I wondered about this too.
I followed this thread and and since Scholar is so behind the NWT, I have made up my mind that this translation is NOT the most accurate.
Thanks for the help Scholar
Wannaexit (Of the I don't want to read the NWT class)
Which Bible Translation is Currently the MOST Accurate in Your Opinion?
by Frannie Banannie 90 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
scholar
herk
Your reply is deceptive as you pretend to have knowledge of something that you do not and yet you do not have the moral fortitude to admit your ignorance. Raymond Franz was and is no scholar and his writings are deceptive as these only portray his side of the story. The very fact that he claims to identify the NWT committee which would have been a breach of confidence for a person in that position and that he omits any evidence for such a claim indeed portrays him in a rather poor light.
scholar
-
herk
"scholar" (so-called):
Apparently you can't think beyond the same ridiculous claim you make repeatedly. As I stated earlier:
Your pathetic efforts at deception are exposed by your poor spelling, poor grammar, poor definitions and especially your poor reasoning ability.
Apparently you're a poor learner in adult life because you were too obstinate and contrary to accept good teaching in school. As a consequence, you are at this stage of your life completely incapable of accepting good information from any source that is reliable and trustworthy. Someday you will realize that the earth isn't flat after all and that the moon isn't made of green cheese.
Someday, perhaps, you will also realize that the WT Society is not the God you thought it was, that it is instead among the false prophets and false teachers that Jesus warned about. As expressed by wannaexit in her post up above, you're a great help in showing others the bad influence the WT Society has upon those who choose to blindly become its dupes and slaves.
herk
-
searcher
We know because we aren't so obstinate and contrary that we simply won't believe something if it's not in a signed and notarized document. We haven't chosen as you have to close our minds to facts that are easily available.
Scholor wouldnt believe it even then, remember, a famous tactic of the WT is to cry "apostate forgery" when presented with documentation (even their own).
The whole thrust of his 'argument' has been to cry "Pooh Pooh", not debate.
You will never convince someone who does not want to hear.
-
scholar
herk
You cowardly refrain from giving a reliable or trustworthy source for the identification of the NWT committee but simply you hide behind the skirt of an apostate and have been deceived by his satanic mischief.
scholar
-
LittleToe
~knocks scholar & herks's heads together~
Searcher:
Flip me, matey! I left you in "Chat" after 3am and here you are posting again before 9am. And I thought "I" was an board-obsessed insomniac!!!~runs out of thread, before the other two recover....~
-
herk
Above, searcher made the following interesting and almost prophetic observation. The highlighting with red type is mine:
Scholor wouldnt believe it even then, remember, a famous tactic of the WT is to cry "apostate forgery" when presented with documentation (even their own).
Now note what "scholar" wrote in his very next post. Again, the highlighting is mine:
You cowardly refrain from giving a reliable or trustworthy source for the identification of the NWT committee but simply you hide behind the skirt of an apostate and have been deceived by his satanic mischief.
Being a diehard JW, "scholar" is so predictable. Those under the spell of the WT Society can be depended upon to always repeat the party line since they have absolutely no idea how to think for themselves.
herk
-
LittleToe
That's a very valid point.
I recall my brother coming back from the "ministry", having been confronted with such a "forgery".
I dismissed it easily, at the time. However later, after I had decided to leave the borg, I checked the article, since I had it both in loose leaf and Bound volume (preaching finishing in 20th century)Lo and behold, the "apostate" had it right!
-
hillary_step
You cowardly refrain from giving a reliable or trustworthy source for the identification of the NWT committee but simply you hide behind the skirt of an apostate
My God! Ray Franz wears skirts! You mean Ted Jaracz was right after all? I knew that Greenlees looked rather fetching in a dusky-pink tutu especially when he bent forward, but now Ray Franz as well.
Scholar, you are the iconoclast of innocence.
HS
-
Special K
Hi Frannie ...
Little Toe mentioned this new Bible ..that he was interested in . THis article was in the paper today so thought I'd post it.
Special K
One Bible fits all, says prof English Standard Version has potential to become universal choice
By Richard N. Ostling / The Associated Press
Why isn't there one Bible that everyone uses?
With so many competing English translations, that dream seems ever more impossible, but it's the wish of Alan Jacobs, an English professor at Wheaton College, an evangelical school near Chicago.
"Everyone who grew up with the (King James Version) feels the loss of a shared language, of particular words and phrases that resonated in the common ear," Jacobs wrote in First Things magazine.
Roman Catholics never used the King James, of course, but their Douai-Rheims translation reflected similar language, as did older Jewish versions.
Jacobs said one recent Bible has the potential to become the universal choice: the 2001 English Standard Version (Crossway), which he proclaimed "the best available English Bible." (He played no part in this or any other translation.)
