Posts by Wonderment

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Wonderment

ttwsyf:

There u go again with your wishful thinking that 99% is against "a god" rendering. It is not true. About 1 in 5 or 6 scholars explain John 1:1 in a way that u would not like. Even when they render it "God" they often explain there is a difference. Take the Net Bible for instance. Wallace, a main contributor of it, would translate it "God," because he is a Pentecostal trinitarian. However, he emphasizes the QUALITATIVE nature of the Word instead of making a case of identification as u are doing. In other words, though he prefers "God" as a rendering (as a trinitarian), he explains it should not be understood the way many folks (you ?) understand it. Robert Young translated it "God," but in his commentary he explains that the literal reading is "more lit. and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word." A Greek Grammar popular with universities all over says on Jn 1:1: "In such a construction, the subject and the predicate are not equivalent." (James Allen Hewett) Thus, it is wrong to insist that God and Christ are equivalent. So brother, check your facts carefully before committing yourself. It could be that u are running about looking for support from staunch trinitarians, instead of from more-open minded, more flexible trinitarians.

Two well known Catholic bible translators in Spain translate it "God," nevertheless, they explain in their commentary that "a God" is allowed and perhaps the preferred literal rendering. And so on... reads those links fully, since u are far from getting it. (New Spanish Bible)

As u are citing Rowley, it should be said that he said those words withing the context of fluid translations. In other words, most literal translations would not measure up either. Have u ever used NT versions such as the one by Kenneth Wuest? If u think that Rowley is right about wooden translations such as NWT, check that one out. Of course, Wuest is a trinitarian, so he might be "safe from your criticism."

Yes, ego eimi means basically "I am." But anyone who insists that it cannot be rendered in certain instances, such as the one in Jn 8:58 where an idiom is used with an adverb of time in the clause, indicating a rendering where the English perfect indicative is not only an acceptable rendering, but a more correct translation considering the idiom used. Check the Greek text and what grammarians explain before making claims that can make u look uninformed. Scholars are human and err. A case in point is that the great William Barclay condemned the WT claiming at one time that "a god" rendering is impossible as a Greek translation. Well, Barclay had to take his comment back when other scholars proved him wrong. He later admitted that "grammatically it is possible."

Oh, yes, since u seem to revere Mantey, let me say that what I wrote above is what Mantey explained in his grammar, with the exception he did not mention Jn 8:58 especifically, but similar scriptures with same construction. Again, it is in one of those links. By the way, I got the Grammar in my shelf. I have looked it up personally. Mantey was a Baptist, so he did not want to include Jn 8:58 with the group. By the way, Mantey was in awe of Charles B. Williams as a Greek scholar, his former Greek teacher. How do u think Williams translated Jn 8:58? Hint: He did not translated it as "I am." I will let u find that one out by yourself, because I get the feeling u would rather hear it from them.

By the way, why do u "hate" the NWT? We all can try to be a bit more impartial and see the good anywhere it happens.

My children are JWs, and I have suffered shunning not only from them, but from a legion of former "friends." My married daughter has never invited me to her house, which I have never seen. That is more than 9 years. It hurts! However, I can look beyond the anger that I sometimes feel toward the WT, and see the good side of it. And I enjoy using the NWT with my other bible versions. Chill out!

Blessings brother!

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Wonderment

TTSWYF, I have not only checked that link, but I have most of those books on my shelf. Most of your argumentation is flawed. The NWT was prepared for JWs, not for Christendom. It is reasonable then, that Christendom will use their own versions with the college credentials they so desperately demand. You are also downplaying Scribd. Scribd is used by all sorts of people, scholars and companies. Even books are distributed through it. It is sad that u judge the quality of a writing by the univ. credentials. Other people without a Masters or PhD may, and DO have brilliant ideas. Don't believe me? If u would have read one of those links I provided u, the one about if the NW translators know any greek?.. you would have seen a list of some prominent people with little or no formal training outdoing the formally trained individuals. So, to reject an article, because u don't see high credentials splattered all over the place is an argument of special pleading. After all, how many worldly educational degrees did Jesus' disciples have to engage in bible authorship?

It is not true that ALL trinitarian scholars translate Jn 1:1, "the Word was God." And it is not true either that most non-trinitarians would render it "a god," or "divine." Sorry, but u are misinformed. I cited Mantey because u did used his name as an authority at least twice, and I just pointed out that Mantey himself contradicted himself many times, theologically speaking, and other scholars have pointed out his flawed theological statements. But apparently u have no knowledge of these. His Grammar is good though. It is a model of succinctness with good coverage on many grammar issues.

