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.

TTtruther144: "It is not an opinion that no one endorses the NWT, it is a fact. [..] I'm not, nor do I claim to be a scholar, but everytime the WTS quotes a scholar who endorses their version, research shows the scholars quotes were taken out of context....sounds familiar, doesn't it?

A fact? Not sure if I can apply the word ‘endorsement’ when a scholar have something positive to say about a product. That aside, I did mention Alan S. Duthie. I was hoping you would check his credentials. I have his books in my possession, and he did recommend the NWT to his readers. I don't understand why you insist that no scholar ever says anything favorable about the NWT. I wonder how far you have gone with your research.

Another scholar who provided a favorable review of the NWT was Dr. Jason BeDuhn. You say, "everytime the WTS quotes a scholar who endorses their version, research shows the scholars quotes were taken out of context....sounds familiar, doesn't it?" Is that the case always? See for yourself:

A reader asked Dr. Jason BeDuhn if he was quoted fairly by the WTS ( Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1998, p. 32) BeDuhn replied:

“I wrote a letter to the WBTS, thanking them for providing copies of the KIT free of charge to my class. I did this as a gesture of appreciation. I also took the opportunity to praise what I found to be the merits of the book. The sections of my letter quoted in the Watchtower accurately reflect my views. Naturally left out of the article were the few comments I made about individual passages I thought they should reconsider, because I found their translation weak. I personally don't find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones; this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive. [ …] As for the use of [quoting] ‘experts’ -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagrees.” [*In a 1998 letter to G---- T------.])

"

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

FFtruther144: "EVERY bible that is based on their work [Wescott & Hort's] is a pro New World Order bible, period! The evil mis-translation is there, end of story. Sorry, but facts are facts."

Facts are facts. Yes, but in this case, what Walter Veith forwarded in these videos is a slanted presentation of the facts. Veith brought to light some truths (facts) here, no doubt. His position is one of ‘night or day,’ ‘black or white,’ ‘good or evil.’ By your use above of, "The evil mis-translation is there, end of story," I can see that you too see the work of W & H Greek as "evil."

But, things are not as clear cut as you would like to believe. If we look at the whole picture, we are going to find some individual's actions in all three groups of family manuscripts faulty or imperfect. That's because we are imperfect. The imperfections are magnified when we don't agree with someone else's view.

I do not agree with all the known beliefs and actions of Wescott and Hort. Some are weird. Others are downright wrong. However, that does not mean, I can not be helped by their expertise on the subject of biblical manuscripts and their historical transmission. The same with Walter Veith. To be honest, I got this weird impression of this man (Veith) when looking at his videos, at times he looked to me like a circus clown, at other times I wondered if he was capable of abusing an innocent child close by. I still looked at his videos, and I agreed with many of things he was saying. Other times, I felt he was letting emotions getting the best of him. Some of his conclusions were way off.

He stated that a Watchtower translator (unnamed) was given a thick marker to go over the King James (the only Bible) Witnesses had before their own (Not true!), and asked to remove or alter anything that disagreed with the WT doctrine, and that's how the NWT was done. This kind of stament is made by someone foolish who hasn't compared both translated texts with the originals. IF, he had done that sincerely, he would not say such silly comment. Any sincere person who takes the time to do an honest comparison, would see that both translated texts are differently across the board. The translation principles of both committees were a contrast in function. You can make a case the KJV succeeded where the NWT didn't, but that's beside the point. Veith is silly-wrong on this one. He said that Wescott or Hort believed in evolution, I don't. But Wescott & Hort were experts in the field of biblical manuscripts, and Greek, and most of us are not. Moses had killed a man, but later God used him to free his people from bondage in Egypt. So, everything is not black or white, good or evil.

We live in a world where we are forced to make compromises. Not one single man or Bible translation is perfect. Not one Greek Text is perfect, or the people behind them. Since we don't know it all, and we don't have all the answers, it may be prudent to use what's available to us, even if we find a mole along the path in the search for answers to our many questions. I appreciate your expressed view.

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

Oh, I forgot to include the details of the quoted source (Philip W. Comfort):

New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, 2008. Page xxiv of Introduction. Tyndale House Publishers.

I will add that the available streams of manuscripts by groups for the most part agree with each other. One can determine the will of God by using any of the popular Greek texts. I use versions from all three streams of manuscript transmission Walter Veith aluded to. I like the translations within those groups with all their diversity for different reasons.

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

To FFtruther144,

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.