Some observations...

by Wonderment 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wonderment

  Theburstbubble: Just as a translation is it as accurate as they say it is? Or have they played with some of the verses to suit the beliefs? Just curious... I don't know why but I find it quite sad if the NWT is so misleading to support their own beliefs. Well I do know why it makes me feel sad because it means everything was a lie. I know there is a lot wrong with this religion but I had hoped the NWT was a good version.

  The NWT overall is accurate enough. Yes, "they played with some verses to suit their beliefs." The same can be said of Catholic and Evangelical versions. They all tweak some verses to reflect their own theology. Notwithstanding, I would not reject any of them for doing so. The process of Bible translation is compromised by many issues. Whether someone wants to consider ardent theological issues as "lies" depends a lot from the angle the viewer is looking at such. How far will a person let its emotional feelings affect their judgment?

  Therefore, I think it is best to avoid extremes. The JW religion is an extreme. The other religions too are frequently extreme in their actions. Look at the main political parties for comparison. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of "Christians." However, are they any kinder to poor people and immigrants in need? Do they seek "unity" among the states, or are they stressing the states to fend for themselves?

  The democrats are also extreme on some issues: They sometimes give the impression that the rich and well-off must help the lesser privileged ones to the point of supporting them. Welfare, and food stamps have often been promoted by Democrats to aid the poor, with the unwanted result of frequent abuses of the system. Some claim this leads to promoting laziness among the people.

  The truth of the matter is that there are good and bad people and extremists in both parties. In fact, the non-Christian world often blame the "Christians" for promoting international wars. Thus, we are wiser in analyzing each claim for what it's worth, and holding on to whatever goodness we find in the present world.

  Another observation to make has to do with a certain pattern manifested in the religious community at large, and seen frequently in this forum as well: The belittling of anyone who defends the NWT in the slightest: "If Benjamin Kedar says something positive of the NWT, it is because he is not a top scholar." If David BeDuhnn defends the NWT, it is because he doesn't have a Ph.D in linguistics." "If George Howard theorized that the divine name appeared in the original Greek copies, then there are dozens of other scholars who believe otherwise, so he, and the NWT, must be wrong." And so on!

  People who issue those statements are no less biased than those being criticized. Frequently, they don't any mention any specific issues as being wrong, because often, they either can't do so, or or are not willing to objectively look at the material presented by the authors.

  The challenge for us all, then, is to remain balanced, and hopefully be able to see whatever tidbits of truth are found from the various sources.
  
• 

  Beth Sarim

  The NWT is a Bible which is manipulated to suit the JW's beliefs.
• 

  Wonderment

  Hadriel: I can say unequivocally that the NWT, grossly misrepresents the scriptures when the original text curiously doesn't fit the desired doctrine. Take 2 Corinthians 5:20. In this text the phrase "substituting for Christ" is added with regards to ambassadors. There is zero basis for this however it is postured in such a way as if to further bolster authority. Or at least that's how I see it. To me that's simply incorrigible.

  
  

  2 Corinthians 5.20 is an interesting scripture to bring forth. It poses some difficulty to translate it correctly. I find that most translators have to add or take away some words within the text to have smooth English. But one issue where translators depart in the text is in the translation of the Greek preposition "hyper" which appears twice. As is often the case, prepositions can have many meanings, so interpretation plays a major role in the translation process.

  "Hyper" generally means "over" (opposite of hypo, "under") but has been translated variously: for; about; in; above; beyond; for the sake of; more than; on behalf; concerning; for sake; on behalf of; over, than; to, etc.

  In compounds with verbs, nouns, or adverbs it adds the ideas of:

  (1) over or beyond, spatially; (2) for someone or something; or (3) beyond (normal) limits.

  Some believe that in 2 Cor. 5.20, the idea of "substitution" is brought out by the fact that the preposition used here, is also used 6 other times in the chapter. See 2 Cor. 5.15 & 21, for example.
  

  Paul, is, within this context, defending his apostleship, his authority as God's representative. Which is why, he uses "hyper" as the first word for emphasis in the text, for what Paul has to say in his defense. Paul was conveying that he was a messenger of God, an ambassador. In the absence of Christ, he was serving in his place (as a "substitute") to appeal to them as if God himself was making appeal to them through him: "As God's ambassadors, we beg: Become reconciled to Christ." Hence, Paul had the "authority" to be the apostle of God and Christ, which church infiltrators questioned.
  

  Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics says under "Hyper": "It is our conviction that ["hyper"] is naturally suited to the meaning of substitution and is in fact used in several passages dealing with the nature of Christ's atonement." (p. 383)

  Kenneth S. Wuest, in his literal translation, makes an effort to bring out the Greek meaning of what Paul was saying:

  "Therefore, on behalf of Christ and in His place we are acting as ambassadors, as though God were saying, I beg of you, please, through us as His intermediate agents. We beg you in Christ's stead, Be reconciled at once to God " (The New Testament - An Expanded Translation)

  The idea of "substitution" in the text within Paul's context, is not so absurd after all. The problem is that some religious groups, like the JWs and the Catholics, use Scripture to enforce their authority on their followers beyond what the Bible demands of Christians.

  Because of this, I prefer this reading from the Simple English Bible:

  "We are representing Christ. It is as though God is encouraging you through us. We beg you, for Christ's sake, come back to God!"
  
• 

  TTWSYF

  If the bible is a catholic book, how and why would they manipulate it? It's their book from the get go AND it came after their church was established orally.

  Just curious
• 

  Mephis

  Another observation to make has to do with a certain pattern manifested in the religious community at large, and seen frequently in this forum as well: The belittling of anyone who defends the NWT in the slightest: "If Benjamin Kedar says something positive of the NWT, it is because he is not a top scholar." If David BeDuhnn defends the NWT, it is because he doesn't have a Ph.D in linguistics." "If George Howard theorized that the divine name appeared in the original Greek copies, then there are dozens of other scholars who believe otherwise, so he, and the NWT, must be wrong." And so on!

  I think when someone appeals to authority on a subject, it's perfectly valid to question the value of that authority. George Howard flying a kite is a world away from him being able to prove the divine name was in Greek originals which we don't have, and really is curious grounds for some to fluff the NWT for having done so. BeDuhnn claiming the NWT is a very accurate translation of the NT because it (amongst other things) translates John 1:1 in the same way he chooses (and it is a choice - the irony of his using it as a criteria in a book about bias in translation) is as ridiculous as it sounds. It's also worth noting he still manages to identify problems with bias in the NWT. I wonder what Kedar would make of the latest revision to the NWT, because that very definitely does have translation to dogma in the OT (eg translating the David and the census 'contradiction' away). And etc etc etc.
• 

  Landy

  Is there a particular reason you've started a new thread on this instead of using the existing one?
• 

  Wonderment

  Mephis: I think when someone appeals to authority on a subject, it's perfectly valid to question the value of that authority.

  You are right Mephis! It is valid to question the value of authority of those who defend certain Scriptural positions of the NWT. But how many posters here are willing to question those religious people who constantly attack the NWT as a monstruous creation, frequently not in the best language?

  A few weeks ago, I read Dr. Trevor R. Allin's critique of the NWT on John 8.58. I immediately saw some problems in his argumentation where he, an authority in Linguistics (He has a Ph.D), was clearly misrepresenting the facts he was presenting to the religious world. Your statement came to mind: I think when someone appeals to authority on a subject, it's perfectly valid to question the value of that authority.

  So I jotted down various issues I perceived were errors in his presentation. I presented them to this forum here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5360109848887296/how-credible-nwts-critiques-allin-john-8-58-2

  Given that most participants in this place have been victims of the WT Society's shoddy practices (I include myself in this group), I didn't expect a "great" reception to my article. Sure enough, instead of getting anyone to question Allin's amazing dubious claims, I, of the two involved, was singled out as the one in error, by implication, of course. I don't think anyone directly said so, but various posters expressed that I had to be "retarded" or the like, for disagreeing with such authority. Yet, I wrote the article with the best intention and sincerity. I was hoping at least one person would see what I was seeing in this article by Allin. But that didn't happen.

  Nonetheless, I greatly value the opinions of others, such as yours, and those of others who disagreed with me on the John 8.58 article. However, I have the conviction that if someone makes declarations that are clearly wrong or disputable, whether the source is the WT Society, or some other, we have the Christian freedom to express our views on the matter, as your principle stated. Most participants here have done so very well.

  Best wishes!
• 

  Wonderment

  Landy: Is there a particular reason you've started a new thread on this instead of using the existing one?

  It was not my intention to do that, but I slipped. I noticed that - after the blooper. I even asked myself: How did I do that?

  Good observation!