On the NWT, I disagree that it is a poor translation. Yes, it is wooden, and biased. But so are many of Christendom's versions. Anyone who grabs the Hebrew or Greek text line by line and compares it to their translated versions, can see it all over the place, just as u can with the NWT. They are all biased to some point. But both translations as sources do a respectable job at it. And I appreciate their honest efforts. One example of bias of mainstream versions is seen when they drop the use of the divine name for petty reasons. Just as it is objectionable to add the divine name in the NT when it does not appear in the text as we have it, it is no less offensive to remove it from the bible. In fact, I would say it is even worse. All those credentials on the jacket of their versions don't help the cause. I agree with the NWT here, and with bible translators JB, Byington, that it is important to convey the original divine name into a modern version. It appears most versions refrain from using the divine name in the OT because they want no one to connect them with the "hated" JWs. And it also makes it easier to have Jesus appear as the Supreme God. It is a scheme. So, if u believe in the Trinity, u will agree with them and defend their cause. I don't.

Juan Miguel: ¡Te expresas muy bien! I understand your presentation of the Trinity makes it clear that many distort their views. It is also true, that many distort JWs publications on the subject. The problem with the common trinitarian argument that God is only one God, but three persons in one, is that I can't find that statement anywhere in the bible. It is more akin with middle eastern philosophies than it is with Scripture. "Insinuations" that the Trinity is truth is not enough for me to accept it. At one time I was a JW, I haven't gone back in nearly 20 years. I have moved away, and I see many of their errors, but it seems to me that their stand that Christ is subordinate, and never the equal of Jehovah is more scriptural, than Christendom's stand.The trinity seems more as heresy, than scriptural.

Thus, the NWT will always be criticized, because the Trinity teaching is at the core of this denunciation. Those who appeal to "credentials" as evidence that is not apt for the masses, are making theirs a case of special pleading.

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Wonderment

TTWSYF,

I have no connection whatsoever with Curtains.

If you would have throroughly read those links I suggested, you would not have made some of those comments. For instance, Wallace, Dixon and Harner are well known grammarians. BeDuhn is a respectable scholar as well.

Citing Mantey's threats to the WTS means so little. It means he (and only he, because Dana did not complained publicly) was not in agreement with the way the WT quoted them. It does not mean the WT was wrong with the quote. That is in itself arguable. Mantey was a highly emotional Baptist scholar, who not only hated the WT, as some do in this site, but was clearly wrong in so many of his statements. I like his Grammar very much, but when theology got in his way, he easily became fired up. If u want to find out about some of his errors read those links. His argument that 99% of scholars disagree with the WT is wrong. If u look up those links and refer to the one on John 1:1, you will see that there are plenty of scholars disagreeing with Mantey. And that list of Jn 1:1, although quite extensive does not report ALL scholars with a similar view. I venture to say that about 1 in 5 scholars veer away from the traditional reading. Of course, I may be off, but definitely is not even close to 1%. That 1% is a hoax in itself. And it seems u fell for it.

Colwell is another scholar cited frequently in support of the deity of Christ. However, other scholars have reviewed his work and concluded he is wrong in many places. Wallace, a Pentecostal grammarian, and trinitarian at that, takes Colwell to task, as has done others.

And coming back to the 99% argument, that is a very dangerous premise. Throughout history, many a times the majority had views, which time proved a minority was right. The earth being flat was one of them. If u lived 600 years ago, and someone came up to u and told u he believed the earth was round, would u have told him?: "Take a hike, 'cause 99% of people can't be wrong."

Similarly, 400 years ago, many scholars were sure that in some way their religious view was the correct one. A few hundred years later, we find out some of those scholars were wrong with some of their views. Understand this: The majority view is not always right.

When Jesus walked upon earth, was the majority religious view the correct one, or was it the "unlearned" minority that stuck with Jesus? In fact, the bible says that "the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one." And that Satan is the "ruler of this world."

So be careful when attempting this 99% right argument. Mantey was surely wrong with it. U don´t have to be a victim of his hatred.

As to the WT being wrong in so many things, I have no doubt. But I believe in fairness, and try to analyze sources of information from different angles. I am convinced that EVERYTHING the WT teaches is not necessarily wrong. I believe religious people interpret the bible right and wrong at different places at different times. Many a times, when people condemn the WT, I conclude: Not so quick. They may be right on this one. The NWT is branded as a piece of junk by some ex-JWs. I know better. I have examined the NWT in so many places against the Hebrew and Greek text, and I find, someone in the WT had sufficient knowledge to tackle bible translation. It does not matter much to me if 99% condemn it, I found out by myself that that is not true. I don't like WT politics and their self-interest moves to control and dictate as they please any more than u do. But to conclude they can't be right in some things, it would be a mistake. I still listen to what they have to say. And most definitely, I listen to the Baptist, Catholic, and the Jew. I don't place all my faith in one worldly basket. Only Jesus is the way to God. (Not Mantey, or Colwell, or Metzger, etc)

The religious folks in general are right and wrong in some things. Humility helps us to listen to all sides and consider all angles. I admire many scholarly works, but I see them as limited helpful bible guides, not the final word. What today a scholar may consider truth, in 50 years from now, it may look only as a flawed argument.

