by Jaime l de Aragon 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Jaime
In fact even the translations are riddled with errors, but just wanted to mention that the JW, cheated and rigged just sucks
mP:
Thats not fair. ALL translations are riddled with errors and worst of all deliberate insertions that really change the meaning and understanding of the text.
IF the Bible doesnt say christians thats a really big change. What if the NT never says Jesus or says his name in far few places ? What if Paul never says jesus by name at all ?
Jaime:
In fact even the translations are riddled with errors, but just wanted to mention that the JW, cheated and rigged just sucks
The original name is Iesous Xristo, not Jesus
http://iesous-xristos.tripod.com/666.html
mP:
The age of the text in the pic you site is middle age, the CS is from 300ish that is almost a 1000 years before. Look up the same scripture what ever it is in the CS and you find something v interesting...NO JESUS most likely. Plz give the scripture.
Return later, Greetings
The pic you showed must be after the 1500s as it shows the logo of the Jesuits the IHS thing which only came into being 500 years ago.
It depends how you define 'translation'. By your definition, the translation committee must comprise qualified persons with academic credentials in textual analysis and interpretation. That's a reasonable enough expectation but it's not the be all and end all of how to judge what is a good translation or not. And its an an ad hominem dismissal.
The most basic rule of translation it that it must adhere as closely as possible to the ancient texts while still conveying a sensible modern language rendering and without the translators bringing in their own theological pressupositions. The NWT has been praised for doing just that to quite a high degree for much of the NWT but in some instances it deserves strong criticisism for breaking the basic rules. Certainly most other Bibles can also be criticised to some extent for abuses.
yadda
All bibles translations have major edits upon the original Gk or He texts. Translators insert or change text delibrately to make the text comptaible with what we think the bible says. Pick any page from your bible and compare it with the Codex sinaticus. YOu will find major insertions of Jesus and Christ in places that the Gk for example fails to mention either.
I gave the example of christian simply because it only occurs in a few places and its easy enuff to check that the word does not appear in Gk at all in the CS.
You can read Bart Erhman's excellent books for detailed analsys and discussion of the early corruptions of the texts that show a deliberate agenda towards a high Christology. That is what the great majority of the editing and redacting constituted.
It's a bit blinkered to just focus on the NWT's biased renderings.
yadda
You can read Bart Erhman's excellent books for detailed analsys and discussion of the early corruptions of the texts that show a deliberate agenda towards a high Christology. That is what the great majority of the editing and redacting constituted.
It's a bit blinkered to just focus on the NWT's biased renderings.
mP:
Im not focusing on NWT, im merely stating that all translations are dishonest. They tell us what they think we want to hear. All of xianity is bullshit even the holy text itself.
Haha, ok.
"All bibles translations have major edits upon the original Gk or He texts"
I think that goes with the territory. Translating an ancient language, that was written for an ancient audience with very foreign customs, and the manuscripts themselves sometimes have difficulties.
I doubt if any translation could avoid having the translators preferences included. For the modern reader, the way to overcome this, at least to some extent, is to use several translations as well as become acquainted with the ancient customs.
But why I really commented: I find it curious that the Society hides the translators with such vigor. If a witness were to make it known among other witnesses who the translators were, he would soon find himself in hot water. Yet, the Society insists on identifying the writer of the book of Hebrews. Whether it was Paul or someone else, if it was inspired, then it was meant to be anonymous. So it is presumptuous and a double standard for the Society to always insist that Paul was the writer.
I had got into the habit of referring to the book of Hebrews as the 'anonymous book of Hebrews.' In time I could tell it was disturbing to the other elders. It was absolutely true, but I could see that they were taking it as an indirect challenge to what the Society says But I was simply being honest.
Try it around your favorite elders and see what happens. If you are challenged, simply ask them to show you in the book of Hebrews who the writer was. (One of the verses that causes many to think it wasn't Paul is Heb 2:3. Compare with 1 Co 9:1, 2; 15:3 - 11)
Take Care
