Quality of jw.org translation?

by Wonderment 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Wonderment

  Someone asked the following question to an Artificial Intelligence (AI) website:

  How does the most translated website ensure accuracy of translations?

  
  

  Answer:

  Based on the search results, there are a few key ways the most translated website, jw.org, ensures accuracy of its translations:

  1. Dedicated translation program: The Jehovah's Witnesses have a focused effort and program dedicated to translating their website and publications into as many languages as possible, including obscure and endangered languages. This dedicated translation program allows them to maintain quality and consistency.
  2. Network of volunteer translators: jw.org utilizes a large network of volunteer translators in over 350 remote offices around the world to handle the translation work. This distributed model with local language experts helps ensure high-quality localization.
  3. Prioritizing comprehensiveness over speed: Unlike commercial websites that focus on translating to their largest markets, jw.org aims for comprehensive global coverage, even if it means translating into smaller languages at a slower pace. This focus on completeness rather than speed likely contributes to the accuracy of their translations.
  4. Rigorous quality control: The search results indicate the Jehovah's Witnesses organization likely has robust quality control processes in place to review and validate translations before publishing them on jw.org. This helps maintain accuracy across the vast number of language versions.
  5. Translating religious content: As a religious organization, the Jehovah's Witnesses have a strong incentive to ensure the accuracy and fidelity of their translated religious content, which may contribute to the high quality of their translations.

  In summary, the combination of a dedicated translation program, a global network of volunteer translators, a focus on comprehensiveness over speed, and rigorous quality control processes all likely contribute to the high accuracy of translations on the jw.org website.

  
  Whatś your take on this? Do you think the AI website borrowed the content from a WT publication, or, is there is more to it than that? (On the NWT, the website was not as kind in its review, parroting language commonly found in evangelical publications.)
  
  

  
  
• 

  Phizzy

  Probably fairly accurate as to the quality of their normal Literature when translated.

  One problem with this is that though a literal translation of a W.T Article may be an accurate one, what was written in English was often a strange way of expressing things to the speaker of another tongue, so their Translation work is not as good as that done by Professional Translators, well versed in the language being translated in to.

  Of course it is a different matter when you look at their NWT Bible. This is a poor Bible Version in many respects, but is outright dishonest in many of its renderings, which they "bend" to support their Doctrines and Teachings, and to subtly exert "Mind Control" in some instances.

  An analysis of these problems with their NWT Version can be found, and the verses in contention, on many Threads on here.
• 

  PetrW

  Translation of the NWT through the eyes of a foreigner - status 2024.

  In addition to the oft-mentioned criticism of JWs for adding or, conversely, subtracting words or phrases to the Bible translation: The two examples of the 2019 NWT translation compared to the English version and the local language translation were not discovered by me - they come from another discussion, but are very instructive and are rather indicative of the declining quality of local language translations and, let's say, in the most important area, the text of the Bible. All quotes from the NWT are according to the online-version at jw.org.

  Example 1:

  Acts 2:46 reads as follows in the English version:

  And day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals in different homes and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart.

  Acts 2:46 in the Czech version:

  Every day they were in united attendance in the temple, and they visited each other, and they took their meals together and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart.

  ---

  The first striking thing of a theological nature is the deletion of the passage which literally (see the so-called NWT study edition) reads, "they broke bread from house to house" (κλωντες τε κατ οικον αρτον), and reworded into the neutral took their meals in different homes. Why the JWs did this is open to question, but (more than one) explanation is offered: the members of the church of the day met house to house, presumably doing what bears a striking resemblance to the Lord's Supper, and participation in this "breaking of bread" was not limited in any way, and even took place in different places as need and opportunity arose. It almost tempts one to consider that this was not an annual/calendar celebration, but rather was motivated by a gathering of Christians who came together after some extended period of time and in the course of (beginning/end?) "breaking bread". A New Testament practice that differs from the JWs requirements...

  However, the issue doesn't end there. The English part: and they took their meals in different homes, in Czech (and Slovak - they are very similar languages) shortened to the form: "they visited each other". Which, of course, they did when they met, but already in the 2019 revision "house to house" instead of various meetings has completely dropped out, and of course, there is no longer a word about bread in the English translation, so we can expect nothing in the secondary translation...

  The 2019 revision of the Czech version differs from the 1999 Czech edition, which also - of course no longer had any mention of bread at that time - but still referred to the place where Christians met ("various houses"). Also the 1999 concordance to the Czech version of the NWT, mentions in the entry: "houses" verse Acts 2:46. Which we can no longer find in the 2019 revision.
  

  Translation from translation tends to degrade the quality of the text and it becomes more of a paraphrase. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is certainly not a good thing either, especially when dealing with a text as sensitive as the Bible and especially in the environment of JWs who claim that "to translate the Holy Scriptures is to translate into another language the thoughts and sayings of Jehovah God, the heavenly Author of this sacred library...". If a member of the JWs consistently used a translation other than the NWT, even though it was available to him, as well as to other JWs, then it would probably not be accepted...
  

  ***
  Example 2:
  Rev 5:14 in the English version reads:The four living creatures were saying, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshipped.
  Rev. 5:14 in the Czech version:The four living creatures were saying, "Amen!" And the elders fell to their knees and worshiped God.