Some of the much publicized arguments against the NWT have been addressed by other scholars with a different angle. Surely some in the audience know what I am talking about. People may have their favorite argumentation for a given passage, but common sense and context will finally dictate the correct rendering.

In Jn 1:1, it literally says that 'the Word was with the God, and god was the Word.' So, if the Word was with God, he could not be that same entity. Verse 2 tells us that 'this one was in the beginning with God.' There is a difference then, between the Word and God. Verse 14 says that 'the Word became flesh.' Not God, but the Word. Verse 18 says that 'no one has seen God at any time, but the only-born God has explained the Father.' Thus, if no one has seen God at any time, and some of mankind has seen Christ, then logically, Christ is not the God, but someone like God, a god himself, or divine being. Trinitarians will dislike this view, to put it mildly, but the important thing is: Was Christ ever uncomfortable by saying he was just "Son of God"? Was he ever uncomfortable saying: the Father is greater than I am? Did Christ feel regret when he said that his Father was his God and everyone else´s too? (Jn 20:17)

Did Jesus have a problem saying that 'his Father was the only true God'? No, so why shoud we then? Why should we insist on making Christ the equal to God in every way, when Christ himself did not have a problem of admitting that he was subject to his God. After Christ went to heaven, he still was subject to God, and even had to receive a "revelation" from God. (Rev 1:1) Almighty and all-knowing God NEVER has to receive a "revelation" from God. God needs no intermediaries. But Christ can be a Mediator. God NEVER needs to be a mediator. God is supreme, and Christ told us he owes his existence to God. (Jn 6:57)

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Wonderment

TTWSYF,

I have looked into it. Thoroughly... and I believe you easily fall for misinformation. Citing Julius Mantey for support is poor scholarship. The argument that u posed on John 1:1, is not true. Harner, Wallace, Dixon, BeDuhn and others do not support your argumentation. See all articles below where your arguments are dealt with. Check out below the distortion brought about Colwell and Mantey. Mantey's objection proves little as to the wrongness of WT quoting its work. We all should strive to be less gullible!

I do have a problem with some of WT ethical actions, just as u likely do likewise, but the NWT holds up under scrutiny. It is better that what some here will ever admit. Just giving some credit where it is due. Of course, I have other favorite translations that I enjoy as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35318309/The-correct-translation-of-John-8-58-List-of-alternate-readings-to-I-am-I-have-been-I-was-I-exist

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34916458/The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48234022/Does-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Any-Greek

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Wonderment

TTSWSF,

>>When you study the the 1st section of John [a john? ;) ] 1;1-18. Theos occurs 8 times in versed 1,2,6,12,12 & 18. The NWT translated God as God 6 times, translated 'the God' once and 'a god' once.

This argument don't hold up. It is the same argument that's being passed around erroneusly.

The construction of John 1:1c is different from those other texts. Even translators other than WTS do the same thing in chapter 1 of John. There is a good reason for that.

See below for a throrough explanation of John 1:1c.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34916458/The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Wonderment

The NWT is much better as a translation than most here are willing to admit. Most of the NWT criticisms are based on religious bias, hate, and misinformation. Quite a bit of distortion too. Let us not be so naive! Give credit where it is due!

Check the link below for a more complete picture:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48234022/Does-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Any-Greek

32

New World Translation into other languages; anyone knows of any critics?

by dgp in

perhaps this is the wrong place to post such a question, but, is anyone aware of any criticism of the new world translation as rendered into other languages, say, spanish, portuguese, french?.

if you open a non-english version of the nwt, you find that they very clearly say you're holding a translation from english into whatever the target language is, only "checking against the hebrew and greek originals".

this is to say, there is a pecking order that begins with the translation from the original languages into english, and then another, from english into all others.

Wonderment

I have read some criticisms of the NWT in other languages, mainly in Spanish. There is nothing new in these other languages criticisms that are worth repeating.They usually mimic the English criticisms.

I have the 1987 NWT edition in Spanish before me, and it uses brackets throughout. Most here are making a big deal about brackets used or not used in the NWT. A lot of translations do not use them, except in a few cases where it is absolutely necessary.

I have compared the NWT in various languages, and evidently, the translation teams have some leeway in their translation choices.

When the WT Society says the NWT editions are based mainly on the English one, with comparison with the Hebrew and Greek texts, they are saying the truth. I have seen numerous cases where they just don't translate English to the other target languages, but instead go with the original text. In my opinion the WT does a good job dealing with the NWT. I can not say the same thing with some of their other publications, but they are careful with the bible. I give them credit here.

