Posts by Earnest

75

New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger in

hi guys, im on a time budget here.

a jw friend of mine is trying to prove that i have a wrong, twisted bible full of errors and added scriptures.

i have a king james bible, and he has the nwt of course.

Earnest

I have found the textual evidence [for the reading "If you ask me anything in my name..." at John 14:14] sufficiently strong to write to the WTS about this verse and will share the reply when it comes.

The WTS responded as follows :

We thank you for your letter in which you draw to our attention the translation of John 14:14 according to the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. You wonder why the word "me" of the literal word-for-word translation is omitted in the regular rendering of the New World Translation.
The reason for the difference relates to the different Greek versions. Although the Westcott and Hort text, used as the basis for the Kingdom Interlinear, includes the word "me," there are other Greek versions which omit the word. Among these is the Greek text used as the basis of The Emphatic Diaglott, which reads: "If anything you may ask in the name of me, I will do." The Rotherham translation reads: "If anything you shall ask [me] in my name the same I will do." By enclosing the "me" in brackets, Rotherham explains that the word is supplied, suggesting that there is some disagreement as to whether or not it should actually appear in the Greek text. Our prayers, of course, ascend to Jehovah through Jesus Christ. He had already told his disciples in the preceding verse that "whatever it is that you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son." Since the ascension of Jesus to heaven and the outpouring of the holy spirit at Pentecost 33 C.E., holy spirit has been given to individuals on earth through Jesus Christ and, in turn, our prayers ascend to the Father through Jesus Christ. So, while our petitions are just to the Father, we are, in effect, asking Jesus Christ to help us with our spiritual and material needs. So whether a translator wishes to put in the extra "me" or not, the meaning is the same. - Please see also John 15:16; 16:23.
A similar view is taken by many other translators. For example, the footnote, noting the authorities that read "me," is added to the New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, Today's English Version, the Revised Authorised and Weymouth. But they still leave it out of the main text as does the New World Translation. Others that leave "me" out without any explanation include Young's, The Twentieth Century New Testament, Fenton, Darby, Schonfield, The Jerusalem Bible, Barclay and the careful translation by C. B. Williams. Interestingly, although Alford included it in the textual apparatus of his Greek Testament, and showed that the authorities rejecting it were 'relatively late,' yet in the New Testament translation published in 1869, he did not consider it necessary to amend the Authorised Version rendering. So the vital question of context must be considered in addition to all other factors and in this case a large number of translations have taken that as decisive. In Moffatt's translation, which includes "me," this explanation is offered in the Moffatt New Testament Commentary on John, by G. H. C. MacGregor, page 308: "It seems redundant with 'in my name,' and moreover, the only prayer of which this gospel speaks is prayer to the Father in the name and spirit of Christ not prayer to Christ direct."
We trust the above information proves helpful to you and explains why the New World Translation is justified in rendering John 14:14 as it does. We take this opportunity to send you our warm Christian love etc.

In the translations that I have at home "me" is included in the main text in the Revised Version, in George Lamsa's New Testament According to the Eastern Text, and in the Confraternity Version. In the New English Bible it is not in the main text but the footnote reads "Some witnesses insert me".

My conclusion is that whether or not the decision to drop "me" was theological rather than textual, the fact that neither the New English Bible nor the Jerusalem Bible included it in the body of the text gives a lot of weight to their decision. Neither the inclusion or exclusion of "me" in this text should be described as a translation error but may be regarded as a theological predisposition.

Earnest

75

New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger in

hi guys, im on a time budget here.

a jw friend of mine is trying to prove that i have a wrong, twisted bible full of errors and added scriptures.

i have a king james bible, and he has the nwt of course.

Earnest

Hi Undisfellowshipped,

In your posts regarding E.C.Colwell's support for the Westcott & Hort Greek Testament you say (and cite) much that is critical of these two scholars and I have addressed these issues in a thread, Westcott & Hort - Saints or Sinners ? While you are as entitled to believe what you will as the next man, I do find it surprising that in an earlier post on this thread you recognise Colwell's scholarship to the extent of quoting him several times regarding the use of the article in NT Greek but when he is critical of the King James version you describe his remarks as "100% false". You also say :

From my research, I have found out that Westcott and Hort were Occultists, and that their Translation was not very accurate to the majority of the Manuscripts.

