Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel 123 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TTWSYF

  More examples of NWT tampered texts include Mathew 26;26, Mark 14;22 and Like 22;19. These passages refer to the last supper when Jesus says "This is my body", of course, because the WTS denies the real presence of Jesus in the Eucarist, they feel the passages should be rendered 'This means my body' The Greek is quite clear. 'This is the body of me' is the literal translation.

  So once again, the WTS is denying it's people the real Jesus

  ego eimi -means 'I am', it does not mean 'I have been' There is no other place that the WTS translated ego eimi to mean I have been except John 8 ;58. Anyone who disagrees is not informed and is continuing a lie....there's no such thing as lying for the truth. It is a contridiction.

  respectfully,

  dc
• 

  Wonderment

  ttwsyf said:

  ego eimi -means 'I am', it does not mean 'I have been' There is no other place that the WTS translated ego eimi to mean I have been except John 8 ;58. Anyone who disagrees is not informed and is continuing a lie....there's no such thing as lying for the truth. It is a contridiction.

  Ego eimi means basically "I am." There is no denying that. But no one can deny as well that in certain contexts it can be rendered with an English perfect indicative, or even a simple past form, I was.

  Grammarians Dana & Mantey explain: "Sometimes the progressive present is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present...This use is generally associated with an adverb of time, and may best be rendered by the English perfect...Ye have been with me from the beginning. Jn. 15:27." ( A Manual Grammar of the NT, page 183)

  One more example from John 14:9, where Jesus says to Philip: "So much time with you I am (Greek, eimi) and not you have known me, Philip?" Now, how would you translate that into modern idiomatic English? Give it a try, and then check with other bible versions.

  NWT rendering of Jn 14:9: "Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me?"

  I will show u another example taken from the Septuagint (LXX): Ge. 31:48 where Jacob says to Laban, in Greek, "These mine twenty years I am (ego eimi) in the house of yours." (Or, "These twenty years of mine I am in your residence.") Go over it and see if u can come up with your own translation in modern English that makes sense.

  "I have been in thy family these twenty years" (LXX, Charles Thomson)

  "These twenty years of mine I was in your household" (A New Translation of the Septuagint)

  "These twenty years have I been in thy house" (LXX, Sir Lancelot Brenton)

  And Mathew 26:26 reads literally: "This is the body of me." However, lexicons allowthat estin can also be rendered, "means" or "represents" in certain contexts.

  NWT: "This means my body"

  Mace: "this represents my body"

  An Understandable Version: "this is [i.e. represents] my [physical] body" (Brackets his)

  New Simplified Bible: "this (represents) (means) (exemplifies) my body." (Parenthesis his)
• 

  JuanMiguel

  For whatever it’s worth:

  I did some digging around since I left the JWs and discovered something new, at least to me, regarding the I AM controversy. Trinitarians are quite aware that “ego eimi” cannot and should not always be translated as “I am” in the Bible. According to their doctrine, the I AM statements as references to “identification of Christ with God” has a connection with what they call “The Book of Signs,” namely John 1:19-12:20 specifically (while the I AM sayings run in somewhat of a secondary narrative that can be said to include chapters 6-15).

  According to Trinitarians, there are only seven instances where “ego eimi” means “I AM” in the sense of a play on words that, according to them, link Jesus with YHWH. These are connected to the “seven signs” in John’s gospel.

  Their take is that when John mentions Christ’s turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana that this is not necessarily the very first miracle or sign he ever performed. Instead the writer uses “seven signs” as a backdrop for seven significant points that move the narrative of his gospel account along. It is not even considered a chronological listing. Instead it is a theological discourse that runs through John in place of the parables that occur in the synoptic accounts, or so they claim.

  Apparently the “seven signs” concept is based on an ancient catechism of sorts in which Christians used certain events in Christ’s life as evidences of his divinity. The seven I AM statements are included as parallels to the signs, but they only apply to this specific section of this gospel. There is no intention for readers to see a wordplay in other uses of I AM whether occurring elsewhere in holy writ.

