by ILoveTTATT 11 Replies latest jw friends
Some have noted that Hebrews 1:6 is different in the older NWT. Some have wondered what other parts of the NWT were changed from the 1961 edition to the 1984 edition. If there is a new NWT, it will have to be compared too.
Please help me with this... what programs are out there to compare large texts such as these two NWT's? How do they work?
Thanks!!
ILTTATT
Instead of comparing NWT editions why not just compare hebrew/greek interlinear bibles to the NWT?
Well... some have wondered what differences, other than Hebrews 1:6, there were. I just need to know a program that can help me compare the texts. Of course, comparing the KIT with the NWT leads to a lot of questions, the first one being why Kyriou is "Jehovah" in some verses and "Lord" in others.
Bear in mind that translation involves a lot of interpretation. In the case of Heb 1:6 and lots of other places where the Greek word "proskuneo" is used, the translator needs to make a judgement ab where to select from a whole range of meaning. "Proskuneo" can signify anything from simply paying respect (as to a civil dignitary) to worship. So it is never straightforward. For example, in the case of the wise men/magi/astrologers visiting the infant Jesus the word, in my opinion, should be rendered something like, "paid respect."
For the Kyrios/Jehovah question in the NWT Greek Scriptures, you might find this free download useful: www.smashwords.com/books/view/170997 It deals with the relevant principles of translation and gives an analysis of every instance of Jehovah in NWT Greek.
Is it something like this that you are chasing:
http://www.google.com.au/#q=program+to+compare+two+text+files
Thank you Rob and thank you Fernando! I had already Googled something like that, but I guess I wanted to know one that someone had actually used... and maybe guide me through the process.
Rob, I agree with you that translation has a lot of interpreting to do. The word proskuneo could mean worship or pay homage, but the NWT clearly is biased towards "homage" every time the word is related to Jesus, and "worship" for just about every other instance! It makes sense that Hebrews 1:6 is worship since the original is taken from Deuteronomy, which is clearly a song dedicated to God (YHWH) and it is obvious that Paul's purpose was quoting things that only applied to YHWH in the OT and applying them to Jesus. I doubt that, even if the NWT had translated the Septuagint, that it would have translated the proskuneo in Deuteronomy as "obeisance"... They had a "free pass" on this because the text is not on the MT...
If it had been on the MT, then I am almost certain that they would have found a way to say that "proskuneo" in Deuteronomy is "worship" and somehow because of some Greek rule blah blah blah it is "obeisance" in Hebrews... They know no bounds in their deviousness!!
ILTTATT
I am not certain but I believe Word has a compare function that allows you to compare lengthy docs. Differences in text are shown in red or underlined. It is useful for editors and lawyers.
I could not learn sufficient Koine Greek to be proficient. I read articles amd books concerning translation and aesthetics. One author highlighted theproblem by providing a literal translation of a famous NT passsage. It shocked me. There was little text. Translators add much. Yet a list of various translations from often wsrring denominations showed great accord.
Simple research showed me that Bethel deliberately lies. Research is a gutsy move. Pls tell us your conclusions.
It's incredibly difficult; all the files are on PDF, the OCR does not do a good job at really recognizing all the text... it would take me too long to actually compare them this way. Does anyone know of an incredibly good and accurate OCR program?
Thanks!
So I have done some research now, and I am comparing various verses:
Matthew 1:2 in the 1950, 1961, and 1984 versions of the NWT:
1950: Abraham was the father of Isaac; Isaac was the father of...
1961: Abraham became father to Isaac; Isaac became father to...
1984: Abraham became father to Isaac; Isaac became father to...
Matthew 1:25
1950: But he had no relations with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name "Jesus".
1961: But he had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.
1984: But he had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 2:2
1950: saying: "Where is the one born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when we were in the east and we have come to do him obeisance."
1961: saying: "Where is the one born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when [we were] in the east, and we have come to do him obeisance."
1984: saying: "Where is the one born king of the Jews? For we saw his star [when we were] in the east, and we have come to do him obeisance."
There are many many differences, I have barely started...
Hi ILoveTTATT, It is not uncommon for non-WTBTS bible scholars to change wording of their bibles. For instance, read Acts 15:20 in different versions of the NIV Bible
"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality , from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
I believe I saw a version of the NIV that used fornication instead of sexual immorality. I do know that many Bibles use fornication instead of sexual immorality for the English translation for pornei. I perfer the term sexual immorality in this instance because initial Christians were Jews and would know applicable Jewish Law such as Leviticus Chapter 20. How does Leviticus 20:18 with its constraints translate to the modern definition fornication?
Leviticus 20:18 - 18 ‘“If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.
Also, it seems that the Jews made provisions for acceptable recompense if a man had intercourse with a woman.
Leviticus 19:20-22 - 20 ‘“If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. [ a ] Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the tent of meeting for a guilt offering to the Lord . 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the Lord for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