The ESV team of 100-plus conservative Protestants was led by Rev. J. I. Packer of Regent College in Vancouver. The literary chairman was Jacobs' English faculty colleague Leland Ryken, whose The Word of God in English (also Crossway) criticizes modern translations.
Jacobs boosted the ESV for two reasons.
First, he accused modern Bibles of lacking good English style. The ESV slightly reworked the 1952 Revised Standard Version, for instance dropping "thees" and "thous." The RSV, in turn, preserved much of the King James phrasing.
Jacobs favours "deference to existing excellence": If a King James or RSV phrase is accurate and understandable, keep it.
Assessing Britain's New English Bible, poet T.S. Eliot said it "astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the trivial and the pedantic."
Jacobs' article didn't mention the evangelical bestseller, the New International Version. But in an e-mail he called it "rather characterless," with literary style that's "pedestrian at best." The New Revised Standard Version, he said, strains so hard to avoid allegedly sexist language that it contains "some ugly prose."
Jacobs's article, however, ignored the inclusive language debate. The ESV is quite conservative on that score. For instance, it usually retains the generic "he" because that's most consistent with a literal rendering of the original.
Second, Jacobs's article complained that recent versions apply the American Bible Society's "dynamic equivalence" approach, seeking clarity above all and employing "thought-for-thought" translation rather than closely following the literal Hebrew and Greek. Jacobs said the results of dynamic equivalence are "largely unpleasant."
For example: In 1 Kings 2:10, the ESV, like the RSV and King James behind it, says, "David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David." The NIV strays a bit from the tradition, saying, "David rested with his fathers." But the New Living Translation says, flatfootedly, "David died."
Jacobs said the sleep phrase offers "a carefully chosen image of David's place in the culture of Israel." Removing the image doesn't translate the Hebrew but interprets it.
Part of the problem, Jacobs continued, is that the King James translators and other Christian scholars were thoroughly trained in both the humanities and biblical languages, but that breadth "virtually disappeared by the end of the 18th century."
Today's translators are experts obsessed with method, he said, but insensitive to general literary knowledge and metaphorical nuance, with a "mistrust of figurative language."
In summary, Jacobs praised the ESV's balance between up-to-date technical scholarship and deference to past literary excellence.
But, he recognized, making the ESV into the hoped-for common Bible for all Christians seems quite far-fetched.
Liberal Protestants will dislike the fact that conservative Protestants produced the translation. Also, the strictly Protestant team didn't translate the extra Old Testament books that are required for an authorized Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bible, although a British publisher is considering such an ecumenical edition.
On the Net:
English Standard Version publicity: http://www.gnpcb.org/home/esv One Bible fits all, says prof English Standard Version has potential to become universal choice
By Richard N. Ostling / The Associated Press
Why isn't there one Bible that everyone uses?
With so many competing English translations, that dream seems ever more impossible, but it's the wish of Alan Jacobs, an English professor at Wheaton College, an evangelical school near Chicago.
"Everyone who grew up with the (King James Version) feels the loss of a shared language, of particular words and phrases that resonated in the common ear," Jacobs wrote in First Things magazine.
Roman Catholics never used the King James, of course, but their Douai-Rheims translation reflected similar language, as did older Jewish versions.
Jacobs said one recent Bible has the potential to become the universal choice: the 2001 English Standard Version (Crossway), which he proclaimed "the best available English Bible." (He played no part in this or any other translation.)
The ESV team of 100-plus conservative Protestants was led by Rev. J. I. Packer of Regent College in Vancouver. The literary chairman was Jacobs' English faculty colleague Leland Ryken, whose The Word of God in English (also Crossway) criticizes modern translations.
Jacobs boosted the ESV for two reasons.
First, he accused modern Bibles of lacking good English style. The ESV slightly reworked the 1952 Revised Standard Version, for instance dropping "thees" and "thous." The RSV, in turn, preserved much of the King James phrasing.
Jacobs favours "deference to existing excellence": If a King James or RSV phrase is accurate and understandable, keep it.
Assessing Britain's New English Bible, poet T.S. Eliot said it "astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the trivial and the pedantic."
Jacobs' article didn't mention the evangelical bestseller, the New International Version. But in an e-mail he called it "rather characterless," with literary style that's "pedestrian at best." The New Revised Standard Version, he said, strains so hard to avoid allegedly sexist language that it contains "some ugly prose."
Jacobs's article, however, ignored the inclusive language debate. The ESV is quite conservative on that score. For instance, it usually retains the generic "he" because that's most consistent with a literal rendering of the original.
Second, Jacobs's article complained that recent versions apply the American Bible Society's "dynamic equivalence" approach, seeking clarity above all and employing "thought-for-thought" translation rather than closely following the literal Hebrew and Greek. Jacobs said the results of dynamic equivalence are "largely unpleasant."
