Posts by Wonderment

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

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.

Wonderment

Outlaw:

Professor Kedar is a professor of History as well as the Director of the Institute of Advanced Studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. One profile of him states he is (or was) Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2007.

One could certainly say that Kedar, a trained scholar, knows the Hebrew language well enough to go to the Hebrew Text and determine whether the NWT is translating correctly or not.

He is a professor of Jewish History. Jewish history is closely tied with Bible history. Part of his formal training as professor in Jewish history involves and requires quite a bit of linguistic research in the Hebrew Bible. One cannot separate one from the other. Notice the connection below.

Kedar said:

"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. . . . Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain." (Watchtower, March 1, 1991)

I would not put the stock you apparently place on that website you cited previously. Generally, the author of that website implies that anyone that supports the NWT (Ph. D or other) is unfit to put forth any favorable statement in behalf of the NWT. It is not fair to these educated people.

Hence, I think it is fair to include his assesment of the NWT here.

96

The New World Translation Quote from an Elder

by howdidtihappen in

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?

Wonderment

A list of 40 scholars with academic degrees who translated the New American Standard Bible was provided by a poster to belittle the lack of credentials of the NWT.

Now, did it help to have so many scholars behind the NASB with their decision to include the Comma Johanneum in a footnote at 1 John 5:7,8? It is generally agreed that those words are an intended addition to the Text, unless the committee had a doctrinal motive to include it in the same page. The American Standard Version of 1901 does not have such a note.

Did it help to have so many scholars on board behind the NASB to include odd renderings such as that found in Acts 3:5, "And he began [imperfect tense taken as inceptive] to give them his attention..." instead of "So he gave them his attention." (NKJV); or, "And he fixed his eyes on them." (Whiston) It is not accurate to say that ‘the man began to give them his attention.’ That is as un-English as many of the NWT renderings are. The imperfect tense can be brought out by the words: So he gave them his attention. And he fixed his eyes on them... as illustrated above.

John 8:58 is rendered in the NASB, as "I AM" in capital letters keeping with the theory that Jesus is intending to make a claim connected with the wording given in Exodus 3:14. The KJV and the NIV do not use the capitals, making the rendering less tendentious. Robert Young, a single translator was closer to the Greek, by using "I am" than those many translators of the NASB who chose "I AM" to suggest Christ was claiming a title of God. Likewise, the ASV of 1901 reads: "I am."

96

The New World Translation Quote from an Elder

by howdidtihappen in

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?

Wonderment

Bungi Hill: Thank you for your nice comments.

GLTirebiter: "Rendering"? The word can be rightly applied to the NWT AND to most other versions.

96

The New World Translation Quote from an Elder

by howdidtihappen in

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?

Wonderment

Sab said:

That's a red flag in my book [to my statement: No problem with that]. If a group wants to translate the Bible they better have a system of checks and balances that keeps bias out. Is that impossible? Is that an unreasonable request? Has there never been a group of people capable of translating an honest Bible?

If there are indeed no bias Bible's than the book itself should be treated no differently than any other piece of literature.

-Sab

I agree! A big effort should be placed in eliminating translation bias, though that it is easier said than done. Translation bias is easily discernible in most translations. One thing I want to add here. When I said,"No problem with that," was a reference to an admission that the NWT does show bias as others do, not that I approve of a translator to purposely introduce bias.

Atlantis: Thank you for your effort to find a middle ground in our discussions.

Sulla: I have never stated that Jehovah in the NT is permissible. I do not support introducing the divine name in the main text. I do support footnote or marginal material indicating when the divine name appears in quoted Scriptures where the name is present in the OT. That the NWT translators manifested bias in the NT by insisting on the name, yes, I agree with you. But I am of the opinion that removing it from the OT is just as bad. Sadly, people do not seem to care for the intended replacements of the name in the OT.

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

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.

