i hope this thread can be a compilation of all the changes made.
it could serves as a good reference for those who want to help the loved ones to wake up.
please list down here all your findings if you don't mind.
Ezequiel 18:4,
Old NWT: "The soul that is sinning -- it itself will die."
Revised Edition: "The soul who sins is the one who will die." [fnt: Or "person"]
Hebrew: "The soul the-one-sinning -- she she-will-die."
The participle showing continuous activity (the one sinning) is gone.
The "it" for "she" is gone.
The Hebrew emphasis (she - she will die) is gone.
a normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
wasblind:
Relax! I know you did not specifically mentioned Fred's friend.
But when you said to Randy, "I'm sure Wonderment will appreciate that info as well as me," you referred to Randy's comment on my previous words about not knowing who else helped Franz in his translation duties which was in the major a secret to outsiders. So I addressed you to let you know that I had knowledge of Franz's Jewish friend who helped him out in the Hebrew. So let's both relax now.
a normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
wasblind:
Yes, I was aware of Fred Franz' Jewish friend , Barry Horowitz.
Oubliette: "Point! The R&F JWs are NOT "capable reviewers." In fact, very few people are qualified to comment on the accuracy of a Biblical translation."
I agree with you to a certain point. However, with today's technology, one can easily learn to read Hebrew or Greek on their own, and have at their disposal hundreds of Bible versions to compare to with the various available Hebrew/GreekTexts. One can also learn to just about everything there is to know about the grammar: the tenses, prepositions, particles, participles, infinites, and so on.
Not only that, anyone today can check any claim or rendering with various sources, and that with no Master's and Ph.ds. So your statement, while true in a sense, does not apply equally well to a person living in Tyndale's era compared to someone today willing to get some "grease" in their hands and learn the rudiments of biblical grammar. It does not help to have a Ph.d if a scholar makes silly mistakes, or shows poor judgment in his choice of words. And that happens more often than not.
As Douglas Stuart (Ph.d) said: "Just because someone has a Ph.d and you don't does not mean that he is right and you are wrong."
a normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
MrFreeze:
"Calling it a translation is misleading. Seeing as how it paraphrases so much."
Dam if you do, dam if you don't!
Before, the criticism was... ‘the NWT was too literal, too stiff, too wooden.’
Now, I am beginning to see criticism picking up to where now the translation "paraphrases so much".
The Society can't do anything right, can they? Dam if you do, dam if you don't!
Hey, is anyone here right 100% of the time? Is any Bible translation out there perfect?
old nwt: "the soul that is sinning -- it itself will die.".
revised edition: "the soul who sins is the one who will die.
" [fnt: or "person"].
Old NWT: "The soul that is sinning -- it itself will die."
Revised Edition: "The soul who sins is the one who will die." [fnt: Or "person"]
Hebrew: "The soul the-one-sinning -- she she-will-die."
The participle showing continuous activity (the one sinning) is gone.
The "it" for "she" is gone.
The Hebrew emphasis (she - she will die) is gone.
Improvement, or backward step? What do you say?
a normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
wasblind:
The truth is, it's not known if the NWT committee had the knowledge to translate from the original scriptures because thier educational background is not known. For all we know they could have lifted the work of someone else and claim it as theirs. It won't be the first lie they ever told...And now you want us to believe that they could produce good work on thier own ??????
One does not have to have the specific educational background of a translator to determine if he/she was up to task. If a German curriculum teacher assigns a class to translate a document of 50 pages from English to German to 20 anonymous students, would a reviewer need to know all the personal history of each student to determine who did the best translation work? No. A capable reviewer does not need that information from the anonymous students to make a required judgment.
It is the end-result or product that determines that.
As for, "For all we know they could have lifted the work of someone else and claim it as theirs," that is not likely for the simple reason that the NWT has too many haters, and it's been exposed to greater scrutiny than any translation in modern history. That would be the first thing brought out by any of its many enemies. Besides, if someone bothers to examine the translated text of the NWT (1984) against the originals will quickly discover that the translator's methodology and language is markedly different from any other translation out there. I am telling you of my experience with the product, and I am very aware that the majority of mainstream individuals will disagree with my findings...and in your favor.
a normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
wasblind: "
How do you know for certain that the translation committee was even qualified to do so when it is printed in WTS literature that states: " Is it really a scholarly translation ?
