New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

by Quendi 66 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  Morever, I'm not sure it's realized how bad of a contradiction this creates with legitmate criticisms of the NWT. If it has in fact been cobbled together entirely from the lexical works of non-JW scholars and not actually translated from the critical texts at all, then claims of "mistranslation" evaporate into thin air. It's only by showing that a rendering you may have a problem with in the NWT does not have any support at all from Greek scholars that the charge of "Mistranslation" can be made. In other words, since mistranslation is by nature a failed or falsified attempt at translation, you have to at least have the latter before you can have the former.

  This is a precise and valid criticism worth making. On the face of it.

  But, in another way of looking at it maybe not so much.

  What is the NWT REPRESENTING is the real question?

  If the T in NWT stands for TRANSLATION then that is exactly ...what the intention is as to our perception.

  If what is really going on behind the scenes (hence the refusal to name the translators involved) is NOT translation the result is FRAUD.

  If you name translators and identify them as specific persons with NO CREDENTIALS it would immediately disprove the claim of "TRANSLATION."

  So, the chips fall where they may here and I think the pot is a loser.

  Can we make such a claim based on previous examples?

  Russell could not read or write Greek as demonstrated in court. Yet, he called himself PASTOR which is a title nominally associated with CREDENTIALS from a Seminary.

  Franz could not translate under oath what would have been a simple process of English into Hebrew. He was nominated for consideration as a Rhodes Scholar, we are told. This implies intelligence of a high order. Yet, Franz did NOT go for the tests and refused the nomination. His various works on chronologies indicates more of a crackpot intelligence than an academically validated one.

  The pattern demonstrates a double speak in these matters.

  I would assert the pattern of behavior in hiding complicity in various doctrinal frauds goes a long way toward explaining anonymity of the NWT translators.
• 

  myelaine

  dear Terry...

  you asked: "Do you know of ANY bible on the market which isn't copyright protected due to "original" content being added?"...

  my point is in order to copyright the bible you have to "make it original"...with the NWT being copyrighted the WTBTS has a monopoly on the entire JW meme...they have endevoured to chain the Word of God to themselves and in doing so every word that they have used to "translate" the bible has wedged itself into the JW speech and thought process...thereby chaining generations of minds to themselves as well..."only the FDS has 'the truth'".

  love michelle
• 

  PSacramento

  I have the following versions of the bible:

  KJV, NASB, NJV, NIV, NRSV, RSV, ESV and the NWT, I also have 3 interlienears for each testaments ( OT and NT).

  All have their biasis and issues and all have their strong points, even the NWT.

  The issus that many have with the NWT are a bit silly because the NWT is a JW bible for JW's and that is really all that it is.

  It was tailored made from them to "answer" many of the questions that they kept getting hammered with.

  Bbeing hammered with so many issues that were presented in other bibles, they came up with a grande strategy: Translate our own, our way and say that the rest are wrong, LOL !

  And it worked for them !
• 

  Juan Viejo2

  Quendi,

  While I will support your position that the name "Jehovah" was published in some form as early as the 12th century, I stand by my initial statement:

  ==> "Jehovah" is the English version of the Greek version of the Hebrew version of the YHVH with added vowels <==

  Yes, of course other languages use their own variations on the name Jehovah. I wasn't talking about German, or French, or Spanish or Swahili. That goes without saying.

  There is no evidence of Jesus, while surrounded by his followers, commanding or even suggesting that they call the Father "Jehovah." Nor is it likely that he told them to call Him "Yahweh," although that is more likely than "Jehovah."

  I still hold my position that there is no evidence that the name JEHOVAH has any particular significance or any higher accuracy than any other name for God Almighty that some cult wants to pull out of their ass.

  JV
• 

  TD

  Terry,

  I agree that the 'T' in NWT would be hollow indeed if little or no translation actually took place. Nevertheless....An attempt at translation must first be made before you can have mistranslation.

  Franz could not translate under oath what would have been a simple process of English into Hebrew.

  I think I've lost count of the number of times I've heard this.

  I disagree. Language is not just the vehicle by which we express ourselves, it is also the vehicle by which we think. I can't speak for ancient Hebrew, but the ancient Greeks had different ways of looking at time and motion than we do and consequently expressed themselves in ways that seem odd today.

