Posts by Wonderment

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

TTWSYF: ¨The NWT and the RNWT are laughable translations. No one, and I mean NO Scholar or professor of biblical languages considers the NWT or RNWT translations as a legit translation or an accurate body of work.

Anytime you do an online search a list of accurate translations, you NEVER see the NWT. Does anyone really wonder why?¨

I take the above as an opinion, not a fact. The truth is that the NWT may be ‘laughed at’ by the majority of scholarly institutions, but not all. Through the years, a number of recognized scholars have said some good things about the NWT where they recognize some of its merits. Do a further research, and you will see. Some even have recommended the NWT to their readers, like Alan S. Duthie. This guy has more linguistic belts holding his pants than most others leading the NWT criticism parade.

But expecting the religious world led by Catholics and Protestants to honor the NWT translation is like asking the Pope to leave the Vatican so he can help improve the NWT or Mormomś cause. Itś not going to happen.

Looking at the majority of the world to support our own personal views for what is right may not be the correct approach. One way to look at this, is to think for a moment what it would be like living in the First-Century. In what camp would we have fallen? In the heavy-trained world of Pharisees, Saduccees, and Greek philosophers who loved to argue, despising the so-called ignorants of their time, OR, would we be able to see the value and intelligence of lesser-trained individuals who became Christians, which in turn followed a Leader with no worldly training, Jesus Christ? Who was God favoring back then?

I am not suggesting that only a particular group today has the truth, because I do not believe so, but only suggesting that worldly standards is no guarantee of rightness. A quality publication can be accomplished without the approval of professors.

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

Wonderment

dabster: "I'm no Greek scholar or New Testament text critic but understand the ESV to be very faithful to the original texts and very readable"

I do like the ESV, but all the Bible versions disappoint somehow, somewhere. That includes the ESV and the NWT. The ESV is committed to orthodox evangelicals. So like the NWT, they started their translation work somewhat biased, though that may be true of all translation efforts.

Take a look at John 1:18, "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."

"the only God" is a translation of μονογενὴς Θεὸς (monogen ē s Theós). If you look closely, you will see that the ESV did not translate the second part of the compound word mono-gen ē s. How accurate is that? Other versions have done better here: "the only-begotten God."

Since the translators wanted to please their target audience, they opted not to display the gen ē s part of the word. Since, the meaning of this part is controversial within the trinitarian community, whether it means "begotten" or "one of a kind," they chose to play coward with it, and not disturb the evangelical faithful with a bold rendering. Is this then the most "faithful" of recent efforts? Not quite! Most translations yield to the fear of men.

48

Posters do you know of any cases where a devout JW was DF'd for Lesbianism?

by booker-t in

i think this is a hush hush topic among jws but i remember years ago at an assembly i saw two sisters(i am only assuming they were jws they could have been studies or relatives of jws) walking arm and arm like a married couple.

some of the jws looked at them like they had horns.

some of the jws moms were covering their small children's eyes and those two women were stared at like they had the plague.

Wonderment

There was this case where the husband (Elder) showed up unexpectedly from work, and caught his lovely wife having sex with a sister from their congregation. She was disfellowshipped.

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

Wonderment

Crazyguy: "The greek text at Rev. 5:10 says that that they are to Riegn as priests on the earth, no mention of them being kings and not over the earth but on it."

You may be correct or not to suspect that the WT understanding of this text is faulty. I am not going to debate the interpretation of it.

However, your comments about the NWT being not accurate in translation here is left wanting.

You say, "no mention of them being kings."

It all depends on how the translator wants to go about it. The Greek word in KIT for "they are to rule as kings" is "basileúousin," a present active indicative verb form of "basileu ō," which mean: "I reign over" or "I rule as king." The word for "king" in the Greek text is "basileús." One can see that "basileús" and "basileúousin" are closely related. This means that the NWT did not err by using the word "kings" in the expression. If you were to check other Bible versions, you would find that some others do the same. But you are targeting just the NWT. Why?

