WT publication ever?
Or the worst?
Or neither?
N.B.: In NWT I include the "study editions" with cross-references and footnotes, and the KIT.
Is the NWT the best...
by Narkissos 44 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
sir82
Can't be the worst....that goes to the 2-volume "Isaiah - Light for All Mankind" books.
Yeesh...400+ pages of "verse 19...had its major fulfillment in 1919 CE....verse 20....had its major fulfillment in 1919 CE...."
300 pages later...."verse 12...had its major fulfillment in 1919 CE..."
NWT - best WT publication? Of course it depends on how you define "best".
Most helpful in upholding their doctrines? For a certainty.
Most effort expended in producing it? Certainly. A new Bible translation is a great accomplishment, even if you disagree with how it is translated.
Best attempt at something that would not be derided by anyone with more than a rudimentary knowlege of the Bible? Probably.
-
quietlyleaving
the best WT publication yes (to support their own doctrines) but if you include the KIT its the worst imo because the KIT tends to work against their interpretations.
edit: give me a couple of minutes and I'll try and provide examples
-
bluecanary
I miss the cross-references. When I'm reading my CHS Bible, sometimes I want to see what a parallel acount says (like from Matthew to Luke, etc) but I have to get on the internet to see where it would be.
-
Narkissos
Let me try to explain in what sense I think it might be deemed "best" (and not in the sense of "best for them").
Because in spite of its bias (by F.W. Franz's own admission) and flaws it is still a Bible -- i.e. a very diverse and complex collection of texts -- and, being a WT publication, one that JWs can read without any reservation or defensive attitude. Of course JWs will mostly use it to confirm and prove what they already believe, but they may also come to the realisation that there is still a huge gap between what even a specially-designed (or, in their minds, the best) Bible says and what they teach, especially on "positive" aspects of their doctrine. For instance, would anybody get the idea of "two hopes" for Christians just by reading the NWT? I don't think so. JWs even using the NWT have a lot a "jumping" from one book to another and "explanations" to give in order to make their points. Why is the "Truth"(TM) not nearly as clear in the NWT as it is in the Watchtower? Why is the NWT itself not sufficient to gather "what the Bible really teaches"(TM)? Such questions may sink in at some point, and will not be as easily dismissed as if they could blame it on some "biased" translation from "Babylon the Great".Also, if JWs venture into reading it (rather than just prooftexting) they will get a picture which is quite different from the JW atmosphere, especially in the NT (I mean, the "Christian Greek Scriptures"). I don't think the NWT seriously alters the portray(s) of Jesus in the Gospels for instance; and he doesn't look or sound like a JW. It may obscure the arguments in the epistles but they will still get the general ideas, including the overwhelming focus on Christ which is quite different from the WT emphasis.
I would assume many if not most have come to the realisation that something was wrong and not that "scriptural" in the WT reading no other Bible than the NWT (and not even in the KIT edition). In fact, they might have been wary of using another Bible. But they trusted that one and the voice they heard through it was not that of the WT... because the texts spoke louder than the translation so to say.
-
AllTimeJeff
My take on the NWT
Franz obviously had an agenda, and that is why, via the "J" references, Jehovah pops up 237 times in the NT.
But beyond that, and a few JW friendly translation regarding Trinity proof texts, it really is just another bible.
I remember when I first came here that there was a complaint with this particular scripture (maybe it was a website that was set on debunking the NWT, I don't know)
(Matthew 6:17) 17 But you, when fasting, grease your head and wash your face,NWT "Grease your head"? Sure, its a possible translation, but it sounds ridiculous... What do you grease your head with, Quaker State? Try these other translations of Mt 6:17
American Standard: 17. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy face;
New Jerusalem: 17. But when you fast, put scent on your head and wash your face,
New Living Translation: 17. But when you fast, comb your hair and wash your face.
Latin Vulgate: 17. tu autem cum ieiunas ungue caput tuum et faciem tuam lava
-
Nosferatu
The best WT publication is the calendar. You're not required to read it, it's useful, and it actually has a lot of truth to it (what the current date is).
They'll do away with it eventually. Calendars will eventually become old light.
-
AllTimeJeff
They'll do away with it eventually. Calendars will eventually become old light.
I agree, because real calanders tend to show up all the bullshit dates JW's promote as facts. (607 anyone?)
-
Chalam
Hi Jeff,
But beyond that, and a few JW friendly translation regarding Trinity proof texts, it really is just another bible.
I have to differ here. I will explain why.
To me, the NWT is corrupt at its core. It is just an extension of the corruption that flows from the WT.
The big question is how to get to God. He is holy and we are sinful, I think every faith pretty much agrees on that.
The gospel of the WT is "bowl right up". However, just look at the old testament and see if that approach works! No, you have to follow protocol. You cannot just drive down to Washington and boldly walk into the President's office.
Now the person who can get you into the President's office is Jesus. In fact, you can go in there any time if you know Him.
The problem with the WT is they demote, sideline and bypass Jesus at every turn. Even worse, in biblical terms they put themselves in His place.
For sure, they pay Him lip service but underneath all the lies and deception, they say you don't need Him but them. Look at the doctrine for who is the "advocate" for the non-anointed JW for example.
The issue of "who is Lord" is the cornerstone.
Romans 10:13 (New International Version)
13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Compare this verse for pretty much every bible against the NWT
NWT Romans 10: 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”
Now have a look at this verse
Romans 10:9 (New International Version)
9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Now the NWT agrees here
NWT Romans 10:9 For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.
So the problem is this, four verses later the NWT says to "call on the name of Jehovah" to be saved. So which name do we call upon? They have presented two different names within four verses. Will both names do the job?
Acts 4:10-12 (New International Version)
10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.' 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."The bible is clear, there is one name only.
The NWT agrees with the Acts 4:10-12 and shows up the problem with changing the greek "Lord" to "Jehovah" in Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21.
All the best,
Stephen
-
passwordprotected
Good post, Chalam.