RIDICULIOUS TRANSLATIONS IN THE NWT

badboy

APART ROM JOB 6;6., HAS THERE BEEN OTHER RIDICULIOUS RANSLATIONS?

Gopher

APART ROM JOB 6;6., HAS THERE BEEN OTHER RIDICULIOUS RANSLATIONS?

That sounded a bit like Scooby-Doo! Job 6:6 in the New World Translation: Will tasteless things be eaten without salt,
Or is there any taste in the slimy juice of marshmallow?

There probably is but as someone who has studied ancient Greek I want to offer the opinion that the NWT of the NT is actually quite good in general. Probably the biggest legitimate gripe is the inserting of "Jehovah" where there is no evidence for it. Also a few doctrinally influenced passages could be enumerated, but you could say the same thing about other translations as well.

lavendar

How about the 2nd chapter of Matthew.........calling baby Jesus an "it".

mkr32208

You DON'T salt your slimy marshmallow?

badboy

BTTT

SacrificialLoon

John 1:1, I can't remember the particulars, but I think the jest of it is that it was altered somewhat to make it seem less trinitarian? And that Johannes Grebbles(?) some spiritist was consulted, or had a part in the translation and alteration of John 1:1.

Edit: Here we go - http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm

badboy

DIDN'T THINK OF THAT ONE

fahrvegnugen

John 1:1, I can't remember the particulars, but I think the jest of it is that it was altered somewhat to make it seem less trinitarian? And that Johannes Grebbles(?) some spiritist was consulted, or had a part in the translation and alteration of John 1:1.

I'm going to slightly disagree with this one. On the one hand, the JW translation is clearly influenced by their theology. On the other hand, the meaning of the Greek is very unclear and I don't think their translation can be dismissed out of hand as "wrong," at least not by means of the Greek alone.

In other words, "the word was God," and, "the word was a god," seem equally plausible translations to me. The deciding factor would be context. Thus, trinitarians would obviously insist on the former whereas JWs would insist on the latter--both claiming context to support their translation.

Forscher

There probably is but as someone who has studied ancient Greek I want to offer the opinion that the NWT of the NT is actually quite good in general. Probably the biggest legitimate gripe is the inserting of "Jehovah" where there is no evidence for it. Also a few doctrinally influenced passages could be enumerated, but you could say the same thing about other translations as well.

Methinks your comment illustrates the obvious Herr error of tremendous magnetude (meaning of your moniker down here in the Southeast US). Freddy Franz was clever enough to make sure that his renderings were plausible enough alternative for the most part. That is why some can argue with some authority for many of his more controversial renderings. I do give the man credit for that. He also did the same thing for the OT as well. I will point out that Barbara Anderson gave us the key to understanding how a fellow with no documented formal education in Hebrew could pull that one off. Sadly, though, most didn't notice it in the post she wrote.

As for my nomination for the "rediculous translations in the NWT." First and foremost Franz's coining of the phrase "torture Stake" to render the word stauros.Dr. Jason BeDuhn is quoted making a point I've agreed with for years:

On "torture stake," again, I think that the NWT is a bit heavy handed in trying to make a point. Certainly "stake" would be sufficient, and more desirable. The JW's are trying to shock Christians away from their devotion to the cross. It is, after all, an instrument of execution. They are right that STAUROS does not necessarily mean the cross form as Christianity has thought of it. It can be just a plain stake in the ground to which someone is nailed. But I think "torture" is too much and misses the point: it is meant to be a form of execution and not torture.

I have to agree with him that the sensible thing to do was to render it as simply "stake," or "post" if he wanted to avoid using the word cross and cover his reasons for doing so in the appendix. Instead he chose to use an ambiguous phrase which could just as well mean a whipping post or a stake at which one is burned alive. But then, I suspect the man was creating a new entry into the rather bizarre vocabulary of Witness buzzwords.

But then, there might be an obscure justification for it after all. I do recall that folks discussing his use of the word "impale" for rendering stauro in another topic did find such an equally obscure justification for that one. So anything is possible.

Forscher

RIDICULIOUS TRANSLATIONS IN THE NWT

Share this