New World Translation, is it the best bible translation?

by littlebuddy 177 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  The relationship of theology and Bible exegesis / translation is pretty complex imo.

  A vested interest in theology (in the form of commitment to a particular doctrine, confession or sect) can obviously produce "bias". But a lack of interest in theology can be even worse, when scholars approaching the texts from a purely "scientific" (philological, linguistical, historical) angle fail to relate to the issues at stake, to the point of not even perceiving them sometimes. Nietzsche criticism of "disinterestedness" as the scientific form of the ascetic ideal (in Genealogy of morals) comes to mind: the "disinterested" exegete / translator often makes the text uninteresting. This is particularly true in translation I feel; you may translate "correctly" a text you don't like, but it is unlikely that you will serve it well.

  An old Pentecostal pastor once told me: "the ideal Bible translator should be both an atheist and a born again Christian" -- which I interpreted as, being able to distantiate himself absolutely from the text and resonate with it deeply. I couldn't agree more. :)
• 

  Chalam

  Hello Narkissos,

  The relationship of theology and Bible exegesis / translation is pretty complex imo.

  I am afraid I differ entirely with regard to understanding the bible written in one's native language. Translation, is a different thing.

  With regard to the former, consider these

  Mark 10:15 John 14:26 Proverbs 3:5 1 Corinthians 2:14

  All the reader needs is child like faith and to be open to the instruction of the Holy Spirit.

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  reniaa

  Hi narkissos

  I agree with a lot of what you say, have you watch the movie planet of the apes they have some ancient mechanical items from the extinct human race and tell him they know exactly what they were for from scientific understanding but were completely wrong, it can be like that. I find it's also like looking through a magnifying glass, were to closely can blur just as too distant is not detailed enough, you have to have your focus right.

  I go into religion knowing I am already a One God believer in YHWH/Jehovah and his ACTUAL son Jesus before I start so I am not being effected by doctrine or translation. After that we have to evaluate and judge for ourselves using the bible and pray for holy spirit but there is a danger of taking idea's of men as holy spirit guidance, which I fully appreciate you could say is what the witnesses do but I find this is true of any religion even a personal one because am I not human? If I think something is a certain way then I am taking a decision from a human/me too?

  I had a charassmatic friend whose faith is in the gifts of holy spirit and they believe the tongues, prophecies, healings etc and I asked them if they had seen a healing and they said no but they had faith that these healing happened without having to see them they believed from what the people around them had said happenned so believing the words of men is holy spirit. I think this is why I have chosen the JW's because they do not claim signs and miracles they try do it straight from biblical source WHICH I can check. So if they say 'no fornication'! I can check it biblically if they say we need overseers/leaders of men, I can check it biblically, if they say there is an anointed 144,000 class this I can also check. which I do using many translations as I can.

  Reniaa
• 

  DaCheech

  reniaa, just because those charismatic christian are wrong, doesn't make the JW's good.

  just the WT, you're thinking "where else can we go"....... just because they're all 100% wrong, doesn't make the JWs right

  peace and may your eyes open
• 

  Narkissos

  Stephen,

  I am afraid I differ entirely with regard to understanding the bible written in one's native language. Translation, is a different thing.

  Well, this topic happens to be about translation. And "the bible" happens not to have been written in anyone's current "native language" (not even modern Hebrew or Greek); actually before it became "the bible" (I mean the book collection, not the word "bible") there were already at least three languages and multiple translation involved.

  However, no matter how careful and clever the translators are (E.M. Cioran had a kind word for the profession, he said somewhere he had often met stupid writers, but he had never met any stupid translator; of course he hadn't met all translators ;)), a book's translation is always another book. Bible translations, whether old or new, "literal" or "dynamic," influencing entire cultures (like Luther's Bible or the KJV) or very limited subcultures (like the NWT), can also be assessed from this perspective -- their relationship to their readers, as distinct from their relationship to the "originals": from the latter standpoint the translator is fatally a betrayer (traduttore, tradittore), but from the former his/her role is way more positive. Faithfulness and creativity are antagonistic ideals with which no translator can dispense. Translation by definition is a compromise. Absolute faithfulness to the originals would imply not translating them at all; absolute creativity would imply writing another book altogether -- even accuracy can be assessed from different standpoints, depending on whether you focus on the source or the target language. As someone put it (was that Ionesco?), the accurate translation of "Paris" from French to Italian would be "Rome". And one could hold in a similar way that the best translation of the Bible in Arabic is the Qu'ran -- although from another standpoint it is not a translation at all.

