New World Translation, eh?

by Bofug 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Bofug
    Bofug

    Another on eof my fovourite articles

    The New World Translation (NWT) was created between 1950-61 in several parts, beginning with New Testament (NT). The translation was made by an "anonymous" committee, which transliterated and altered texts that were problematic for earlier JWs. Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel were later identified as the men that created the text, which is used by no other sect. Franz studied non-biblical Greek for two years, and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language. The text of the NWT is more of a transliteration to fit theological presumptions than it is a true translation. This can be seen in key verses that the WTS changed in order to fit its doctrines.

    To undermine the divinity of Christ in John 1:1, the NWT reads, " . . . the word was a god." Non-JW Greek scholars call this "a shocking mistranslation," "incorrect," "monstrous," and "evidence of abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar." Furthermore, Col. 1:15-17 has been changed to "... by means of him all [other] things were created." If the text were left as the original Greek reads, it would clearly state that Jesus created all things. However, the WTS cannot afford to say that anyone but Jehovah created all things, so it inserted the word "other" four times into the text.

    The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for "worship" (proskuneo) as "do obeisance" every time it is applied to Jesus, but as "worship" when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6.

    At the time of the Last Supper, there were over three dozen Aramaic words to say "this means," "represents," or "signifies," but Jesus used none of them in his statement, "This is my body." Since the WTS denies the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, they have taken the liberty to change our Lord?s words to "This means my body" in Matthew 26:26.

    The NWT also translates the Greek word kyrios ("Lord") as "Jehovah" dozens of times in the NT, despite the fact that the word "Jehovah" is never used by any NT author. It should also be asked why the NWT does not translate kyrios as "Jehovah" in Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Philemon 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and Revelation 22:21. If it did translate kyrios consistently, then Jesus would be Jehovah!

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    Interesting article... thanks Bofug. Btw.... WELCOME..

  • heathen
    heathen

    I agree , very interesting and welcome to the board . Jesus did receive all authority in heaven and earth prior to his assention but from what I've seen is that the bible was altered to fit the belief in a trinity doctrine although the word trinity is never mentioned in any bible I've ever read . It is clear tho that jesus sat down at the right hand of God with everything subjected to him .

  • scholar
    scholar

    Bofug

    You are very mistaken about your comments on the NWT. The committee members are unknown because their identity was and is preserved in anonymity even after their respective deaths. So,. any mention of names can only amount to speculation and gossip and is of little consequence for the scholarship of the this translation is unsurpassed in accuracy and innovation. Perhaps, you you read Jason DeBuhn's analysis of the NWT in comparison with other current translations.

    scholar

    BA MA Studies in Religion

  • heathen
    heathen

    scholar--- Who is jason Debuhn? Is there a web site ?

  • Dawn
    Dawn

    Here's an interesting site with info on "scholars" used to support the NWT:

    http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm

    I find it a difficult pill to swallow that the translators of the NWT are kept secret. This precludes an honest individual from researching their education and knowledge of these languages. But quite predictable in the JW mindset. Here's our version of the book, it's correct, trust us, and no we won't let you double check that - you just have to take our word for it.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Scholar

    You are saying basically that they are anonymous because they are anonymous. A bit circular, i would say.

    Fact is though, that ray franz used to be part of the gb, and he has given the names of the translaters.

    SS

  • heathen
    heathen

    Dawn -- that was an interesting site , thanks for posting that . I never thought myself to investigate the legitimacy of the writers of the new world translation because I always was aware that no matter who translates the bible there seems to always be a margin for error anyway . I would like to know the difference between the words impale and crucify in the greek text as this seems to be one of the main differences that sepperate the WTBTS from other religious groups . I have seen the WTBTS argument about the word stauros meaning tree or stake but I have seen others claim the word means cross . It seems these debates require alot of knowlege of the ancient greek language.

  • Earnest
    Earnest
    Who is jason Debuhn? Is there a web site ? - heathen, 23-Dec-03 20:13 GMT

    heathen, you may like to try this site (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/) and check his cv for details of publications and professional papers.

    This article is quoted from Can You Trust the New World Translation? on the site Catholic Answers. All of the allegations have been discussed at length on this board except the one that is peculiarly Catholic, namely

    At the time of the Last Supper, there were over three dozen Aramaic words to say "this means," "represents," or "signifies," but Jesus used none of them in his statement, "This is my body." Since the WTS denies the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, they have taken the liberty to change our Lord?s words to "This means my body" in Matthew 26:26.

    I quite agree with this criticism and would be interested in the views of others on this board.

    Earnest

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Scholar is right on this one. Some here are trying to use the "poison well" tactic to discredit the information by discrediting the Authors. The information should stand, or fall, on its own, regardless of who wrote it.

    Any serious research into just the history of how the Trinity came into existence would put this topic to rest.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit