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

  Slight correction for previous post:

  At Gen. 1:2 The Clear Word renders the verse: "But the Holy Spirit was there watching over it," instead of the more accurate: ‘God's spirit was moving about over the waters.’
• 
  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

  Phizzy:

  Just about all bible translators take some liberties while doing translation work. Some of these liberties are the result of tradition, so the translator may not realize at times how his translation choices are pulling away from the original text. (Yes Terry, I am aware we don't have the original writings, but copies.)

  Take for instance, the Concordant Greek Text, which is perhaps the most literally basic translation out there, even more so than KIT. The author is a serious translator which tries so hard to give you the basic meaning of each word. However, others have pointed out online that his beliefs have crept into the translated text in some places. Would I call him dishonest? Not at all. There is no absolute way to translate, and not err while interpreting some parts of the Bible.

  All bible translators add or do away with some words. That too is almost impossible to avoid. To illustrate, translating Tarzan's famous phrase, "Me Tarzan, You Jane," to another language would force a translator to decide whether to communicate word for word, say in Spanish, "Yo Tarzán, tú Jane." Or simplify it further and smooth it out to, "Yo soy Tarzán, y tu eres Jane." One can go even further and add a word or two to that without changing the intended meaning: "Yo me llamo Tarzán, y tu te llamas Jane." And we haven't talked about changing Jane's name to "Juana" or some other form. Take your pick! The same thing happens when translating from Hebrew or Greek. There are choices.

  The impression of some here is that the NWT is the number one version in altering the original text. Not really. It just appears so, because the NWT represents a minority in interpretation. But if you were to ask a resident of Israel which version is the least accurate, you may be surprised of the answer. It may not be the NWT. We have "hell" for Gehenna in English versions, cross for stake, Lord for Yahweh, the abuse of the article with "holy spirit" where is uncalled for, using capitals for holy spirit, and so on.

  And then, you have deliberate additions or omissions. I will give you an example. The translator of The Clear Word, a trinitarian, removed the statement at John 14:28 where Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I." Or, at Gen. 1:2 where he renders the verse: "But the Holy Spirit was watching over it." Check the Hebrew! Nowhere does it say the Holy Spirit was watching anything. But have you heard dissenchanted JWs in this forum attack those mishaps? No, they are too busy looking for NWT errors, that they don't even see when someone else does it.

  I could go on and perhaps list hundreds of similar twistings in mainstream versions as well. The point is, all bible versions fall short in the translation process somewhere. But in truth, most bible versions are worth to have around, if one can afford them. I appreciate The Clear Word effort, even with those shortcomings. I also like to use a variety of Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish versions. And needless to say, I like the NWT and the KIT as well.
• 
  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:

  Try the Interlinear at biblehub.com, or The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament for a start.
• 
  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

  DATA-DOG:

  I agree with your assesment for the most part. Well put!

  However, my observation about not bracketing added words to the text still stands. If it's wrong for the NWT to do so, then it is equally wrong for other bible translators to do so as well.

  I am not condoning the NWT new practice, but some here are quick to condemn the NWT when others do the same thing, or worse, and get away with it, just because there a feeling among ex-JWs that the WTS has to be wrong, and everyone else must be right. I am looking at the "fairness" issue with this comment.
• 
  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.