Posts by Wonderment

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

PSacramento,

You asked, Do u own the NWT Interlinear? Who was the question addressed to?

Anyways, personally I do. It has been my favorite bible for many years. It is a gold mine. Of course, I am aware that many ex JWs may disagree with that statement, but I stand by it. As a reviewer once stated, it shows "unusual competence of the Greek language."

Nowadays, with judicious use of all sorts of bible helps, anyone with some knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek alphabets can do wonders. I am referring to those of us lacking Ph. D´s. Anyone can check anything and everything for accuracy. Formal training is great, but those that haven´t done it can still benefit a great deal from all those bible publications of the last few centuries and some effort on our parts. People before printing came to age didn´t have those helps. And here we are arguing which is better.

Someone said the Kingdom Interlinear is out of print. The WT Society is on a severe diet, it seems. Whoever owns one, should treasure it, or if someone has one that don´t want it, I´ll take it. I also like Paul R. McReynolds interlinear. It is a very useful book, and it sports a concordance that takes about half the book space. He did a great job. The Concordant interlinear is good too, but more difficult to use, and the print is not as good as the others. I use many bibles for my studies. Usually keep those I mentioned close by and some of the following: Those that have a few versions (the popular evangelical ones and J.B.) within their covers, Young´s Literal Translation, Rotherham for its Empahasized Bible, Byingtons for its fresh, unique renderings, the Message Bible, New American Bible, Diaglott, Apostolic Bible whith Septuagint, 21st Century for its dual literal/free nature, and a few study bibles (NIV, Living T.), Latin Vulgate, etc., plus some bilingual translations such as Valera-King James. I have some others, but those I mentioned get more use.

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

I personally found Jason D. BeDuhn´s review well done and reflected sound scholarship. I am glad someone had the guts to boldly say it as he saw it. It takes courage to do so, knowing that he would be harshly criticized. I also think he was fair.

I agree with Leolaia (I think it was her who said it) when she said that focusing on a few scriptures does not prove which is the most accurate translation. But neither are the reviews of countless others who have focused on similar issues. Neither was Colwell´s study years ago of which translations were the most accurate. By the way, the NWT did well in that study, when one takes all those instances of problematic readings. Colwell didn´t have access to the NWT at the time. but I myself took his research and went scripture by scripture to check on the NWT. Later, I found out that others did the same thing.

Since, we will never be fully happy with studies such as these (they are interesting and insightful) it is up to us to do our own research and try to stay open-minded as possible. The use of Hebrew and Greek concordances are a must to get to the bottom of it. I don´t recommend commentaries much, though I use them sparringly, just to see other people´s viewpoint. I really appreciate all your comments. God bless ya all!

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

wannabefree:

I think the translator may have his own views of the NWT, and may not be all that good. I think what he meant was probably that the NWT is hated or considered a-no-subject in his religious world, whatever that may be, and he does not want to compromise himself somehow before his peers.

My experience though is that although I dislike very much WT tactics, I have grown very fond of the NWT and the Kingdom Interlinear. I don´t think this assesment is based on emotion, but based on my experience and research. I put the translation to the test in the past, and I was pleased with what I found overall, not all, but confident that most criticism of it is based on emotional, and theological reasons, not textual based. I find even that ex JW´s carry a lot of anger and resentment, and would like to see the NWT disappear, much less admit is a good version.

Brothers here talk about this or that, how the NWT took liberties with a certain scripture, but I find the NWT actually take less liberties with the original text than mainstream versions. I pray that I can stay fair and see the good in people and bible translations. When I go deep into textual studies, I find that the translator[s] of the NWT were very conscious of textual nuances and had deep knowledge overall. It is evident not only in the translated main text, but also, by the judicious use of footnotes which reveal a lot of intellectual depth.

Many times I find that the NWT translator[s]s had deeper knowledge of textual issues than some of their critics. So I don´t believe at all, as has been stated often that the NWT was done by a committe that couldn´t read the originals. Someone had to. And I wouldn´t be surprised that F. Franz was one instrumental in the work. I heard him personally speak in a few languages with excellent memory to boot. He had full command of the one language other than English that I know well. If he had that command with this other language -self-taught- I have no doubt that he did at least the same with the biblical languages. Please, don´t repeat the infamous Walsh case. I spoke to Ray Franz, and he admitted to me that it was not that he was not capable of reading Hebrew, but that he felt unconfortable with the grilling he was being put through and felt they wanted to ridicule the WT people and chose not to attempt translating what was asked of him. In fact, Ray surprisingly (not being close to his uncle) sounded like he too was troubled by the incessant Walsh case publicity and the twisting of the facts by WT detractors.

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

Thanks Marcus Scriptus for the Bible translator comments. I appreciated that insight.

Can you provide us with at least the name of the ecumenical version you mentioned?

And Terry, I agree with you that reading the Message Bible is refreshing and revealing. We just have to be a bit more careful because of the many liberties this type of version take. It still one of my favorites. That chapter (Romans 14 ) should be read aloud in every congregation of JWs. It is good!

