Sorry, www.biblos.com does not recognize the NWT version as a translation. So you may have to open your hard copy or hit the WTS website to compare.
dc
What are the best Bible Translations?
by Londo111 49 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Londo111
When I was a Witness, I really did enjoy the Reference Bible, and constantly read the footnotes where alternative renderings were shown, but I never gave these as much weight. And on occasion, I used the Interlinear. Of course, I didn't always put the pieces together and didn't know where the bias subtly crept in. Some things bugged me, but I kept those things to myself.
I would hate for this thread to devolve into a debate over whether the Bible is worth reading at all, whether is has any divine inspiration behind it, how much it changed since the original manuscripts are lost to history, or various schools of thought over the afterlife, or what the divinity of the Logos means, ect… After so many years of rigid dogma, I try to keep my mind open to all possibilities about the existence or nature of God, Jesus, and the Bible. I feel that no matter what, the Sermon of the Mount, the parables such as the Prodigal Son, and things like these, are lessons to live by. As Gandhi indicated, if everyone strived to live up to these goals, the world would be a better place.
As far as differing ancient manuscripts go, some have said the Septuagint was the best translation of the Old Testament, because it reflected the understanding better than translating directly from the later Masoretic text, or even the Dead Sea Scrolls. There seem to be obvious differences, but of course, we do not have the complete Septuagint any longer. Then again, maybe the Septuagint was biased from the start.
Now--for a good example of why I feel knowledge of ancient Hebrew is important, take Jeremiah 29:10. The NWT translation says, "at Babylon" whereas other modern translations say "for Babylon". Some say that it can be translated either way. But I did read that the spatial sense "at" is impossible.
Or--for an example of why rendering consistently is important as well as a lack of bias, take how the New World Translation translates 'according to houses' in Acts 2:46 as "in private homes", but at Acts 5:42 and Acts 20:20, "house to house."
As a Witness I was fully aware of all the proof texts for and against such doctrines of the say, the Trinity, as well as how different translations rendered such verses, and I often checked the Interlinear. I am now more open minded to all possibilities, of course. But I feel that sometimes it is the subtleties of translation from which millions get ensnared by more modern traditions of men.
-
soft+gentle
psace the little I've read of the kjv shows that it tries to be as close as possible to the original. But it does sound quite dry. so far i haven't come across any errors/ommissions. What are the biggest ones?
-
PSacramento
psace the little I've read of the kjv shows that it tries to be as close as possible to the original. But it does sound quite dry. so far i haven't come across any errors/ommissions. What are the biggest ones?
The issue is that the KJV tries to be as close as possible to the original text that was NOT the oldest text available and, if I recall, there were older and more "respected" manuscripts available at the time.
There are a couple of good books on the subject:
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman ( Paperback - Apr 28, 2005) Bible in Translation, The: Ancient and English Versions by Bruce M. Metzger ( Paperback - Oct 1, 2001) Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography by Bruce M. Metzger ( Hardcover - Sep 17, 1981) The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger ( Paperback - Apr 10, 1997)
-
leavingwt
[I just fell out of my chair: PSac recommended a book co-authored by Ehrman.]
Are you running a temperature, my friend?
-
PSacramento
LOL !
Hey, as you know, I have Bart's books and and the one he co-authored with his mentor is one of THE best books written on the subject.I may not agree with his presentations, but the man knows his stuff ( even if as times he doesn't give the "opposition" enough credit).
I believe that IF someone truly wants to get a grasp of the NT and what it was and is, they really need to read those two books:
The text of the NT and the Canon of the NT.
-
TTWSYF
I'm not sure off the top of my head which chapter and verse this comes from, but one thing in the KJV that bothered me is the verse which states that 'there are three in heaven that bear witness, the spirit, the water and the blood'. . . . and then it is added 'these three are the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost'. I beleive that last part was added by the translator. I think that is in error.
And although the septuigent is a wonderful thing, there are most definitly many words that do not translate literally from one language to another, so a side by side comparison of many translations probably makes the most sense imho.
dc
-
shepherd
" Some translations I have picked up have obviously come from a translator with a doctrinal bias…maybe that is just my years of WTS programming."
No, you are not a victim of 'programming' in this case, you are right. All Bible translations have some doctrinal or personal bias. The NWT is no better and no worse at doing the same thing - in JW land it is only the most 'unbiased' for them because it was tailored to match their bias, therefore unbiased takes on the meaning of having the same bias to begin with.
Therefore it is not possible to say one or another is the 'best'. They are all flawed in one way or another. The original languages used wording that could be interpreted in numerous ways, and this is the problem. It is not possible to know with absolute certainty what the original manuscripts said or meant.
Which is another reason for rejecting it as the sole guide in your life.
-
bioflex
King James Version is the best. It really gives you the challenge when you read it. Most translations are quite biased too, including NIV, NWT, NKJV(they have a new occultic symbol on them).
One thing you should understand is that when you read the bible yo dont depend on your own understanding, let the spirit of God guide you.
-
soft+gentle
psac, those books are outside of my pocket range at the moment. They look good mind you.
I'm trying to access all things British at the moment and it is from this POV that I am accessing the KJV and the NKJV. The biases and traditions associated with these particular translations are part of its attraction and it is the best at this moment in time for me. I was taking a little look at the debates but don't have the time to research them right now but most of them seem to centre around catholicim v anglicanism.
bioflex I agree that it is challenging. what I find particularly intersting is that part of the challenge is that Jehovahs witnesses have shaped some of their doctrines in opposition to what the KJV and Anglicanism promote.