  Let's assume just for the sake of argument that Franz was able to translate forward from ancient Hebrew into English. Going backwards from English to ancient Hebrew on the fly would have been a different story because Franz, being a product of the 20th century would almost certainly have expressed himself with a different choice of words than the redactor many centuries ago did. J.L. Clyde could then have presented the actual text and denounced him as incompetent.

  It was a cheap, theatrical manueuver (No offense to any attorneys here) based on a false premise: That one person can translate ancient language 'X' into modern language 'Y' and then another person can translate modern language 'Y' back into ancient language 'X' and you'll be pretty much back where you started from. The only way to sidestep that pitfall would have been to know the Hebrew text of Genesis 2:4 by heart. (Apparently Franz didn't)

  I know bilingual Evangelicals will guffaw and say, "I can go back and forth between English and Spanish/French/German, (Fill in the blank) at will. It should have been a simple process for Franz, if he were really competent." But people that have actually learned an ancient language are much more cautious in their criticism because it doesn't work that way. Ancient languages are not taught or learned as spoken tongues.

  William LaSor said pretty much the same thing in Handbook of Biblical Hebrew:

  
• 

  PSacramento

  TD,

  Do you think Meztzger or another biblical scholar that has worked on any of the other translations would have been able to do what Franz wasn't able to ?
• 

  Terry

  I disagree. Language is not just the vehicle by which we express ourselves, it is also the vehicle by which we think. I can't speak for ancient Hebrew, but the ancient Greeks had different ways of looking at time and motion than we do and consequently expressed themselves in ways that seem odd today.

  I can see what you are saying and it is valid, certainly.

  Here is how I'm looking at it.

  The BIBLE is a unique situation among all translation situations for this reason.

  It has all been DONE. Over and over and over.

  There is nothing NEW there. There are only strategies to doing the same old same old.

  Young's Literal Translation is on the opposite end of the spectrum from The Messege bible.

  However, the same "information" remains the same.

  The rationale for ALL these many translations ALWAYS comes down to enforcing a mindset upon the interpretation of the text in a destructive (rather than constructive) way.

  The translator want to BEND certain key scriptures TOWARD a beloved doctrine.

  Otherwise, there would be only three or four translations going from literal through to expressive.

  The NUTS and BOLTS of Bible translation has been DONE. The groundwork is forever settled.

  It is a matter of grunt work to look at the Hebrew and change it magically into the semi-equivalent English.

  I hope this clarifies my view of Russell and Franz. What they thought of as "translation" was making certain the reading of a conventional scripture came out on their side of things. That is fraud. Or, to be as kind as possible: intellectual malfeasance or ideology.
• 

  myelaine

  dear Terry...

  you said: "The rationale for ALL these many translations ALWAYS comes down to enforcing a mindset upon the interpretation of the text in a destructive (rather than constructive) way."...

  then the rationale behind the differences between the catholic bible and the KJV protestent bible aren't about enforcing a destructive mindset or specific doctrine or dogma but the rationale behind the words used in the "translation" of the NWT can NOW clearly be seen as an effort to enforce a destructive mindset(effect)...given that the words they have chosen to use in their translation cause a disconnect between biblical "themes".

  love michelle
• 

  TD

  PSac.

  Do you think Meztzger or another biblical scholar that has worked on any of the other translations would have been able to do what Franz wasn't able to?

  I don't know. I think Greek might have been Metzger's stronger suite, but for any scholar, I think under the following set of circumstances, "would" is a more basic question than "could":

  A. Being asked to translate a random scripture in the O.T. from English back into the ancient Hebrew.

  B. Being asked to do so in a court room under cross examination.

  C. Knowing that the solicitor framing the question knew absolutely squat about the subject himself.

  D. Knowing (As a consequence of 'C') that semantical equivalency wasn't going to be good enough; the solicitor's yardstick was likely going to be a school-boy word for word comparision.

  Franz flatly refused, so we'll never know how close he might have come. From his comments, I think it's pretty obvious that Evangelical scholar, William LaSor probably would have refused too.
• 

  PSacramento

  Fair enough TD.

  Although I think that LaSor would have probably refused for different reasons, still, that may just be my natural bias against Franz.

  To be honest, I can see refusing to translate a NON-biblicap passage but a biblicla one? thet he probably should have know with ease?

  But you still make a valid case.