IS the NWT really the WT Bible? (page 3)

jgnat

Bleep, as this organization is also distributing the bible for free, is the organization and/or the bible also approved by Jehovah?

Earnest

As I use the NWT quite a bit in my own Bible research and am impressed with its scholarship I would like to comment on what has been said.

There are many scholars who have spoken against it including Metzger, Barclay, Rowley and Mantey as quoted by StinkyP. Unfortunately, scholars are also human and their approach to the NWT lacks the objectivity that we would normally expect.

If you consider what they actually say there is very little of any substance:

Metzger: "Pernicious", "frightful", and "reprehensible" are not objective, scholarly assessments.

Barclay: In denying that the NW translation of John 1:1 is grammatically possible, Barclay shows himself to be either ignorant of Greek grammar or "intellectually dishonest", or both.

Neither Rowley nor Mantey provide any substance to their criticisms.

While I agree with the observations above I should mention that they were made by Jason BeDuhn, Associate Professor of Northern Arizona University, who is currently writing a book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament".

One can also provide quotations in favour of the NWT but the test is really how well it serves a Bible student interested in what was actually written. I have found it serves that purpose well.

The criticism of Fred Franz's credentials is quite irrelevant to the standard of translation. Although the members of the committee that Raymond Franz refers to have limited qualifications there is no reason to think they did the actual translation. Similarly, very few of the Watchtower articles are written by the GB although they have to approve them. In the Awake! of March 22, 1987 it relates the experience of Nicholas Kip who got a Masters degree in Latin and Greek at Princeton and was attracted to the JW in part by the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. While this individual didn't have a part in translating the NWT there is no reason to think there were not others equally or better qualified who did share in that work. To criticise the translation on the basis of Franz's ability to translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew is quite simply a red herring.

stocwach suggests that the NWT is inconsistent in not rendering kyrios as Jehovah in 1 Peter 3:15 and 1 Peter 2:3.

In the footnote to 1 Peter 2:3 the NWT says :

" 'The Lord.' Gr., ho Kyrios. In a comment on this vs F. J. A. Hort wrote in 'The First Epistle of St Peter', London, 1898, p.104: 'In the Psalm [34:8] ho kurios stands for Jehovah, as it very often does, the LXX inserting and omitting the article with kurios on no apparent principle. On the other hand the next verse shews St Peter to have used ho kurios in its commonest though not universal N.T. sense, of Christ. It would be rash however to conclude that he meant to identify Jehovah with Christ. No such identification can be clearly made out in the N.T. St Peter is not here making a formal quotation, but merely borrowing O.T. language, and applying it in his own manner. His use, though different from that of the Psalm, is not at variance with it, for it is through the khrestotes ["kindness"] of the Son that the khrestotes of the Father is clearly made known to Christians: 'he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.' "

stocwach emphasises that "the First Century Christian writer's words must be conveyed exactly!" and so decribes it as a grossly butchered text. However, as we do not have the original manuscripts the translator uses certain principles to derive what was written. One of the principles the NWT committee specify is to use the name 'Jehovah' where they have reason to believe the original writers did so. Another principle, which is common to all translators, is that the immediate context is the final criterion for what words should be used. The immediate context in both verses is that Peter is referring to Jesus Christ and so it is reasonable to accept that while he borrowed the O.T. language it is most unlikely he used 'Jehovah' rather than 'Lord'. While the observation that rendering this verse with 'Jehovah' would conflict with JW theology is true, it would also conflict with trinitarian theology as the teaching that the Son is the Father (called Sabellianism) was declared a heresy some time before the trinity doctrine was fully formulated.

Adonai438's suggestion that the WT has inserted 'Jehovah' wherever the Hebrew reads 'Adonai' (Lord) is not accurate. What you have probably come across are some of the 134 emendations where the Jewish scribes substituted Adonai for the Name. In a further 8 places it was substituted by Elohim. These have been collected by Dr. C.D. Ginsberg in his "Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible", (Ktav Publishing House Inc. New York). The NWT has correctly restored God's name in these instances.

The fact of the matter is that not only have the translators of the NW bible gone to great lengths to accurately convey what was written but they have provided appendices documenting their reasons and authority for translating it as they did. It would be a great service to Bible students if other translations provided equivalent documentation for their decisions.

