by TheApostleAK 20 Replies latest jw friends
50 years ago respected textual critic Ernest Cadman Colwell created an apparatus of 64 scriptures to determine which is the best New Testament. I created a chart using the same criteria...and the results will surprise you!!
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm
Surprised me..
Apostle AK,
Please edit your post....put a space in front of http:
This makes the link clickable--then people don't have to copy and paste...
Lisa
If I understand this correctly, it is not the quality of translations per se that is evaluated, but to what degree the translators have chose to agree with Westcott & Hort's text critical work. Of course, the NWT translator had no basis for any professional disagreement with these. Other translations were done by professionals, who were at least as qualified in having a professional opinion of such matters as Westcott and Hort, and of course had the benefit of much research done later.
If you did some research, I am quote sure you would find articles in solid journals of textual criticism where these scholars defend their choices. Without evaluating their arguments, you can't possibly criticize them. Most importantly, few such issues are very black and white. Good arguments can be made either way. Lastly, from the list I did not find these specific translation issues very significant.
To use agreement with W&H as a litmus test for quality is totally absurd.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
G'day AK,
Which is the best translation of the bible...
The one you're reading now!
Cheers,
Ozzie
Freedom is not having to wear a tie.
Actually, it makes sense that the NWT translators copied someone else's translation verbatim on "boring" scriptures like these.
I mean, heck, they didn't know the languages, so they have to get it from somewhere, right?
Which translation is the best? Why the one that supports your pre-concieved notions of course. The one that comports most comfortably with the beliefs you already hold.
That was easy.
Francois
Francoise,
The one that comports most comfortably with the beliefs you already hold.
In that case, only a non-believer can truly evaluate the quality of Bible translations.
After all, the Bible is irrelevant to our beliefs, so we are only interested in what it has to say as an historical document. And any historian will just want his sources to be as accurate as possible.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
Actually JanH, when I wanted to make sure a translation of a particular verse was correct I used to go aks someone who was a scholar in both Hebrew and Koine Greek and ask him because he was an athiest and had no agenda. It sure helped me get past some of those passages used to keep us under control.
It's a pity he is dead now, because he was so helpful.
JanG
I have only one question with regard to John 8:58. Ego Eimi means "I AM". To translate it any other way is ludicrous. The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society even had to make up a new Greek tense in order to justify their version. They termed it the "perfect indefinite tense". There is NO SUCH ANIMAL in the Greek. They later changed it when they were "called on the carpet". Why would the WTBTS go to such fantastic lengths to mistranslate a scripture? Simply this, the scripture is an example of Christ claiming deity, something that no Jew would ever do under pain of death. And yet what did the Pharisees proceed to do after this statement by Christ? They sought to STONE HIM. Stoning was the prescribed punishment for someone claiming deity. The context, the Greek, and the message are very clear for all but the doctrinally challenged. Jesus claimed deity. I'll give you another instance since we are discussing "biased translations". Look up 1 Corinthians 10:4 and read the NWT's version versus everyone else's. The Watchtower changes the statement "And the rock was the Christ." to "And the rock-mass meant the Christ." Also check out the Kingdom Interlinear in the margins showing the actual Greek. What you find will suprise you.
One of the most damning statements made in the Kingdom Interlinear is in the foreward where it is stated on page 5 paragraph 4:
"For the interlinear word-for-word rendering the English word or phrase has not been taken from the modern translation in the right-hand column and transferred to a position under the Greek word to which it corresponds. Rather, the translation under each Greek word sets out what the Greek word itself says according to its root meanings..." and then later in the paragraph "So in many cases the reading in the English word-for-word interlinear translation is not the same as that found in the right-hand column. This aids us in determining what the Greek text actually, basically says."
You will find that for each questionable translation in the NWT the margins will actually conflict with the Watchtower's own biased version. Thus you have conflicts all over the NWT that are clearly challenged by their own marginal renderings of the original Greek. Hebrews 1:6-8 is a prime example of the WT twisting the scripture to fit their own views concerning Christ's deity.
Doug
Hands down, New World Translation.
"No cool quote yet. but i'll think of one soon."
Please, don't exert any effort trying to convince me it is not. I was being sarcastic. If anybody went to any lengths to prove me wrong, i would have felt bad, which is why i am posting this here warning message. Thanks.
