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.

You provided three videos for us to watch, and they were interesting, and it points out that the KJV stream may have some readings closer to the original than some thought. However, you did not provide the other side of the coin for the rest of us.

The fact is, that there is a solid reason why many Trinitarian scholars are defending the Wescott & Hort stream of Greek Text. These guys were about the best there could be in their field. More recent Greek Texts are just revised editions to keep up with the latest discoveries, and to have Evangelicals feel a bit more "comfy" on this matter, rather than depend on the scholarship of a couple of Catholic Bishops. Please, don't bring their faulty theological views to the table, which these videos made prominent by attacking the theology and character of these great scholars. We all have personal faults and strange views, including professor Walter Veith, I'm sure.

Professor Veith rejects modern versions on the premise that they are based on fewer manuscripts which God could not have allowed to be hidden for centuries until they were discovered in or prior to the 20th Century. Would this mean that any recent discoveries, even if proven to be ancient, are to be disregarded for the sake that God would have brought them out to public light sooner if it had any worth? The historical transmission of many biblical discoveries disputes such claims.

Furthermore, those making the most noise in objection to WH are conservative Evangelicals who just can't stand that Christ's deity is lessened in the WH Text stream. But what if the Trinity is a false doctrine to begin with? Would this matter? One could tell right from the beginning where Veith was going with these videos when he made the NWT prominent in his onslaught of modern versions deviating from the deity of Christ. He singled out scriptures where the KJV gave Christ more prominence than other modern versions. He mentioned John 1:1... why? .. when it reads the same in both streams of Greek texts. Then he selected 1 John 5:7 as "proof" that the KJV was truth because it showed that Jesus was God. Please! Then he went on to read 1 Tim. 3:16 to prove the same, where the KJV and the likes showed Christ was manifested as "God." Their drive is to defend the Trinity doctrine at any costs. So the KJV wins in his book as the "Word of God." Come on!

The other side of the spectrum is that many Trinitarians would love to see Walter Veith and others with the same theological zeal vindicated, but they see further. They, cannot in good conscience reject the virtues of scholarship and integrity presented by the W&H, even with all its faults. Two prominent scholars who have defended the Trinity vigorously, to the point of denunciating WT theology, still gave preference to the family of manuscripts preferred by WH, were textual critics Bruce M. Metzger, and Philip W. Comfort. This was not done lightly as Walter Veigh implied. This is Philip W. Comfort's conclusion:

"Modern advocates of the superiority of the Majority Text [like the one used in KJV] over other text-types are Hodges and Farstad, who produced The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. Their arguments are more theological than textual. They reason that God would not have allowed a corrupt of inferior text to be found in the majority of manuscripts, while permitting a superior text to be hidden away in a few early manuscripts somewhere in the sands of Egypt. Further, they argue that the church's adoption of the Majority Text was a vindication of its correctness, while the obscurity of the Egyptian text was a sign of its rejection.

"Most contemporary scholars contend that a minority of manuscripts--primarily the earliest ones--preserve the most authentic wording of the text." He then speaks of "the insertion of oral traditions and theological enhancements..." to the Received Text. He adds: "Thus, most scholars see TR [Textus Receptus]" as being the culmination of textual accretions [additions]." His preference, and, Metzger's as well, is thus for the W & Hort Greek Text that Veith is trying hard to erradicate from public conscience.

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

Apognophos:

Very good observations! I liked specially point number # 1 found below:

"1. The Society's self-seclusion from the world of scholarship. The Society would never stoop to discussing their translation at a Bible conference with worldly scholars. Combined with the anonymity of the Translation Committee, this means that outside scholars cannot have a meaningful conversation with the Society on the reasons for their translation choices, nor will a "Watchtower scholar" be contributing any articles to worldly Bible journals."

This reminds me of what actually happened decades ago when "cult expert" Walter Martin, a Baptist, tried to communicate with JWs leaders, 7th Day Adventists and other groups to discuss religious issues which in his religious view they had wrong, but at the same time he was claiming he was open to constructive dialogues, and willing to adjust his personal views on their doctrines.

Guess what happened. The 7th Day Adventists did so with Martin, and Martin toned down his criticisms of them after this encounter. The Adventists were willing to modify some of their views, to the point that Martin from that point on did not consider them the same "cult" they were before.

What about the WT? Not unexpectedly, the WT gave him a cold shoulder. They never reached out to Martin on a personal level. They sent out a written message where they simply told Martin there was nothing constructive to talk about with him, and if there was something he wanted to know specifically about their doctrines all he had to do was to look it up in their publications. Thatś it! Walter Martin was furious with the WT response. Very much like Julius Mantey, another Baptist, who became to despise the WT leaders. The rest is history. These two scholars became the most prominent anti-Watchtower advocates of their time, being quoted the most to this day by not-so-friendly WT opponents.

I am not saying that Martin and Mantey were the most reasonable scholars. They were not. They were highly biased, arrogant, temperamental folks who believed their knowledge levels were above the rest. Still, the WT could have been more humble with these scholars. Give respect where it is due!

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

sunny23: ¨Also the timeline pictures in the very back mentioning 1914 as a "sure" date is real ballsy...and inaccurate.¨

I couldn´t agree more. Publishing the 1914 date this late approaching 100 years of "the last days" in their main translation is a case of special pleading.

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

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.