Concerning the rendering "over" and not "on" the earth as most other versions do, a fact is that prepositions have a lot more leeway in translation that some believe. True, the preposition "epí" in Rev. 5.10 means generally "on" or "upon" the earth with an enfasis ‘on contact’ as many versions reflect, but it is also true that "epí" can mean "over." If you look at the diagram of prepositions in the KIT, you will notice that "epí" is resting on the oval depiction. You will see that "epí" is not only making contact with the oval, but at the same time the sense of "over" the oval form is clearly visible.

So, it all depends on the angle the translator is seeing in the action. That "epí" can also mean "over" in the genitive (the form found in KIT), I refer you to The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Frederick Danker which states: "[epí] prep., expressing the idea of ‘hovering’, with gen., dat., or acc. [...] --a. w. gen. on, over... By extension, of authority or control understood as ‘over’ someth.... [...] (In ref. to location fo a biblical passage by story content); before, in the presence of ..."

Conclusion: The alleged inaccuracy of the NWT in Rev. 5.10 on grammar grounds cannot stand under scrutiny. Better stay with the interpretation angle if you want to make sense. It's hard to argue against faulty interpretation.

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

Wonderment

Crazyguy: "Rev. 5:10 in their bible compared to what the greek interliner says proves to me with out a doubt that the GB could care less about accuracy!!"

Could you be more specific?

9

Even my 6-year old son can recognize TRASH when he sees it. He threw a NWT into the public garbage can! Yay!

by Faithful Witness in

we were out walking in a small michigan community this weekend.

we came across a "free lending library" on the street corner.

the sign said, "take a book, leave a book, or do both!

Wonderment

DATA-DOG: "There are bibles that have been translated without as much bias as the NWT."

Such as?

19

Another bible contradiction about Jesus being king or what???

by Crazyguy in

the lies of the org continue, i was reading revelation and i came accross rev 19:6 in their bible and its states "and i heard a loud voice of a great crowd and as a sound of many waters and as a sound of heavy thunders.

they said: praise jah, you people, because jehovah our god, the almighty has begun to rule as king.

" then my first thought, what does it acctually say in their greek interlinear because at rev.

Wonderment

The aorist tense (in Rev 19.6) is the most peculiar to Greek idiom. It is the indefinite tense (aóristos, unlimited, undefined). It has no essential temporal significance, only in the indicative does it have a time relation, usually indicating a past action, but not always. The aorist views an action as a single whole, but may contemplate it from different angles. The aorist states the fact of an occurring action with little or no emphasis on time or duration. This means, that trying to put the blame on a translator for relying on his interpretation in rendering the tense would be like trying to define the indefinite aorist with a fixed meaning to be applied at all times, an impossibility.

Grammarians Dana and Mantey wrote: "Robertson [notable grammarian] calls attention to the difficulty of obtaining an accurate translation of the aorist. To attempt to translate it invariably by the simple past of the English would, in the majority of cases, do violence to the real shade of meaning intended to be conveyed. We should take into consideration the significance of the tense, find its relation to the context, consider the nature of the verbal idea, decide upon the resultant meaning, and select the English idiom which will most nearly represent the meaning. Probably in no point have translators made more blunders than they have in rendering the aorist."

Bart Belteshassur said: "It is interesting to note that JW.Org changed the meaning of Luke 10:18." At that he said to them, ‘I began to behold Satan already fallen like lightening from heaven’ (old NWT) and ‘ ........I see Satan already fallen......from heaven.’" (new NWT). Both of these translations are wrong for the same reason and in this case the action of falling from heaven is complete not ongoing."

The ESV Study Bible comments on this verse: "It is not clear whether Jesus is speaking of a vision by which he saw something in the spiritual realm or if this simply a graphic declaration of what has been happening, but in either case Jesus indicates that Satan's authority and power over people has been decisively broken."

