NWT. Question

by searcher 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  searcher

  The double standards and misquotations of the company I find very useful in pointing out to people just what they would be getting into if they signed up, (I also find useful the scan of the 'use theocratic warfare strategy article'.

  What first allerted me came not very far into the study, (lesson 3, 1), where they refer to Prov. 8:22,31. I pointed out that this refers to wisdom and that wisdom can be:- learned, prayed for, lost etc. and one of the elders (they only ever sent elders to my study for some reason) came out with the best explanation of the Trinity that I have ever heard:-
  

  " wisdom is an aspect of God and Jesus is the personification of an aspect Of God"

  Not a lot of wisdom there methinks!

  steve.
• 

  bchamber

  Someone on one of the other topics, when he found out that I am an expert on English Bible translation, made a statement to me "you can therefore attest that the New World Translation Bible...is the most scholarly Bible in circulation. It is certainly a refreshing translation that brings the Creators message into our living language".

  I would like for you to read my response to that person. It follows with some additional info.

  Yes, it is easy to read and understand, mainly, because it was written in the English we use today.

  However, there is NO perfect translation of the Bible. There is always something lost when translating from one language into another. Also, ALL Bible translators are bias mainly because of their own religious beliefs.

  This is also true of the NWT.

  Knowing that, you can then understand my next statement. All translations are the Word of God. It doesnt matter how well the translation is or how bad it is, they are all the Word of God. Do translators make mistakes as well? You bet they do. Does that make them something less than the Word of God?

  The NWT does have a lot of good points that speaks for the translators. Were they bias in their work? Yes, they were as can be seen in many scriptures. This is NOT the place to get into that.

  In answer to your unasked question, yes I do use the NWT just as I do my other 1,435 different English translations that I have. I do have a copy of every Bible the WTB&TS published. This includes the two different copies of the Emphatic Diaglott by B. Wilson that they published. Did you know there were two different ones? Until I wrote an article about it, I don't think many other people knew that fact. The WTB&TS does not state anywhere that they changed Wilson's Diaglott. I found the change and confronted them with it and they gave me all kinds of reasons which just doesn't justify changing someone else's work with stating so on the title page.

  One last item, would I recommend the NWT to people? Yes I would. However, I would want them to know the above facts first first.

  The NWT has a lot of very good points that would recommend it. However, it is no where near a perfect translation.

  Oh, one thing I noticed from one of the other replies. Yes, you can use almost anyother translation when reading the WT and Awake magazines. Why, because they quote from them when it supports their viewpoint. If you were to use just your own translation when reading the magazines, you will find a lot of places that do not agree with your Bible. That is where you nust be very careful.

  Let me take a small amount of space to show you why I collect English Bible translations.

  I now have approx. 1,435 different English translations of the Bible and parts thereof and many (around 200) non-canonical books as well.

  Its true that my collection might be said to be several collections - - but where does one stop? What is the Bible? What are the limits of inclusion in the Bible? The Jews believe that the Bible stops with Malachi. But up to about 120 yrs. ago, when the Jew used an English version, they had to use the King James, or it and a few selections of corrections. What makes the Apocrypha a part of the Bible? The Catholics? Ah, no, the King James Bible always had its version of the Apocrypha. The King James Bible always included a version of the Apocrypha, even though most Catholic translations dont include 2nd Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. The books that were not specifically included - - The Pseudepigrapha (Apocryphal, both the Old Testament and New Testament) - - need to be "available" in order to examine their important value in early Christian teachings and also to see why they were excluded.

  Some ministers and lay people believe that paraphrases should not be included in this work, because some of these paraphrases take extreme liberties with the text. I have run across some that are pretty padded. So I classified Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" as a padded paraphrase of the historical portions of the Old Testament. Did I stretch his intention too far?

  Where does the N.T. stop? The Syriac claim that Revelations and some short books preceding are not part of the canon. Some Church Fathers have accepted other titles such as the Shepherd of Hermas. And the old Uncials included 1st. Clement and others. Are we going to let Catholic councils refuse us the permission to examine the evidence?

  What is Muhammadanism but an offshoot from Christianity? It refers to the Bible in places and seems to tell a different account of what happened in the few instances they "compare." If I "must know that much" surely accounts didnt stop there, that claim non-human origin. So, would it suit one better if I called it a Scripture in English collection?

  "Bible History" as researched by modern scholarship dont do more than intrigue the curiosity. I want to examine the ancient written evidence myself. "Theology" doesnt interest me from modern viewpoints (although I do read a lot of it). I want to see what it is based on. If I am to know truth, surely I need to know it for myself, and not somebody elses digest and opinion of it. What did they believe "then"?

