hi,, i have a curious question about when the bible was actually compiled.
from what i understand it was actually compiled under emperor constantines request in the 4th century ad.
this was the nicene creed.. i also am aware that there quite a few books that were considered for inclusion but weren't.
Doug Mason: "I cannot comment on their [NWT] OT, whether it is based on the OG (=LXX) or on the MT."
The Hebrew portion of the NWT was based on the Codex Leningrad B 19A of the Masoretic Text (R. Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, 1951-55) An update of this work, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1977 edition was used to prepare the footnote apparatus of the 1984 Reference edition. However, the LXX was consulted as well as numerous other ancient sources in the translation process.
as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.
we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.
we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.
I want to add a comment to a previous post of mine on A.H. MacMillan.
MacMillan died way before The NY Times (1992) article on Fred Franz. What I meant was that it would not be unusual for the NY Times reporter to get information from a WT insider such as MacMillan was decades earlier.
you've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the nwt the "rolls royce" of bibles.
i'm new to the jw bs (and as soon as i can break away, will do so.
) but do they also believe they have a superior bible to anyone elses outside the religion?
TTWSYF asked: Wonderment- is there any current true scholar [phd at least] who agrees with the watchtower position in regards to John 1:1?
Yes, Jason BeDuhn, (Ph.D) holds a similar exegetical position to that of the WTS.
Sulla said of BeDuhn's sympathetic comments of the NWT: The qualification is one that would justify his evaluation of "bias." I simply point out that the NWT is quite infamous for placing YHWH in many places in the NT without a shred of justification except their own bias against the divinity of Christ. To understand that the JW bible does exactly this and stil find a way to claim it is the least biased translation out there is a perfect example of missing the point.
Sulla: Jason BeDuhn compared 9 bible versions where theology plays a role in bias. He found the NWT to be a sound bible translation, showing less bias in some cases to mainstream versions. He has made it clear he is not a JW, and he took the NWT to task in many cases, pointing out places where the NWT showed bias. One such area he disagrees with the NWT Committee is in the realm of using the divine name in the NT. I got the impression Dr. BeDuhn was fair in his assesments of the various bible versions discussed.
as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.
we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.
we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.
Outlaw said after the reading the following statement: And really, how many of Frederick Franz's critics get to get a mention of honor in the The New York Times (such as Fred did on December 24, 1992) when the paper described Frederick Franz as "a religious Leader....[of] a Christian denomination" and "a biblical scholar...versed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek."
"An informed person would never write that crap..Who ever wrote that didn`t do their homework."
Outlaw: The New York Times journalist is not likely to make such statement without seeing some evidence of it. Established names in the publishing industry are generally careful before they make material available to the public such as this. Besides the ridicule of being exposed as "gullible" and "misinformed," and have their reputation tarnished, the paper also knows that if they make a public statement without any substance, they will likely face thousands of complaints, many from academia demanding verifiable substance behind it. Just look at how many enemies the WTS have, and even in this forum, many posters can't hold back from demonizing Fred Franz's character. This would be one heck of an opportunity to tarnish The New York Times. The competition would have loved that, if they could.
The WT have had some insiders to privy information that only a few are priviledged to. One such insider was A. H. Macmillan. A. H. MacMillan, a former leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was one insider who had access to WT records, and was able to publish a history of the religious movement, said of Fred Franz, "Besides Spanish, Franz has a fluent knowledge of Portuguese and German and is conversant with French. He is also a scholar of Hebrew and Greek as well as of Syriac and Latin, all of which contribute to making him a thoroughly reliable mainstay on [WT President] Knorr's editorial staff." (Faith On The March, 1957, p. 182, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.)
It is likely that The New York Times interviewed one such insider who provided some proof of his language capabilities.
as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.
we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.
we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.
The WT definitely has handled the 1975 embarrasment in an un-Christian way. I don't support their behavior there.
you've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the nwt the "rolls royce" of bibles.
i'm new to the jw bs (and as soon as i can break away, will do so.
) but do they also believe they have a superior bible to anyone elses outside the religion?
Atlantis said: "Why was Mantey so disturbed? His conclusion (found both in his Grammar and his letter) is that John 1:1 should be translated either "the word was deity" or "the word was God," not "the word was a god." Mantey estimates the evidence "to be 99% against" the Society's translation."
Mantey said: "without the article [in Jn 1:1c] theós signifies divine essence [...] pros ton theón emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." (139, 140)
(Pp 148, 149) "In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d’ en to xhoríon, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theós en ho lógos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theós. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theós."
