New World Translation, is it the best bible translation? (page 3)

possible-san

TheOldHippie.

Are you brainless?

You cannot answer to my simple question at all.

And though you are a person who speaks English, you cannot write my name correctly, either.
Are you calling the divine name incorrectly similarly?

littlebuddy

It seems like there is some scholars who are very pro NWT and some who are not. Does the WTS have a greek and hebrew dept. or school? Do they have their own university trained scholars at the headquaters? If not, how do they come up with their translation? It does seem though that the changes they have made in the bible lean very much so towards supporting what they believe.

Chalam

Hi LB,

Does the WTS have a greek and hebrew dept

Obviously not!

The NWT is a really corrupt bible. In fact, it doesn't not warrant being called a bible IMHO.

The twisting and down right perversion of the original Hebrew and Greek in evident from cover to cover.

Take Genesis 1:2 for example.

The NWT calls the God's Spirit (or the Spirit of God) by a totally false description, active force.

Check it out yourself, they have absolutely no reason to use this term, click the link below

ruwach

The only reason they use active force is to get the heresy in there nice and early regarding the Holy Spirit, i.e. to use a term which implies the Spirit is an impersonal force, which He is not. He is a person who speaks, has feelings, can be lied to etc. Check out the rest of the bible.

All the best,

Stephen

Narkissos

I would certainly not call the NWT the "best bible translation" but I think "it doesn't not (sic) warrant being called a bible" (Chalam) is a gross exaggeration.

I think its major force is its general consistency and scrupulous attention (in a more schoolish than scholarly way) to the formal details of the text (syntax, tenses, etc.). But then it can be hugely inconsistent and wildly fanciful in particular. Like a person who would be obsessively accurate most of the time and sometimes serve you total bullshit, without warning of course. You couldn't trust him or her 100 % and would have always to be wary, but you could still learn from some of the details s/he points out. Bottom line: compare and check.

Also, the effect depends on the kind of (Bible) texts. On narrative texts such as Samuel-Kings or the Synoptic Gospels and Acts it is generally harmless, with a few outstanding exceptions (e.g. the quotation marks around "Samuel" in 1 Samuel 28). In rhetorical texts (such as the Pauline epistles) it can be disastrous, making the argument very logical to follow (or ruining it altogether, especially with the "Jehovah" insertions). But that doesn't affect the ordinary JW "prooftext" use of the Bible.

OnTheWayOut

Does the WTS have a greek and hebrew dept. or school? Do they have their own university trained scholars at the headquaters? If not, how do they come up with their translation? It does seem though that the changes they have made in the bible lean very much so towards supporting what they believe.

I forget which one, so read Ray Franz' two books, CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE and IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM (I believe the questions are addressed in ISOCF but you really need to read CoC first anyway) and you will learn much about how Fred Franz was their "scholar."

I think that most "scholarly" praise is heaped upon NWT's Old Testament for restoring a form of the tetragrammaton to the text and not putting in some notions of what things mean but just leaving it stand. I doubt too many scholars have much praise for the NWT Greek Scriptures (New Testament) because it definitely is messed up- inserting "Jehovah" where it never was, mixing "Jehovah" with "Jesus" where it fits WT doctrine, using the obscure meanings to fit WT doctrine, like "door-to-door" instead of "in private homes."

The two books by Ray Franz will get you going on many other thoughts about the translation.

Narkissos

* "making the argument very logical to follow" -> read, "making the logical argument very difficult to follow" (correction mistake) :)

wobble

I am sorry to argue against Narkissos, of course I bow to his superior scholarly knowledge, but I think Chalam is spot on,the NWT is not a translation but a tract for WT doctrine, and therefore cannot be considered a " Bible".

Those people who come fresh to the scriptures and wish to learn what was said by the original writers,should avoid the NWT like Swine Flu !!!

love

Wobble

TD

Call Jason BeDuhn and tell him which ones, because he says just the opposite - but then you perhaps are mosre of a scholar in Greek than he is?

BeDuhn did not evaluate the NWT as a whole.

He considered a small group of NT passages where he personally felt that bias was most likely to occur. He acknowledged that "another set of samples might yield some different configurations of reults." (p. 165) (To my knowledge, he has declined to discuss his conclusions in any detail on B-Greek.)

He also included a scathing review of the insertion of 'Jehovah' into the NT, which would be a rather obvious bias of a religion going by the name, "Jehovah's Witnesses."

The NWT is as biased in it's own fashion as any other translation

bluecanary

Thanks, TD.

kurtbethel

It is a wordy paraphrase, using several words when one or few will do.

grace=1 syllable

undeserved kindness=5 syllables

New World Translation, is it the best bible translation?

Share this