  The Seven Signs

  1.The wedding at Cana: Turning water into wine (Ch. 2)

  2.Raising the son of the royal official (Ch. 4)

  3.Paralyzed man at the pool of Bethesda (Ch. 5)

  4.Multiplication of the loaves (Ch. 6)

  5.The Walking on the water (Ch. 6)

  6.Healing the man born blind (Ch. 9)

  7.The raising of Lazarus (Ch. 11)

  The Seven "I AM" Sayings

  1.6:35 - I am the bread of life

  2.8:12 - I am the light of the world

  3.10:7 - I am the gate for the sheep

  4.10:11 - I am the good shepherd

  5.11:25 - I am the resurrection and the life

  6.14:6 - I am the way, and the truth and the life

  7.15:1 - I am the true vine

  Maybe I didn’t pay enough attention, but all I remember the Watchtower ever teaching us was that Trinitarians did this arbitrarily, and not according to a specific pattern in link with the “Book of Signs.” In fact, if I remember correctly, the Witnesses teach that the miracle at Cana is literally the first miracle performed by Jesus having no knowledge that this is a reconstruction of events to highlight what the author was trying to say in John 1:1.

  Trinitarians believe the author is explaining his “Word with God” and “Word is divine” or “Word was God” (or whichever you prefer) preface from chapters 2-15. Afterwards an “eight sign” occurs, the Resurrection of Christ, signaling the beginning of a new “week” (Christ being resurrected the day “after the Sabbath”). The event is the I AM statement in this instance, according to their theology.

  Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t remember the Watchtower even presenting the I AM translations in this light and being limited to the narrative according to the way Trinitarians believe. I was just made to understand that they were being dishonest with themselves and others and just selecting verses at random. Was there any information in the Watchtower that showed that Trinitarians only apply the I AM principle in these instances? I had never heard of such views of John till I left the Witnesses.

  (The above information came from several sources, including several Oxford study Bible versions, the introductions to the gospel of John in certain editions of the NRSV, and from explanation from several Trinity believers I met recently. It’s taken about three years for all this to come together and click, and Wonderment’s last post suddenly triggered that somehow, it seems.)
• 

  still thinking

  @Wonderment & @JuanMiguel

  Now we're talking. Thanks for giving me some very interesting things to go away and have a look at.

  You guys rock!!
• 

  Terry

  Since most topics that go for more than a few pages end up in urination contests I thought I'd trickle into the stream a bit.

  If you haven't already, next time you are in a book store pick up a copy of THE MESSAGE bible.

  It was translated by a fellow named Eugene Peterson.

  I find his translation stunningly wonderful as far as the way it opens up what is written and how it touches my heart.

  Yeah, that's me talking!

  I LOVE this translation.

  Mr.Peterson cautions us that his translation can't be used as a STUDY BIBLE because it was idiomatically translated to bring

  out what Mr.Peterson thouIght would be understandable language rather than LITERAL.

  The beauty of what Peterson accomplishes will be used by me in a moment to make a point.

  But first!

  IF you ever get a chance to lay your hands on another translation of the bible make sure you read YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION.

  Why? Because it is just that: LITERAL.

  You will (again) be stunned.

  At what? The LITERAL record of what the bible "says".

  This, of course, in contrast to all the other versions we've been indoctrinated from over our lifespan. (Probably mostly KJV and NWT and possibly the Douay.)

  And now.....MY POINT!

  Among the variety of translations out on the market a vast span of scholarship, ideology, theological prejudice and academic push-pull the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION most explicitly and transparently BENDS the text to prove their proprietary theology.

  It reeks of bias.

  Bracket the NWT against your reading of THE MESSAGE and YOUNG'S LITERAL translation and you'll see exactly what bias really is!!
• 

  TTWSYF

  Good rebutal to you Wonderment. I stand corrected on other instances when ego eimi is translated differently than "I am' and I buy it in the logic of those translations in those other verses.