Mantey appears to be saying that using the "parallel" case of Xenophon's Anabasis, John 1:1c should be translated, not "the word was God," but rather, as "deity," for the word was not all of God."
In his letter, he quotes Harner to bolster his reasoning that when the predicate noun precedes the verb (as in Jn 1:1) the emphasis in on the quality or nature of the subject in discussion. Not that it should be used to identify Christ with God. He made that clear by stating that the market of Xenophon's was not the only market, but "a" market, one of many markets. Applying this to John 1:1c, the NWT translators saw that Mantey unintentionally was allowing a translation: "the word was a god."
The truth is that although Mantey does not like the idea of indefiniteness for John 1:1c, he supports it in Xenophon's case. The issue here is not grammar, but theology. Mantey is wrong to suggest that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb are not indefinite. Acts 28:4 proves him wrong. There, Paul is being called "a murderer" by the islanders. The Greek grammatical construction is similar to Jn 1:1c. Normally, when translators deal with this type of Greek construction they translate it either as indefinite or qualitative. No hard rule. Just the norm.
In conclusion, this seems to be a case where the WT and Mantey are right in some things, and wrong in some others. This is not a case where Mantey is 99% right and the WT is only 1% right. The long list of translators siding with Mantey only proves that most Catholic and Protestant translators believe that Christ is the God. Interestingly, one of the translators he cites, Robert Young, translated John 1:1 as, "the Word was God," but in his later commentary he explained it as, "the Word was a God." He was silent about that. Why?
as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.
we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.
we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.
Pistoff:"You are welcome to that translation; to me it is lifeless, technical and soulless."
Actually, it is quite dynamic. By using extra words to convey the "originals," the NWT makes some stories more meaningful, emotional, and accurate. The story of Joseph is more vivid in the NWT than in the average version because of its application of the Hebrew verb forms. Some scriptures transmit more power and feeling. Consider two:
John 11:35, New American Standard Bible: "Jesus wept."
NWT: "Jesus gave way to tears." (reflecting the Greek ingressive aorist tense)
Which agrees better with the context? In the NASB, Jesus is being described as having just "wept," as if it was a past or done action. In the NWT, Jesus is being portrayed as responding in a deeply emotional way, as not being able to contain himself from the pain he felt when he saw Mary and the Jews coming to him "weeping." Yes, Jesus burst into tears!
John 2:16, King James Version: "make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."
NWT: "Stop making the house of my Father a house of merchandise!"
Which agrees with the context? Were those men warned ‘not to make Jesus' Father's house an house of merchandise,’ implying perhaps that the action had not begun?
Or, were they not rather doing business already, and Jesus commanded them in righteous zeal to stop making the house of his Father a house of merchandise?
Which translation reflects the Greek prohibition in the present tense and the context better?
you've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the nwt the "rolls royce" of bibles.
i'm new to the jw bs (and as soon as i can break away, will do so.
) but do they also believe they have a superior bible to anyone elses outside the religion?
Atlantis said after providing the link in a former post: "Dr. Julius R. Mantey said all that needed to be said!"
Dr. Julius R. Mantey has provided for us a very useful Greek Grammar. It is one of my favorites. Unfortunately, though still in use today, it has been largely replaced by other recent Grammars. It is a model of simplicity, brevity, and rounds up what others before him said on the subject of grammar in a way the layman could understand. I really like it, and recommend it.
However, as a religious person Julius Mantey was like many Witnesses, stuck in a specific mindset. He wasn't flexible. It was either Day or Night, Black or White, Evangelical or Hell for anyone not holding on to mainstream tradition. Both of these men were professors of New Testament Interpretation (Baptist Theological Seminaries, one in Texas and the other in Chicago) One of these men (Julius) got together with "Cult Expert" Walter Martin (another Baptist) and both determined that JWs were a threat to standard religion. They went on to produce the greatest denunciation published in the last 60 years or so. There is no record of H.E. Dana following in their footsteps, at least to the same degree of intent.
Most of the WT criticisms published today and directed at the WT have been taken from their book... of disparaging and belittling the WT organization at all costs. A lot of other anti-WTS books are a rehash of their statements. The problem is that a lot of their statements are wrong, or off the mark. They are guilty of the same thing they accuse the WT of... of quoting out of context, not providing the full picture, and distorting anything they could - to reach their goal of destruction. Their published info is a mixture of half-truths and bad will.
I am surprised at the number of takers of this info as reliable, just because these men hold college degrees. I am equally surprised at the number of JWs who day after day insist that their religion is the way to God, while leaving Christ at the curb (roadside), while the "faithful and discreet slave," yes, a "slave" who gets more glory and honor than Christ. Repulsive indeed!