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

As regards the divine name in the NT, it would have been better to keep the divine name in the footnotes where the NT quotes the OT. I don´t understand though, why all the fuss about whether we should use Yahweh instead of Jehovah because Y. is closer to the Hebrew. Could it be that we as X-JW´s we don´t want to sound supportive of the WT?

Because really, while Jehovah may not be the closest ideal pronunciation of the divine name, to be consistent we would have to change the way we use names in our modern versions. Biblical names as a whole are no match to the originals, yet no one makes a fuss about it -- including Jesus´ name which is not really the way Hebrews or Greeks likely pronounced it. So in my case I conclude as Rotherham did in his last few years of life. He said that he realized that Jehovah is so well known that it communicates better with the modern reader instead of Yahweh which he preferred until then for most of his life. Also Byington came to the same conclusion. I side with their view. If someone decides to ADD the divine name to the NT, they should at least stick to OT quotes. It is possible, after all that the original Greek text did use it.

Metatron mentioned the flags in old times. That is an interesting point, which the WT hides, if is not convenient to them.

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

3Mozzies:

Yes, the KJV/NKJV does a pretty good job with the Greek. They do a better job than the KJV opposers are willing to admit. However, in many places the KJV folks let the Latin Vulgate determine their choices of renderings. Don´t throw the NWT away, because it still gives you good flavor of the originals where KJV falls flat. No one translation alone can give you the Greek, because all translations fail at some point. Talking about Interlinears, I find the best that represent the basic Greek are: The Kingdom Interlinear, the Concordant Greek text, and Paul R. McReynolds interlinear. The Concordant is not the easiest to use, though. I have bought every interlinear I can get my hands on, but those 3 I have found to represent the basic Greek best. The other interlinears are almost loose translations, so I don´t know why those authors bothered to bring another one to the market.

Interestingly, people a lot of times buy translations and interlinears based on the reputation they carry. I find that means very little when it comes to execution. It´s better to stick with the ones that do deliver. No fancy titles, or big reputation, just something that works.

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

Leolaia,

What you said about the WT going into translation with a pre-corpus of doctrinal ideas is also true of all translations.

No one goes into a translation with no knowledge or doctrinal baggage. It would be nice if someone could do that. But all humans have a level of doctrinal bias, a certain level of orientation, whatever that may be. That is why is so important to have a good set of bible concordances and a few translations to compare and let that do most of the talking. Commentaries are only helpful sometimes, but they can be a hindrance if you want to get to the bottom of things.We just can´t let others make doctrinal conclusions for us.

I agree with the following comment made by Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Lutheran School of Chicago, Frederick W. Danker:

"The ´orthodox´ do not possess all the truth, yet one does well to ´test the spirits.´ [1Jn 4:1]"

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

I agree the NW is awkward and verbose. That is one of its faults. However, it has so many things going for it.

I do react when I see people talk about all these other translations (Protestant evangelical) as if they were flawless.

Far from it! And they too insert their doctrinal bias throughout. I once thought about making a list of these. I gave up, they were so many, and I don´t want to look too negative, not upbuilding. But they should be taken to task.

I don´t think it is fair to demonize the NW while the others get all glory, when they too have serious flaws.

Anyways, I love bible translations, and I use them all whenever possible. I do recommend to at least get some from different perspectives, from a different religious persuasion to balance our sources of information. To just focus on the NW, or evangelical versions as our only choices may not be the best idea.

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

Wonderment

One big mistake many ex JWs make is to drop the New World Translation at their exit of the Borg. I am telling you this, the New World Translation is a fine translation. Don´t believe all this crap that no one there knew no Hebrew or Greek. Don´t believe this lie perpetraded over and over again from the Walsh case. A lot of people here are so gullilble. I have dozens of translations, perhaps over a hundred of them, and the NW excels many of them in a lot of places. Oh, I hear grumblings that the NW is biased. Hello! They all are! You think that KJV or NIV, or Valera version in Spanish is not biased? They are all slanted! They all reflect their doctrinal bias in their versions. And in many ways they show more tampering with the originals than the NW.

I, too, have been a victim of shunning by my family and hundreds of "friends." I have a lot of hurt from the Borg. But I have confidence that the NW and the Kingdom Interlinear are good bibles. In fact, the best interlinear in the market of so many are the Kingdom Interlinear and the Paul R. McReynols (Word Study Greek-English New Testament) followed by the Diaglott and the Concordant Greek text. The other interlinears are almost useless. I am trying to be as fair as possible. The NW Reference Bible does not make for pleasant reading, but damn, it is a great study bible. Their two bibles is the best thing to come out of the Society. I can´t say the same thing about some of their other publications. And I can´t stand how the Society distorts the Faithful and Discreet Slave and the House to House expression. Don´t let anger and bad omens from the WT blind you from these two excellent works. I could sit for hours, scripture by scripture, Greek text and all, etc to back up my opinions. I do like most bibles by the way.

Most suspicions by many folks regarding bible versions is unwarranted. And what do I say of all those "critics" about the NW? They are just plain biased opinions. All translations have faults and biases in their text. It comes with the territory.