I will still address your suggestion that Westcott and Hort were Occultists on the other thread but would just give their answer to your objection that "their Translation was not very accurate to the majority of the Manuscripts". They say :

The community of text implies on genealogical grounds a community of parentage: the Antiochian Fathers and the bulk of extant MSS written from about three or four to ten or eleven centuries later must have had in the greater number of extant variations a common original either contemporary with or older than our oldest extant MSS, which thus lose at once whatever presumption of exceptional purity they might have derived from their exceptional antiquity alone.

In other words, if of ten manuscripts nine agree against one, but the nine have a common original, the numerical preponderance counts for nothing. After the split of the Eastern Orthodox churches with Rome the study of the Bible text and copying of Bibles in the Roman Catholic Church was limited to Latin until the sixteenth century. In that thousand year period the Eastern Orthodox Church produced thousands of Greek bibles but they were limited to variations of the "Byzantine" text which had ended up in Constantinople. So, although there are far more Greek texts of the Byzantine type their numerical superiority is irrelevant in determining an accurate text because they all derived from one family of texts.

May I also just touch on one aspect of the reams of material you produce regarding New World Translation errors. I am thinking particularly of your post on 21 June to DJ about the Scriptures where Jesus says that He is "I AM". You refer to ten scriptures and are clearly suggesting he is using it as a title, implying he is the same one referred to at Exodus 3:15. But a consideration of many of these (and others) shows quite clearly the expression "I am" is just being used to say who the person is e.g. "I am Joe Smith",

For example, you refer to Matthew 14:27 which says :

"But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Have courage! I AM; do not fear."

But the context is : "When they caught sight of him walking on the sea, the disciples were troubled...and cried out in their fear. But at once Jesus spoke to them with the words: 'Take courage, it is I [ego eimi]; have no fear.' In reply Peter said to him: 'Lord, if it is you [su ei]...'"

And, in fact, even the KJV renders this verse :

But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

Consider the other passages where the expression is used:

Matthew 8:9 "I too am a man" [ego anthropos eimi]

Matthew 20:15 "...Is your eye wicked because I am good?" [ego agathos eimi]

Matthew 22:32 "I am the God of Abraham..."

Matthew 24:5 "...'I am the Christ'"

Matthew 26:22 "...'Lord, it is not I [meti ego eimi], is it?'"

Matthew 26:25 "...'It is not I [meti ego eimi], is it, Rabbi?'"

Mark 6:50: for they all saw Him and were troubled. But immediately He spoke with them, and said to them, "Have courage! I AM [it is I - KJV]; do not be afraid."

Mark 13:6: For many will come in My Name, saying, 'I AM,' [I am Christ - KJV] and they will deceive many.

Mark 14:61, 62 "'Are you the Christ...?' Then Jesus said: 'I am...'"

Luke 1:18 "...I am aged [ego gar eimi] and my wife is well along in years"

Luke 1:19 "In reply the angel said to him, 'I am Gabriel...'" [ego eimi Gabriel]

Luke 7:8 "For I too am a man" [ego anthropos eimi]

Luke 19:22 "...You knew, did you, that I am a harsh man..." [ego anthropos austeros eimi]

Luke 21:8: And He said: "Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My Name, saying, 'I AM,' [I am Christ - KJV] and, 'The time has drawn near.' Therefore do not go after them.

Luke 22:70 "'Are you, therefore, the Son of God?' He said to them 'You yourselves are saying that I am.'"

Luke 24:39 "'See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself..'" [ego eimi autos]

In John's gospel the expression "I am" occurs more than thirty times but with the possible exception of John 8:58 they are all in the same context as the above.

John 6:20: But He said to them, "I AM [It is I - KJV]; do not fear."

John 8:24: Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM [I am he - KJV] , you will die in your sins."

John 8:28: Therefore Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM [I am he - KJV], and from Myself I do nothing; but just as My Father taught Me, these things I speak.

John 8:58-59: Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM [I am - KJV] . " Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the Temple, having gone through their midst, and so passed by.

John 13:19: From now on I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe that I AM [I am he - KJV].

