ation to a] seizure[, namely that he should] be equal [to] God.) Please, tell me which translation is the close to the original text: ??3739 R-NSM = (ha/hay)/ho) the e?1722 PREP = (en) in µ??f?3444 N-DSF = (morphe) Form, Shape ?e??2316 N-GSM = (theou) god god ?pa????5225 V-PAP-NSM = (huparcho) exist; come into existence ???3756 PRT-N = (ou) not a?pa?µ??725 N-ASM = (harpagmos) robbery ???sat?2233 V-ADI-3S = (hegeomai) think, judge, consider, govern t?3588 T-ASN = (to) = this, that e??a?1511 V-PXN = (einai) exist; being ?sa2470 A-NPN = (eesos) gelijk equal ?e?2316 N-DSM = theoo god I´m sure they have a reason for doing so. These reasons may be found on the WT cdrom in numerous places and the interesting thing about it is that it only refutes some other exotic translation of the "consider robbery" part and it tries to refute trinitarian concept, which this text clearly does not show and therefore is a no brainer. Stil leaves with the basic question as to the textual reasons to do so. Given the above proof, it must be a hell of a reason. (Clearly, but this may be added to another thread about looking for fresh conspiracy theory, chistendom is corrupting the bible text to keep people within the bonds of Babylon the Great. ) The usual explanation and especially conparisson is that Satan did consider to be equal to God and therefore considered a seizure which christ did not. But....the context is not about that. Tell me I came to the wrong conclusion here. What did I use? Groundtext from several sources, concordances, dictionaries and several available translations. All freely available. Cheers Borgia
Borgia
Let me give a an example: Fil 2:6. NWT renders it in a totally different way than the interlinear other translations. Mind the brackets in the NWT.
Phil 2:6 is an especially cryptic passage and translations will vary depending upon whether the translator thought that Christ was or was not equal to God in the preexistence
I think the English examples you gave illustrate this. Notice the contrast between these renderings:
(EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(ISV) In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping.
(KJV+) Who,3739 being5225 in1722 the form3444 of God,2316 thought2233 it not3756 robbery725 to be1511 equal2470 with God:2316
(LITV) who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
(Webster) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
And this:
(ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Unlike the first group of examples, the ASV conveys the thought that grasping or seizing equality with God was not something that Christ considered even though he existed in God's form. This is exactly opposite of the thought conveyed in renderings that basically say, "Christ did not consider being equal to God an act of robbery."
Other examples of this type of rendering include:
(NAB) Your attitude must be that of Christ: Though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped
(AT) Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Thoughe he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God.
(Weymouth) The attitude you should have is the one Christ Jesus had. He always had the very nature of God. Yet he did not think that by force he should try to become equal to God
(Diaglott) Who though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate usurpation to be like God.
All of these agree with the NWT.
A third type of rendering conveys the idea that Christ was actually equal to God, but he willingly laid this equality aside
(ALT) Who existing in the nature of God did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto
(CEV) Christ was truly God, but he did not try to remain equal to God
As you can see, the problem lies in deciding exactly what is being negated in the sentence and it illustrates what a slippery thing language is.
I would agree that Philippians 2:6 is rendered in very unnatural, if not grotesque, English and the added words are part of this. "Although" is meant to clarify the concessive force of huparkhón, but its inclusion plus the rendering of this participle "existing" into a verbal predicate (which is often necessary to smooth the heavy use of participles in Greek into more natural English) obscures the relation between what follows and the initial "who", i.e. "who, being in the form of God, did not think..." vs. "who, although he was in the form of God, did not think..." Then, having changed huparkhón from a non-finite participle to a finite verb, they do the opposite with égésato by nominalizing it -- thereby requiring even more verbiage ... requiring a new main verb "gave" and the nominal suffix to the verb. The verbiage adds to the woodenness but it is typical of the NWT (cf. "taking in knowledge" for "knowing", exercising faith" for "believe", etc.). Then harpagmon is literally rendered as a noun, but "a seizure" in modern English does not necessarily convey the same thought as the more wordy but clear "a thing to be grasped" or "something to be held onto". If they wanted to use that word, it would have been better to say "an act of seizure"; seizure by itself makes it sound like Jesus refused to give himself epilepsy. The whole phrase is very unnatural in English....a robber planning a heist would not say, "Okay, let's consider having ourselves a seizure". Next the insertion of "namely" makes for a much looser connection between "a seizure" and "that he should be equal to God". In the Greek, both these phrases are equivalent, i.e. "He did not consider X(acc) Y(acc)," like saying "He did not consider [Tom] [a fool]". But the rendering eliminates the parallelism by turning the noun phrase "equality with God" into a clause "that he should be equal to God", hence the "namely". Finally, it is an exegetical move to turn "equality with God" (which by itself does not claim whether or not this is a status he already had) into the expanded clause "that he SHOULD BE equal to God" (which contains within it an implicit claim that this is a status he did not already have).