  At the end of the verse is added "God". No version of the Greek text that we have supports this addition ("God"). Therefore, neither does the modern edition of the Greek text, the NA26 type, nor does the old Westcott-Hort in the JWs-interlinear text. Neither does the English NWT, but neither does the German, French, or Spannish translation. Of the Eastern European languages, only Czech, Slovak and Slovenian have this suffix. Polish does not have the addendum.

  --

  Again. In the 1999 edition of the Czech version, this addendum ("God") was also not yet present. How did it get there if the original Czech translation (1999) did not have it and the English revision from which it was supposed to be translated does not have it either? It is not a big problem, but rather it shows the quality of the proofreading.

  Sometimes (how many more times?) translation notes get into the text, and interestingly enough, in at least three languages (how many more?) in geographically different territories. Did these teams work together anywhere? Or does this point more to the possibility(!?) of a systemic failure of quality control of the work? One could understand if two or three people were working on the translation, but if it is a team effort and the translation is only from English into some "indigenous" language, then the translation task is easier...or is it?

  --

  I don't want to draw conclusions from two passages, but doesn't this suggest a declining quality of translation and proofreading work...?
• 

  careful

  Wonderment, in answer to your OP:

  Doesn't AI just cull through all the info that's out there electronically? Who else would put something out there re: translation of WTS in-house pubs except the organization itself?

  Doubtless too, that's the case with the criticisms of the NWT since there are so many that have either appeared on the web to begin with or been entered into cyberspace from print media.

  Thx PetrW for the info on those two passages. I know nothing about Czech so cannot comment on what role that may play in the two instances you point out, but surely your statement "Translation from translation tends to degrade the quality of the text" is spot on. In practical terms the organization has little other choice if they want to maintain the control they have over all the R&F. Even the GB member(s) who did the 2013 English revision had no real knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, so the publishers who translated that English revision into other modern languages likely would not either. Once Fred Franz died, such knowledge up top died, and anyone lower down who might have such knowledge must still defer to the authority structure, even if such a person might see faults in translation, whether in in-house pubs or the NWT itself.
• 

  Phizzy

  Even FF had no formal training in Hebrew or Greek, he said so in Court.

  The NWT has always been a "Version", never a Translation as it claims to be, they simply have never had any properly trained or properly accredited Scholar/s involved at any point.

  Having said that, F.Franz had a fearsome Intelligence, and the Autistic person's ability to concentrate fully on his work, and he did very well, with simply using other already published Versions, and Bible Dictionaries etc. but of course, his weird beliefs coloured the final NWT, as such beliefs do to this day, in each iteration that comes out.
• 

  markweatherill

  I suspect that 'ensuring accuracy of translation' is important, but not half as important as 'ensuring conformity with doctrine'.

  I joked with an elder on my doorstep that the next revision of the NWT will replace 'Jehovah' with 'Jehovah, and his Organisation'. But all I got was a blank look.
• 

  Phizzy

  They have subtly already done something similar Marky, not using the word "Organisation" obviously, but twisting Scripture to infer that is what the Bible Writers were referring to !
• 

  slimboyfat

  Who else would put something out there re: translation of WTS in-house pubs except the organization itself?

  careful, I think there has been more, but this is all I can find specifically on the subject at the moment, and it’s not readily accessible online beyond a summary, as far as I can make out:

  Narayana, D. B. (2022). Equivalence and Readability in the Indonesian Translation of the History and Bible Section in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Official Website: A Study of Equivalence and Readability (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta).

  https://repository.usd.ac.id/43506/1/184214129.pdf
  

  The work of Andrea Rota is also probably relevant in places.

  Rota, A. (2019). Religion, Media, and Joint Commitment. Online-Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet, 14, 79-107.

  https://heiup.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/index.php/religions/article/download/23949/17671

  Rota, A. (2022). (Re) Connecting Analytic Philosophy and Empirical Research: The Example of Ritual Speech Acts and Religious Collectivities. Sophia, 1-14.

  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11841-021-00899-5

  Rota, A. (2023). Jehovah Online: Magazines in the New Media Landscape of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Switzerland and Germany. In Protestant Periodicals in Transition (pp. 75-97). Brill.

  Rota, A. (2023). Collective intentionality and the study of religion: social ontology and empirical research (p. 280). Bloomsbury Academic.
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Those are fascinating observation PetrW. Thanks!

  I remember there was some controversy over the Norwegian NWT that translated Jeremiah 29:10 as “seventy years for Babylon” rather than “seventy years at Babylon”, as in the English NWT, thus, in the view of some, undermining the JW interpretation of the 70 years captivity, and therefore 607 BCE, and consequently 1914 CE. Presumably this was unintentional but, some argued, was embarrassing for Furuli and others who relied on the English translation of Jeremiah 29:10 as part of their defence of JW chronology.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Even FF had no formal training in Hebrew or Greek, he said so in Court.

  Fred Franz studied Greek for two years at Cincinnati University. It’s not nothing.

  He was asked to translate a verse in English into Hebrew in court, which he declined. There is debate over whether this is a relevant or fair test of Hebrew knowledge. He was not asked to translate Greek.

  He was self taught in Hebrew. Raymond Franz said he observed Fred Franz reading Hebrew, which is against-the-grain testimony that he could understand the text.

  Personally I think that Fred Franz must have been competent in Greek and Hebrew to produce the NWT. Other explanations are more convoluted than the straight forward one.