WT quote made me LOL

OnTheWayOut

While looking up stuff for this other thread I started today, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/142073/1.ashx
I found this gem. I thought I would just post it and make absolutely no further comments in this thread just
to see what kind of laughter or serious thoughts of bitterness or any other comments you can think of it might
lead to. Here's the quote I found:

***
w85 10/15 p. 21 Insight on the News***
New
World Translation Passes Examination
In times past, Bible readers of one religion were suspicious of translations made by another religious group. Such distrust is generally unwarranted, claims theologian C. Houtman in the scholarly NederlandsTheologischTijdschrift (Dutch Theological Magazine). After reviewing these translations, his opinion is that only rarely can passages be found that reflect "the translators’ denominational or political and social viewpoint." While for the most part this is true, there are some cases in which Bible translators have let their religious bias show through their renderings. For example, some modern translators have completely eliminated the personal name of God from their works. Others have wrongly translated the word Gehenna as "hell fire." Yet, if someone deliberately changes or omits part of the contents of the Bible, he is on dangerous ground. As one Bible book warns: "If anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life."—Revelation 22:19.
Rather than removing God’s name from the Bible, the NewWorldTranslationoftheHolyScriptures has retained it—7,210 times. Copies of the Bible’s original language text provide a basis for doing this. Interestingly, Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the NewWorldTranslation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism."

Before I shut up and just let you comment, C. Houtman says:
In my view, the New World Translation is an inadequate translation. The Watchtower Society
misuses my articles by quoting sentences without their context.
From a letter from C. Houtman to George Medina, February 18, 1995

oompa

Rather than removing God’s name from the Bible, the NewWorldTranslationoftheHolyScriptures has retained it—7,210 times. Copies of the Bible’s original language text provide a basis for doing this.

Interesting that the above states it is "retained" 7,210 times, when in reality it is only in the Bible at most 6,973 time as indicated below. The "original language text" does NOT provide any basis for using the name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, as there is not a single copy in the world that contains it. Why don't we spend a billion hours a year looking for such a copy instead of perpetuating a fraud every time we read the name from the NT in our ministry?

Ref. Bible*** Rbi8p.6Introduction ***

THE

TRANSLATIONINTOENGLISH

METHOD: Since the Bible sets forth the sacred will of the Sovereign Lord of the universe, it would be a great indignity, indeed an affront to his majesty and authority, to omit or hide his unique divine name, which plainly occurs in the Hebrew text nearly 7,000 times as ???? (YHWH). Therefore, the foremost feature of this translation is the restoration of the divine name to its rightful place in the English text. It has been done, using the commonly accepted English form "Jehovah" 6,973 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. For a detailed study of this matter, see App 1A-1D.

satan has sure hid it well....oompa

oompa

Would someone please tell me why Satan, Scribes, Apostates, or So-Called Christians would remove the name Jehovah 237 times from the Christian Greek Scriptures, and yet leave it in the Hebrew Scriptures nearly 7000 times, when Christians use both the Old and New Testament today? And why the heck would it only be in there 237 times (less than once a page), when it is in the Old Testament 6 times a page?!?!

the truth is a mystery.....oompa

Open mind

C'mon Oompa. The F&D Slave is God's Chosen Channel (tm). If they present an explanation as to why they think it was included by the 1st Century writers, then it must have been there.

~~God~~ F&D said it.

I believe it.

And that settles it.

Somebody slap me. Please.

Open Mind

PinTail

That is funny stuff,

Leolaia

Interestingly, Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the NewWorldTranslation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism."

I would love to see the original statement made by Cornelis Houtman. This quote looks odd and out-of-context, as Houtman only says that the translation "can survive" scrutiny (not that it does) ... and the word "survive" implies a more dire situation than a mere endorsement of the work. The wording suggests that he said something like the translation "can survive the scrutiny of criticism if..." or "only if..." etc. Bear in mind that the original may have been in Dutch.

greendawn

More than anyone else they have twisted many Biblical verses in their translation to make them fit their doctrines. As for jehovah the NT simply doesn't use that name. Significantly it is not the most important name in the NT instead that name is the Christ. Focusing everything on the name jehovah is not healthy it shows a regressing to the OT pre-church era.

OnTheWayOut

Leolaia, not commenting on the thread, but you said:

I would love to see the original statement made by Cornelis Houtman.

From the link (and the links within this link): http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm

"The translator must know the subject. As we have seen in the past, people expressed distrust of translations by those belonging to another denomination or religious community, fearing that theological points of view would affect the translation. When translations are assessed in a professional manner it must be concluded that only in exceptional circumstances can one point to passages in which the doctrinal (or political and social) point of view of the translators can be traced. Even the New World translation of the Jehovah Witnesses can withstand criticism on this point" ("De Kritiek op de Groot Nieuws Bijbel," Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 38, 1984, pp. 279-280).
...
Houtman says that the NWT may withstand criticism on the point that "only in exceptional circumstances" can one identify bias. He does not claim the NWT is bias-free, as the JW website implies.
Further, while the article quoted only mentions the NWT tangentially, Professor Houtman has written two articles that specifically evaluate the NWT - and in his own words, those articles are "very critical."

I do not find his two articles, but much of what he writes is in Dutch.

tula

Would someone please tell me why Satan, Scribes, Apostates, or So-Called Christians would remove the name Jehovah 237 times from the Christian Greek Scriptures, and yet leave it in the Hebrew Scriptures nearly 7000 times, when Christians use both the Old and New Testament today? And why the heck would it only be in there 237 times (less than once a page), when it is in the Old Testament 6 times a page?!?!

Because the scribes had to go through a lengthy and elaborate cleansing ritual each time...before they could write the name "Y***H" .

heathen

None of the WTBTS writing commitee had any credentials to argue with . They claimed scholarship in ancient greek and hebrew but turns out they dropped out of their classes in college in the softmore year . In actuallity the name was removed by the jewish people and replaced with the tetragramaton so that people couldn't use the name. From what I understand anyway. I don't doubt that it was also an attempt from early translaters to make jesus out to be the only God in their trinity dogma.

WT quote made me LOL

Share this