Earnest

"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson

recoveringexjw

some say the nwt cannot be burned well i proved them wrong

pseudoxristos

stocwach emphasises that "the First Century Christian writer's words must be conveyed exactly!" and so decribes it as a grossly butchered text. However, as we do not have the original manuscripts the translator uses certain principles to derive what was written. One of the principles the NWT committee specify is to use the name 'Jehovah' where they have reason to believe the original writers did so. Another principle, which is common to all translators, is that the immediate context is the final criterion for what words should be used. The immediate context in both verses is that Peter is referring to Jesus Christ and so it is reasonable to accept that while he borrowed the O.T. language it is most unlikely he used 'Jehovah' rather than 'Lord'. While the observation that rendering this verse with 'Jehovah' would conflict with JW theology is true, it would also conflict with trinitarian theology as the teaching that the Son is the Father (called Sabellianism) was declared a heresy some time before the trinity doctrine was fully formulated.

In consideration of the above highlighted statement. The NWT can not be considered a translation. It is a paraphrased version of the Bible. When a translator stops using the extant manuscripts and starts making assumptions, the end result can never be called a faithful translation. The NWT is a PARAPHRASED VERSION.

Justification for using the name "Jehovah" by referring to various Hebrew translations of the New Testament is also very misleading to the average reader. Most readers do not realize that these Hebrew translations are not ancient manuscripts. These translations also ignore the extant manuscripts when they insert the name "Jehovah" where it doesn't exist. They are nothing but later translations from Greek to Hebrew. They also should be considered paraphrased versions because they depart from the text of the extant manuscripts.

Metzger's quote: "Pernicious", "frightful", and "reprehensible", may not be an "objective, scholarly assessment", but it pretty well sums it up.

The NWT is nothing but error built upon error.

pseudoxristos

stocwach

Earnest,

How can you be so naive?

The bottom line is the WT simply has changed their Bible to fit their man made theology, rather than letting the Bible dictate their theology.

The problem is since JWs are programmed not to think independently, sadly the majority of the rank and file will never see the incredulousness of the matter.

StinkyPantz

Why does Bleep post these threads argumentatively and not refute his claims?

Robert_V_Frazier

One can also provide quotations in favour of the NWT but the test is really how well it serves a Bible student interested in what was actually written. I have found it serves that purpose well.

Earnest, how do you know it serves that purpose? How much do you know about Greek? I'm not an expert on the level of the scholars you dismissed, but I do know enough to know that the NWT, especially in the NT, does not serve to tell you what the NT text actually says at all! It is an irresponsible and biased translation, with all the worst faults of wooden literalism and loose paraphrase, and the advantages of neither. Also, the style reads like something the cat barfed up on the carpet.

Robert Frazier

Bleep

I am still learning since I am a Bible student. It is a question I wanted to ask and should of asked early, since that is where the Bible source comes from. How else can I research important Bible topics?

Bleep

Here is what I want to know.

If you think this is true provide proof of. If you think it does not matter since it is a Modern Bible from the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures tell us why it is just as good. And if you think this is the best, then just say something that will back up this NWT Bible I use every day.

It is a [question] of what [you] think and not what [I] think. Not trying to have an argument this time.

I am still going threw the proof part, might take some time.
I allready said why I think the NWT is a good source, just wanted other views on the matter.

simwitness

The best viewpoint is one of balance, especially when a topic such as translation bias can come into play.

My suggestion:

Don't rely on any one source (or Translation) to base your bible studies on. Get several. Also, use resources, such as Strong's Concordance, that are available outside of the WTBS to keep your viewpoints balanced. Shy away from those books that are heavily biased toward a specific theological standpoint, until you are ready for them.

There are many online bibles and concordences that will help you along.

Primarily, remember to think for yourself, and honestly seek out the answers to your questions. If the answers you get doesn't "jive" for some reason, then keep searching. No "imperfect" man (or organization) has a trademark on the "truth".

Personally, I do not trust the NWT as my main point of study, since I have no basis on which to trust the honesty of the translator(s). I compare it, with others, and seek a balanced view of the question.

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

Share this