  What is fact of the scripture in question is that Jesus said 'I am' with the authority that put his life in instant danger. They were to stone him for blasphemy. For the blasphemy of saying that he was the Great eternal Presence. They saw him claiming to be God and it was nothing short of that. The NWT specifically renders that differently to remove scriptural proof that Jesus did claim divinity for himself. All the effort put forth suggesting an alternative translation doesn't work with the reality of the chapter.

  respectfully,

  dc
• 

  Wonderment

  Terry:

  I agree with u that The Message and Young's Literal Translation are worth obtaining. I use them both quite a bit. I like them both, thought they are apart in objectives. I can't say how much I appreciate these bibles. They are both a breath of fresh air. I recommend them as well to all participants in this forum. Robert Young was a master of semitic languages. Some say he was fluent in 19 languages. If true, he was more than an ordinary scholar.

  I am of the opinion though, that the NWT is not as bad as it is portrayed here. It shows a lot of depth in the Hebrew and Greek dpt. I know most here disagree with me. But I really enjoy the NWT as I enjoy Young's, The Message, the NIV or some other version.

  I tend to recommend a variety of bible versions from different religious persuasion, instead of sticking with one translation angle, like JWs, and evangelicals tend to do. I recommend a variety of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and of course, don't throw your NWT away. It is good to have balance, and consider different angles of interpretation.

  Cheers!
• 

  Wonderment

  TTSWYF,

  Even if Jews understood Jesus was claiming divinity at Jn 8:58, it does not mean they were right for doing so. At Jn 5:18, Jesus was misunderstood by Jews as well, claiming that he was breaking the Sabbath and that by calling God his own Father, was making himself equal to God. Now, the question is, Was Jesus actually breaking the Sabbath? I don't think so? Do you?

  Notice, the other accusation Jews brought up: By calling God his own Father, they concluded Jesus was making himself equal to God. Was he? He defended himself not by saying, "You are right, I broke the Sabbath, and I am making myself equal to God." No! Jesus instead tells them that "The Son is not able to do anything of himself...that all may honour the Son according as they honour the Father; he who is not honouring the Son, doth not honour the Father who sent him." (5:19,23, Young'sLT) Verse 30 says that: "I am not able of myseff to do anything...because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me." Later in the chapter, Jesus told them that they were not seeking the glory of the only God (or, God alone) as he himself was doing. (44) Also, they had not heard his voice, or seen his figure or appearance. (V. 37) So, it seems Jesus was not confirming their erroneous take of him, rather, he corrected them by saying in so many words that he was different than the Father, and logically, that he was not making himself equal to God. What is your take?

  At John ch. 10:30 onward, Jews again misunderstood Jesus' statement that 'he and the Father were one thing." Then, they wanted to stone him for blasphemy, because he was making himself "god" (or, a God, without the definite article in Greek). Were Jews correct in interpreting Jesus statements that he was claiming full divinity or equality with God? No! He defended himself by saying 'that if men of old were called gods, and the Word of God came against them,' why would they want to stone him when he was just claimingto be NOT God, but God's Son? (Jn 10:33-36)

  At Jn 8:58, many trinitarians do not see Jesus claiming divinity. Many do, but not all. Actually, some trinitarians argue that those who believe Jesus was claiming divinity by using ego eimi are wrong. Here is a sample:

  Seventh Day Adventist (Trinitarian): "I existed before Abraham was even born" (The Clear Word)

  Evangelical Protestant: "I was alive before Abraham was born" (The NT in Plain English)

  Catholic: "Before Abraham existed, I was existing" (Sao Paulo, Catholic Center)

  Evangelical Protestant: "Before Abraham was born, I have been" (NASB, 1971, Alternate reading)

  Jehovah Witness: "I came into being before Abraham" (21st Century NT)

  Evangelical Protestant: "I have existed before Abraham was born" (Moffatt NT)

  Jewish: "I existed before Abraham was born" (H. Schonfield)

  Modern Israel: "Before Abraham was, I have been" (N.H. Snaith)

  Syriac, 4th or 5th Century: "before Abraham was, I have been" (Agnes Smith)
• 

  JuanMiguel

  One should not jump to the conclusion that because a translator does not use I AM as a rendition of ego eimi that they do not believe in the Trinity.

  For example, the Catholic rendering offered by you does not mean that Catholics don’t believe in the Trinity. Because of the guidelines of translation found in the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu a Catholic translation may choose to render the expression literally.

  This is generally the most favored way of translating Scripture in Roman Catholic academia. While recognizing that traditionally certain verses may have evolved a way of being rendered that reflects advances in theology over the centuries, more often these later renditions are offered in the footnotes instead of the main text.

  A most outstanding example, since it was at the heart of the discussion originally, is the NABRE which uses “holy Spirit” instead of “Holy Spirit.” While understanding that personification was primitive but not totally without connection with God in the first century, the translators chose only to capitalize “Spirit.” The word “holy” would only later be considered part of the “proper name” of the Third Person of the Trinity, even though formal adoption of the doctrine preceded the canonization of Christian scripture.

  Does this mean that the translators of the NABRE don’t believe that one should use the term “Holy Spirit” or that they have abandoned belief in the Trinity? No. It was just a choice that fits in with their overall devotion to the principles that governed their work, one that showed favor to more primitive renditions over age-old accepted ones.

  And that the Trinity doctrine was not developed directly from the canon of accepted Scripture (mainly because it had not yet been formally decided upon) should allow us who come from a JW background (where all that is true can only come “from” the Bible, lest it be false) to give the Trinitarian translator their due when this allows them to see the text independent from a theology that was developed from more than mere writ.

  Unlike the JWs and Fundamentalists, mainstream Christians—both Catholics and Protestants—do not need to have the Sacred Text molded in translation to support a view that did not directly proceed from Scripture to begin with. Therefore just because some do not use “I AM” in the traditional places should not be construed as exclusive empirical evidence of an abandonment of the Trinity doctrine. That will likely sound foreign to those of us who have never lived like that, even illogical and unbelievable.

  One last note, it is because of the Semitic use of the word “son” and its implications that it can carry the meaning of being one and the same with the subject’s “father” that the Jews came to the conclusion about Jesus referring to himself as God (I make mention of this earlier in this thread). As members of the faculty of theology of the University of Navarre in Spain mention in their commentary on John, Jesus is being accused of blasphemy for allowing such a connection to be made possible from his speech, not really so much on what the claim of his identity may be.

  Jesus defends the use of such speech by quoting Psalm 82:6 to show it is not blasphemous to use such terms. They conclude, as shown from verse 10:36, that Jesus maintains his claim to divinity and even that these enemies of his have reached the right conclusion of what “sonship” means in reference to him and the Father. The only thing Jesus is correcting is that these Jews “wrongly interpret his words as blasphemy,” when no such thing has occurred, even when using the term to refer to “son” as in the “spitting image” sense of the word. In other words, Jesus is not committing blasphemy to use "Son" to make claims about his own divinity.
• 

  wobble

  Thank you Wonderment and Juan Miguel, you continue to educate this simple country boy.

  Just one little silly niggle, Wonderment, in one of your posts above you spoke of certain translations being fresh because they are translated from "the originals".

  I know you know what you your meaning on this was, i.e going back to the earliest manuscripts we have and using those, rather than using the Textus Receptus or even following Westcott and Hort's efforts slavishly, but a JW reading your words would miss the point that Terry often makes (and Bart Ehrman) that all we have is copies of copies with many variations and probably a lot of redaction within them.

  Because of this fact, it is impossible to argue that "Jesus said...... " "I Am" or anything, we do not know , cannot know , what he said, or what the original writers wrote.

  I do not wish to detract in any way from the excellent explanations above, obviously Jesus said something that raised the temperature of his listeners, otherwise the account would not exist.

  It is just that Fundies and JW's somehow like to infer we have the inerrant word of God in front of us, so therefore it makes sense to argue over every "jot and tittle", it does not, however, just as I gain a much greater appreciation of Shakespeare by reading the explanations of people who understand his use of language and the times in which he lived, my appreciation and understanding of the Bible is greatly enhanced by your posts.

  I am gaining a better education on here than I got in 58 years in the WT (no surprise) but on here it is free and without pain, just a wonderful feeling of questions answered, and being able to read with greater appreciation.

  Thank you all very very much.