GT... it sounds like you're questioning the NT's historical authenticity, whereas I believe that this thread is more about philological authenticity.
Losing the Truth in Bible Translations?
by ApagaLaLuz 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
greatteacher
Okay, you're right, but I think the point I was making is that if you don't have an original manuscript of the NT, it doesn't really matter whether the copies of the copies of the copies are translated correctly in whatever language because we don't really know what the orginal NT said. And to base ones entire life on it, is lunacy.
-
ApagaLaLuz
a) is many decades later than the events described, b) is not in the Jewish language of the main figures, c) is very sparse before 400 C.E., d) has clearly been altered by later authors, e) has conflicting versions of the same books, f) represents only what the church could not destroy, f) conflicts with reasonable alternative histories, and, g) conflicts with other surviving traditions of Messianic Judaism.
These are all very good points. And the point of this thread is to dispell the authenticity of not only the NWT but mostly ALL translations available today.
-
Narkissos
Chevysntats: If this was really your point your introduction to the thread was somewhat misleading IMO.
If the question is: "What really happened from the (supposed) beginning of the world down to, say, the 2nd century CE?", clearly the answer won't be found in the texts gathered in what we call the Bible, even if you can read them in their original languages and need no translation at all. At most you could find some clues which would have to be confronted to external data. Whatever the case translation is hardly at stake.
If the question is: "Are the final texts, as were accepted on one side by early Rabbinical judaism and on the other side by the early Catholic Church during the 2nd century CE, accurately translated into modern languages", it is an altogether different question which calls for more nuanced answers.
One important factor in the discussion is that many Biblical texts just don't MEAN to be historical.
-
stillajwexelder
All languages have nuances that can not be accurately translated into other languages -- factor in that language changes over time -- factor in the huge amount of editing that went into putting the bible canon together -- and yes -- truth gets lost in translations and what we see today is probably not very close to what actually happened
-
ApagaLaLuz
If the question is: "Are the final texts, as were accepted on one side by early Rabbinical judaism and on the other side by the early Catholic Church during the 2nd century CE, accurately translated into modern languages",
Yes, but that question never would have fit in the subject line :)
For me, the NWT is the only translation that I've ever really studied to any extent, so it was the only translation I could relate my comments to. Maybe I didnt clarify my comments, but I was talking about ALL translations in ALL languages, not just the credibility of the NWT.
Thank you Stillajwexelder....... you response was a very intelligent answer. It's like running a copy through several different copy machines a thousands times over.
-
Blueblades
This ties in well with my question,"What is Truth"? on my post yesterday. How can you answer that question from a book,the Bible,when it itself is suspect.
Blueblades
-
mineralogist
I read a good article about translations and the author showed different approaches. You could do it interlinear or free or everything else between these extremes. So with the bible, he said, we have a good point in just comparing a text of personal interest in some translations of every style and should be able to get the meaning of the word.
Of course the best way would be to read the original but we even don't know the living of the past - the customs and daily life influences expressions. So for me at the moment i just compare in different translations knowing none of them is 100% - and i know the translators have their own thoughts brought into the text.
-
A Paduan
Losing the truth? Perhaps detail/subtlty
The truth is lost when there is an existing agenda to comply with - translation becomes transformation.
Without any credible evidence of the work for NWT, I would venture to say it was not even a translation, particularly in entirity, but rather a work heavily comprised of transformed work of other translations.
-
Narkissos
A Paduan, you're certainly right, but this is very common. Having been in the field of Bible translation for many years, I can tell you that nobody would dare translating the Bible without having an eye on a good sample of existing translations in several languages. However, whether there was any real first-hand knowledge of Biblical languages by any member of the NW Translation Committee remains an open question.