NWT

by shera 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  scholar

  herk

  You claim to know the identity of the NWT translators then how is this possible? Do you have documentary evidence for this information or are you relying upon speculation? I do not believe that there is anyone who can prove the alleged identity of the translators. You say that the revisions of the NWT were achieved by other careful translators, please give examples of this.

  It is not fantasy to praise the NWT as no other transation comes within a bull's roar of it. My claim about the this work being acclaimed by scholars remains even though it is not infallible or inspired.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  herk

  Scholar,

  Apparently you failed to read my last post carefully. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked how it is possible for me and others to know who the translators were. Neither would you have asked for "documentary evidence" or attributed our first-hand presence during the project to mere "speculation."

  Your post certainly doesn't appear to be from a scholar who reads carefully and discerningly. Therefore I question your almost pompous assertions about the NWT. I wonder if you've actually read large portions of it and carefully compared it with other translations as some of us actually have.

  You wrote:

  I do not believe that there is anyone who can prove the alleged identity of the translators.

  That's the same as claiming men have not actually been on the moon. All the evidence is there. It's public knowledge. Yet some claim it never happened, that what we've seen on TV is a big conspiracy. Similarly, the names of the NW translators have been public knowledge for 20 years. Just because you refuse to accept that knowledge doesn't make it wrong. If you really are a scholar, I wonder where you've been hiding so that you have been completely unaware of this.

  The NWT has been revised several times by the WT Society. You don't seem to be aware of even that fact. And, as far as your assertion that the NWT is "acclaimed by scholars," you've thus far given me the impression that you can't name even one among your imaginary roster.

  I'm not by any means attempting to be mean-spirited or rude. But your challenges really do appear to be coming from a person who is living in a fantasy world instead one where truth and facts really matter.

  Herk
• 

  scholar

  herk

  Your claim for the identity of the NWT translators is utter nonsense because all you can quote is merely hearsay and opinion. There has never been published any documentary evidence pertaining to their identity. I have studied the NWT since I first came into contact with the witnesses in 1958 and possess a well worn Reference Bible.1984 Edition. The simple plain fact that the names of the translators is the magnum mysterium which must trouble you greatly.I have several technical Bible commentaries in my library and enjoy the journal faciliies at Sydney University and Moore Theological Theological Library whereupon its my custom to examine and compare the NWT with the latest in biblical scholarship. My resources also attend to Macquarie University which is in the forefront in matters pertaining to textual criticism and studies in New Testament Greek. In fact, it is this university that is engage in research to replace the work of Moulton and Milligan.

  So I do know what I am talking about which is plainly evident that you do not. My shallenge to you is for you to produce scholarship that invalidates the NWT.

  Happy researching

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  herk

  Scholar,

  If you won't accept the testimony of eyewitnesses, what more can I say? If you choose to reject the well-known fact that the translators' names have often been published, that is your privilege.

  During my life I have yet to find a way to convince someone of something to which his or her mind is totally and unequivocally closed.

  If you really are a scholar, your posts speak loudly as to why there is so much ignorance about the Bible in these times. If even the minds of scholars are so biased and unyielding to new and better information, what can we expect of their students?

  Herk
• 

  bchamber

  Someone on one of the other topics, when he found out that I am an expert on English Bible translations, 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, the NWT 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 doesn't 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 their work something less than the Word of God?

  The NWT does have a lot of good points that speaks for the translators, if that is what they were. 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 1,510 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 without 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.

  The NWT has a lot of very good points that would recommend it. However, it is no where near a perfect translation. The men who worked on this Bible may not have been fluent in the original languages and may have taken the good from this translation and that one to put the NWT together (much the same as the KJV translators did when putting the KJV together. The KJV was not a new translation. The fact of the matter is this; 90% of the N.T. is Tyndale's, the very person the King and the church had put to death for making an English translation.) They did use some very good expressions that are not in any other translation that I have investigated and so they did do some original translating on their own.

