The New World Translation is a Mess (page 8)

timetochange

Amazing,

As a JW you ran the game to its fullest and partook of the emblems, good for you.

Today as a Catholic you continue to run the game to the fullest.

I just wish you would stop playing games altogether.

Ed.

Death to the Pixies

Leo:Harner absolutely does not "agree with the NWT" on John 1:1

Never said he did, but he does not agree with the traditional translation, nor with Metzger's dubious condemnation based on Colwell's "rule". . Harner does agree with the NWTC when he says "theos cannot be regarded as definite". Which I believe is all the NWT was quoting him for.

edit... I see what you are saying, he does not accept "the Word was divine"... he does rather comically prefer the "Word has the same nature as God". Can you say theological wrangling :>) However the main thrust of my post was to show the bias in traditional translations who understand Harner's point is applicable, but still decide to translate it "the Word was God". That is bias, bias against change. Evangelical apologist Robert Hommell and scholar Dr.Jason Beduhn had a lenghty discussion about this here: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/beduhn_hommel.1.htm

Roski

The point has been made about "etymology and the hyper-literal translation of words"...

While I am not weighing in on this particular topic - I can say for sure that this is one of the main problems for any language teacher, particularly if the students are picky about exact word meanings. I think anyone with any linguistic/language teaching experience would know that this type of micro-analysis can easily go astray if one is not familiar with the language/context/culture.

Narkissos - I would love to spend a few evenings over a bottle of something and pick you brains.....

dozy

: "other translations only have minor unintended biases of the translators ... but their work is peer reviewed by other scholars who will contain any extremes. "

How can you honestly , hand on heart , make this ludicrous statement? One obvious example springs to mind:

New KJV (1982) 1 John 5:8 " For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." No footnote.

Everyone knows that this is a late interpolation designed to support the Trinity (although this hasn't stopped many "Christians" who continue to this day to use this as a "proof text" to support their views - I spoke to one only last month). To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible says "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."

Every translation is flavoured by the beliefs of the translators - the NWT is no different in this respect from any other. Most translations are produced by Trintarians who inevitably allow this bias to creep into their interpretation of often difficult scriptures. Their "peers" doubtless come from a similar belief structure.

LittleToe

I love Leo's comments.

I would put it the following way: it could be rendered that the Logos is not the Father but he's exactly the same as the Father in every way, including Divinity/longevity.

John is at pains to show that the Logos is face to face with "God" and yet somehow is exactly the same as "God".

In the beginning was the Logos - When everything started the Logos was already around.
And the Logos was with God - So was "God", as distinct from the Logos.
And the Logos was God - You cant tell them apart.

This last point is an important one because, depending of what you believe "God" to be, there's an expectation that you must accept that the Logos is exactly the same, and hence the Trinity doctrine had its foundation. This is an elaboration and deepening on "if you have seen me you have seen the Father".

When you put it in an esoteric (e.g. proto-gnostic) context it makes sense. If you try to put it in a corporeal context you come up with two entities and a difficulty rationalising Monotheism. I sometimes wonder if it can be understood if you haven't "met" them though, but I would say that with my gnostic leanings, wouldn't I?

RAF

Now what if as essence your spirit have a conscience which leads your evolution by experience (your conscience talks to you but it's you ...).

RAF

Now what if as essence your spirit have a conscience which leads your evolution by experience (your conscience talks to you but it's you ...).
Then from that who's your daddy? ... your conscience --- so I mean it could say that : The God in God is the Word (Logo) but still all in one.

RAF

Since I'm on this subject : when God said Christ/Logo is my posterity ... it could all makes senses this way

= what leads God before (OT) immature somehow / What leads God's will after (NT) mature = Christ

Narkissos

John is at pains to show that the Logos is face to face with "God" and yet somehow is exactly the same as "God".

Exactly the same, and the opposite... as in "mirror image"?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/99593/1.ashx

When you put it in an esoteric (e.g. proto-gnostic) context it makes sense. If you try to put it in a corporeal context you come up with two entities and a difficulty rationalising Monotheism. I sometimes wonder if it can be understood if you haven't "met" them though, but I would say that with my gnostic leanings, wouldn't I?

When I had to deal with dogmatic-minded trinitarians I used to say that trinity only makes sense from within...

Satanus

If you try to put it in a corporeal context you come up with two entities and a difficulty rationalising Monotheism.

From my pantheist/gnostic/animist/mystic perspective, there is no problem seeing the oneness of deity jesus in the flesh and the supposed father deity. Without getting into all of that, maybe the key is in seeing that the essence of the human jesus never lost it's connection w the claimed other being (god). To illustrate, consider the connections between all rivers and the oceans that they flow into. As well, all oceans are really one ocean. All are also the same essense (water). They are all one, ultimately, even though there are many names given to the different parts.

S

The New World Translation is a Mess

Share this