Question on the NWT translation

by Nowhere 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Earnest

  Nowhere:

  You asked:

  Have you ever heard of the New Reviesd Standard Version? There is a reason for making that update. Why doesn't WTBTS print a New NWT, based on the newer texts available? Thats my point.

  As it happens I have a copy of the NRSV. You probably know that the NWT "is not a revision of any previous version or translation of the Bible, but is a completely new translation from the original languages". But did you know the NRSV is:

  "an authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version, published in 1952, which was a revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which, in turn, embodied earlier revisions of the King James Version, published in 1611" (Foreword to the NRSV by Bruce Metzger, p.xi)

  Unfortunately, most translations carry the baggage of the King James Version with them because people are loath to change what they are accustomed to, whether it be accurate or not. In fact, the NRSV Committee were directed (by the owners of the RSV copyight) to continue in the tradition of the King James Bible. (Foreword, p.xiii)

  A completely new translation, such as the NWT, does not have that disadvantage.

  Did you also know that despite using the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia which has God's name over 6,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Committee have not used God's name in the NRSV. Not even the four times it occurs in the King James Version. Were you not suggesting the reason for the update was to be true to the original text?

  Furthermore, the NWT has been updated. A number of times. It was first published in 6 volumes, from 1950 to 1960. A revised one-volume edition was published in 1961. A second revision was released in 1970, and a third revision, with footnotes, was produced in 1971. It was again revised in 1984. I am sure that as newer texts become available and the science of textual criticism is refined that further revisions will follow.

  Are you still on about Paul quoting Isaiah at Phillipians 2:10,11 even though he gives no indication he is doing so. The similarity with Isaiah are the two expressions "every knee should bend" and "every tongue should openly acknowledge". That does not make it a quotation. It may be an allusion as a great deal of OT language, or expessions, are used but applied to something else. It may be that Paul did have Isaiah in mind and was making the point that while everything is still "to the glory of God the Father" it is now by means of Jesus Christ. But it is not a quotation and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so.

  But in criticising what I said previously you suggest I only quoted half a sentence. What I wrote was the Greek text of the words: It is the Lord your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service which is what Jesus was quoting. Cheap shots reflect more on their perpetrator than their target.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 7 November 2002 14:25:45
• 

  Nowhere

  the Committee have not used God's name in the NRSV

  I never said NRSV was the ultimate and final in bible translations. I just mentioned that it was updated in a new version, when a more accurate greek text were available. The NWT has not been that in the same way. The main differences in the new versions of NWT is that nowdays they put the extra words that WTBTS has inserted in the text in brackets [ ]. The first version didn't. The first version was as you see, an addition to what was written as you can read about in rev 22:18-19. And more they have 'revised' the translation in John 1:1 to beginning instead of origin, because origin wasn't a good choise in rev 3:14, and WTBTS still wants to hold people in the dark concerning the meaning of the bible.

  But it is not and no wishful thinking will make it a quotation.

  That is your view. It is not wishful thinking. If it isn't a quote, then it is a improbability, and obviuosly then, with your reasoning, Paul goofed.

  What I wrote was the Greek text of the words: It is the Lord your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service which is what Jesus was quoting.

  The 'alone', mono, isn't in LXX. There is nothing wrong with it, but it isn't a word by word quotation, thats my point. It's a quote, even if the exact words aren't used, it's the meaning that is important. Now you have two differences, mono and proskuneseis.

  Can I ask you a question? Are you still an active JW?

  Edited by - Nowhere on 7 November 2002 14:31:30
• 

  Earnest

  That is your view [that Phillipians 2:10,11 is not quoting Isaiah] . It is not wishful thinking. If it isn't a quote, then it is a improbability, and obviuosly then, with your reasoning, Paul goofed.

  It has to be a quotation, does it? It cannot be an allusion to Isaiah as I suggested in my previous post? The problem that we have with NT manuscripts is that they don't use quotation marks as we do in English. So the only way we can be sure that they are quoting is when a passage is preceded by "It is written..."as Jesus does at Matthew 4:10 and Paul does at Romans 14:11. Paul does not do so at Phillipians 2:10,11 and so, at best, it is a matter of exegesis whether or not he is quoting. Evidently the NWT Translation Committee do not think so. Interestingly, it would seem that the NRSV Translation Committee do not think so either because, while they do cross-reference Romans 14:11 with Isaiah, they do not cross-reference Phillipians 2:10,11.

  Can I ask you a question? Are you still an active JW?

  In order to avoid any ad hominem attacks (not that you would), I will duck this question. But I will say that on this board I do not represent anyone other than myself, and I only defend what I believe to be true regardless of its origin. What I submit to a public board is quite rightly open for comment. My age, education and affiliations (or lack of them) is not.

  Earnest