The New World Translation (page 2)

MrsQ

Thanks guys,

Didn't mean to make you all re-hash an old subject. I'll search the previous topics before I post next time...

ADQ

starfish422

Oh well; why the big concern anyway? They're all variations on the same fairytale. *rolls eyes*

Gamaliel

SoJ your bible was translated by a Spirit Medium and the WTS applauded it... what say you?

Yiz,

Sorry to "defend" SoJ on this, but there is no proof that Greber had anything directly to do with translating the WTS, is there? Greber's 1937 translation was probably available to the "translators" and was found to provide only additional support. It's hard to tell for sure, but the Wt's of the 1950's included a lot of information that the "committee" would have naturally discovered during their work on the NWT. Whether the Greber spirit connection stuff came to their attention in time (by 1950), I don't think anyone can or will say, but the WT commented in 1955 and 56 that they knew about the spirit medium connection. Unfortunately, they just kept the translation on the shelf in the Bethel library for the next few years and other WT writers had likely forgotten the connection if they ever knew it. (I remember the first thing I did in the Bethel library -- or any time I found a new translation, for that matter -- was to look up John 1:1, so the fact that it slipped back in to the WT publications as early as 1961 and 1962 shouldn't be a surprise.

In each case, you can be pretty sure that the NWT had already planned to translate John 1:1 the way it did, with or without Greber's support. (WTS already had what they needed on John 1:1, for example, from Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott which they liked so much that CT Russell bought the rights.) The one verse where Greber may have been the source of a translation idea could be for Matthew 27:52,53, but there is no way the NWT would have allowed it to stand in "natural Greek" anyway -- Greber or not -- because it would have interfered with the WTS 1918 resurrection doctrine. (Greber: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city." ) Every other translation, except NWT, that I know of just goes ahead and translates "straight" about a resurrection of "spirits" from tombs at the time of Jesus resurrection.

I don't know how the process worked, of course, but based on the footnotes in the final result, it's easy to imagine what the "translators" did was get out about 20 other English translations (Rotherham, Goodspeed, ASV, KJV, Greber(?), etc) while Fred Franz handled a Hebrew and a Greek interlinear along with a commentary like Keil and Delitsch (OT) and Wescott & Hort (NT). (to understand the variant manuscript readings). Of course they also had Strong's and Vine's so that alternate words they might choose had "dictionary" support. For 99% of the verses, they could merely pick the translations they liked the best and reword it in the generally cold and consistent "modern" style of the NWT. Only if they came to verses that allowed for a number of different possibilities or a problematic doctrinal issue (mostly Trinity-related), they might resort to the commentaries and dictionaries and other tools they must have had like Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Liddell & Scott, etc.

Having done some work for both Bert Schroeder and George Gangas, I know that Schroeder knew very little about NT Greek and, although Gangas knew and spoke modern Greek, he would be of only a little help to translate koine (NT) Greek. Fred Franz' Greek was much more useful for translation purposes (by translation, I mostly mean making use of the commentaries, dictionaries, etc.)

I don't see how anyone could state directly that Greber even influenced the NWT, even if it supported John 1:1 and Matthew 27:52,53 because the primary reason for the NWT in the first place was to remove these types of problems -- with or without direct support. Even without the Emphatic Diaglott, for support, I think the NWT would have gone with "a god" rather than "divine" for example. A lot of the so-called Trinitarian proof texts had already bene discussed for over 50 years in WT publications by the time the first NWT came out. Even with doctrinal bias, I wouldn't doubt that there are verses that ended up being more accurate in the NWT than many other translators would admit.

I'm sure other people may know more about it, but I haven't seen enough to say the Greber truly influenced the NWT.

Gamaliel

scholar

Mrs.Q

You ask about the NWT which is without the slightestdoubt the finest translation ever made. The translation was produced by anointed brothers under the guidance of holy spirit. The translation however was not inspired by God and is not infallible but its accuracy is astonishing in pushing the boudaries of biblical scholarship.

It is impossible to know who the translators were even though some names are bandied about, this amounts to rumour, gossip and speculation. The credentials of the translatore is unimportant as the scholarship of the translators lies within the printed page.

scho;ar BA MA Studies in Religion

rem

The credentials of the translatore is unimportant as the scholarship of the translators lies within the printed page.

Except when it comes to Johnsson's work in Gentile Times Reconsidered, of course.

rem

Euphemism

LOL @ rem!

its accuracy is astonishing in pushing the boudaries of biblical scholarship

Couldn't have said it better myself, scholar.

Gamaliel

If you wish to know anything about "scholar's" qualifications with respect to scholarship (or his ability to carry on any kind of meaningful dialogue), watch his tactics very carefully on this thread:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/54983/1.ashx

So far, of the 20 or so questions that have come up with respect to Babylonian kings. He has completely ignored about 17 of them, and the few he pretends to respond to are also being ignored, because he merely rewords them so he can repeat patently false arguments, which continually contradict his previous claims. I think maybe he's actually a comedian, or an "apostate" ridiculing the WTS methods.

More to the point of this thread, read carefully his latest 3 posts and Alleymom's responses, you'll see that he accidentally claims the NWT is wrong.

scholar: "the Hebrew term malkut does not mean reign."

AlleyMom: But the NWT translates malkut as reign: [12 examples shown]

Scholar effectively trashes the NWT while trying to support WT doctrines. If he truly represents the WT, ex-JWs love him because he always scores 0% on every argument I've seen him in for the last 8 months.

Gamaliel

Kenneson

"New World," that's an interesting jingle for the New World Society. Of course, it isn't original to J.Ws. Aldous Huxley first used it in 1932 when he wrote "Brave New World." But has the W.T. put the catchword on a back burner? I don't seem to hear it used much anymore, except in the name of the translation.

scholar

Gamaliel

Perhaps you should explain why it is that the brilliant NWT translates malkut as kingship instead of reign in Daniel 1:1 because everybody else who has commented on this point have not got a clue

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

setfreefinally

Scholar, I think you are funnin with us now. C'mon admit it, I know you are. Nobody makes comments like you just did without it being tongue in cheek. LOL

The New World Translation

Share this