Posts by Wonderment

9

To be "literal" or not in Bible translation

by Wonderment in

some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of bible versions of not sticking to the original scriptures.

a few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary.

the answer is not that simple.

Wonderment

Beth Sarim: Secondly, Revelation is a ''figurative'' book. The 144,000 is symbolic.

Also John1:1. You talk to people who are well versed on the Greek scriptures. Word was ''a'' God. They claim there is no indefinite article ''a''. You start to wonder about the NWT printing of the Bible and it's authenticity.

I agree with you that "Revelation is a '‘figurative'’ book. The 144,000 is symbolic."

On this statement: You talk to people who are well versed on the Greek scriptures. Word was ''a'' God. They claim there is no indefinite article ''a''. You start to wonder about the NWT printing of the Bible and it's authenticity.

The four examples provided at the top show that the process of translation is a compromise. Some interpretation is involved and unavoidable in the job.

Although there is no indefinite article in the Greek, one is often used in English to approximate what the Greek language itself said a long time ago. The WT Society is aware of this. How so? Their modern Greek version (NWT) does not use the indefinite article in John 1.1 because an explicit indefinite article is lacking in the idiom. Some versions of the NWT in other languages may or may not use one either at John 1.1. Various former NWT versions (like the earlier Portuguese edition) added the indefinite article within brackets. The same applies to John 4.19 which has similar grammar to John 1.1, some NWT versions have the indefinite article, others do not. For instance, compare various French and Spanish versions. Although some here take this as evidence of ineptness, it is more of an effort to adapt the idiom to the local language, or to have them read more uniformly from one version to another.

9

To be "literal" or not in Bible translation

by Wonderment in

some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of bible versions of not sticking to the original scriptures.

a few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary.

the answer is not that simple.

Wonderment

cyberjesus: "There are no originals.... So it doesnt matter... All translations are inaccurate"

We are aware there are no "originals," per se. The term is freely used for "copies" available. Those copies have been the source of untold inspiration for millions for centuries.

Vidqun: "These [examples] demonstrate the problem quite well. I personally go for [Formal-Equivalence Translation] translations with lots of footnotes so that I can form a personalized opinion of the text. [Formal-Equivalence Translation] translations often incorporate the understanding of the translator, who might not always be impartial."

I like and use both overall, just as am sure that you do too. Like you, I have a preference for the literal ones for study, but for enjoyable reading it's hard to beat the easy-reading versions. Some of these, albeit eccentric, incorporate fresh readings which challenge established ideas of old. The Message Bible is a fine example of this.

Bobcat: "She [my wife] would have to ask me how the NIV was worded on various verses. In other words, the NIV would tend to always explain a difficult passage in the NWT. But I never noticed the other way around. The NWT was usually too literal (some would say ‘wooden.’"

The NIV has been one of my favorite translations to date. It is remarkably a good compromise between the wooden versions and the paraphrases making their mark. Likewise, the NIV Study Bible is my preferred commentary version of those printed so far.

9

To be "literal" or not in Bible translation

by Wonderment in

some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of bible versions of not sticking to the original scriptures.

a few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary.

the answer is not that simple.

Wonderment

Some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of Bible versions of not sticking to the original Scriptures. A few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary. Others do not believe so. Who is right?

The answer is not that simple. Please feel free to analyze these four samples,and see what to make of these! Comments please!

To be literal or not in Bible translation?

Matt 1.6b (Greek): “David but generated the Solomon out of the* of the Ourios”

*(tēs, article = genitive, singular, feminine)

KIT: “David but generated the Solomon out of the [wife] of Uriah”

Disciples Literal NT: “And David fathered Solomon by the one of Uriah”

NASB” “David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah”

NWTr: “David became father to Solʹo·mon by the wife of U·riʹah”

ESV: “And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah”

NIV: “David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife”

Darby: “And David begat Solomon, of her [that had been the wife] of Urias” (Brackets his.)

Acts 4:23 (Greek): “Having-been-loosed-off but they-came toward the own* and they-reported-back as-much-as toward them the chief-priests and the elders said.”

