by Bleep 103 Replies latest watchtower bible
I know I've said it before, but I see that some people work far too hard in their criticising of the New World Translation, it just aint worth it IMHO. You name one translation that hasn't been distorted to some degree to match the translators views.
Jehovah's Witnesses manage perfectly well twisting any version of the bible you choose! They used the King James and the American Standard for a long time before the complete New World Translation was published in 1961.
Bleep,
Consider the NWT version of 1 Peter 3:15: "But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect."
The KIT 1969 edition on page 18-19, says "How is a modern translator to know or determine when to render the Greek words ky'rios and theos' into the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there. This way he can determine the identity to give to ky'rios and theos' and he can then clothe them with personality. Realizing that this is the time and place for it, we have followed this course in rendering our version of the Christian Greek Scriptures."
Now I think all JWs reading this would feel comfortable then that anytime they see "Jehovah" in the NT, that this rule must have been followed. I would also think that any rational truth seeking individual would insist on 100% adherence to a translation rule, for what good would a translation be with a double standard?
Take time to look at NWT Reference Edition. You will find a very common reference that they use is called J20, which is the "Concordance to Greek Testament" which lists all quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures. It lists 1 Peter 3:15 as a quotation from Isaiah 8:13 in which the divine name is used. If you also look on pg. 1459 in the NWT Reference Edition, you will find a footnote, which lists numerous Hebrew version references that translate Lord in that verse as Jehovah God.
So, according to the NWT committee's policy, 1 Peter 3:15 should read "But sanctify the Christ as Jehovah in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you."
THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT ISN'T THE TRANSLATORS' CHOICE TO DEVIATE FROM THEIR POLICY AND DELETE THE DIVINE NAME IN PASSAGES THAT REFER TO JESUS!!!!!! THE FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIAN WRITER'S WORDS MUST BE CONVEYED EXACTLY!
The problem is that this obviously would be in conflict with JW theology. You will find the same discrepancy in 1 Peter 2:3, which is a quotation from Psalms 34:8 in which the divine name is used which the NWT Committee acknowledges, yet they chose not to use "Jehovah" because again, it would be in direct conflict with the theology that Jesus does not have deity.
Bleep, these are just a couple examples of numerous passages in which the NWT has been altered to fit JW doctrine. How can you subscribe to such a grossly butchered text?
I like the little red NWT. It is cute and red.
Red is a sexy color
Mike, well mine is extra large and comes with references!
If I am not mistaken, Franz's study of the Greek language was in Classical Greek, not Koine Greek.
Please let me know if I am incorrect.
Notwithstanding Jan's quote, it is nevertheless of note what Raymond Franz said in "Crisis Of Conscience" (Third Edition, page 54, footnote 16):
"The New World Translation bears no translator's name and is presented as the anonymous work of the 'New World Translation Committee.' Other members of that committee were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder and George Gangas. Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew."
LABD: It is sometimes assumed that Classical Greek is in some major way quite different from Koine Greek, but this is not so. It would be no more difficult for a Classical Greek scholar to translate Koine Greek than it would be for a British person to understand American English. I know at least one Classical Greek course that includes translation of Koine Greek (i.e. extracts from the New Testament) as part of the exercises.
(Edited to correct grammar!)
Edited by - NewWay on 30 July 2002 14:50:36
It is sometimes assumed that Classical Greek is in some major way quite different from Koine Greek, but this is not so.
There are differences. How "major" they are would depend on the knowledge of the translator.
It would be no more difficult for a Classical Greek scholar to translate Koine Greek than it would be for a British person to understand American English.
A good analogy. The grammar and syntax are pretty close, the spelling varies, and the real issue is the vocabulary, particularly idioms. The NT uses a lot of idioms.
I know at least one Classical Greek course that includes translation of Koine Greek (i.e. extracts from the New Testament) as part of the exercises.
And since the overlap is large, that works, but it would be a mistake to think that such exercises prove there is no significant difference between the two dialects.
There is no evidence that anyone on the NWT committee was sufficiently fluent in any dialect of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek to qualify as an assistant to a real translator, much less produce a complete translation of the Bible. They just edited existing translations according to their theological bias. If they had to sit down with just the Hebrew and Aramaic OT and the Greek NT and translate from that, they would have been lost.
Robert Frazier
Edited by - robert_v_frazier on 30 July 2002 15:5:32
Well, like mentioned above the NWT inserts 'Jehovah' into the Greek where it suits them well over 200 times.
Did you also know that they Insert 'Jehovah' into the OT more than that where it does not appear?
Upon researching something else I came upon the fact that the WT has inserted 'Jehovah' wherever the Hebrew reads 'Adonai'(Lord) as well as where it actually reads 'YHWH'(Yahweh). The only places they do not insert Jehovah is where Adonai appears before YHWH--because it would then sound silly saying Jehovah Jehovah; And also when it refers to Jesus blatently. Such a systematic insertion of Jehovah were it does not appear is rather unscholarly as well as purposely misleading to the readers. I have yet to count the insertions into the OT but we are looking at at least 500 places in the WT bible that they have added the word Jehovah-at their discretion to where- that does not appear in the original- God inspired manuscripts. Their rules to where it is to be placed is non-existent because if they did it across the board wherever their argument applied then Jesus would end up being called Jehovah and their theology doesn't allow for that. Apparently God didn't know where he should inspire his name to appear so they had to 'adjust' that for him.
There are toooooooooooons of errors all over the NWT but do you really care? If so then lets talk if not then at least think about some of the things people here have said-- and check your own KIT for the inconsistencies-- they forgot to take them out of there.
Robert, point taken. The reason for my post was to point out that Classical Greek and Koine Greek are not two different languages, but rather as you said, "dialects". A Classical Greek scholar, armed with suitable lexical tools could take on the challenge presented, just as a British English speaker could use a good American English dictionary and other American English reference tools, when not sure of certain words or phrases. I am of the opinion that an English 'translation' could be done by someone fairly well-aquainted with the languages, through word studies and comparisons of existing English verses. The accuracy of the translation, of course, would be another matter!