If I am permitted, I may point out some of these distortions in time. For now, let me just state that Julius R. Mantey writing a letter of repudiation to the WTS, and claiming they have been endlessly misquoted, does not prove he was right. I have examined the evidence, and I have concluded that Mantey was only partially right... that the WT was not explicit in their quote of their publication. "Misleading"? Even that is arguable. The WT Society did not misquote their work, but they did not disclose that their interpretation was one that would be unwelcomed by Protestant evangelicals. The WTS hinted that this Grammar was on their side, when that was not the case. I am confident that some will argue with my conclusion, but Dana and Mantey produced material that made clear one thing. That John 1:1 should be translated in a way that brings out the character or quality of the Word, Jesus Christ, that is... "the word was deity, not all of God."
as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.
we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.
we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.
I agree that Fred Franz was somewhat "weird" in his theologies. He is probably the one to blame for leading a pack of gullible followers, including myself in the past, for placing trust in men who decide for God when Armageddon should be.
Fred Franz stated in Australia after the 1975 fiasco: "I made an ass of myself." I could not have said it better.
I am glad we can see his faulty theology better now, but I don't think Fred produced a bad translation. I do like it very much. The NWT has many faults, but it also has many virtues.
you've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the nwt the "rolls royce" of bibles.
i'm new to the jw bs (and as soon as i can break away, will do so.
) but do they also believe they have a superior bible to anyone elses outside the religion?
Atlantis:
I have been numerous times to this site as a reference source of opinions. Though the site has some value, the problem with this one, as is true of other similar sites, is that it distorts many facts.
The author is bent on portraying the NWT as a piece of crap, one that has no support of scholars, and that the WT has quoted them all wrong, which is not true. A common mistake is one of belittling the scholars who say something positive of the NWT. They leave many gaps, and add material unrelated to the context. If you think the WT has this problem, it is worse with the authors of these tendentious websites.
I make an effort to check these references, and I am appaled by the dishonesty of some of these comments. It is not easy to find neutral sources, I admit. We are all victims of human bias to some extent.
A case in point is the commentary on Jason BeDuhn mentioned earlier. He says of BeDuhn: "This is not to say that BeDuhn is to be dismissed lightly. He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, and says that he is doing work on untranslated Greek texts." Then he goes on to take issue of BeDuhn saying that he is a "non-theologian." He questions BeDuhn's statement about not knowing Murray J. Harris, another scholar, as if that was necessary to make an asessment of the NWT. BeDuhn has stated he is aware of those scholars attacking the NWT, including Harris. The author of the site again takes issue of the word "divine" as used by BeDuhn.
The thing is, that BeDuhn's book is one of the clearest expositions on the subject of bible versions available, and the author doesn't like BeDuhn's conclusions. His work on the subject, is in my opinion superior to other books before him. But, somehow he finds it necessary to downplay his contribution to the scholarly community.
The same can be said of his assesment of German scholars cited by the WT. The fact is those German scholars are known the world over in academia, because their names appear in reference books used by Catholics and Protestants alike.
For example, look at the names of contributors to the highly respected work, The New International of New Testament Theology (3 Vols.), and other German bible works. You will find names in them such as Johannes Schneider, Hans-Jurgen Becker, Siegfried Schulz and many others. The same can be said of the German Greek-English Lexicon of Walter Bauer, translated into English by Arndt and Gingrich and revised by Frederick Danker. I would not try to belittle those German authors just to prove the WT is wrong. Why? Simply because, no one seems to bother to attack their personal views or flaws when they agree with their religious agenda.
Another example: "Dr. Danker's estimation that the NWT Old Testament should not be "snubbed" is not shared by other scholars. H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures."
Unbelievable! The author of this site claims H.H. Rowley is "eminent." Yet, he downplays Dr. Frederick W. Danker who also is "eminent," only because Danker said ‘the NWT should not be snubbed.’ See above for the contribution he made to the Greek-English Lexicon most used today in academia. Besides, he proudly quotes Rowley who attacks the NWT language, when Rowley was criticizing literal translations as a whole, placing the NWT as a shining example of wooden literalism.
We need to be careful before we used these authorities out of context. Anyone with dubious intent can summarize faults out of every scholar out there at whim.
The WTS has problems. We all agree with that. Everyone else is trying to determine "truth" within their limited abilities.
Frederick W. Danker well said: The 'orthodox' do not possess all the truth, yet one does well 'to test the spirits.' (Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, 1993. Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, MN, p. 194)
