Wonderment

Joined

• started 95 topics
• posted 769 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Wonderment

• 
  33

  The new bible did NOT remove the previously [bracked inserted words], it only removed the brackets, so it's even more deceptive..

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  many said how they removed the bracketed words, etc.

  here is an example, an older bible in exodus 18:16 would say this....."i must make known the decisions of the [true] god and his laws.".

  the word "true" is not in the original manuscripts, it's inserted, hence the [ ].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Oubliette:

  You can add the NWT to the list of other versions doing the same for years. I, however, don't hear much complaints when other versions do the same thing. Why?
• 
  69

  New World Translation

  by MsD in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it may seem like a stupid question but who was responsible for translating their version of the bible?

  i heard it was ray franz, several governing body members.

  does anybody have any legitimate info that can prove who exactly translated it?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Bobcat said: "Probably one of those arguments that can never be settled at this time for lack of defining evidence."

  I agree! Thanks for your comments.
• 
  33

  The new bible did NOT remove the previously [bracked inserted words], it only removed the brackets, so it's even more deceptive..

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  many said how they removed the bracketed words, etc.

  here is an example, an older bible in exodus 18:16 would say this....."i must make known the decisions of the [true] god and his laws.".

  the word "true" is not in the original manuscripts, it's inserted, hence the [ ].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  EndofMysteries:

  I checked the Hebrew at those places you mentioned and this is what I found:

  Ex 18:11, "than all the gods", with the article before elohim (mikkol-ha'elohim).

  Ex 18:12, "and sacrifices to God", with preposition before elohim (uzavachim le'lohim).

  Ex 18:12b "before the God", with art. (liphne ha'elohim).

  Ex 18:16, "statutes of the God", with the article before elohim ('eth-chuqqe ha'elohim).

  As noted, both the NWT, Watts, and the Concordant Literal Bible acknowledge the significance of the article in those places where it appears, by adding "true," "the One True," "the One, Elohim," respectively.
• 
  33

  The new bible did NOT remove the previously [bracked inserted words], it only removed the brackets, so it's even more deceptive..

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  many said how they removed the bracketed words, etc.

  here is an example, an older bible in exodus 18:16 would say this....."i must make known the decisions of the [true] god and his laws.".

  the word "true" is not in the original manuscripts, it's inserted, hence the [ ].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  There has been a tendency for a while now for bible translators to not indicate words added to the literal text. Others only do it in extreme cases. It is regrettable that the NWT followed thru with a recent custom. It improves readability at the expense of accuracy.

  EndofMysteries: While the word "true" for "the True God" is not strickly literally in the text, for the most part, it is sort of understood in the Hebrew idiom because of the presence of the definite article before God, which singles out God from the false gods.

  Bible translator J. Wash Watts (Ph. D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) also adds true to references of God in the Hebrew text, but shows them in brackets, thus: [the One True] God. Watts devoted a great part of his life to understanding and translating the Hebrew Old Testament.

  Concordant Literal Version reads: "the One, Elohim."
• 
  69

  New World Translation

  by MsD in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it may seem like a stupid question but who was responsible for translating their version of the bible?

  i heard it was ray franz, several governing body members.

  does anybody have any legitimate info that can prove who exactly translated it?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Splash said: "In fact in the 17 versions I have checked [at Rom. 16:7], only the NWT includes the gender 'men', to support their teaching that no women could have any positions in the congregation."

  Did you check -- The Revised Standard Version; The Twentieth Century NT; Goodspeed NT; Common Edition NT; Moffatt's NT; Worsley NT; and the NT of William Paul and Walter L. Porter? They too have "men" in their translations.

  The NIV and ESV Study Bibles favor an understanding of a "woman" in the context at Ro. 16:7.

  On the other hand, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia are inclined to believe it was a "man" being referenced here. They wrote:

  "One to whom, with Andronicus, Paul sent greetings at the close of his letter to the Romans (Rom 16:7). The name may be masculine, ‘Junias,’ a contraction of Junianus, or feminine ‘Junia’; it is Iounian, the accusative form, that is given. In all probability this is the masculine, ‘Junias.’ Paul defines the two as (1) ‘my kinsmen,’ (2) ‘my fellow-prisoners,’ (3) ‘who are of note among the apostles,’ and (4) have been ‘in Christ before me.’”
• 
  5

  Circulation figures for Bible versions - how does the NWT compare?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  they mentioned at the annual meeting that over 200 million copies of the nwt have been produced.

  i wondered how that compares with other versions, but it seems circulation figures are not terribly easy to come by.

  after the king james version, which has probably been printed billions of times, i guess the niv is probably the most popular version.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  _____________________________________________________

  Top Ten Bible Translations in the United States

  March 19, 2013

  The Christian Booksellers Association has published its list of bestselling Bible translations in 2012 for the United States.

  2012 – Based on Dollar Sales

  1. New International Version
  2. King James Version
  3. New Living Translation
  4. New King James Version
  5. English Standard Version
  6. Holman Christian Standard Bible
  7. New American Standard Bible
  8. Common English Bible
  9. Reina Valera 1960
  10. The Message

  2012 – Based on Unit Sales

  1. New Living Translation
  2. New International Version
  3. King James Version
  4. New King James Version
  5. English Standard Version
  6. Common English Bible
  7. Holman Christian Standard Bible
  8. New American Standard Bible
  9. Reina Valera 1960
  10. New International Readers Version

  _____________________________________

  Source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/top-bible-translations-remain-niv-kjv-and-nkjv-104870/

  The New International Version, the King James Version and the New King James Version continue to enjoy popularity among Bible readers, according to the Association for Christian Retail (CBA) and the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA).

  While the CBA and the ECPA agree on the top-selling three Bible translations for the month of September, the organizations vary on which versions of Christian Scripture rank among the remaining 7 bestsellers.

  According to the CBA, whose rankings are based on sales at member Christian retail stores in the U.S. through Aug. 3, 2013, the top Bible translations are: (1) New International Version; (2) King James Version; (3) New King James Version; (4) English Standard Version; (5) New Living Translation; (6) Holman Christian Standard Bible; (7) New American Standard; (8) Common English Bible; (9) New International Readers Version; (10) Reina Valera 1960.

  The ECPA's list, compiled using adult book sales data from Christian retail stores across the U.S., includes: (1) New International Version; (2) King James Version; (3) New King James Version; (4) New Living Translation; (5) English Standard Version; (6) Reina Valera; (7) New American Standard Bible; (8) New International Reader's Version; (9) The Message; (10) Christian Standard Bible.

  Sales charts from the ECPA going back all the way to January show that the NIV, NLV, KJV and NKJV have consistently wrestled for the top spot among buyers.
• 
  32

  List down all the changes in the new NWT Bible vs the old NWT that has signifance to the JW beliefs

  by UBM101 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  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.
• 
  79

  So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be?

  by sir82 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  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.
• 
  79

  So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be?

  by sir82 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  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."
• 
  79

  So how exactly did this "new translation" come to be?

  by sir82 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  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?