I have to agree that there was bias coming from both sides here. Seems they both want the scriptures to suit personal preference. I just wanted to note that even if the NWT was never published, and even if there were never any JWs, there are and were plenty who do not conclude any of the Hebrew scriptures as supporting the trinity doctrine.
believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!. . .
I totally agree that it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived but as for going into eternity lost, forever lost because sombody distorted the Scriptures? If you believe in the basic nuts and bolts of the scriptures then that is not possible. So when it comes to chosing a belief system it's pretty much everyman for himself. Always has been. My fate is in my hands, If I chose it that way and it makes no diference what translation I read or how many I read. It will always be the same.
Well,I agree with what most of you are saying but my main point I was trying to get across was "most greek scholars donot" agree with the NWT.I'm not talking about what they believe,but each to their own.
Sometimes it seems on both sides,they translate the bible to how it suits their doctrines.Oh what to really believe???
I must learn some greek here and translate it to what I believe,anyone here know greek and have your hands on some(old) greek transcripts?
I suggest that vitriolic criticisms of ANY translation derive from a faulty conception of linguistics. NO stand alone translation of any language, on any topic, can capture the full meaning and intent of the original. Cultural, circumstantial and historical undercurrents have impact that cannot be captured merely by etymological analysis.
And sometimes there is no single, unequivocal "right or wrong" translation, as is (I believe) the case with John 1:1.
If a person is having a problem with John 1:1, he or she doesn't need to wonder what to believe. The reason is that the Bible answers questions about God and the Word in many other places. I could give some examples, but I don't want to start up a debate here on the Trinity, pro and con. I don't mean a debate with you personally, but with others who have strong views on one side or the other.
I have to agree with plm and say that people choose the way they lean, unless they are oppressed and/or have not the necessary courage for liberty.
The translators (I have yet to see evidence that the work was actually translated) chose to hear the message as they conceived it was - the words may well be translated in another sense - importantly, this supports free will - they are at liberty to translate it as they will, and those who recieve it are hopefully at liberty to reject it, though we know that many are enslaved, even from birth.
I had no intention for this to turn into a trinity debate.I'm not talking about there beliefs or the John 1:1 scripture or hell fire.But I assume anyone who is trained in the greek lang,would be able to see what bible is closer to the greek transcripts....I'm talking about the whole bible in general.gesshhhh lol
You have some misconceptions about the NWT. You claim to know the identity of the NWT translators but such information is purely speculation. The policy of the committee was that they were to remain anonymous even after their death so remains for all eternity one of life's many mysteries. It is impossible to know their names as no archival material constitutive of their identity exists. At best there remains merely Bethel gossip and hearsay.
The NWT is an acclaimed piece of outstanding biblical scholarship unsurpassed by any previous or current translation. The purpose of this majestic work was not to support WT theology but rather to provide a modern and accurate translation suited to the needs of modern Bible students.
scholar: BA MA Studies in Religion, University of Sydney, Australia
You are under a great misconception if you really believe that the NWT is an "acclaimed piece of outstanding biblical scholarship unsurpassed by any previous or current translation." The facts are that the NWT is not acclaimed or widely applauded by scholars. You should know that. Further, to call it "outstanding," "unsurpassed," and "majestic" is a bit too much of an exaggeration, if not also a fantasy.
I have a high regard for the NWT too, but I'm not living under the delusion that it is so sacred a work that no one can know who performed it. There are some of us who do know who the translators were. We were there when this greatest single project of the WT Society was in progress and was finally completed. Our eyes saw and our ears heard. We were friends and had conversations with each of the translators and their secretaries.
The NWT, like all translations has its biases and errors. There are places where words not hinted at in the original manuscripts were inserted to give the text some sense. Later it was discovered that those renderings were not as accurate as they could and should have been. A few revisions have been made, but more are needed. Some renderings were risky and have not yet come anywhere near being vindicated by the work of more careful translators.
All bible translations have bias and the NWT is no exception. As there are different methods of translation - either translating the words or conveying the ideas - there is no one translation that is superior to all others. The area in which the NWT excels is that it is not heavily influenced by the King James Version as many modern translations are.
While we probably do know the members of the NWT Committee, I agree in principle that we do not know all those involved in the translation itself. There is clear evidence of scholarship in the translation which has been acknowledged by many.
Reference to your own scholastic qualifications is quite immateial to your argument and has the whiff of intellectual one-upmanship about it.