Wonderment

Outlaw:

Bruce Metzger, Julius Mantey and Robert Countess are recognized authorities in Greek. No one argues that. I don't.

Nothwithstanding, they too have their own religious agenda, just as the WTS does. For example:

According to another recognized authority in the Greek, Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D, Dallas Theological Seminary, author of a Greek Grammar used in academia throughout, said the following about scholars who fell for Colwell's flawed rule argumentation on Jn 1:1 (such as those mentioned by the article you brought up): "Almost immediately many scholars (especially of a more conservative stripe) misunderstood Colwell' rule. They saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1." "Colwell's rule, as applied to John 1:1, has been played as a trump card by Trinitarians in many christological debates..." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp 257; 290)

Wallace is then, disputing the usage of Colwell's rule by scholars. .. such as Metzger, Mantey, and Countess who made that mistake. I am not suggesting that we should not quote them. I have myself. I mention this to point out that they have their own religious beliefs which they intertwine with grammar and their known WT criticisms of the NWT.

They too have human theological limitations.

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

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.

Wonderment

I have presented various quotes from scholars, not to show they agree with WT theology (and most don't), but only to show that some scholars recognize the scholarship merit of the NWT. Here is another one by Professor Emeritus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Benjamin Kedar (highlighting mine) within its context:

"Since several individuals and institutions have addressed me concerning the following matter, I make this statement; henceforth it will be sent instead of a personal letter to anyone appealing to me to clarify my position.

1) Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in articles that dealt with purely philological [pertaining to the study/science of languages] questions (such as the rendition of the causative hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of hebrew as well as an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target [English] language. A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the Watchtower-Bible who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed scrutiny. This was either not done or else the verse submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13, 6:3, 10:9, 15:5, 18:20 etc.) did not prove the point, namely a tendentious [with a purposed aim/biased] translation.

2) I beg to make clear that I do not feel any sympathy for any sect and this includes Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, my mistrust is not directed against the individual member of such sect but rather against the organisation that manipulates him and puts forward its dogmas and rules as the ultimate truth. It should be conceded, however, that the groups and organisations that fiercely oppose the witnesses do not behave any better. On the whole, synagogue, church and mosque also tend to exhibit dogmatic arrogance coupled with intolerance of and enmity with other confessions.

3) I cannot help expressing my deep conviction that the search for truth will never benefit by linguistic quibble. Whether the author using the word naephaesh denoted 'soul' as opposed to body (Lev 17:11) or meant something else, whether 'almah' means 'virgin' or 'young woman' (Is 7:14) is of great interest to philologists and historians of religion; an argument for or against blood transfusion or the virgin-birth of Jesus respectively, cannot be derived from it.

4) Obviously, it is man's destiny to make the choice of his way a matter of conscience and to the best of his knowledge. There exists no simple set of rules such as could be learned from the mouth of a guru or the pages of an ancient venerable book. Those who pretend to act according to an infallible guide, more often than not interpret the texts in accordance with their preconceived wishes and notions.

Benjamin Kedar

Haifa 27.11.95

26

Compilation of the bible and the NWT translation source.

by trailerfitter in

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.

Wonderment

Black Sheep: Bruce Metzger, a world-class Presbyterian scholar said many things about the JWs. Most of them were targeted at "exposing" the many errors of JWs. He does not agree with WT theology. He went as far as writing a lengthy essay on how JWs have reduced the greatness of Jesus Christ in their translation.

("Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today, (April 1953 p. 74); see also Metzger, "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures," The Bible Translator (July 1964)

Nevertheless, it is the assumption of some here, that the NWT is rubbish, and that no reputable scholar would ever recognize the alleged scholarship the WT claims. That's where the above quotes comes in. It serves the only purpose of showing that some scholars of his caliber do "recognize" the scholarship of the NWT. Not that he agrees with WT theology. Nor, it should be expected that scholars support the WT theology all the way.

