Most on this post are acting like fools. Ruffian, if you want more information on the NWT then, look in the book All Scriptures Is Inspired of God and Beneficial on pages 308 and 309.
Accuracy of Bible Translation
by ruffian 29 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
logical
Scholar,
Are you aware of the many mistranslations, omissions and additions in the New World Translation? The DELIBERATE ones?
Also, are you aware the version with References is only available in English?
Also, Jehovah is NOT God's true name. It is an erroneous rendering.
-
Fredhall
Logical,
What you are saying is not logic. If you got a better name for God, then what is it? Plus, I know that the NWT is not a perfect translation. And believe me, other Bible translations are not perfect too.
-
Amazing
Hi Ruffian: Ray Franz book, Crisis of Conscience names the members of the New World Translation Committee. None had any training in ancient Koine' Greek, or for that matter any Greek or Hebrew, except for Ray's uncle Fred, who had two years of college level Greek.
Dr. Julius Mantay, who was a very well known Greek Scholar was quoted by the Society as saying that the NWT was a good translation. In reality, Dr. Mantay said no such things, and in fact stated that the NWT was filled with thousands of serious errors. Dr. Mantay wrote to the Society and demanded that discontinue quoting him, and threatened legal consequences if they did not stop. I have a 'transcribed' copy of that letter, and I also saw a vidoe tape of Dr. Mantay, and his demeanor toward the Society was one of anger.
I have talked with others who have more recently obtained degrees in Greek and ancient Biblical Greek (Koine') and they seem to think that the NWT is not too bad, and only has some serious errors.
In every case where I have has ocassion to engage in additional study, I find that the NWT is biased without question. But, its basic syntax and translation seems okay. But, when there is opportunity for the Society to select a word that fits their dogma, they will. In translating, it is a challenge to find the right word in another language to convey the original meaning. There are several things to consider. But, the NWT by-passes all that to make sure that their doctrine is upheld.
I think that Ray Franz in the book In Search of Christian Freedom has an entire chapter that deals with the use of the name Jehovah, Yahweh, etc. in the New Testament. If I correctly recall, the Divine name was never used in the New Testament. Its use in the NWT is not only a fallacy, but the NWT uses the Divine name in places that really were discussing Jesus as the subject. So, again, this fits with the point that the Society's NWT is not honest when it comes to saving their doctrine.
Finally, the NWT is also not honest in another respect. At Colossians 1 for example, they insert the word "other" in brackets like this [other], to imply that Jesus was not the sole creator. This is explained away in either footnotes or appendixes as to 'clarifying' the language. However, not matter how well intended, the original text does not use the word [other] and therefore its insertion is an example of dishonesty to support their non-Trinitarian dogma. I have no opinion on God's nature, be it Triune or not, but to insert little tiny [clarifiers] is not in keeping with good translation when it makes a wholesale change to the text.
Finally There really is no perfect translation. Believe it or not, the King James is actually based on more reliable texts, even though not the oldest. But I will explain that another time. I like the NIV for general ease of reading, but it does take some liberties too. But it is at least footnoted. Phillips can be good. The New English Bible is a very good translation, but has some liberties too, but less than the NIV. The NIV is most popular. The New King James is supposed to be good, but I have not read it much. The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) is very good as is the Douay (Catholic)
Keep this one VERY important fact in mind: The Roman Catholic Church is the religion that collected, compiled, and determined what is canonical, and non-canonical, what books go into the Bible in what order, what is good translation and what is not. The NWT, and all other translations are based on what the Roman Catholic Church did. So, The Great Harlot, Babylon the Great, is the source of what we know today as The Holy Bible, and it is the source from which the Watch Tower Society drinks its Biblical framework. The Douay Bible is the first, and likely among the best. - Amazing
-
logical
Fred
YHWH is known as YAHWEH, right?
The English version of YHWH is JHVH. Using logic, its quite simple to work out JAHVEH is the correct name, and NOT JEHOVAH. Why have the "E" and "A" been swapped around and a "O" inserted? And you still use the shortened name of "JAH" too.... work it out.
Oh well, letting a twisted blaspemous org use an erroneous name doesnt bring reproach upon His true name now, does it?
-
philo
Amazing
::Dr. Julius Mantay, who was a very well known Greek Scholar was quoted by the Society as saying that the NWT was a good translation. In reality, Dr. Mantay said no such things, and in fact stated that the NWT was filled with thousands of serious errors. Dr. Mantay wrote to the Society and demanded that discontinue quoting him, and threatened legal consequences if they did not stop. I have a 'transcribed' copy of that letter, and I also saw a vidoe tape of Dr. Mantay, and his demeanor toward the Society was one of anger.
Would you mind posting that letter?
philo
-
ruffian
Yes Id be interested in making a copy of it and asking the young girls to explain it. I wonder if they even know of that part of their history.
-
ruffian
Im wondering how you know that they had no college education. Im not distrusting you, I would just like to be able to tell these young ladies where the information comes from.
-
individual
If you want proof of inaccuracies in bible translation just look at scriptures in the Greek (NT) that refer, or quote from scriptures in the Hebrew (OT) and see how different they are. The first time I came across this problem was during a public talk when a scripture in the Greek was read and I noticed that it was a quote from the Hebrew scriptures. I read the Hebrew scripture and it was nothing like the one in the Greek. The NWT includes cross references, where the scripture is obviously a quotation i.e is being read from a scroll, just compare the two and note the differences. I did some research on this and I found it depended on what scroll they were using.
So if they had a problem all those centuries ago it just shows what a problem they could have in translating. It makes it difficult to know what you can trust.
-
accuracy
ruffian, are you one of the three that accosted my master Hiram Abiff?
There is so much error bandied about in this thread that it is pathetic. Only "scholar" has his information primarily correct.
If you want to get some accurate information, read the relevant sections on the NWT in Greg Stafford's "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended" or Hebrew professor and scholar Rolf Furuli's "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation."
Translation is not an exact science, and every translation has its weak points. But the NWT is better than many.
Just a question to those who say the name "Jehovah" has no place in the NT: How about those places where the writers quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, which did contain the name?
And, if use of the name "Jehovah" is "proof" of JW bias, how about the other, non-Witness versions which use or have used the name in the NT, from the 16th century on, and the many Hebrew translations which use it in the NT? None of these people were Jehovah's Witnesses.