So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be? (page 7)

wasblind

Wonderment

Satan told a half truth too

He told Eve she wouldn't die if she ate of the forbidden fruit

when she seen that she didn't die right then, she shared it wit Adam

Satan didn't tell them the whole truth. He believed in fractions

.

wasblind

" The NIV was non-existant when the original committee started thier project. They did not use the ASV or KJV either. It was an actual translation from the originals_____Wonderment

How do you know for certain that the translation committee was even qualified to do so

when it is printed in WTS literature that states :

" Is it really a scholarly translation ?

Scince the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of thier educational background."_________Reasoning from the Scriptures book page 277

.

Wonderment

wasblind: "

How do you know for certain that the translation committee was even qualified to do so when it is printed in WTS literature that states: " Is it really a scholarly translation ?

Scince the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of thier educational background."_________Reasoning from the Scriptures book page 277

I don't think it is absolutely necessary to know who were the translators in order to judge a work.

The end result itself testifies if a translator did its job well. Just the other day, I was reading a 7th Day Adventist book of Galatians, which itself was a translation from the English language. I have no idea who the translator was for that book, but, let me tell you. He did a good job. It was obvious.

The same with the NWT. If you are willing to get your hands "dirty" to examine the guts of the translation against the background of the original texts, one could conclude the translator(s) had enough knowledge to deal with it. I say "could" because one could just go in to investigate looking out for mistakes or differences of theology to see if it passes muster. That's what a lot of people do. Or, they rely on what others say. In my case, I like to check things out for myself.

No one had to tell me that Adventist book was done by someone with no knowledge of both languages involved. And I would not pay much attention to a anti-Adventist critic who would tell me the translator was not up to the job. The same with the NWT. I have examined what the NWT critics have to say, sometimes they are right, mostly they are wrong. Criticism is based on the window one is looking out thru. If the window is dirty, or painted, you are not going to see the other side well. If the window is clear and unpainted, you may see what's out there without the haziness that goes with dubious intentions.

wasblind

Wonderment

The truth is, it's not known if the NWT committee had the knowledge to translate from the original scriptures

becuase thier educational background is not known. For all we know they could have lifted

the work of someone else and claim it as thiers

It won't be the first lie they ever told

The WTS claim that only the anointed provide spiritual food. Which you don't even buy

" Many of us here don't believe all this talk about only the anointed ones providing spritual food. I certainly don't "___Wonderment

You proved that when you quoted Barbara Anderson

And now you want us to believe that they could produce good work on thier own ??????

.

wasblind

" If the window is dirty , or painted , you are not going to see the other side well____Wonderment

All those window washers in the organization, and apologist still can't

get a clear picture of what's goin' on

.

Splash

It suits many to think the GB 'may' have done this or that, 'could' have learned hebrew and greek, 'probably' translated it from the originals (originals????), as this aligns to their preheld adoration of everything GB.

To even consider an alternative would undermine the already shaky belief system that has been built, torn down, repaired and painted over, over the last century.

Unless it is specifically stated by the GB, the next best thing is to conjecture something favourable and put all your trust in that being the most likely thing, and if anyone thinks differently then prove it!

Splash

MrFreeze

Calling it a translation is misleading. Seeing as how it paraphrases so much.

Wonderment

wasblind:

The truth is, it's not known if the NWT committee had the knowledge to translate from the original scriptures because thier educational background is not known. For all we know they could have lifted the work of someone else and claim it as theirs. It won't be the first lie they ever told...And now you want us to believe that they could produce good work on thier own ??????

One does not have to have the specific educational background of a translator to determine if he/she was up to task. If a German curriculum teacher assigns a class to translate a document of 50 pages from English to German to 20 anonymous students, would a reviewer need to know all the personal history of each student to determine who did the best translation work? No. A capable reviewer does not need that information from the anonymous students to make a required judgment.

It is the end-result or product that determines that.

As for, "For all we know they could have lifted the work of someone else and claim it as theirs," that is not likely for the simple reason that the NWT has too many haters, and it's been exposed to greater scrutiny than any translation in modern history. That would be the first thing brought out by any of its many enemies. Besides, if someone bothers to examine the translated text of the NWT (1984) against the originals will quickly discover that the translator's methodology and language is markedly different from any other translation out there. I am telling you of my experience with the product, and I am very aware that the majority of mainstream individuals will disagree with my findings...and in your favor.

DATA-DOG

We are all at the mercy of scholars who came before us. Hopefully the first person to ever translate the oldest MSS of the Bible was honest. All we can do is use the tools that came before us. Sure there may be some new discoveries that shed more light on certain aspects of the Bible, but for the most part we must stand on the shoulders of giants.

So a classroom full of students could translate, let's say Koine Greek, into English, IF they had the proper tools. I think that would be an awesome experiment. Take some children with viritually no Bible knowledge and no bias, and have them translate a book of the Bible using a Concordance. That would be interesting. In the end, it comes down to the honesty of the translator. Do they have an agenda? If they want to sell books about the end of the world, then they may be tempted to slant their translation to support their pre-concieved notions.

By the way, has anyone figured out what A.M.III said yet? Why did the NWT and the RNWT ever come about in the first place? Back in the day CTR used all kinds of Bible translations, then the WTBTS ditched them all. Now they are becoming acceptable again, and the WTBTS even encourages their use. Weird... Still there is only ONE REASON why the NWT was ever made. You all know it. I just can't believe A.M.III subconsciously admitted it at the AGM!

DD

Wonderment

MrFreeze:

"Calling it a translation is misleading. Seeing as how it paraphrases so much."

Dam if you do, dam if you don't!

Before, the criticism was... ‘the NWT was too literal, too stiff, too wooden.’

Now, I am beginning to see criticism picking up to where now the translation "paraphrases so much".

The Society can't do anything right, can they? Dam if you do, dam if you don't!

Hey, is anyone here right 100% of the time? Is any Bible translation out there perfect?

So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be?

Share this