Scince the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of thier educational background."_________Reasoning from the Scriptures book page 277
I don't think it is absolutely necessary to know who were the translators in order to judge a work.
The end result itself testifies if a translator did its job well. Just the other day, I was reading a 7th Day Adventist book of Galatians, which itself was a translation from the English language. I have no idea who the translator was for that book, but, let me tell you. He did a good job. It was obvious.
The same with the NWT. If you are willing to get your hands "dirty" to examine the guts of the translation against the background of the original texts, one could conclude the translator(s) had enough knowledge to deal with it. I say "could" because one could just go in to investigate looking out for mistakes or differences of theology to see if it passes muster. That's what a lot of people do. Or, they rely on what others say. In my case, I like to check things out for myself.
No one had to tell me that Adventist book was done by someone with no knowledge of both languages involved. And I would not pay much attention to a anti-Adventist critic who would tell me the translator was not up to the job. The same with the NWT. I have examined what the NWT critics have to say, sometimes they are right, mostly they are wrong. Criticism is based on the window one is looking out thru. If the window is dirty, or painted, you are not going to see the other side well. If the window is clear and unpainted, you may see what's out there without the haziness that goes with dubious intentions.
a normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
wasblind: "I take it that you too think somebody in Brooklyn is tellin' lies."
I believe Bethel leaders don't give us the full picture. They may claim the "anointed" ones are feeding the brotherhood, but is mostly a case of "anointed" ones being in charge in appointing other capable ones of actually writing the materials. Those other writers are not the anointed, at least, not the majority. Call it, "half-truths," if you will.
Bella15: "Gosh, I don't even believe they did a translation the first time ... the EDITED any NIV bible to make it fit their doctrines."
That could not be true, for the simple reason that the NIV was non-existant when the original committee started their project. They did not use the ASV or KJV either. It was an actual translation from the originals. That's not to say, they were not influenced by other versions to some extent. All translators are.
a normal person, upon hearing that a new (or revised) bible translation has been released, would have 2 questions spring to mind almost immediately:.
1) who did the work, and what are their credentials?.
2) what manuscripts is the work based on?.
wasblind:
You are so right that the Society claims the "anointed" feeds the domestics, creating the impression that they themselves do the work of composing all written material. Most everything points to the Writing Dpt. as responsible for that. However, the mighty GB does set the pace for the whole organization.
My point was, that so many here and elsewhere make the common misktake of trying to find individual GB members with scholarly degrees with claims of their publications meeting quality requirements of the bery best, such as the NWT.
I believe that the Writing Dpt. works with the GB who secretly decides who's going to be in the Translation Committee. Governing Body members may or may not be part of such process. It is not unreasonable to believe they would reach out for individuals with knowledge in a specific linguistic field to tackle whatever needs to be done. With a united goal, there is no reason why a Witness with expertise in a certain field cannot work with the Writing Dpt, or the GB to accomplish a translation revision.
The Society have said that they have thousands of contributors in the translation work working closely with the New York headquarters. That said, these contributors could live in Israel or Greece or elsewhere. Is a futile effort to find the scholarly background of each of these contributors.
this forum dissects everything from watchtower.
the annual general meeting was one of those things.
of course i get that wild speculations would come out.
OnTheWayOut said:
But really guys- it was a big nothing. A NNWT where they removed "ass" in favor of "donkey."
The removal of "ass" in favor of "donkey" is a big improvement. When I went to the KH over 25 years ago, I could not help but visualize some sister's ‘ass’ with the simple mention of the word. Oh naughty me! So there!
The change was necessary. Fred Franz wasn't as pure as many make him out to be. His product was full of sexual inuendos, more so than the competition could offer. The NWT was special indeed in so many ways, this being one of them.
Now the hot blooded young brothers don't have to fantasize with Scarlett Johannsen or some other cutie sister in front of them when the Bible is read aloud about the donkey (not "ass") talking out loud.
