cappytan: "Are they really doing a revised version of the New World Translation?"
No, the WTS already did the revision in 2013. This is a Study Bible, a supplemental edition.
i just noticed in the jw.org site that the watchtower society recently published online the first book of the study bible (matthew), a new edition of the nwt bible.
so far, i'm seeing an overview of the book considered, and explanations of various verses of each chapter throughout.
it is not a full commentary.
cappytan: "Are they really doing a revised version of the New World Translation?"
No, the WTS already did the revision in 2013. This is a Study Bible, a supplemental edition.
i just noticed in the jw.org site that the watchtower society recently published online the first book of the study bible (matthew), a new edition of the nwt bible.
so far, i'm seeing an overview of the book considered, and explanations of various verses of each chapter throughout.
it is not a full commentary.
i just noticed in the jw.org site that the watchtower society recently published online the first book of the study bible (matthew), a new edition of the nwt bible.
so far, i'm seeing an overview of the book considered, and explanations of various verses of each chapter throughout.
it is not a full commentary.
I just noticed in the jw.org site that the Watchtower Society recently published online the first book of the Study Bible (Matthew), a new edition of the NWT Bible.
So far, I'm seeing an Overview of the book considered, and explanations of various verses of each chapter throughout. It is not a full commentary. There are no maps shown yet in the Bible. That may be forthcoming. It is therefore a work in progress.
Also, I am disappointed that the Society sort of butchered the included Kingdom Interlinear in the Online Library. I am not speaking of the translation itself which is perhaps the same good one found in printed editions of the book. I am referring to the lack of adequate spacing between English glosses found above the Greek line. The printed editions were a model to follow, not so with the Online Edition. I wonder who was responsible for messing this up so badly. Shame on you Watchtower! Fix this up! Bring it to the excellent level of printed editions.
hi this is for the lurkers.. please start reading from another translation and use tools like www.biblehub.com to verify the differences you find.. biblehub has an interlinear and a strongs concordance and heaps of dictionaries and commentaries.. you don't have to be a translator but you can clearly see how the watchtower bible and tract society has changed the bible to devalue jesus, to support their idea of a paradise earth hope for christians and many other false doctrines.. i could never understand why the jw's where attacked when they chose to translate the bible - now i know.. seriously people, there are a lot smarter people than me on this forum and heaps of research.
.
don't be afraid of the truth!.
Dumplin said:
No one in their right mind would trust the New World Translation - simply because of the deceptive nature of Jws. [...] Also, an interesting observation by Dr. Bruce Metzer of Princeton University: "if JWs take this translation [of John 1.1] serious, they are polytheists."
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { }
Of the Hebrew king being called Elohim (God) at Psalm 45:7 the New American Bible, St Joseph Edition, 1970, interestingly explains in a footnote: “The Hebrew king was called Elohim, ‘God,’ not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient pagans but as meaning ‘godlike’ or ‘taking the place of God’.”
Could the same thing be said of Jesus Christ described as theos (God or a god) at John 1.1?
hi this is for the lurkers.. please start reading from another translation and use tools like www.biblehub.com to verify the differences you find.. biblehub has an interlinear and a strongs concordance and heaps of dictionaries and commentaries.. you don't have to be a translator but you can clearly see how the watchtower bible and tract society has changed the bible to devalue jesus, to support their idea of a paradise earth hope for christians and many other false doctrines.. i could never understand why the jw's where attacked when they chose to translate the bible - now i know.. seriously people, there are a lot smarter people than me on this forum and heaps of research.
.
don't be afraid of the truth!.
Some comments on this post are valid, others not so much.
Yes, the WT is guilty of taking the role of mediatorship that belongs only to Christ. (John 14.6) At times, some renderings in the NWT describing the role of Jesus Christ are sadly weakened, compared to other translations that seek to bolster Christ's deity.
Other times, apparent errors are called out against the NWT when other versions strangely don't get the same criticisms even when they render similarly to the NWT.
Someone pointed out that Heb. 13.17 ("obedient") is one example of NWT not adhering to the Greek original. However, Greek words, as is true of words in other languages may have different meanings or nuances in different contexts. Such is the case of the word "peithō" (convince, persuade) found in Heb 13.17. The Greek verb here is the imperative passive followed by the dative, a construction which can be understood to mean as one of its meanings: "Be obedient to..." So says the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: "(c) obey, follow, with the dative of person or thing (HE 13.17)." Digging a little will show that many other translators render the phrase just as the NWT does... ASV, Darby, ESV, Mounce, etc.
Another poster brought up that Dr. Trevor Allin (Baptist) questioned Dr. BeDuhn's credentials. What is the purpose of this? To prove that BeDuhn was incompetent in his review of the NWT? The truth is that Allin was not fair to BeDuhn in his lengthy article, nor was his criticism based on a balanced presentation of facts.
does the new world translation ever reference the holy spirit as a "him"?
if not, does it refer to it as an "it"?.
thanks!.
Personification is quite common in Scripture.
In this case it was a specially comforting to Jesus' disciples to have the assurance from Christ himself that, although he would be physically absent from then on, the holy spirit would in turn, be certainly with them through all the impending trials as if it were a person. Hence, the masculine pronouns in the figure of speech. Elsewhere, for the most part, masculine pronouns are avoided.
Jesus himself made clear that he was using a comparison. Actually, it was his practice to speak in analogies. Jesus said the following a few verses after the "Helper" reference of John ch. 16: "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language..." (Verse 25, NKJV. Italics added.)
interesting article.
http://doctrinesoffaith.com/more-errors-in-jehovahs-witness-new-world-translation-bible/.
more intentional repeated errors in new world translation bible: a study on apostates.
