by Terry 49 Replies latest watchtower bible
It is up to us to decide which interpretation makes more sense.
Yes.
it's really tough to find a decent discussion on the merits of the NWT.
On one hand, legitimate criticisms, (Like the horrible rendering of John 17:3 which took many years to fix.) are dismissed out of hand by JW's because "God's channel" can't possibly be wrong on a matter as serious as translation.
But on the other hand, the NWT is criticized in areas where robust discussion and a plurality of thought exists.
TD : it's really tough to find a decent discussion on the merits of the NWT.
I found Truth in Translation by Jason Beduhn to be a decent discussion on the merits of the NWT. He also discusses a number of other translations.
I agree with you on the horrible rendering of John 17:3 but would add that some JWs have long accepted that "taking in knowledge" was not the intent of Christ's words.
the horrible rendering of John 17:3
I still can't get over how this monumental doctrinal change slipped past virtually all JWs without even a peep or murmur.
For decades - many decades - basically 1950 - 2013 - every, I mean every, baptism talk outlined the "steps to qualify for baptism".
Step number 1 was always "taking in knowledge" (as the old NWT put it), which of course meant a sit-down, hour-a-week, question and answer "Bible study".
Three times a year for 60+ years at baptism talks, plus countless WT articles, plus every study book....John 17:3 meant "getting head knowledge", studying a WT publication with a JW to get a mental understanding of God.
Not "knowing" God - no, no! That was the pagan-inspired Babylon the Great that mistranslated John 17:3 - it wasn't "knowing", oh no - it was "taking in knowledge" - a purely intellectual emotionless exercise.
Then one day in October 2013, bam!
From that minute onward, John 17:3 was "knowing" - you have to know God as a person, develop a "relationship" with him, etc. It's so much more than mere head knowledge! It's personal!
There was no WT study article explaining this change, there was no convention talk, there was no "Questions [we made up but we pretend they are] From Readers" on it - nothing. Just a complete 180 degree flip flop on a core fundamental teaching.
And now, just like Airstrip One has always been at war with Eurasia (or was that Eastasia), John 17:3 has always meant "knowing", not "taking in knowledge".
Madness.
TD and sir82
The translation of John 17:3 in the NWT in both the current edition of 2013 and former editions are all accurate with the literal Greek and is explained nicely as such in the NWT Study Bible: "their coming to know you: Or “their taking in knowledge of you; their continuing to know you.” The Greek verb gi·noʹsko basically means “to know,” and here the verb is used in the present tense to express continuous action. It may denote a process of “taking in knowledge about someone; getting to know someone; becoming better acquainted with someone.” It may also include the thought of making an ongoing effort to get better acquainted with someone who is already known. In this context, it refers to a deepening personal relationship with God brought about by ever-increasing knowledge of God and Christ and a growing trust in them. Clearly, this necessitates more than knowing who a person is or knowing his name. It would also involve knowing what that person likes and dislikes and knowing his values and standards. —1Jo 2:3; 4:8.
scholar
'a faithful and wise servant'
Scholar:
Αυτή είναι η απάντησή σας; Ακούγεται σαν παρθένο μιλάμε για σεξ
Humor aside, I did not say the passage had been mistranslated prior 2013 (And have actually chided other people on this forum for using that term.) There are any number of ways a passage may be rendered without definitely stepping outside of standard definitions and rules of grammar, but that does not make them all equally valid.
The phrase, "taking in knowledge" did not capture the subjective and was esoteric inasmuch as the verb was replaced with a noun. Your church has clearly rethought their use of it in this instance and adopted a clearer and more mainstream rendering. (That's a compliment.)
The point I was actually trying to make still stands. Prior to 2013 it was virtually impossible to have a respectful and lucid discussion with a JW on this subject.
e: "their coming to know you: Or “their taking in knowledge of you; their continuing to know you.” The Greek verb gi·noʹsko basically means “to know,” and here the verb is used in the present tense to express continuous action. It may denote a process of “taking in knowledge about someone; getting to know someone; becoming better acquainted with someone.” It may also include the thought of making an ongoing effort to get better acquainted with someone who is already known. In this context, it refers to a deepening personal relationship with God brought about by ever-increasing knowledge of God and Christ and a growing trust in them. Clearly, this necessitates more than knowing who a person is or knowing his name. It would also involve knowing what that person likes and dislikes and knowing his values and standards. —1Jo 2:3;4:8.
Learning ABOUT someone (taking in knowledge of) and knowing or getting to know someone are completely different things.
I can “take in knowledge’ of Lady GaGa but it doesn’t mean I “know” her or I’m “getting to know” her.
TD
Well said.
he point I was actually trying to make still stands. Prior to 2013 it was virtually impossible to have a respectful and lucid discussion with a JW on this subject.
This is because JW's in general are not familiar with Koine Greek so do not understand what lies behind the English translation.
scholar
Diogeneister
The fact of the matter that the wording conveys two different meanings so the comments in the Study Bible are helpful considering the case that John 17:3 is in Greek and trying to convey a precise meaning into English is sometimes a matter of a compromise and that is the case here,
scholar
Quote: "Yes I am acquainted with Chris Forbes, Edwin Judge and Stuart Pickering, John Lee and Greg Horsley and others all have or had an association with Macquarrie University which as an institution is at the forefront in NT Greek scholarship.
I understand that Forbes is an Anglican"
Somewhat off topic, but of some interest to all.
1. It seems likely that you are located in the Sydney region. So was I, from the early 1950's until I was chucked out in the late 1980's. So I've seen the branch oversight change from T.Jarascz to eventually V.Mouritz. And from a few congs in Sydney to many.
I knew a lot of people over the years and the only guy I knew that studied externally (i.e. non JW stuff) was a Farleigh James (Who had some sort of recognition as a WT writer). James, could read greek (to an extent anyway) and is now dead so that cant be you.
But even among the JWs if someone has gone to the trouble of doing what you claim it would be known among some of the key people in their city.
But I never heard of someone like you in Sydney. So, apparently you've come along after I was chucked out.
2, During the course of my studies at MU (and Sydney U) I once was asked by Chris Forbes as the why I was interested in NT/Christian origins studies. I then told him of my JW origins and being chucked out.
He then told me of another JW (apparently still in) that was studying similar stuff, and that this person was having some emotional problems. He asked if I would talk to them? I would've if that person was told that I was DFed. Apparently this person did no want to speak with me.
Could you have been that person?
Scholar I'd be interested to know your thoughts on Hebrews 2.9
So we all know Watchtower does not consider Jesus to be God. So one would think they would take any and all opportunity to translate the Bible to reflect this dogma, as indeed they are want to do.
However, it's pretty established that Hebrews 2.9 originally read "ASIDE from God" instead of "by the GRACE of God".
Watchtower translates it as "by the undeserved kindness of God" which we all know is Watchtower code for "by the GRACE of God".
This, to me, proves that the men who published the NWT were NO Bible *scholars.
In that they resort to inserting words not originally in the text, a rather clumsy attempt to prove Jesus is not God, rather than researching and translating the *genuine* areas where the Bible is very ambiguous on the subject.