Although the imperfect tense used here ("I was watching Satan fall") is normally associated with the past, context has to be taken into consideration for the final rendering choice, as the ESV Committee suggested that the passage was not all that clear. Allowing the possibility of a vision here can justify the NWT translation reading. Jesus' reply that he saw Satan fall has been viewed several ways. One explanation of various given, is that Jesus may have been saying he saw the casting out of demons by the Seventy as the beginning of the ultimate defeat of Satan himself.

One use of the imperfect was used by the early editions of the NWT, where, in relation to the past, placed emphasis in the beginning of the action (which grammarians call - ingressive, inceptive). One feature of the imperfect denotes an incomplete action, as ongoing, that is, it excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained. This does not mean that the NWT is correct in their interpretation, but they present one option of various explanations. In Greek, the principal tense to express completeness is the perfect tense. This is the reason that a perfect was not used at John 8.58, rather a Greek present tense was used to indicate Jesus' existence from an undefined past to the present ("I have been"). Hence, the action was not completed at the time of Jesus speaking, it was still going on.

We should keep in mind that the Greek language does not place emphasis on temporal significance, but in the kind of action. This is its fundamental significance.

52

Colossians 1:15-16 and the word "other"

by yogosans14 in

"he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.

all [other] things have been created through him and for him.

" (col. 1:15-17, for context.

Wonderment

yogosans14: "Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created," and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians."

The Greek word for "first-created" was not in popular use until after the first century, and when it did become popular, people used both "firstborn" and "first-created" interchangeably to refer to the same thing. Besides, existing biblical words such a"birth" were often connected to the idea of creation. Thus, the term first-created was not required biblically to express the concept that Jesus was created.

yogosans14: "That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh ( John 1:1,14 ) and is also the first born son of Mary."

This statement reflects personal interpretation, not an actual biblical statement. The Word was the one who became flesh. Not God!

yogosans14: "Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family ( Luke 2:7 ), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20 , 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him . . . I also shall make him My first-born." (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family, was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence."

If "firstborn" meant preeminence based of Psal 89.20, would this indicate David was only preeminent, and never born? If one takes a look at a Concordance for the original words for "firstborn," do we find the meaning of preeminence throughout? We don't! What is the customary meaning of firstborn in the Bible? Jesus was ‘the firstborn of the dead.’ If Jesus was being described as preeminent of the dead, would the description rule out the fact that Christ never died?

As to the meaning of "panta" in relation to Christ, Paul defined the word in 1 Cor. 15.27 in a way that God was cleary excluded from the description in the text. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh wait, Trinitarians don't like simple biblical statements. They yearn for the mysterious over simplicity. Who can compete with a "mystery"? Or a "philosophy"?

29

Exodus 24:10 - The Israelites saw Jehovah? Has this scripture ever been explained?

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

has anyone really pondered what this means?

jehovah said that no man can see god and live, and here at least 70 people saw jehovah standing on a bright blue pavement.

24 then the lord said to moses, come up to the lord , you and aaron, nadab and abihu, and seventy of the elders of israel.

Wonderment

Gleason L. Archer Jr., Ph.D. explains:

"Only a symbolic representation was beheld by Moses and his companions upon this occasion, as is later made clear by Num. 12:8 where Yahweh states, ‘With him Moses, I speak mouth to mouth ... and he beholds the form (temunah -- as used in the second commandment, where it is translated as ‘likeness’). That means that those who ‘saw’ God on these various occasions saw a form, or resemblance, such as is described in Rev. 4:3 ... Representations of God were granted to prophets like Isaiah (ch. 6) and Ezequiel (1:26), but never did they gaze upon his essence." (TCBL)

13

Colossians 1:15,16 all (other) things

by truthwillsetyoufree in

this thread isn't meant to go into discussing how deceptive the society has been over the translation of this passage of scripture as that has been done many times on here.

what i want to know is this - the society has inserted the word other in the collosions verses and the one in philippians (above every (other) name).

they've done this for doctrinal matters.

Wonderment

truthshallsetyoufree:

Bobcat is correct in his comments.

You may find a more detailed answer below:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/209607822/Colossians-1-16-Is-the-translation-all-other-things-appropriate