And what about the 1985 revised KIT? (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985) the word "other" does not appear within the actual Greek translation of Colossians 1:16-20.
N. The New World Translation Quote from an Elder
by howdidtihappen 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Atlantis
N. -
Atlantis
Those who defend the New World Translation would have us to believe that they know more about this Bible than the people who actually constructed it. Is this reasonable? Were they there at the time of its construction? Did they hear the conversations surrounding this Bible that were made by Watchtower leadership? Are they aware that Fred Franz actually described the New World Translation as a bias translation?
Crisis of Conscience, p.27 "Somewhat disturbed by what my research revealed, I approached my uncle with the evidence. His response took me by surprise. "Don't try to understand the Scriptures on the basis of what you see today in the organization," he said, and added, "Keep the Aid book pure." I had always looked upon the organization as God's one channel for dispensing truth and so this counsel sounded unusual to say the least. When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words "to office" in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, "Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased."I walked out of his office wondering if I had actually heard what I had heard." Scan: Ray Franz certainly took the statement made by his uncle in a serious manner. Ray did not think his uncle was being sarcastic and did not misunderstand his uncle. Ray said; "I walked out of his office wondering if I had actually heard what I had heard." In a nutshell, Ray Franz was shocked at what he had heard. Ray took the statement made by Fred Franz seriously and so should we! Can any defenders of the New World Translation provide documents proving that Fred Franz did not make this statement? If so, show it to us now! Prove to us that Fred Franz never made that statement. When the New World Translation is described by those who were responsible for constructing it as a "bias" translation, then nothing you provide as a defense will matter. Your just wasting your time. We have our evidence right from the source. More than enough evidence has been provided. N. -
Wonderment
Atlantis:
I am keenly aware that the NWT does show bias in their version in many places. I have never said the opposite. What I have stated throughout this site is that ALL bible versions show their bias somehow. The NWT is no exception. The info you provided breaks no news. I repeat: All Bible translations reflect the bias of their translators, including the New Word Translation. I have no problem with that.
Nevertheless, it is my belief that most bible versions are useful for deep bible study, including the NWT. I go further, the NWT Reference Bible is one of the best Study Bibles anywhere. It is with this statement that apparently some in in this board have a problem with, i.e. recognizing the value, the contribution the NWT has made in the field.
Most on this board harbor great resentment toward the WTS for their lack of Christianity when it comes to ex-members. I am too a victim, as you probably are. Because of this deep-rooted resentment, many have come to despise anything that has to do with this bible Society, to the point, that it has clouded their judgment in regards to the NWT. Their feeling seems to be... the WTS is evil, the NWT must be trash as well.
You do not see me defending the WTS in many subjects related to them, because I can not conciensciously do so with some exceptions. However, I do not see the same problem with the NWT. Yes, it is stilted toward their organization, but it has so much good to offer, not only to JWs, but to others as well, to stand on its own merits.
It is my belief that some ex-JWs who ALWAYS defend mainstream translations, and demonize the NWT, are lacking fair judgment. I am not advocating for a "perfect" and "holier than thou" NWT, but calling for fairness and recognition of the version as a valuable contribution to the community. Mainstream bible versions are attractive to own, but have their own tendentious issues to deal with. They too are made by imperfect humans as well. I do value their contributions in a big way.
-
Sulla
Sulla: Jason BeDuhn compared 9 bible versions where theology plays a role in bias. He found the NWT to be a sound bible translation, showing less bias in some cases to mainstream versions. He has made it clear he is not a JW, and he took the NWT to task in many cases, pointing out places where the NWT showed bias. One such area he disagrees with the NWT Committee is in the realm of using the divine name in the NT. I got the impression Dr. BeDuhn was fair in his assesments of the various bible versions discussed.
I know he is not a JW and I know he was critical of the NWT usage of "Jehovah" in the NT. I am suggesting that a) the NWT insertion of "Jehovah" in the NT is itself an instance of bias that is extraordinarily significant and b) BeDuhn's insistance that the NWT is the least biased translation notwithstanding borders on the pathological.
-
Atlantis
Wonderment:
Most on this board harbor great resentment toward the WTS for their lack of Christianity when it comes to ex-members.
---------------------------------------------
Prove it! How do you know what others on this board harbor? Have you met them? Do you know most of the members of this board personally? Have you walked in their shoes? Have you felt the pain that they have felt? I don't think so!
N.
-
Atlantis
Wonderment:
Most on this board harbor great resentment toward the WTS for their lack of Christianity when it comes to ex-members.
------------------------------------------------
Once again I ask, how many people on this board have you met and know personally? When were you given the divine right to judge others as to whether they have a lack of Christianity?
N.
-
Sulla
Atlantis, I think Wonderment is speaking of the lack of Christianity of the WTS toward ex-JWs.
-
Wonderment
Atlantis:
Just as Sulla pointed out, the words "lack of Christianity" was directed at the WTS for their poor handling of the 1975 deceit.
-
Atlantis
Wonderment:
Just as Sulla pointed out, the words "lack of Christianity" was directed at the WTS for their poor handling of the 1975 deceit.
--------------------------------------------------
I certainly agree with you here! And as time goes on, we may find that we agree on many things that assist us in becoming better friends! I hope so! Lets work together!
Best to you Wonderment!
N.
-
sabastious
I am keenly aware that the NWT does show bias in their version in many places. I have never said the opposite. What I have stated throughout this site is that ALL bible versions show their bias somehow. The NWT is no exception. The info you provided breaks no news. I repeat: All Bible translations reflect the bias of their translators, including the New Word Translation. I have no problem with that.
That's a red flag in my book. If a group wants to translate the Bible they better have a system of checks and balances that keeps bias out. Is that impossible? Is that an unreasonable request? Has there never been a group of people capable of translating an honest Bible?
If there are indeed no bias Bible's than the book itself should be treated no differently than any other piece of literature.
-Sab
Ray Franz certainly took the statement made by his uncle in a serious manner. Ray did not think his uncle was being sarcastic and did not misunderstand his uncle. Ray said; "I walked out of his office wondering if I had actually heard what I had heard." In a nutshell, Ray Franz was shocked at what he had heard. Ray took the statement made by Fred Franz seriously and so should we! Can any defenders of the New World Translation provide documents proving that Fred Franz did not make this statement?