Yes 3 mozzies, thanks for informing me on the other translations that use Gods name, this is very important . I still prefer the NWT . I think its the most accurate.
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious 86 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
3Mozzies
I really respect your interest in having a Bible that keeps God's name in it, I feel the same.
I thought the same about the NWT until I started researching more into it, I bought a Interlinear Bible and found that the KJV & NKJV are very close to the original Greek.
I own a few bibles and enjoy the 'New King James Version' the best, almost spot on to the original Greek.
The NWT fails in my eyes. Just my 2 cents here . . .
We are all free to read whatever we like :)
3Mozzies
-
-
Wonderment
3Mozzies:
Yes, the KJV/NKJV does a pretty good job with the Greek. They do a better job than the KJV opposers are willing to admit. However, in many places the KJV folks let the Latin Vulgate determine their choices of renderings. Don´t throw the NWT away, because it still gives you good flavor of the originals where KJV falls flat. No one translation alone can give you the Greek, because all translations fail at some point. Talking about Interlinears, I find the best that represent the basic Greek are: The Kingdom Interlinear, the Concordant Greek text, and Paul R. McReynolds interlinear. The Concordant is not the easiest to use, though. I have bought every interlinear I can get my hands on, but those 3 I have found to represent the basic Greek best. The other interlinears are almost loose translations, so I don´t know why those authors bothered to bring another one to the market.
Interestingly, people a lot of times buy translations and interlinears based on the reputation they carry. I find that means very little when it comes to execution. It´s better to stick with the ones that do deliver. No fancy titles, or big reputation, just something that works.
-
Leolaia
No one goes into a translation with no knowledge or doctrinal baggage.
Oh absolutely, I wouldn't disagree with that. What I was pointing out is that the method I was describing throws a better light on the role of bias in the process of translation than the method adopted by BeDuhn.
-
Leolaia
As brought out in the book " Truth in translation", the NWT is the only translation that restores the divine name Jehovah to its rightful place in the old testament.
Ummm, seriously????
What about the American Standard Version? Byington's Bible in Living English? The Jerusalem Bible? I personally prefer the JB because "Yahweh" is better transliteration of the name than "Jehovah".
-
metatron
There is no excuse for using "Jehovah" in the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It is not justified, period. It IS appropriate (as Yahweh) and necessary in the Hebrew Scriptures to be accurate to the text.
An example of NWT bias? Various Hebrew scriptures that hide the fact that faithful Israelites used "standards" in battle (i.e. flags). All armies did as a practical necessity. The Jewish Encyclopedia thinks flags may have been used by Jews to AVOID idolatry !!
metatron
-
truebelieverbob
Yes its true Jw's showed bias with over inserting the name of God in the new test. but it doesn't bother me that much because they had good motives , to glorify the father, and to try to show the difference between the son and the father. What bothers me so much more is the bias in most other translations that try to twist the scriptures to prove the trinity or the equality of Jesus to his father. Jason Beduhns book showed how they translated with bias in his book " Truth in translation" , and basically showed the NWT is one of the best and most accurate translations.
-
Wonderment
As regards the divine name in the NT, it would have been better to keep the divine name in the footnotes where the NT quotes the OT. I don´t understand though, why all the fuss about whether we should use Yahweh instead of Jehovah because Y. is closer to the Hebrew. Could it be that we as X-JW´s we don´t want to sound supportive of the WT?
Because really, while Jehovah may not be the closest ideal pronunciation of the divine name, to be consistent we would have to change the way we use names in our modern versions. Biblical names as a whole are no match to the originals, yet no one makes a fuss about it -- including Jesus´ name which is not really the way Hebrews or Greeks likely pronounced it. So in my case I conclude as Rotherham did in his last few years of life. He said that he realized that Jehovah is so well known that it communicates better with the modern reader instead of Yahweh which he preferred until then for most of his life. Also Byington came to the same conclusion. I side with their view. If someone decides to ADD the divine name to the NT, they should at least stick to OT quotes. It is possible, after all that the original Greek text did use it.
Metatron mentioned the flags in old times. That is an interesting point, which the WT hides, if is not convenient to them.
-
metatron
Another quiet deceit of the New World Translation and the Watchtower generally is their bogus attitude towards translating ancient Greek.
Common Greek as a language was not a product of philosophers or scholars, it was the collective property of whores, fishermen, soldiers and other ordinary people controlled by the Roman Empire. It was not consistent as to 'one meaning for each word'. It was not precise.
The Watchtower Society keeps treating common Greek as if it was some modern scientific -legally exact set of words as with English or German. It's utter nonsense. Parousia can mean 'presence' or 'coming' or 'visit after arrival'. It isn't enough that they have to claim that the Bible is free from myth and internally consistent, they have to claim that the Greek vocabulary used in the Bible is miraculously consistent, too!
Otherwise, the whole 1914 Presence stuff falls apart on Parousia, alone. Of course, they make exceptions where convenient - Proskyneo is worship - except when the Watchtower needs "obeisance" to prevent Jesus from being treated like God
And Hebrew? I have to laugh everytime they talk about the future of earth and don't realize that 'time indefinite' is not equal to 'forever'.
metatron