  Your reaction to all this may show you that I am not a Bible collector for collecting sake, but for understanding. I liked English little enough in school. I have no desire to be bogged down in the technicalities of the original languages even if the original autographs were to be found. Variant translations seem the ideal way of understanding the opinions of what was originally written, though there is no full equivalency to be expected between languages. Therefore, we need translations that better reveal how the original expressed itself (literal), translations that express the thought that the translator "understood" and paraphrases which bring out the opinions of what scholars conclude was understood by the original readers.

  Thus, our 1435 or more translations and versions.

  Yes, I am an expert in English translation of the Bible. Let me tell you just a little bit about me.

  I am the Director of The Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation, a non-profit organization accepted by the IRS. IRS #509(a)(1) & 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), Fed. #38-2633578, State of MI #733-568

  I operate BMRFBooks (Our outlet for donated books not used)

  I am Vice-President of the International Society of Bible Collectors

  I am an Author. My book is titled: "Catalogue of English Bible Translations; A Classified Bibliography of Versions and Editions Including Books, Parts, and Old and New Testament Apocrypha and Apocryphal Books" William J. Chamberlin. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1991.

  (Still in print after 11 yrs. This is a 898 page reference book which set a new standard in its field.)

  I am an author of 47 published articles.
• 

  LittleToe

  bchamber:

  Out of interest, what was the change they made to Wilson's Diaglott?
• 

  bchamber

  Little Toe

  In ref to your question, I submit the following.

  I have two editions of Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott both dated 1942 and both published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. One of them reads differently in the footnote for 1John 5:7 from the other. One states that "This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century." The other states "fifth" century. A book the WTB7TS published titled, "Let God Be True" presented the footnote the way it was in the revised edition of the Diaglott (15th century). The 1st edition of the Diaglott, which I have in my collection, states at 1 John 5:7 footnote "fifth century." So, I wrote the WT Society on July 26, 1971 about this contradiction in dates.

  In their reply, dated August 17, 1971, the WT Society stated: "Let God Be True' quoted the Emphatic Diaglott and did so for the sake of furnishing authoritative support to the argument in the text of the book. Since Wilson and the Emphatic Diaglott misquoted the original source of information, using fifth' instead of fifteenth,' then it was perfectly proper for the Let God Be true' book to present the correct quotation, instead of Wilson's incorrect quotation... Wilson did not mean for incorrect information to be contained in his footnote and we do not know whether he was incorrect in his original printing of this footnote... So the Let God Be True' book presented the footnote the way it has been corrected in the revised edition of the Diaglott and which conforms to the original source of the footnote (Newcome's translation of 1808), which footnote Wilson intended to be correct, and which may have been correct in its first printing."

  The first edition read "fifth century" and was an incorrect quotation, not from Newcome's translation of 1808 for I have a copy of it also, but from Belsham's revision of Newcome's translation which was published in 1809, which I also have in my collection.

  The problem is this: the WT Society changed Wilson's text and did not state so in their copy of his work. The 1942 editions do not say "Revised" anywhere on the title page or anywhere else in the Diaglott. They were using Wilson as a authoritative support when he did not say 15th century and not telling anyone that was the case.

  It makes no difference whether Wilson made an error in his quote from Belsham's translation of the N.T. or not. Maybe he meant to change it to what he had in his Diaglott. Maybe he did not agree with Belsham. Who is the WT Soc. to say that he made a mistake and so change HIS work and then pass it off as HIS words to support their agreement.

  Sure, if I was in the position of the WT Society, I would have corrected the quotation and would have made a note that I corrected it on the title page. You just don't pass off something you did and lead the readers to believe that it was the original work of whoever. (To me that is lying to your readers.)

  Now, it appears that the Gideons are doing the same thing. They are making changes to the text and not saying so and where the charges are located and passing them off as the original text of the NIV or whichever translation or version they changed. It does not matter whether they had approval from the copyright holders or not. The right thing to do is to place a statement on the title page: "Revised Edition by the Gideons"

  This practice is missing leading to the readers.

  Bill C

  Director of the Bible Museum & Biblical Research Foundation

  Vice-President of the International Society of Bible Collectors

  Author:

  "Catalogue of English Bible Translations; A Classified Bibliography of Versions and Editions Including Books, Parts, and Old and New Testament Apocrypha and Apocryphal Books" William J. Chamberlin. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1991.

  (Still in print after 11 yrs. This is a 898 page reference book which has set a new standard in its field. You can find it listed with Barnes & Noble. Its very expensive though.)

  Author of 47 published articles.