John 18:3-9: Then Judas, having taken the detachment of soldiers, and attendants from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things coming upon Him, went out and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." Jesus said to them, "I AM." [I am he - KJV] And Judas, the one betraying Him, was standing with them. Therefore when He said to them, "I AM," [I am he - KJV] they stepped back and fell to the ground. Then He asked them again, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene." Jesus answered, "I have told you that I AM! [I am he - KJV] Therefore if you seek Me, allow these men to go," so that the word might be fulfilled which He said, "Those whom You have given Me I have lost none."

It is hardly an error for the NWT not to treat these verses as titles.

Earnest

6

Westcott & Hort - Saints or Sinners ?

by Earnest in

in 1951 ernest cadmen colwell, an eminent bible scholar, wrote a book entitled what is the best new testament in which he made a study of a number of translations and put them to the test as to sixty-four citations in the book of john.

in the book he said (pp.99,100) :no scholar today employs [the textus receptus] for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in writing the history of the greek new testament.

the king james version is undoubtably the most inaccurate english new testament in common use today...the king james stands at the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (mk 16:9-20; jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 john 5:7-8).. .

Earnest

Hi Craig,

Thank you for expressing the basic principles of textual criticism so simply. It really is just common sense but it is human nature to cling to what we have always thought was true rather than admit we have been believing a lie (in the form of the Textus Receptus). Of course, the Textus Receptus was not an intentional lie...it was the best Greek text available to Bible scholars in the sixteenth century. But in 250 years many new and earlier manuscripts were discovered and Erasmus would most certainly have approved the preparation of a new text. Even in his lifetime he prepared five editions (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535) of the Greek text and he justified his work in a letter to a critic, Martin van Dorp:

You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospel. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices.

I didn’t refer to the families of documents which Westcott and Hort had identified because textual criticism has moved on, a large number of papyri even earlier than the great uncials have been discovered in the twentieth century, and current theory has advanced in the light of these early writings. But the principles they developed still remain true and can be applied across the board. One can justifiably differ with their conclusions regarding the identity and importance of certain families of manuscripts but the same principles should be applied to substantiate alternative genealogies.

Therefore my feelings about John 14:14 (a discussion that we shall not revisit here ).

Bengel’s prime canon was that the more difficult reading is to be preferred (proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua ), especially where manuscripts or versions lend strong support to the harder form…which is true in this case. I have found the textual evidence sufficiently strong to write to the WTS about this verse and will share the reply when it comes.

Euphemism:

The main criticism of Wescott and Hort…is that by comparing all manuscripts and not taking any single one as authoritative, they were denying the possibility that any particular manuscript tradition (e.g. the textus receptus) was in fact a correct transmission.

One of the chief contributions of Westcott and Hort (pp.93-119 of their Introduction) was their demonstration that the Byzantine text (i.e. the underlying text of the Textus Receptus) is later than the other types of text. Three main types of evidence support this judgement : (1) this text contains combined or conflate readings which are clearly composed of elements current in earlier forms of text; (2) no ante-Nicene Father quotes a distinctively Byzantine reading; and (3) when the Byzantine readings are compared with the rival readings their claim to be regarded as original is found gradually to diminish, and at last to disappear.

With the wealth of early manuscripts available to us today it is difficult to imagine that Erasmus could not get hold of a single Greek manuscript containing the whole of Revelation when he first published his Greek New Testament (and so translated parts of it from the Latin back into Greek!). In fact, none of his manuscripts were earlier than the eleventh century and I have given a full account of these in a different thread, Erasmus & the ‘Textus Receptus’ .

Earnest

6

Westcott & Hort - Saints or Sinners ?

by Earnest in

in 1951 ernest cadmen colwell, an eminent bible scholar, wrote a book entitled what is the best new testament in which he made a study of a number of translations and put them to the test as to sixty-four citations in the book of john.

in the book he said (pp.99,100) :no scholar today employs [the textus receptus] for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in writing the history of the greek new testament.

the king james version is undoubtably the most inaccurate english new testament in common use today...the king james stands at the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (mk 16:9-20; jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 john 5:7-8).. .

Earnest

In 1951 Ernest Cadmen Colwell, an eminent Bible scholar, wrote a book entitled What Is The Best New Testament in which he made a study of a number of translations and put them to the test as to sixty-four citations in the book of John. In the book he said (pp.99,100) :

No scholar today employs [the Textus Receptus] for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtably the most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today...The King James stands at the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (Mk 16:9-20; Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8).

This was referred to on another thread and a poster responded that :

Those statements are 100% false according to all of the research I have done so far into which Translations are the most accurate.
I personally believe the exact opposite: I believe that the King James Version is probably the most accurate English New Testament.
From my research, I have found out that Westcott and Hort were Occultists, and that their Translation was not very accurate to the majority of the Manuscripts.

There were also two extracts from Barbara Aho and Rev. Samuel C. Gipp which were very critical of Westcott & Hort and descibed them as "two unsaved Bible critics" and their work as "a malicious attempt to destroy the integrity and infallibility of the Word of God".

As the thread was about 'New World Translation Errors' (and not Westcott & Hort) I thought it better to raise a new thread to discuss the validity of the work W&H did and consider some allegations made against them. I would like to divide this into a number of parts so it is easier to digest and these are (1) the principles used by Westcott & Hort in producing the Greek New Testament, (2) the principles used in producing the English Revised Version which made use of the Westcott & Hort Greek text, and (3) a consideration of some allegations against Westcott & Hort e.g. that they were Occultists.

There were several other allegations made against them, for example Rev. Gipp claims they both believed "heaven existed only in the mind", "believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that", "were admirers of Mary", and that Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin. These allegations may or may not be true but they are simply ad hominem attacks and have nothing to do with the qualifications of these two men as textual scholars. Textual criticism, or the science of establishing the original text when it no longer exists, is no more a matter of faith than is translating a text from Greek into English. So while I will review these smears on men long dead, the more important point is that a criticism of their work should include their methods of establishing the accuracy of the Greek texts (which you would need to do to demonstrate their theories were wrong).

These principles can be considered in full at http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/Ebind/docs/TC/WH1881 but I can provide a brief summary taken from 'The Text of the New Testament' (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1964, pp.129-131) by Bruce Metzger:

"Internal Evidence of Readings is of two kinds...appealing respectively to Intrinsic Probability, having reference to the author, and what may be called Transcriptional Probability, having reference to the copyists. In appealing to the first, we ask what an author is likely to have written: in appealing to the second, we ask what copyists are likely to have made him seem to write."
When, as sometimes happens, Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probabilities are in conflict, it is usually safer to make judgements on the basis of what Hort called the 'observed proclivities of average copyists' than on what one imagines the original author must have written.
The textual critic must also utilize Internal Evidence of Documents. When weighing the evidence in individual cases, one gains assurance by considering whether a witness is normally credible and trustworthy... If one finds that a given manuscript frequently supports certain readings which clearly commend themselves as original on the basis of probability, it is natural to prefer its readings in other instances when the Internal Evidence of Readings is not clear enough for a decision. Hort summarizes this point by enunciating the principle that 'knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings'.
The next step involves the examination of the relationship of the several witnesses to one another... If, for example, of ten manuscripts nine agree against one, but the nine have a common original, the numerical preponderance counts for nothing. The clearest evidence in tracing the genealogy of witnesses is the presence of conflate readings, that is, readings which have arisen from the combination of elements which had existed previously in separate manuscripts. Here Hort enunciates another principle of criticism, that 'all trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history, that is, of the relations of descent or affinity which connect the several documents'.
Finally, in his discussion of methodology, Hort considers the Internal Evidence of Groups...Just as it is useful to determine the general characteristics of a given manuscript by observing how often it supports or rejects readings which have been previously evaluated individually on the basis of Internal Probability, so the general characteristics of a given group of witnesses can be determined and evaluated in relation to other groups.
The validity of inferences based on this procedure depends on the genealogical principle that 'community of reading implies community of origin'. Such generalizations on the value of group of witnesses, in turn, assist the critic in coming to decisions in instances where mixture in the ancestry of manuscripts makes it difficult to draw up a genealogical family tree.

Although textual criticism has moved on quite a bit in the last 120 years, this summary may well be of interest to any who have wondered how they decide which manuscripts to rely on. It would also be interesting to consider what else they could have done to make their choice of text more accurate i.e. closer to the original.

I will consider the other points I raised in further posts on this thread.