For example: In 1 Kings 2:10, the ESV, like the RSV and King James behind it, says, "David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David." The NIV strays a bit from the tradition, saying, "David rested with his fathers." But the New Living Translation says, flatfootedly, "David died."
Jacobs said the sleep phrase offers "a carefully chosen image of David's place in the culture of Israel." Removing the image doesn't translate the Hebrew but interprets it.
Part of the problem, Jacobs continued, is that the King James translators and other Christian scholars were thoroughly trained in both the humanities and biblical languages, but that breadth "virtually disappeared by the end of the 18th century."
Today's translators are experts obsessed with method, he said, but insensitive to general literary knowledge and metaphorical nuance, with a "mistrust of figurative language."
In summary, Jacobs praised the ESV's balance between up-to-date technical scholarship and deference to past literary excellence.
But, he recognized, making the ESV into the hoped-for common Bible for all Christians seems quite far-fetched.
Liberal Protestants will dislike the fact that conservative Protestants produced the translation. Also, the strictly Protestant team didn't translate the extra Old Testament books that are required for an authorized Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bible, although a British publisher is considering such an ecumenical edition.
On the Net:
English Standard Version publicity: http://www.gnpcb.org/home/esv One Bible fits all, says prof English Standard Version has potential to become universal choice
By Richard N. Ostling / The Associated Press
Why isn't there one Bible that everyone uses?
With so many competing English translations, that dream seems ever more impossible, but it's the wish of Alan Jacobs, an English professor at Wheaton College, an evangelical school near Chicago.
"Everyone who grew up with the (King James Version) feels the loss of a shared language, of particular words and phrases that resonated in the common ear," Jacobs wrote in First Things magazine.
Roman Catholics never used the King James, of course, but their Douai-Rheims translation reflected similar language, as did older Jewish versions.
Jacobs said one recent Bible has the potential to become the universal choice: the 2001 English Standard Version (Crossway), which he proclaimed "the best available English Bible." (He played no part in this or any other translation.)
The ESV team of 100-plus conservative Protestants was led by Rev. J. I. Packer of Regent College in Vancouver. The literary chairman was Jacobs' English faculty colleague Leland Ryken, whose The Word of God in English (also Crossway) criticizes modern translations.
Jacobs boosted the ESV for two reasons.
First, he accused modern Bibles of lacking good English style. The ESV slightly reworked the 1952 Revised Standard Version, for instance dropping "thees" and "thous." The RSV, in turn, preserved much of the King James phrasing.
Jacobs favours "deference to existing excellence": If a King James or RSV phrase is accurate and understandable, keep it.
Assessing Britain's New English Bible, poet T.S. Eliot said it "astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the trivial and the pedantic."
Jacobs' article didn't mention the evangelical bestseller, the New International Version. But in an e-mail he called it "rather characterless," with literary style that's "pedestrian at best." The New Revised Standard Version, he said, strains so hard to avoid allegedly sexist language that it contains "some ugly prose."
Jacobs's article, however, ignored the inclusive language debate. The ESV is quite conservative on that score. For instance, it usually retains the generic "he" because that's most consistent with a literal rendering of the original.
Second, Jacobs's article complained that recent versions apply the American Bible Society's "dynamic equivalence" approach, seeking clarity above all and employing "thought-for-thought" translation rather than closely following the literal Hebrew and Greek. Jacobs said the results of dynamic equivalence are "largely unpleasant."
For example: In 1 Kings 2:10, the ESV, like the RSV and King James behind it, says, "David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David." The NIV strays a bit from the tradition, saying, "David rested with his fathers." But the New Living Translation says, flatfootedly, "David died."
Jacobs said the sleep phrase offers "a carefully chosen image of David's place in the culture of Israel." Removing the image doesn't translate the Hebrew but interprets it.
Part of the problem, Jacobs continued, is that the King James translators and other Christian scholars were thoroughly trained in both the humanities and biblical languages, but that breadth "virtually disappeared by the end of the 18th century."
Today's translators are experts obsessed with method, he said, but insensitive to general literary knowledge and metaphorical nuance, with a "mistrust of figurative language."
In summary, Jacobs praised the ESV's balance between up-to-date technical scholarship and deference to past literary excellence.
But, he recognized, making the ESV into the hoped-for common Bible for all Christians seems quite far-fetched.
Liberal Protestants will dislike the fact that conservative Protestants produced the translation. Also, the strictly Protestant team didn't translate the extra Old Testament books that are required for an authorized Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bible, although a British publisher is considering such an ecumenical edition.
On the Net:
English Standard Version publicity: http://www.gnpcb.org/home/esv
I personally found the whole article quite interesting.
sincerely
Special K