Another interesting NWT corruption of extant scripture.

by oompa 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JCanon

  In these cases it's a legitimate translation option to insert "other" if it is presumed that that is how it would be understood.

  For instance where the Bible says (paraphrasing) to which of the angels did God say "This is my son...", etc. alone implies that Jesus must be an angel because of the context. That is, why even compare Jesus to the angels in contrast unless he was one himself. So including "[other]" is within the translator's option here, as long as you have an interlinear Greek version there. That is, you don't really need "other" there to force the presumption that Christ is an angel. Again, it makes little sense to compare whatever else Christ is perceived to be (i.e. God himself) with another angel unless he was one himself.

  So the contextual presumption of "other" is there. Whether the WTS should have actually taken upon themselves to inserted in the Biblical text or not is questionable. I would have preferred they leave the actual Biblical translation as faithfully translated as-is and let the discussions pro and con proceed from there, but such hopes, obviously, as per other indescretions for the NWT is a lost cause.

  Now in Revelation, the Bible specifially warns about not changing anything. They get into trouble there on some things, but I would not include "other" as one of them in this case.

  JC
• 

  oompa

  JCannon---option to insert "other" if it is presumed that that is how it would be understood.

  I strongly disagree with this view. Any extremely liberal translator can justify just about ANY CHANGES to extant manuscript based on this logic. If you stick to manuscript or a Greek Interlinear translation, you should only be able to reflect the "thought" of the actual material. Adding the word [other] TOTALLY CHANGES the entire meaning of the total context.

  that is going way too far...IMO....oompa....and Cannon, how many other Bibles "render" it this way???? Also, If we could discuss/argue this point, I have 237 little pieces of evidence on my side as to whether the NWT makes appropriate changes or not.
• 

  oompa

  and Wizard: But, when you claim to live by the Bible and try to get others to do so, and then you alter the Bible to fit your wants, you are in fact committing a very serious fraud.

  You should have a column in WSJ!!! Your post could be in a frame on my wall! Y es I say we are "defrauded", that NWT is perpetuating a "fraud" and so do those that use it, but to me what they have done to the Bible WITHOUT telling its followers is an

  "Abomination!"

  still soooo pissed....oompa
• 

  oompa

  OMG Iron Rod how did I nvr see Not Well Translated for NWT?!?!?!?

  genius.....oompa
• 

  Guest39

  Side note: The NWT is not the only Bible that uses brackets. For one, The Holman Christian Standard Bible. That being said, the HCSB doesn't insert [Other] in the scriptures being discussed. I've always tried to read and ignore what's in the brackets to see how, if, the meaning is changed. TC
• 

  Narkissos

  And I have noticed a lot of missing verses in the New World Translation that are in the King James version (the gold standard for accuracy because it was written by people that only wanted to make the Bible more common and not to promote an agenda).

  Those "missing verses" are only in the NT, and mostly in the Gospels. They are "missing" because the corresponding Greek text is absent from the best and oldest manuscripts (hence most probably spurious, to put it simply). The reason why they were included in old versions like the KJV is that the only textual basis available back then depended on a few late (and "corrupt") mss. This became apparent with the rise of textual criticism in the 19th century, but for practical reasons the verse numbers were not changed. Whence the impression of "missing verses", not only in the NWT but also in most modern translations.

  Iow, this is hardly a sound critique of the NWT, except from the sectarian perspective of KJV infallibility.

  I would add that the worst effect of "brackets" (and other typographical ways to signal "added words," e.g. italics in the KJV) is to create the illusion that what is not in brackets is a word-for-word rendering of the original. This simply cannot be the case. Because the English need 10 words to say what the Hebrew and Greek say in 6 words does not mean that 4 words have been "added". If the so-called "added," "suppressed" or otherwise modified words were all put into brackets Ephesians 1:15ff NWT might actually look like this:

  15[He] is [the] image of the [] invisible God, [the] firstborn of all creation; 16 because [by means of him] all [] [other] [things] were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the [things] visible and the [things] invisible, [no matter] whether [they are] thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [] [other] [things] have been created through him and for him. 17[Also], he is before all [other] things and [by means of him] all [] [other] [things] were [made to exist], 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. [He] is [the] beginning, [the] firstborn from the dead, that he [might] become [the one who is] first in all [things];
• 

  greendawn

  I don't understand what do they stand to gain by putting the word other in the way eg "through him all things were created" or "through him all other things were created". He obviously didn't create himself.
• 

  JCanon

  I don't understand what do they stand to gain by putting the word other in the way eg "through him all things were created" or "through him all other things were created". He obviously didn't create himself.

  Correct, nor is God himself included here. But you know the potential for taking things out of context. For in one place in the Bible it says "there are many gods and many lords" and in another "there is only one god and one lord." You have to consider the context; these references are not necessarily contradictory. JC
• 

  truthsetsonefree

  You can also point out to the old man that on the WT's Bible recordings they probably read it without any hint of brackets.

  Isaac
• 

  Narkissos

  Following on greendawn'sand JCanon's remarks, cf. the NWT renderings of

  Ephesians 3:9 God, who created all things.

  1 Timothy 6:13 God, who preserves all things alive.

  Hebrews 1:3 he (the Son) sustains all thingsby the word of his power.

  Why not "all [other] things"?

  :