Earnest

4

The Bishop of Carlisle- where have you heard this before?

by petespal2002 in

jw
friends

in our local evening paper the bishop of carlisle was quoted as saying that homosexual acts, anal and oral sex and sex outside of marriage are signs of demon posession and proof positive of demon activity in the world.

he also said that miscarrages can bring demons into the world, as can abortions, those with mental illnesses or longstanding medical conditions that don't respond well to treatment could be possesed of a spirit, as could those who constantly wear black or repeatedly buy black cars.

i was reminded of those told by christian elders that they may havr allowed satan in due to some activity or occurence of depression.

Earnest

The Bishop of Carlisle was one of nine bishops who wrote an open letter dated June 16 concerning the appointment of a homosexual as Bishop of Reading in which they said:

The Church's understanding of scripture and of long-standing tradition is that the proper place for sexual relationships is within marriage. This is based on the order of Creation where men and women are seen as complementary. Sexual intercourse, within the life-long relationship of marriage, is the sign and beautiful expression of that union. Intercourse outside marriage undermines the power of that sign.

In an interview on BBC's Newsnight he was more forthright in saying:

Obviously the penis belongs to the vagina, that is something fundamental to the way God has made us.

75

New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger in

hi guys, im on a time budget here.

a jw friend of mine is trying to prove that i have a wrong, twisted bible full of errors and added scriptures.

i have a king james bible, and he has the nwt of course.

Earnest

Craig, thanks for your thanks. My support for the NWT is also not unequivocal although I think its "errors" in translation are more often "theological predisposition" than mistranslation.

KGB:

I'll share a little story, my mother a JW told me that there bible was a litteral translation and that all others were a lie. I asked her by whos saying is this? she proceeded to tell me that there was a group or a society that approved they're translation the nwt...Someone wrote me and said. There is no such group or society that does this that religions approve they're own translations...after reading that e-mail I went and tossed the NWT she had given me right in the garbony

Your mother was possibly thinking of a QFR in the Watchtower of 1 February, 1963 which answered the question : " I understand that a group of Bible scholars made a comparison of various Bible translations. Was the New World Translation included in this study?" It said (page 95):

It appears that what your letter inquires about is a book written by Professor Ernest Cadman Colwell, entitled "What Is the Best New Testament?" This book is published by the Chicago University Press and was first printed in 1952. In 1947 Professor Colwell made a study of a number of translations and put them to the test as to sixty-four citations in the book of John. The book contains what Professor Colwell considers the correct rendering of each of those sixty-four citations. The New World Translation was not released until 1950, hence Professor Colwell could not include this translation in his list of tested ones.
However, if any reader will look up what Professor Colwell has to say about these sixty-four citations and will compare these with the New World Translation he will see that the New World Translation merits a score of sixty-four along with Dr. Goodspeed’s translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which the book gives a perfect score of sixty-four. Colwell’s book being first published in 1952, it was not available until two years after the release of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which occurred in 1950 at Yankee Stadium. Consequently the New World Bible Translation Committee did not have Colwell’s book for reference when work on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was being done.

If you are interested in the sixty-four citations for comparison they are listed at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm.

Earnest

78

House Name Required.

by Englishman in

jw
friends

i want to give my house a name.

lot's of my neighbours have already done this, so we have a plethora of name boards springing up in my road.

(actually, i susupect it's a sort of snobbery so that people will know that it's not just another old house full of flats and bedsits but a privately owned whole house).

Earnest

House of Princes

75

New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger in

hi guys, im on a time budget here.

a jw friend of mine is trying to prove that i have a wrong, twisted bible full of errors and added scriptures.

i have a king james bible, and he has the nwt of course.

Earnest

Craig,

I find Robert Hommel's summary of Jason BeDuhn to be quite prejudiced on a number of points.

For example, he suggests that both Trinitarians and Witnesses should reject JB's conclusions because he presupposes John is not dependent on the theology of other Bible writers. It would be less prejudicial to use JB's own words, namely that he "argues on the basis of language and literary context, not theology". As he says in their dialogue:

My position is simply to let John present the material in the way and order it has been formulated in his mind by remaining true to the language he uses and translating it as directly as possible into corresponding English sentences. I don't consider that the Bible needs my help, or the help of any translator, to fill in what it somehow fails to say or to artificially restrict or qualify what it does say.

