Posts by Wonderment

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

TD: I enjoyed your comment. For the most part I agree with your statements. I would just like to add some material to it for anyone wanting to go further.

I myself would have wished the NWT translators revealed the names of their Committee. I don't think they care much about what most "worldly" people outside the WT feel about it. It should be mentioned though, that the WTS started way before 1950 with the practice of not using the names of authors in their publications. By 1942, according to their history book (JWs-Proclaimers...p. 146), it was applied throughout. It says:

"Since 1942 it has been the general rule that literature published by the Watch Tower Society does not draw attention to any individual as the writer."

On John 17:3, see here for another opinion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772552/John-17-3-%E2%80%98Taking-in-knowledge-of-%E2%80%99-God-and-Jesus

On Psalms 23:5, I find the NWT rendering very odd. It is one of those things, as some here have pointed out, the Committee gave preference to Hebrew technicalities instead of going with standard English. I will provide some info so readers here can arrive at their own conclusions. "With oil you have greased my head;..." (NWT)
"Thou anointest my head with oil;..." (KJV)

Literal translation: "You have made fat with the oil my head"
Heb: dishshanta vashshemen ro'shi

ελιπανας εν ελαιω την κεφαλην μου (LXX)
inpinguasti oleo caput meum calix meus inebrians (Latin Vulgate)
(inpinguasti = from pingue, pinguis = fat, grease. J.C. Traupman)
(pingue, pinguis = grasa, manteca, sebo, Vox Latino-Español)

"You generously anoint my head" (Anchor Bible Commentaries)
"Thou hast richly bathed my head with oil" (NEB)
"With oil you have greased my head" (NWT)
"thou hast thoroughly anointed my head with oil" (Brenton, LXX)
"thou madest fat mine head with oil" (Julia Smith Translation)
"You have sleeked my head with oil" (Concordant Literal Version)
"You have lavished oil on my head" (The Bible in Living English)
"you anoint my head with ointment" (exeGeses Companion Bible)

"perfumas con ungüento mi cabeza" (Biblia de América)
(you perfume my head with ointment)

"Bañaste de óleo o perfumaste mi cabeza" (Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo
(You bathed me with oil or perfumated my head) [Católico)

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon:

she'men, sheh'men; from shaman; grease, especially liquid (as from the olive, often perfumed); fig. richness

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew:

1. fat, oil
a. fat, fatness
b. oil, olive oil
1. as staple, medicament or unguent
2. for anointing
c. fat (of fruitful land, valleys) (metaph)

The Complete Word Study Old Testament:

Shemen; ‘this masc. noun originates from shamen. It refers to grease, liquid, (olive) oil (Gen. 28;18; 1 Kgs. 6:23; Neh. 8:15) which was sometimes perfumed (Song 1:3); fat, fatness (Is. 10:27; 25:6).'

Barne's Notes on the Bible: "hou anointest my head with oil - Margin, as in Hebrew, "makest fat." That is, thou dost pour oil on my head so abundantly that it seems to be made fat with it. The expression indicates abundance. The allusion is to the custom of anointing the head on festival occasions, as an indication of prosperity and rejoicing (see Matthew 6:17, note; Luke 7:46, note), and the whole is indicative of the divine favor, of prosperity, and of joy."

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible: "Thou anointest my head with oil - Perfumed oil was poured on the heads of distinguished guests, when at the feasts of great personages. The woman in the Gospel, who poured the box of ointment of spikenard on the head of our Lord (see Matthew 26:7, Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:8; Luke 7:46), only acted according to the custom of her own country, which the host, who invited our Lord, had shamefully neglected."

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

Sulla: "If it had been a problem for the early Christians, well, I suppose they could have made a point to use YHWH in their letters and Gospels. That they did not should be instructive (and normative)."

I agree!

Sulla: "Further, its removal from the OT can hardly be considerd to be "just as bad," since it was the Jews themselves who went and removed it (from the LXX)."

I see your point! However, although the main existing LXX Text lacks the Name throughout, the Hebrew Text as we have it today does contains the Name thousands of times. Removing the Tetragramatton from our English bibles in the OT is just as bad as introducing it in the NT. Should we follow the tradition of those Jews who removed it from LXX copies, or should we not rather stick to the Hebrew Text that does contain the Name thousands of times?

Most people in mainstream churches seem to have an aversion to God's name, (because of their dislike for JWs, perhaps?), while a minority sticks to the Hebrew Text and reproduce it in English, using Jehovah, or Yahweh.

I side with bible translator, Steven T. Byington who wrote: "There are several texts that cannot be properly understood if we translate this name by a common noun like ‘Lord,’ or much worse, by a substantivized adjective." (Translator's Preface, The Bible in Living English)

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

Pistoff said:

"So you take the endorsement of one non-hebrew language scholar as proof of the NWT's superiority, while ignoring the word of biblical language experts. That seems like a reach."

No, I take it for what its worth. The assumption of those who despise the WT is that the NWT has no scholarship whatsoever, that it is sort of an "spaghetti" of WT ideas thrown in without any sense to the Hebrew Text. The quote of a trained Jewish Professor serves only to show that there are individuals who value the NWT for its translated text.

When I cite Kedar I made no statements such as: "it proves that the NWT is superior in the Hebrew rendering" or other similar statement. When I quoted Kedar, I introduced the material this way: "some scholars recognize the scholarship merit of the NWT." There are hundreds of English versions available, so having a trained scholar of his caliber make reference to it as a serious bible translation, and that he uses it in his linguistic research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is an unintended endorment of a sort. Kedar said some good things about the NWT, at the same time he clearly made it known he does not sympathize with religious organizations that claim ownership of a special truth.

I will respect the wishes of those who insist using a translation other than the NWT. There are hundreds to choose from. I have made it clear throughout though, that I value any translation that can contribute to my learning about this most holy book.

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

Black Sheep:

You are right. The post was a brief answer to the poster who is willing to glorify the credentials of the NASB in order to denigrade the NWT.

I actually like both of these bible versions.

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