Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel 123 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TTWSYF

  JW's provide copious amounts of information to support their beliefs (biased? Definately, but arent all religions).

  Truth- JW's provide copious amounts of misinformation to support their beliefs

  Catholics simply teach you must believe and thats that. No need to explain or answer any questions. Just listen, do as you're taught, worship our Father the Pope who's image dominates the hallways and classrooms, even more dominant than Jesus in fact.

  To say that 'you are to worship our Father, the Pope.' is a flat out lie. No wonder you were converted to the JW's. You had no grasp of your own faith. And who's fault is that?

  I think Jesus may even come close third after Mary.

  Of course that is a ridiculous statement. Catholics [like all Christians] honor the son the same as the father. Catholics believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. Not God the father, but God the son who gave up his glory to become man.

  I have studied with witnesses for a number of years and must say for me the appeal was the way they liked to answer questions and research things. After the Catholic dogmatic arrogance this was truly refreshing.

  Really? Have an example? You are allowed to research any Catholic doctrine and you will find an answer. Ask a JW how many books are in the bible and they'll fire off the answer. Ask a JW how we got the current cannon of the bible and most have no idea that it was the Catholics. That the current biblical cannon came from the Roman council of 381 [382 maybe]. Ask any JW why they go door to door with a Catholic book and you won't get an answer.

  But the fact that ALL bibles are biased to some extent makes the argument null and void to me because, does knowing the identity of the translators make any bible more correct than another?....NO

  No. There is no excuse for adding, removing, or altering the scriptural texts no matter one's belief. You want an unbiased translation. You want a qualified translator so that you know there is credibility and accountability. As a JW once told me ' you don't look for a bible that suits your mental tastes, you look for the most accurate one you can find.' Avoid the NWT. It is corrupt, that's why no one else uses it!

  I asked you guys not to get me started!

  DARN!,

  DC
• 

  Terry

  There is no provenance for what fragments of scripture we have.

  We don't know who did what or when or what hands changed this and that.

  We simply do NOT have provenance.

  There are no Originals.

  Without some kind of original, uncorrupt texts we simply CANNOT establish what was said and by whom or who

  may have (with the best possible intentions) altered it to "clarify meaning."

  How many "clarifications", changes, interpretations and substitutuions and by whom is uncomputable.

  This is the FOUNDATION of all Christian doctrine, by the way: unprovenanced , tampered, non-original, recopied, texts.

  What Jehovah's Witnesses have done with the New World Translation has been done again and again all through history by each and every translator with full piety, honesty and well-intentioned corruptive results.

  We have what we pretend is rock solid God breathed Truth and it is imaginary as a construct.
• 

  PSacramento

  By the way, I have read BeDuhns book Truth in Translation. And I agree with you that he makes some very valid points.

  The problem is that Jason uses to LITTLE to make comparisons and he is NOT a biblical scholar so while he is qualified to make comments on the language used, he doesn't have enough experience in the context it is being used by in John.

  But he is right on one thing, The JW's inserting the name "jehovah" in the NT is simply wrong and unwarranted.

  His views on John 1:1 are technically correct, but out of context with "John's" writing style and the rest of the GOJ.

  John makes it clear that, in his veiw, "Logos and Theos" are ONE, in perfect harmony and of the same nature, as such, "a god" makes no sense withing teh context of Johannine writings a dtheology.
• 

  Wonderment

  TTSWYF, I have not only checked that link, but I have most of those books on my shelf. Most of your argumentation is flawed. The NWT was prepared for JWs, not for Christendom. It is reasonable then, that Christendom will use their own versions with the college credentials they so desperately demand. You are also downplaying Scribd. Scribd is used by all sorts of people, scholars and companies. Even books are distributed through it. It is sad that u judge the quality of a writing by the univ. credentials. Other people without a Masters or PhD may, and DO have brilliant ideas. Don't believe me? If u would have read one of those links I provided u, the one about if the NW translators know any greek?.. you would have seen a list of some prominent people with little or no formal training outdoing the formally trained individuals. So, to reject an article, because u don't see high credentials splattered all over the place is an argument of special pleading. After all, how many worldly educational degrees did Jesus' disciples have to engage in bible authorship?

  It is not true that ALL trinitarian scholars translate Jn 1:1, "the Word was God." And it is not true either that most non-trinitarians would render it "a god," or "divine." Sorry, but u are misinformed. I cited Mantey because u did used his name as an authority at least twice, and I just pointed out that Mantey himself contradicted himself many times, theologically speaking, and other scholars have pointed out his flawed theological statements. But apparently u have no knowledge of these. His Grammar is good though. It is a model of succinctness with good coverage on many grammar issues.

  On the NWT, I disagree that it is a poor translation. Yes, it is wooden, and biased. But so are many of Christendom's versions. Anyone who grabs the Hebrew or Greek text line by line and compares it to their translated versions, can see it all over the place, just as u can with the NWT. They are all biased to some point. But both translations as sources do a respectable job at it. And I appreciate their honest efforts. One example of bias of mainstream versions is seen when they drop the use of the divine name for petty reasons. Just as it is objectionable to add the divine name in the NT when it does not appear in the text as we have it, it is no less offensive to remove it from the bible. In fact, I would say it is even worse. All those credentials on the jacket of their versions don't help the cause. I agree with the NWT here, and with bible translators JB, Byington, that it is important to convey the original divine name into a modern version. It appears most versions refrain from using the divine name in the OT because they want no one to connect them with the "hated" JWs. And it also makes it easier to have Jesus appear as the Supreme God. It is a scheme. So, if u believe in the Trinity, u will agree with them and defend their cause. I don't.