Hommel also asks: "if John's intended meaning was 'divine' simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why did he not use the Greek word theios ('divine'), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms", as if JB fails to see this distinction. Yet in their dialogue he addressed that very matter:

Yes, it is useful to compare what John wrote to what he could have written. Such a comparison clearly shows that John didn't mean "the Word was God" because there are at least two other ways to write John 1:1c that could only be read that way, and John didn't use them. It is also true that there is at least one other way John could have written 1:1c that could only be read as "the Word was a god," and he didn't use it either. There are also several ways John could have written 1:1c with an adjective, that could only be read as "the Word was divine," but he didn't. So what we are left with is phrasing that could be adjectival or nominal, and we have no way to prove it one way or the other. I agree that the chiasmic repetition of "theos" and "logos" is deliberate and significant, as well as poetic. But what you seem to gloss over in mentioning that pattern is that it is slightly broken, in that John drops the article with second "theos." Now in ancient Greek when you set up a parallelism and break the parallel in one place, you are drawing attention to that break (Paul does this all the time). So John is being very careful here to mark the nuance he is trying to convey in John 1:1c: the Word was with HO THEOS, and the Word was THEOS. What is the significance of that distinction? What is John getting at? The answer is open to interpretation, and the translator's job is not to foreclose and predetermine interpretation, but to convey John's phrasing as openly as John left it.

To Hommel's credit he does apparently provide a full transcript of their dialogue which allows us to assess the measure of the man. Hommel's own impressions are "I found Dr. BeDuhn to be cordial, knowledgeable, and challenging. On the whole, this is one of the most productive and informative theological dialogs I've ever engaged in".

In an earlier thread, Prof. Jason BeDuhn letter on the NWT/KIT (part 1)

, GinnyTosken shared some correspondence she had with Dr. BeDuhn which should be read by any who doubt his credentials. It says quite a lot for Ginny too. I miss her.

Earnest

75

New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger in

hi guys, im on a time budget here.

a jw friend of mine is trying to prove that i have a wrong, twisted bible full of errors and added scriptures.

i have a king james bible, and he has the nwt of course.

Earnest

drwtsn32,

Maybe you should ask your friend why, if the NWT is such a top notch translation, it is not viewed as such by any experts outside of the WTS?
(If it *is* viewed as excellent by some experts, please let me know, but as far as I know there aren't any.)

One name that springs to mind is Jason BeDuhn, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University. His cv can be checked at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.htm. He describes the NWT as "one of the most accurate translations currently available" and particularly speaks highly of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. If you want to read what he has to say, he has recently completed a book Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (University Press of America, May 2003, ISBN: 076182555X ) which compares nine translations, including NWT, with the original Greek.

Earnest

75

New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger in

hi guys, im on a time budget here.

a jw friend of mine is trying to prove that i have a wrong, twisted bible full of errors and added scriptures.

i have a king james bible, and he has the nwt of course.

Earnest

The issue of one me or two me's is irrelevant to me.

DJ, that may well be so in a discussion on whether it is scriptural to pray to Jesus. But in a discussion on NWT translation errors the presence or absence of the additional "me" makes quite a difference to the meaning of this particular text.

The NWT Reference Bible, in contrast, does offer a very good critical footnote apparatus

Craig, I agree. For any JW who really wants to be a Bible student the primary tools are there (although a Hebrew interlinear is long overdue). However, while I have come across a number of JWs who are Bible students I agree there isn't a great deal of interest in textual criticism in the Watchtower community.

I also agree with your comments on the significance of John 14:14 both to the doctrine of who we can pray to and whether Jesus is God. I guess it isn't often used (pro-trinitarian) because the additional "me" doesn't appear in KJV either. The one thing that can be said in favour of the WTS is that it is clear there were others quite early in the textual tradition who thought the additional "me" had been added to the text (and so dropped it). It is not found in two of the five oldest uncials (Alexandrinus, Beza) or in codex Guelferbytanus B (also fifth century), many Old Latin mss and Coptic mss. There is no reason to think these scribes had an Arian axe to grind.

I did write to the WTS about this, in the late 70s...I was DFd for apostasy shortly thereafter.

Were these directly related ?

I must yet again apologize to you for being so tardy with my p/m.

Like Lazarus, I await the crumbs dropping from your table and trust my reward will be great in heaven (but imply no other consequences in the parable to our correspondence ).

Earnest