Usually the English word "apostasy" is related to the Hebrew word "meshuvah," not "chaneph."
The WT Society is apparently basing their English choice of "apostate" on the suggestions posted by Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti, by Koehler/Baumgartner (Page 317).
In this Lexicon, they indicate the following relation to "chaneph" by defining it:
"be polluted, be inclined away from the right relation to God."
"pollute" .... lead to apostasy... alienated from God."
The Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon defines the adjective as "profane, irreligious...oft. heathen, apostate." As a substantive: "godless man."
Also, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines the word as:
"be defiled, polluted, profaned, corrupt."
"The core notion is of inclining away from right..."
"The adjective denotes a godless man, a man who forgets God (Job 8:13) and lives in opposition to all that is right..." (Vol 1, p. 695)
Therefore, the notion that "chaneph" can include the meaning of "apostasy" in some contexts seems possible. However, that does not mean necessarily that the NWT is justified to replace "godless" or "hypocrite" with this word. The Society appears to be pushing the pencil here in order to justify their repeated warnings to active JWs to stay away from "apostates."
i noticed this verse the other night and thought it looked so obviously ridiculously provably untrue that there must be something more to it.
surely even a bible writer must understand that desalination isn't witchcraft?.
new american standard bible:"nor can salt water produce fresh.".
88JM said: "It seems that the NWT and RNWT butcher the translation though (the New American Standard Bible also looks bad)." (Underline added)
‘Butcher’? Isn't that a hasty assumption?
The WH/Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek texts literally say: "Neither salt sweet to make water."
The Greek Byzantine text has this reading: "So no spring yields both salt water and fresh."
NWT (2013 REVISION): "Neither can salt water produce fresh water."
NWT (1984 EDITION): "Neither can salt water produce sweet water."
Darby Translation: "Neither [can] salt [water] make sweet water." (Brackets his.)
ASV: "Neither can salt water yield sweet."
Orthodox Jewish Bible: "Neither can salt water yield sweet water.."
Robert H. Gundry: "Nor [can] salty [water] make water sweet, [can it]?" (Brackets his.)
Williams NT: "And a salt spring cannot furnish fresh water."
Christian Community Bible: "Neither is the sea able to give fresh water."
Kenneth Wuest Translation: "Neither is salt water able to produce sweet water."
the wt study 4/5/15 quotes from the new interpreter's dictionary of the bible.
the quote is "things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest.
" it is located in paragraph 6 on page 29. .
Bobcat:
I just received the 5 Volume set of The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible on Saturday. I haven't had time to go over it, but the cost of the set was only $80 on sale at Cokesbury.com. I found that to be a "must-buy" purchase. This set normally costs upwards of $300 as listed by book vendors.
This work is published by Abingdon Press, The United Methodist Publishing House. However, they state the following in the ‘Preface’:
"The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible contributors [of 8,400 entries] number approximately 900 women and men in more than 40 different countries from Australia to Africa, from the Americas to Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Chosen for their scholarly expertise and publication in the areas of their articles, they are identified with Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, and many different Protestant traditions; they range in personal commitment from conservative to liberal and come from many racial/ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The wide scope of the contributors' contexts reflects the global scope of biblical scholarship of the 21st cent."
This set seems to be a good addition to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia for thorough research. If you can find it for $100 or less, the better.
the wt study 4/5/15 quotes from the new interpreter's dictionary of the bible.
the quote is "things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest.
" it is located in paragraph 6 on page 29. .
Bobcat:
The Watchtower, January 15, 2015 issue (p. 29, par. 6), briefly quotes The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. As you know, the WT does not quote the full sentence, nor gives the context behind the quoted words. There is interestingly, a Section A with the subtitle, "Authorship, Date, Reading," which the Society did not touch.
However, the quoted words do appear on page 349, under Section "B. Poetry of Love." This is what it says (full paragraph):
The love story that is the Song is, in point of fact, not a story at all, or at least it is not told as a story--though that story, the story of the love between an unnamed boy and a girl who only belatedly gets called ‘the Shulammite’ (6:13 [Heb. 7:1]), most assuredly lies in the background of the poems that make up the Song. But the poems themselves are lyric poems, where things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest, and if they occur at all are deployed, ultimately, to specifically lyric ends. The poems of the Song literally sing about love and its ‘many splendored’ affects, good and not so good, in a non-narrative kind of verse that poets East and West have been composing for millennia. Without the cohering effects of plot, character, and the like, lyric verse is dependent almost exclusively on language to carry out its fiction. Play, puns and euphony pervade the Song. Song 1:6 offers a paradigm example. The girlfriends (literally, the daughters of Jerusalem, 1:5) are implored not to ‘gaze at’ the girl's black skin that has been ‘gazed’ upon by the sun. The Shulammite explains her exposure to the hot Mediterranean sun as a consequence of her brothers' anger that prompted them to set her as a ‘guard’ in the vineyards. The phrase ‘they were angry with me’ may also be read as ‘they burned against me,’ playing on the scorching look of the sun that burns the skin. And the verse ends by playing on the literal and figurative meanings of ‘vineyard’ in the Song. The vineyard, garden or field is the conventional locale of lovemaking in the Song (and thoroughout ANE [Ancient Near East] love poetry). In the Song, however, the vineyard (or garden) is also used as a figure for the girl herself (especially 4:12--5:1; 6:2). It is the latter on which the final line in 1:6 turns: if she was set to ‘guard’ the family's literal ‘vineyards,’ her own more figurative ‘vineyard’ she has not ‘guarded’--this last bit said, no doubt, as a happy boast, which also suggests that the exclamation in 1:5 ("I am black and beautiful") is in no way demuring.