The 1950s NWT (1984)

HowTheBibleWasCreated

I did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic. To be honest the old NWT has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's NT which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.The truth is John 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation. Jehovah in the NT is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more YHWH.

So the OT?

Many have praised the Hebrew scripture of the NWT and to be honest they are 99% intact and somewhat accurate with a few notable exceptions it will now list which are HILARIOUS!

1. Is it really nessicary to preceed Elohim with {true}. I mean the expression 'the true god' is well used with witnesses.. it's all an addion.

2. Dungy idols. Now let's be honset. It's not in the text. Only a foold would do this.

3.I need to quote this story in 1 Samuel 14>>

Then Jonʹa·than said: “Here we are crossing over to the men, and let us expose ourselves to them. 9 If this is the way they should say to us, ‘Stand still until we make contact with YOU!’ we must then stand where we are, and we should not go on up to them......With that the two of them exposed themselves to the outpost of the Phi·lisʹtines. And the Phi·lisʹtines proceeded to say: “Here are the Hebrews coming out from the holes where they have hidden themselves.”+ 12 So the men of the outpost answered Jonʹa·than and his armor-bearer and said: “Come on up to us, and we will let YOU know a thing!”

I quote mined a bit but anyone of mature age is probably facepalming at the way this chapter is translated. I mean these vereses were changed in the 2013 NWT. But is the 1950's some pervert translated the text this way. He likely also translated Jeremiah 5: 8 which says:

Horses seized with sexual heat, having [strong] testicles, they have become. They neigh each one to the wife of his companion.

Huh? sorry I have checked the Hebrew text against a Lexicon as well as multiple translations and sadly there are no horses testicles in this verse. Unless... your a pervert.

But before I go to the last goofy verse in the OT of the NWT let's consider what the NT says happened to Jesus in the NWT 1984. Yep he was "Impaled". This is a vastly different punishment then cruxifiction. Oh yes the obvious conclusion a JW makes is it refers to nails in Jesus's hands. But sadly any normal reader would back off here. Yes these verses of Jesus be implaed were changed to in 2013.

Lastly the stupidiy of the translators is sen at Job 6:6. I mean really is this the signs of a moron? Most transaltions have trouble deciding if the proverb here is about a tastless egg white or a Mallow plant. I guess the NWT decided a mallow plant as they did in the 2013 NWT. But in the 1950-1984 era they chose this hilarous line:

Will tasteless things be eaten without salt,Or is there any taste in the slimy juice of marshmallow?

I'm stumped at this. The pervert and so-called translator has a name BTW Freddie Franz just so you know.

Phizzy

I agree the NWT is quite hilarious in its earlier iterations, I do not have a 2013 Copy to compare.

On the matter of "the true god" in the O.T they accidently end up underlining that the Israelites early on were not monotheistic, at best they were henotheistic, not something the org. would wish to be highlighted !

I still find the Translation throughout to be clunky and difficult to the modern ear, but they have, perhaps wisely, erred on the side of accuracy rather than readability !

I always enjoy your Posts ! have you read the Paper that Doug Mason posted on his Nehemiah and Ezra Thread ? entitled " Persia and Creation of Judaism" , it is VERY enlightening as to when the Hebrew Bible was written, and by whom, not that it is all brand new info. but it sheds more light on it, and expands what we should think of as myth in the O.T.

https://jwstudies.com/Persia_and_Creation_of_Judaism.pdf

Jeffro

2. Dungy idols. Now let's be honset. It's not in the text. Only a foold would do this.

Their 'reasoning' for this actually quite odd. Their argument is that the word translated 'idol' (גִּלּוּל, Strong’s H1544) is related to a word for 'ball of dung' (גֵּלֶל, Strong’s H1561). However, the only connection is that the root etymology of both words is related to the concept of 'rolling'.

Jeffro

I guess the NWT decided a mallow plant as they did in the 2013 NWT. But in the 1950-1984 era they chose this hilarous line:
Will tasteless things be eaten without salt,Or is there any taste in the slimy juice of marshmallow?
I'm stumped at this.

The original meaning of the English word "marshmallow" was indeed the 'mallow plant' (that is, mallows that grow in marshes). The modern confectionery is named after the plant because it was, in antiquity, made from that plant. So they weren't actually wrong with this one.

Jeffro

He likely also translated Jeremiah 5: 8 which says:
Horses seized with sexual heat, having [strong] testicles, they have become. They neigh each one to the wife of his companion.
Huh? sorry I have checked the Hebrew text against a Lexicon as well as multiple translations and sadly there are no horses testicles in this verse. Unless... your a pervert.

Along similar lines, the Watch Tower Society's 1971 attempt at interpreting the book of Ezekiel (“The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah”—How?) felt the need to quote Ezekiel 23:20 in full... not once, not twice, but three times, all on the same page (twice from the NWT and once from the New English Bible).

“And she kept lusting in the style of concubines belonging to those whose fleshly member is as the fleshly member of male asses and whose genital organ is as the genital organ of male horses.”

Vidqun

This proves that the NWT is an original translation, even though funny. I have learnt a lot from it, believe it or not. E.g., 'El is singular for God and 'Elohim is plural (of excellence), translated God. The [true] God indicates the distinction. Few translations indicate the peculiarity of the Hebrew. And the average Jew really had an averse reaction to idols after being punished repeatedly for this sin, thus the dungy part, similar for the word "abomination," something to loathe. The NWT is highly conducive for original language studies because of its peculiar renderings. One needs to go back to the original languages to find out the meaning. Think of the Greek word that they translated with "impale." In the time of the Maccabees some Jews were impaled. They were place on a sharpened stake. However, this is not how Jesus died. This is part of the learning process. What would we have done without the the NWT! It helps us to distinguish truth from doctrinal embellishment which one finds in a great variety of translation, especially official Protestant and Catholic versions.

Jeffro

Vidqun:

This proves that the NWT is an original translation, even though funny.

For the most part, the original NWT is a modernisation of the King James Version, influenced heavily by the American Standard Version, with an over-emphasis on making verbs more tedious.

Listener

On the subject of their translations, I find it telling that their method is to translate firstly into English and then from the English translation, translate it into 100s of other languages. I would have thought that would mean those translations, other than the English translation, would be even more inferior.

Vidqun

No Jeffro, I don't agree. We have a modernization of the King James in the form of the New King James Version (NKJV), yet the NWT is nothing like it. The ASV had some influence, e.g., Jehovah in the OT, but overall quite different. As you said their verbal structure, quite tedious, but original according Franz's wayward theories of the Hebrew Verbal System. Nothing quite like it amongst the translations. I wrote to them that it was quite contradictory and gave examples, but I am sure they didn't appreciate my criticism at the time.

Vidqun

I think Franz was ahead of his time in certain aspects. As you will see, he's not far off with his literal translation of Jer. 5:8. Here's HALOT, the most modern and influential version of Koehler and Baumgartner's Lexicon, edited by J. J. Stamm, with an explanation of hkv: denominative vb. possessing testicles; with visible testicles, NRSV: lusty stallions Jr 5 8. † Note strong in brackets, very accurate.

The 1950s NWT (1984)

Share this