by plmkrzy 54 Replies latest watchtower bible
Best available to back up Manichaeans as being the 'troof'.
A Paduan
hmmm, ok well that does make sense, asuming he has a personal bias (a probable bias) but if that is what has influenced his opinion then my next question, naturally, would be, wouldn't he be able to use most of the translations for the same purpose? Since that would again have more to do with interpretation?
freeman
Thanks for that response. I'll go through it again .
willy I thought you were defending the NWT. LOLhahaha Thanks for the link .
Publications include:
The Manichaean Body in Discipline and Ritual (forthcoming)
Manichean think -
I would think that the guy's imbued by the tone of the language. He could use most interpretations, but he might like that one - closer to home an' all.
paduan
Edited by - a paduan on 22 October 2002 18:15:26
But he has a beard, so that TOTALLY discredits him. Plus, he went to college so he has no appreciation of the scriptures.
Willy_Think,
Thanks for the interesting link. I have read some of this information before but this is the first time I have seen it all compiled in one place. Without getting bogged down in any type of debate, I would like to point out again that for whatever the reasons stated in defense of the NWT, the NWT is not a translation at all but a trans- literation, there is a big big difference!
A translation requires scholars and a long time to complete, many die long before completing the task, a transliteration on the other hand does not.
Not one person on the so-called translation committee had even the most basic skills or credentials required, and the NWT, as many true scholars have indicated, sure does show it.
Freeman
Whether or not the translation committee had the skills required for accurate translation it is evident that somebody did. The link provided by Willy_Think at http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RH.Jn1_1.Index.htm shows quite clearly that Jason BeDuhn has considered the matter in depth before recommending the NWT.
His interest in Manichaeism is very relevant to understanding the mind of first century people as the dualism of this eastern religion made it an attractive alternative to Judaism and Christianity.
Earnest
It amazes me how so many people can miss a simple point. So far in this thread, only gumby and freeman have understood even a semblance of what BeDuhn was quoted as saying. From plmkrzy's original post, BeDuhn said:
"It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available"
Note that this does not say, "It is the best English translation available." It says it is the best Interlinear New Testament available. It appears that most posters on this thread do not know the difference between an interlinear and a translation.
Now, I happen to have in my possession about half a dozen different interlinear new testaments, and in terms of ease of use, and accuracy of translation of the interlinear text, I as a practiced amateur agree with BeDuhn. Whenever I have to use an interlinear, I most often use The Kingdom Interlinear. Why? Because it's printed in a particularly easy to read format and the basic translations of the words are generally very good. Note what I said: generally, not always. Over the past dozen years I've compared hundreds of words in the KIT with those in various other interlinears, and with various lexicons, and have found problems only in a tiny number of areas -- areas which the Watchtower itself freely acknowledges are in dispute. The only interlinear I possess that comes close in terms of ease of use is Jay Green's The Interlinear Hebrew Greek English Bible, but because its NT portion is based on the outdated Textus Receptus rather than a modern Greek edition such as Nestle-Aland, or even the now-outdated Westcott & Hort text, it is only marginally useful. It may be that some other interlinears are available that are better than KIT, but I have not done any surveys to see. Perhaps I should.
Now, have I defended anything about New World Translation in the above remarks? Not at all. I have only said things concerning the interlinear part of KIT -- nothing about the NWT text that appears in the right-hand margin. And that is exactly what Jason BeDuhn did. So those of you who completely missed the point are spinning your wheels by whacking away at the NWT itself.
As for the NWT itself, I think that it has a lot of good points and a lot of bad ones. Fred Franz was the main translator, of course, and the rest of the NWT Committee did little more than offer suggestions on polishing the English (somewhat of a joke, given the wooden style), and did most of the busy work such as cross-referencing. As someone pointed out, the KIT is something of a problem in certain cases for JWs, since it shows how old Freddie contorted the text on occasion to correspond with pre-existing Watchtower doctrine. Nevertheless, these cases are relatively rare. In the large majority of cases where texts are disputed, they are disputed more on doctrinal grounds than textual grounds. In other words, the majority of criticisms in doctrinally disputed areas are sectarian rather than substantive in nature.
One point of my post is that, while we ex-JWs have plenty of legitimate beefs with the Watchtower Society, it's a good idea to avoid foolish criticisms, but rather, to attack real problems. God knows there are more than enough real problems to keep us busy.
AlanF
Alan,
Pat
Although the good DR. Did indeed say the Interlinear New Testament in the article quoted, (no problem with me). A quick search revealed his position on the NWT as well, this should not be overlooked. He is in support of both bibles, not only the INT but the NWT.
If he had supported only the INT i would say fine. But to support NWT as a scholar, what am I to make of that? maby, he is being misquoted that would fit.
Edited by - willy_think on 22 October 2002 23:40:31
Willy_Think said:
: Although the good DR. Did indeed say the Interlinear New Testament in the article quoted, (no problem with me).
This is not comprehensible English. Are you drunk?
: A quick search revealed his position on the NWT as well,
Where? You have to post a link, or some sort of reference, you twit.
: this should not be overlooked. He is in support of both bibles, not only the INT but the NWT.
What do you mean "both"? What do you mean "both bibles"? The KIT is not a Bible -- it is an interlinear. The NWT is an attempt at a Bible translation. I tried to explain the difference, but it is obvious you have not the intelligence of a gnat.
Your incoherent commentary is typical of the nonsense posted by far too many ex-JWs and is perfectly illustrative of why I take offense at the majority of stupid posts on this thread. I have spent many years trying to publicize legitimate criticisms of Watchtower nonsense. When people like you post nonsense as a rejoinder to Watchtower nonsense, what is the result? Nonsense! What is the result of that when the media reads it? They conclude that a google of morons are arguing among themselves and that it is stupid to get involved. Watchtower middle-management is perfectly aware of this and takes full advantage of it. You are playing into their dirty hands!
Learn!
: If he had supported only the INT i would say fine. But to support NWT as a scholar, what am I to make of that?
You need to post something coherent in order for an intelligent reader to properly respond.
AlanF