  Your post and reniaa's also point to the fact that there are very different ways to use a Bible translation (which bring to mind the classical psychological types of hysterical and obsessional characters, although those types are usually mixed in different proportions in every individual). There is an inspirational, enthusiastic, creative use of "the Bible" (as a translation), as well as a doctrinal one which implies "checking," "prooftexting," "backing up"; sometimes we look for the courage of invention (including inventing our lives) and sometimes we look for the safety of "truth" (no matter how delusional that may be from other perspectives).
• 

  reniaa

  hi Dachaach

  Your right but when I can read the bible and it tells me their is only One true God and the bible is clear on this, it's a bible absolute! All translations agree on it. It's a starting place and you can build on that.

  Reniaa
• 

  Spike Tassel

  Reniaa's Post 2275 puts me in mind of John 17:3. While the NWT Reference Bible writes that verse [with footnote] as This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you [Or, their knowing you." Greek, hi´na gi·no´sko·si se.], the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.; Lamsa's New Testament According to the Eastern Text renders it as And this is life eternal, that they might know you, that you are the only true God, even the one who sent Jesus Christ.

  So the NWT tells that to live forever, knowledge of both the only true God and of Jesus Christ are required. On the other hand, Lamsa's tells that to live forever just knowledge of the only true God is required. The difference between "and" and "even" is considerable.

  This simply illustrates that we have know the translation of our audience to know which scriptures we CAN'T use to support a given argument we want to teach.
• 

  DaCheech

  the bible's god is not the oldest god out there, there are many made thousand(s) of years before.

  if there is a god, why did he wait so long to make his true religion?

  whatever god is out there is still yeat to be found

  until we can prove that the true and only god wrote the bible, no translation, no religion is true
• 

  Leolaia

  People criticize old Fred Franz all the time because most of the formal education he received was in Classical (Attic) Greek and not Koine. I don't know exactly why he made that choice and I'm not defending him, but if his experience was anything like mine, I can empathize at least. The atmosphere is entirely different in a Classical Greek course.

  Interesting experience you've had. My experience was in a university setting, where it was taught like any other foreign language. The first year focused on very simple Attic Greek (our core text was the epitome of Palaephatus) and the second year graduated to more complex koine (the core text being the gospel of Mark). I would imagine in a seminary, the course could be much more colored by doctrinal concerns. I'm not sure I understand the comparison to Franz....do you mean he may have decided against going to a seminary because the way things are taught there?
• 

  Chalam

  Hello Spike,

  So the NWT tells that to live forever, knowledge of both the only true God and of Jesus Christ are required. On the other hand, Lamsa's tells that to live forever just knowledge of the only true God is required. The difference between "and" and "even" is considerable.

  This simply illustrates that we have know the translation of our audience to know which scriptures we CAN'T use to support a given argument we want to teach.

  Yes and no. If you take one verse in isolation then, granted, the reader could be left in a quandary what to do.

  However, take the rest of the bible into account and you will get to see the message as a whole.

  In your example, is knowledge of the Father and/or Jesus necessary for everlasting life?

  Let us look at another verse on the matter.

  John 14:6 (New International Version)

  6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

  As you can see, firstly you need knowledge of Jesus before you can know the Father.

  This is the basis of 'systematic theology', taking a look at all of the verses which relate to a topic, say "salvation" and then coming to a conclusion regarding what it is in essence.

  Some verses are always going to be tricky taken in isolation. The thing is to not get too hung up on those and look at the big picture. Otherwise, for example you might be "baptising the dead" like the Mormons which Paul refers to only once, shunning your relatives in stead of loving them and much more.

  All the best,

  Stephen