Here is another one of Benjamin Kedar, Professor Emeritus of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (highlighting mine):

"Since several individuals and institutions have addressed me concerning the following matter, I make this statement; henceforth it will be sent instead of a personal letter to anyone appealing to me to clarify my position.

1) Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in articles that dealt with purely philological [pertaining to the study/science of languages] questions (such as the rendition of the causative hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of hebrew as well as an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target [English] language. A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the Watchtower-Bible who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed scrutiny. This was either not done or else the verse submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13, 6:3, 10:9, 15:5, 18:20 etc.) did not prove the point, namely a tendentious [with a purposed aim/biased] translation.

2) I beg to make clear that I do not feel any sympathy for any sect and this includes Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, my mistrust is not directed against the individual member of such sect but rather against the organisation that manipulates him and puts forward its dogmas and rules as the ultimate truth. It should be conceded, however, that the groups and organisations that fiercely oppose the witnesses do not behave any better.On the whole, synagogue, church and mosque also tend to exhibit dogmatic arrogance coupled with intolerance of and enmity with other confessions.

3) I cannot help expressing my deep conviction that the search for truth will never benefit by linguistic quibble. Whether the author using the word naephaesh denoted 'soul' as opposed to body (Lev 17:11) or meant something else, whether 'almah' means 'virgin' or 'young woman' (Is 7:14) is of great interest to philologists and historians of religion; an argument for or against blood transfusion or the virgin-birth of Jesus respectively, cannot be derived from it.

4) Obviously, it is man's destiny to make the choice of his way a matter of conscience and to the best of his knowledge. There exists no simple set of rules such as could be learned from the mouth of a guru or the pages of an ancient venerable book. Those who pretend to act according to an infallible guide, more often than not interpret the texts in accordance with their preconceived wishes and notions.

Benjamin Kedar

Haifa 27.11.95

96

The New World Translation Quote from an Elder

by howdidtihappen in

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?

Wonderment

sab:

I wrote the word "originals" withing quotation marks, because most everyone here is aware that the Hebrew and Greek texts available today are copies of the originals writings. I reason that most bible translations communicate the concept of an all powerful God who sent his beloved Son as a means of salvation to mankind well enough. Most bible versions talk about sin, life, death, salvation, God's grace toward mankind, God's Kingdom, and so on.

As an individual, I have seen enough patterns in different strands to form an opinion. And this is what this board is about. We can express our experiences and viewpoints freely as ex-JWs. By expressing my opinions, I don't want to imply that I have a supernatural insight, or other. I left the WT org. for their lack of freedom of speech, and I came here to find "consolation," "understanding," and was hoping to express some of my thoughts on some subjects. That is why I appreciate your observations and those of others as well. I have much to learn from you all.

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

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.

Wonderment

Greg Stafford was a JW. As I understand it, he left the WT organization a few years ago.

Rolf Furuli has had more than a few encounters of disagreements with the WTS as well.

Both of these men have had formal training. Just because they are, or were JWs, does that mean they are not capable to offer sound arguments?

For arguments sake, if a former JW cannot cite educated JWs, why do other educated people get the green light to express whatever they want, and others can quote them without even as much a rebuff? Is that fair?

96

The New World Translation Quote from an Elder

by howdidtihappen in

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?

Wonderment

Sab: "Is that an unreasonable request? Has there never been a group of people capable of translating an honest Bible?"

In the majority of cases, including with the NWT, the biases reflected in translation are more an indication of human limitations, than it is of dishonesty. I believe most bible versions are produced with the best intentions. Many a times bible translators are forced to make a decision on interpretation because it is virtually impossible to avoid introducing one's interpretation into the translated Text in various places.

Overall though, most bible versions transmit the bulk of God's message well. Furthermore , comparing various bible versions will only increase our understanding of God's Word. If we lack trust in bible translators, we can always go to the "originals," but we may find after doing so, that their translation product will serve to increase our respect for them.