Having said this, I do not consider the rendering of harpagmon by the word expressing an act of seizing as necessarily wrong or correct...this is a notorious crux of interpretation and is hotly debated in scholarship, and I think the wording is ambiguous (intentionally so?) as to whether Jesus already had "equality with God" prior to the incarnation but gave it up, or went into a course that was opposite of seizing "equality with God".
As for what the meaning of the verse is as a whole (which bears on what sense of harpagmon is involved), the main phrase that does characterize Jesus' prehuman status is en morphé theou huparkhón, but this too is ambiguous and debatable. The contextual link with v. 3 (cf. the same verb égoumenoi "considering" and kenodoxian "empty glory" which punningly anticipates the heauton ekenósen in v. 7, i.e. Jesus emptied himself of his glory by taking a lower status) may support the understanding that Jesus already had "equality with God" before the incarnation, for Paul teaches that all brothers are equal with each other in Christ (Romans 10:12, 1 Corinthians 12:25, 2 Corinthians 8:13-15, Galatians 3:26-28); in parallel, Jesus was equal with God but considered him "better than himself" out of humility. On the other hand eritheian and kenodoxian are apt words for selfish ambition and thus could support the opposite reading of 2:6, i.e. brothers should refrain from any selfish ambition, likewise Jesus did not display any ambition by seizing for himself "equality with God". Then there are the parallels with Romans 15:3 and 2 Corinthians 8:9 which do not favor a particular reading in Philippians 2:6. Finally, there is the OT background of the passage which seems to depend on Genesis 1-3. If it is exegetical of the Adam-Eve story (i.e. Adam as a man was in the "image of God" but grasped at becoming like God, whereas Jesus was in the "form of God" but emptied himself to become man), which makes sense of the Pauline antithesis between Christ and Adam, then this raises more questions on how the crucial terms like morphé and harpagmos are to be understood. At this point, I am pretty much undecided as to how the ambiguity should be resolved.
TD,
Exactly. 100%. Translating can be a real drag.
I used this example to show that based upon the availability of resources, including the groundtext, one can draw their own conclusions or use it as a startingpoint for further investigation. Even coming to the conclusion that more than 1 interpretation is possile and that this verse is not definite on that subject, therefore, no need for dogmatism.
I found the candidness about the boundaries between translation and interpretation quite dispappointing.
So, instead of warning against thre use of an interlinear translation freely, I would encourage the use of one from day 1.
Cheers
Borgia
Weak argument folks. There isn't a Bible out there that doesn't do this very thing.
Dear Mondo,
Actually, the point is that this is the very organization that claims it is the only one approved by God. They constantly accuse other religons as being false for the very things they themselves do. ( For example child molestation and their attacking them in the new tract.) If they were indeed from God, they would not go against his word by adding to the scriptures to support their doctorine no matter who else has done this before in other translations.
I personally was highly offended and angry that the very Bible that I had prided myself on using to others at the door, was tainted by mens doctorine. When ones would tell me, "Well you have your own Bible and its different then other translations." I would proudly answer, " Yes, we do, it replaces God's name over 6,000 times, putting God's name back where it originally was." Never would I have ever believed they have done what they have, until I researched this myself.
Then come to find out it put God's name in places where it never was when it was originally inspired! They have gone beyond what was written! Just because there isn't a Bible out there that hasn't done this, does not excuse this religon from their deeds done in the name of God.
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
LL,
I wonder how accurate and reliable the research material that you came across was. Most criticisms of the NWT are unjustified.
Mondo
LL,
I wonder how accurate and reliable the research material that you came across was. Most criticisms of the NWT are unjustified.
Mondo
Dear Mondo, Are you telling me that you do not agree with the fact that the Society has added Jehovahs name to the Greek scriptures in the New world Translation? I am sure you are aware that the original copies of the Greek scriptures only contain God's name when quoting from the Hebrew scriptures. Please look at the booklet, "The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever" page 23, it admits:But apart from that, no ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to Revelation contains God’s name in full.
So.. if it didn't originally exist, that means they went above and beyond what was written and charged God's word.
Here are a couple of sites that will go into detail better then I ever could in showing you exactly what I am talking about.
http://www.europa.com/~lynnlund/english_is_nwt_better.htm
http://www.europa.com/~lynnlund/issue.html
http://www.jwinfoline.com/Documents/Jehovahs_name/why_name_jehovah_missing_from_the_nt.htm
http://www.jwinfoline.com/Documents/Jehovahs_name/who_removed_jehovah_from_nt.htm
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
