by howdidtihappen 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
LOL!!@Wuz!!..
Ya..The WBT$ is so Stupid..
Sometimes all you need are facts about them to laugh..
"Look at our WBT$ Bible"..
We Had WatchTards Translate it!"..
Would you like a WBT$ GB AutoGraphed..
WatchTarded Bible?..
("Sometimes we write Really Goofy Shit..Splane likes to draw Funny Faces with Crayons")
.................. 
...OUTLAW
It is misleading to call the New World version of the Bible a translation, since there is no proof it was ever translated. It is more accurate to call it the New World Rendering.
The renderers had some habits that make the narrative flow in an awkward manner, without making the text more accurate in any discernable way. One of their apparent rendering rules was "why use one syllable when five will do?" This results in a word commonly translated as "grace" becoming rendered into "undeserved kindness". The book is full of these bloated constructs.
Sab said:
That's a red flag in my book [to my statement: No problem with that]. 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
I agree! A big effort should be placed in eliminating translation bias, though that it is easier said than done. Translation bias is easily discernible in most translations. One thing I want to add here. When I said,"No problem with that," was a reference to an admission that the NWT does show bias as others do, not that I approve of a translator to purposely introduce bias.
Atlantis: Thank you for your effort to find a middle ground in our discussions.
Sulla: I have never stated that Jehovah in the NT is permissible. I do not support introducing the divine name in the main text. I do support footnote or marginal material indicating when the divine name appears in quoted Scriptures where the name is present in the OT. That the NWT translators manifested bias in the NT by insisting on the name, yes, I agree with you. But I am of the opinion that removing it from the OT is just as bad. Sadly, people do not seem to care for the intended replacements of the name in the OT.
It is more accurate to call it the New World Rendering.
Rendering: that describes it perfectly, Kurt!
Bungi Hill: Thank you for your nice comments.
GLTirebiter: "Rendering"? The word can be rightly applied to the NWT AND to most other versions.
A list of 40 scholars with academic degrees who translated the New American Standard Bible was provided by a poster to belittle the lack of credentials of the NWT.
Now, did it help to have so many scholars behind the NASB with their decision to include the Comma Johanneum in a footnote at 1 John 5:7,8? It is generally agreed that those words are an intended addition to the Text, unless the committee had a doctrinal motive to include it in the same page. The American Standard Version of 1901 does not have such a note.
Did it help to have so many scholars on board behind the NASB to include odd renderings such as that found in Acts 3:5, "And he began [imperfect tense taken as inceptive] to give them his attention..." instead of "So he gave them his attention." (NKJV); or, "And he fixed his eyes on them." (Whiston) It is not accurate to say that ‘the man began to give them his attention.’ That is as un-English as many of the NWT renderings are. The imperfect tense can be brought out by the words: So he gave them his attention. And he fixed his eyes on them... as illustrated above.
John 8:58 is rendered in the NASB, as "I AM" in capital letters keeping with the theory that Jesus is intending to make a claim connected with the wording given in Exodus 3:14. The KJV and the NIV do not use the capitals, making the rendering less tendentious. Robert Young, a single translator was closer to the Greek, by using "I am" than those many translators of the NASB who chose "I AM" to suggest Christ was claiming a title of God. Likewise, the ASV of 1901 reads: "I am."
This thread is about the NWT, not the NASB.
Black Sheep:
You are right. The post was a brief answer to the poster who is willing to glorify the credentials of the NASB in order to denigrade the NWT.
I actually like both of these bible versions.
My preference is Moffat's, but the 'best' version of men's thoughts about god, is still just men's thoughts about god no matter how well it is translated or transcribed.
Wonderment:
Can't we agree that when you wrote:
"I left the WT org. for their lack of freedom of speech"
Doesn't this statement speak volumes by itself? Can't we agree that having "freedom" is worth leaving an organization who only wants to "control" everything? Even the freedom of speech? Weren't you a victim in one way or another just as most of us here? Doesn't your statement really say enough?
N.