For more info on the NWT translation work, go here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48234022/Does-the-New-World-Translation-Committe-Know-Any-Greek

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

MarcusScriptus: Thanks again for your insightful post.

truebelieverbob: I appreciate your bold stand on behalf of the NWT and WT. I too think that the J. BeDuhn´s book is perhaps the most fair review of bible versions yet. However, I wouldn´t go too far to the other side defending the WT. Let us not forget, that the WT is a humongous organization, hence, they respond to a lot of issues as the politicians do. "Unity at all costs" seems to be the driving force of their existence. The end result can be dangerous. They set policies in their org. that are driven more by what they seek to accomplish to unify their structure, than by what the Bible actually supports. They will never admit to that.

And to mention the NWT, as much as I like their bibles, I do see places where they have stretched the meaning of a word so as to communicate better with their constituency. So, cleverly, they used some renderings where it is difficult to prove them wrong, but we have to ask honestly whether the original writer really meant what the NWT communicates to us. For ex. Joh 17:3 with "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you..." As support the WT quotes some scholars that seem to support that rendering. However, did Jesus really mean that we as his followers must start ´taking in knowledge´ as religionists do of their religious systems? Does a true Christian has to go thru months of studying the Bible with another book so as to know God? I think not. That is stretching the whole statement of Jesus. Back then it was like: Believe in Christ, and you shall be saved. That simple! For the WT it can´t be that simple. You have to go thru loops of men to get the approval for baptism.

Another example: Rom 10:10. "With the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation." Ask any Witness what that means, and he may tell you that preaching from house-to-house is essential for salvation. So you see. The Greek may allow "public declaration" as a meaning there of the orginal, but it may allude to baptism, where one publicly declares ones faith in Christ´ as our Savior.

Now, before anyone else comes rushing to condemn the NWT, remember other Bible versions do the same thing, but in other places where it suits them.

Therefore, we should keep our minds open to fairness and truth, from whatever the source.

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

Sab, That is a very good question. And I wish I had a concrete answer. Perhaps, the pronunciations is not the most important thing.

After all, no one knows 100% how Jesus name was pronounced in those days. We have an idea, but no concrete answer.

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

Pistoff:

I agree that misusing Jehovah´s name or Jesus name is not good. I disagree though that using it to represent The Name that appears nearly 7,000 is to corrupt the readings. If it is bad, why was it there in the first place? Do you believe the Bible to be God´s Word?

I don´t see anyone here complaining that Jesus´ name in English is not even close to either the Hebrew or Greek. A double standard does not justify exclusion of the divine name. If someone said: Jehovah´s name should not be in the NT, I would accept that. But to say that using God´s name will corrupt scriptural readings, is not supported by scripture itself when it appears right there 7,000 times.

Should we eliminate Jesus name because it annoys some people? Never may that happen! No one can read the Psalms in their original context and not walk away with a warm feeling of the grandeur of God´s name. Don´t let resentment cloud your judgment!

We don´t have full details of a lot of things in scripture, even textually speaking. Should we drop bible reading because there has been some tampering by individuals who made some effort to tamper with the Inspired text to make Jesus the equal of God? Bruce Metzger of the UBS Greek text comments about Christological debates during the first few centuries and how most of the tampering was done by individuals attempting to make Christ appear as God. Metzger does not like JWs, but knows about the many attempts by those who favored making Jesus God. Now, should we stop using Jesus name because of that fact? Should we stop using Jesus name because some people don´t like it? Should we stop using Jesus name because, as we use it, it does not come close to the original pronunciation?

Granted, we may be closer to knowing the pronunciation of Jesus name than of Jehovah´s name at this time. But by having that knowledge right now, are people moving in droves to change their habits of pronouncing Jesus name to conform to the originals? I don´t see any movement yet. I will keep using Jesus name, even if it was not the way Hebrews or Greeks called it. I will keep using Jehovah´s name as well, even if dislike the WT and is off the mark from the originals. To be consistent we would have to do big changes with just about all names in the Bible.

And talking about annoyances, have you noticed the double standard in many translations with using red letters for Christ. If you think about it, we can see that it is odd. Not consistent. For ex., the Bible before me right now (KJV), has red letters at Joh 12:28 for Christ and black letters for the Father: Jesus says before a large crowd to his Father: "Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it and will glorify it again."

Now, did not Jesus say that ´the Father was greater than him?´ If true, to be consistent, why not use a bold color when the Father speaks? At Joh 12:28, Jesus is asking the Father to glorify his name, and when the greater of the two speaks, the version has regular black letters for the Father, God. I find that not only annoying, but disrespectful to the Father whom Jesus was subject to. I find that as annoying as JWs using Jahs name as a lucky charm.