by Frannie Banannie 90 Replies latest watchtower bible
herk
What you are really saying is that you DO NOT KNOW the identity of the committee but have to rely upon speculation, rumour or gossip. So, regardless of ones status at Bethel during the forties and fifties there was no evidence sighted. Raymonf Franz's opinion om the matter has little significance if he cannot quote hard facts or evidence. The committee's identity is UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE.
scholar
The committee's identity is UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE
scholar... as long as your head remains firmly ensconced in your anal cavity, an awful lot of the world will be UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE to you.
"scholar," think about why it is so very important to you that we act like we don't know who the main player was in compiling the NWT? Could it be that the scholarship of the translation would then be called into question? Motives are so very crucial. It seems that your (and many other JWs') reasoning about the validity of the NWT includes the idea "well, the translators are anonymous, so that shows they were spirit directed." This argument is infantile and unfounded. There are many good "anonymous" works out there and a whole lot of crap written by Mr. anonymous.
Knowing or not knowing the author (or compiler) has absolutely no relevance to the accuracy of translation, and should not be referenced in any argument regarding NWT's legitimacy as a scholarly work.
Odrade
scholar,
I wonder how dense you can possibly be! I have NOT said I do not know the identity of the committee. I would be lying if I said that. How can it possibly be "speculation, rumour or gossip" if some of us in this forum were there and saw the members with our own eyes? We saw and lived with those who served as their secretaries, those who drove them to 1111 Woodrow Road on Staten Island where they did their "translation" work, those who brought them their food from the Bethel kitchen, those who hand-delivered mail to them from the President's office and from others, the one who set the type on the linotype machines, the ones who put the pages together with lead type, etc. So how can you say that what we know is of little significance? What we know is not enough for you. What is sufficient for you is your dream world fantasy that "The committee's identity is UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE."
herk
I find the NWT to be the most accurate for verbal consistency and find the concordance helpful in identifying verses where a particular word is used in the original languages. However, the choice of the right word to use in translation depends more on the context than upon verbal consistency. So, simply for reading the Bible (in contrast to studying it) I would vote for the New English Bible.
While I think the views of "pseudo-scholar" on the NWT committee are intended (and succeeding) to provoke, a translation should be assessed for accuracy on its content, not its editors (who all have theological commitments). Even when you know who the translators are, it is very seldom that you know just who among the translators of a particular version supported the final rendering verse by verse.
Earnest
The TANAKH. Just think about it.
Thanks for your reply, Scholar. At least you answered part of the questions in my one post anyway.
Toreador
I've never heard of Grimm's.......Anyone know of that one??????? I have about 50 plus different translations.
Young's Literal Translation is (some of) the best a man get :)
Does it really make a difference? I guess it does, because, experience has shown that some people have difficulty understanding the simple word, NO! What part of NO is it that they don't understand?
Now, which translation do you recommend for some people to understand this word? ( salt required)
Guest 77