  Juan Miguel: ¡Te expresas muy bien! I understand your presentation of the Trinity makes it clear that many distort their views. It is also true, that many distort JWs publications on the subject. The problem with the common trinitarian argument that God is only one God, but three persons in one, is that I can't find that statement anywhere in the bible. It is more akin with middle eastern philosophies than it is with Scripture. "Insinuations" that the Trinity is truth is not enough for me to accept it. At one time I was a JW, I haven't gone back in nearly 20 years. I have moved away, and I see many of their errors, but it seems to me that their stand that Christ is subordinate, and never the equal of Jehovah is more scriptural, than Christendom's stand.The trinity seems more as heresy, than scriptural.

  Thus, the NWT will always be criticized, because the Trinity teaching is at the core of this denunciation. Those who appeal to "credentials" as evidence that is not apt for the masses, are making theirs a case of special pleading.
• 

  wannabefree

  My two cents ....

  BeDuhn didn't say the NWT was factual and accurate, he said that the select verses he compared were often MORE accurate in the rendering according to the vernacular of the day.

  As I recall, he didn't say John 1:1 should be stated the way the NWT has it, he says it is more accurate than saying "God", but still not quite right saying "a god", he believed it would be preferrable to use the term "divine". Which in my opinion, takes it away as a proof text for either side of the argument.

  Where I appreciated the NWT's honesty was the footnotes in the study edition. Such as 1 Peter 3:15 where the NWT says (paraphrasing) to "recognize Jesus as Lord in your heart" .... the footnote for Lord offers the alternate rendering of Jehovah. To me, this is problematic for Watchtower theology, but the translators felt it necessary to include it none the less.

  I personally now will only trust the study edition because it includes the brackets and the footnotes.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  I just discovered this while researching astrology in the Bible...

  According to the NWT, at Job 38:32, Jehovah says, "Can you bring forth the Maz´za·roth constellation in its appointed time?"

  Strong's says:

  4216 mazzarah maz-zaw-raw' apparently from 5144 in the sense of distinction; some noted constellation (only in the plural), perhaps collectively, the zodiac:--Mazzoroth. Compare 4208.
  
  So basically, the word refers to plural constellations, and Jehovah is asking Job if he can bring forth these constellations in their appointed time. In this case it would be fitting to translate the word as "Zodiac".
  
  However, now notice at 2 Kings 23:5, the NWT says:
  
  5 And he put out of business the foreign-god priests, whom the kings of Judah had put in that they might make sacrificial smoke on the high places in the cities of Judah and the surroundings of Jerusalem, and also those making sacrificial smoke to Ba´al, to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations of the zodiac and to all the army of the heavens.
  
  Ooh yes, now, because the reference is to Baal worship, it becomes the BIG BAD Zodiac in the Watchtower Bible, when the reference here is to a singular constellation or a (singular) planet! Note that Strong's here is saying it perhaps refers to a singular Zodiacal sign:
  4208 mazzalah maz-zaw-law' apparently from 5140 in the sense of raining; a constellation, i.e. Zodiacal sign (perhaps as affecting the weather):--planet. Compare 4216.
  
  I just love that NWT translating committee. You gotta hand it to these fellas for their deceptive creativity!
• 

  still thinking

  @TTWSYF

  I'm so sorry to have offended you and your beliefs. I didn't realise I had logged into the Catholic fan club website.

  You do not have any authority to say that anything I have said is untrue. These were my experiences while being involved in this false religion. You clearly have a strong bias towards the catholic faith and good on you I say. Do what you like. But after spending nearly half my life in Catholic instituions I think my opinions are as vaid as yours. Quite frankly I don't need to support what I say about bullshit teachings. My opinion is based on living with their behavior and what I saw every day. And what stood out to me the most were pictures of the pope plastered all over the place with his hands piously outstetched in his come to me pose. (sickening).

  If you say that Mary isn't just as important why is one of the main prayers that we were taught to say repeatedly over and over the Hail Mary ? Why were we taught to pray to her? Where is the prayer to pray to Jesus? Sorry, of course....that would be the our Father!!!! what a load of twaddle. And while I'm on the subject of prayer...why the hell were we praying to saints?.....who says they are so holy? oh of course, that would be the Popes and their cronies. Cause of course....they have that authority cause THEY are so holy. And by the way. I clearly remember the pope being referered to as "our holy father in Rome"

  Pope (from Latin: papa; from Greek: π?ππας (pappas), a child's word for father)

  If you would like to see the Activities of the Holy Father: 2011 click on this link http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/index.htm

  So I'm not sure who you think you are saying that I didn't check out my own faith? Since I never chose it. I was simply exposed to it. It is not and will never be my faith. Just as Jehovahs Witnesses will never be my faith because I dont believe their false doctrines either.
• 

  OUTLAW

  And that’s the difference between doing something in the light and having produced something from the shadows of the dark.....JuanMiguel

  Would you really want the World to know..

  Some Strange Little Guy who talked to his shoes and had little education in Koen Greek,Translated your Bible?..

  ........................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  still thinking

  @TTWSYF

  If you would like to compare Catholics with JW's I have a recent example for you. I asked my friend (who is catholic) the other day which bible version she used. Her reply "The Holy Bible" she didn't have the foggiest Idea that there were different bibles. She has been a Catholic all her life and is now almost 60. You could argue that she is only one Catholic, But I would argue that you cannot speak for all JW's and make sweeping statements that most do not know about bible cannon. Otherwise, I could use the same argument about Catholics.
• 

  still thinking

  @OUTLAW

  He talked to his shoes???? Did they talk back?