  Another point you may not realize is the the men who worked on the KJV did exactly the same thing as the NWT men did. The KJV men were directed to follow 15 guidelines in putting together a new Bible. One of them was to take the good from the previous translations to make their KJV. 90% of the NT is Tyndale's N.T. They took parts of Coverdales Bible, Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, Rheims/Douay Bible, Geneva Bible, along with very little new translations of their own and made the most important work of all time. So don't criticize the men who put the NWT together. It is still God's word.

  Oh, one thing I noticed from one of the other replies. Yes, you can use almost any other 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 must be very careful.

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

  I now have approx. 1,510 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 1510 or more translations and versions.

  I, personally, use the RSV, Green's Interlinear, ERV for my study Bibles. However, I do use whatever is necessary in order to better understand.

  My most favorite Bible is a small translation of the Psalms by King James, dated 1632. Did any of you know that King James was a scholar and did a translation himself?

  One other tidbit is that I have approx. 10 different scripture comparisons on the Web at a JW site and I am NOT a JW. If interested, I will give whoever the address.

  Yes, I am an expert in English translations 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 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 49 published articles.

  Edited by - bchamber on 29 November 2002 13:43:46
• 

  Farkel

  : This is a 898 page reference book which set a new standard in its field.)

  : I am an author of 49 published articles.

  But the main thing is your modesty.

  Farkel
• 

  bchamber

  Farkel

  How can you be so narrow-minded as that? The only reason for the credentials is for people as yourself.

  My experience either with JWs or ex-JWs is that most of them are very opinionated and will not listen to anyone unless, and even that is questionable, that person can speak with authority. So, I gave some of my background so as to show creditabilty and NOT, as some small minded people think, to boast.

  You see there is another on this tread that speaks with authority and that is Earnest. But, as I read the responses to his info, I can see that some don't just get it at all.

  What is even more evident is that you did not response to WHAT I said about the topic matter, but, jump on the fact that I saw fit to show creditabilty.

  BC
• 

  fjtoth

  BC,

  Thanks very much for your report and analysis concerning Bible translations. I found it very interesting and helpful. And that isn't saying the half of it! I will be writing to you privately because I'm interested in examing the website you mentioned.

  What a treasure you have in valuable books and knowledge! I envy you.

  fjtoth
• 

  Trotafox

  Well, I'm glad someone's (bc) happy.

  I know, I know...."Oh, Trot, Sh-u-u-t-t-t-t Up"

  Trot
• 

  Farkel

  : This is a 898 page reference book which set a new standard in its field.)

  That's arrogant, the "new standard" part. How did it set a "new standard" and why did you feel it was so necessary to trumpet it all over this board? After all, it was a bibliography and all that means is you wrote a list of references. What kind of "new standard" is a 900 page book that gives references? People have been doing that for centuries, so please tell we dummies about that "new standard" that you set giving references.

  : I am an author of 49 published articles.

  That's arrogant. If what you have to say now is important then the fact that you have 49 published articles is irrelevant. If what you have to say now is crap then the fact that you have 49 published articles is also irrelevant. Those past articles don't mean dick if your current argument is crap.

  : How can you be so narrow-minded as that?

  Red herring. I only said you were immodest. Narrow-minded is a totally different subject.

  : The only reason for the credentials is for people as yourself.

  Bullshit. The only reason you presented your credentials was to make yourself look important. I and others are intelligent people. Your words stand or fall on their own merit. Your back-patting doesn't mean squat. Quit glorifying yourself. You look stupid when you do it, or at the very least you look like a pedant or pompous asshole.

  Content on any current post is everything. Background is irrelevant. This is a dynamic board and we have our own rules about peer review. If what you say in the given moment is crap, background and history doesn't mitigate anything. You'll get creamed, so quit bragging.

  Farkel

  Edited by - Farkel on 29 November 2002 22:41:8