NWTr: “After being released, they went to their own people and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them”

ESV: “When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them”
NLT: “As soon as they were freed, Peter and John returned to the other believers and told them what the leading priests and elders had said”

NIV: “On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them”

Ex 17.13 (Hebrew): “And-he-overcame Joshua *** Amalek and*** people-of-him by-mouth-of sword.” (*** represents the direct object, normally left untranslated)

NASB: “So Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword”

NWTr: “Thus Joshua defeated Am′a·lek and his people with the sword”

NIV: “So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword”

ESV: “And Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword”

YLT: “and Joshua weakeneth Amalek and his people by the mouth of the sword”

Psalm 73.21 (Hebrew): “For he-was-embittered*, heart-of-me and-kidneys-of-me I-was-pierced” (*he-was-embittered, verb in third person singular masculine gender)

NWT: “For my heart was soured And in my kidneys I was sharply pained”

NWTr: “But my heart was sour, And deep inside I felt sharp pain”

ASV: “For my soul was grieved, And I was pricked in my heart”

ISV: “When I chose to be bitter I was emotionally pained”

NIV: “When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered”

CEV: “Once I was bitter and brokenhearted”

VOICE: “You see, my heart overflowed with bitterness and cynicism; I felt as if someone stabbed me in the back”

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

MercyBrew: Now, the phrase "firstborn of all creation" is not really cast as you posit. To show the fault in your understanding of the phrase, read your meaning into the passage carefully and consider how the conjunction "because" throws a spanner in the works for the interpretation.

This objection is presented quite often in favor of the Trinitarian view. However, not all scholars agree that the conjunction here is significant as you posit. Greg Stafford, to name one mentioned that, "The use of hoti here is simply to introduce an independent sentence, and may not need translating at all." To that effect, he quotes J.C. O'Neill, "The Source of the Christology in Colossians," NTS 26,1980, 90-91.

Also, L.R. Meyer from Fuller Theological Seminary in his Ph.D dissertation maintains that the hoti clause "because by means of him...") and the fact that Christ is said to be "before all things" "unambiguously declare [Christ] to be the preexistent mediator of all creation." He then cites Martin's observation, "If the pre-incarnate Lord was the agent of all creation, and pre-existed before everything, it leads to the conclusion that only God can satisfactorily account for Christ's being." (The Prototokos Title," p. 262)

Thus, what are we to do when scholars present different views on the matter. I liked what you said in your post: "...the issue with the Colossian passage goes beyond grammatical correctness. Context which you alluded to towards the end is the real deciding factor as to the proper translation."

And what does the book of Colossians say of Christ's being in relation to God?

"We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ..." (Col 1.3)

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (Col 1.15)

"He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead" (Col 1.18)

Who raised Christ from the dead?: "God raised him from the dead." (Col 2.12)

"Because God was pleased to have all the fullness to dwell in him." (Col 1.19)

“God wanted his people throughout the world to know the glorious riches of this mystery—which is Christ living in you, giving you the hope of glory.” (Col 1.27)

“God made you alive with Christ.” (Col 2.13)

"Where the Christ is seated at the right hand of God." (Col 3.1)

"...giving thanks to God the Father through him [Christ].” (Col 3.17)

"the secret that God has made known about Christ.” (Col 4.3)

Do any of these Scriptures place Christ as the equal of God? Who is always mentioned first, God, or Christ? Why is Christ always related to second place after God? Not to mention that the "Holy Ghost" is absent for the most part from the frequency list of God and Christ. Why? Out of the two entities frequently mentioned, one could say logically that the one mentioned always on top is the grand creator, not the one below. Does this make sense?

The context of Colossians is of greater weight than the conflicting scholar's views on the matter, and seem to favor by far the Jewish monotheistic view of one God above all, rather than the post-Christian doctrine of the Trinity which brings confusion to the people reading Bible versions which support the dubious dogma. Doesn't it?

Hence, those scholars who say that the conjunction hoti in Colossians is not as significant as others claim, appear to be in a better Scriptural position by supporting biblical declarations about the Christ as stated, and not by the popular convoluted reasonings taught by the present world dominated by God's arch-enemy.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

leaving-quietly: And the 2013 revision injects bias into the book highlights at the beginning of each chapter (for example. referring to the "governing body" in the highlights for Acts.

I agree with you a 100% on that one. Also, they included the date 1914 I think on the back pages. That's an indicator of a "cultish" tendency. Even Fred Franz would probably have objected to those notes within the translation.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

jhine: Paul deliberately made that statement about Christ creating all things that were created to counter the same arguments then that the WT are making now.

Not quite! I think you are looking at this from the mainstream trinitarian angle. Try to look at it from the Judeo-Christian angle.

The "God" of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was the "God" of the Hebrew people. He was acknowledged as the Almighty. Back in the time of the prophets, surrounding nations of Israel worshipped many false gods, idols made by human hands. The Promised Messiah was still in the future as Israel's savior. The Messiah was not seen as a threat to the God of the Hebrews. The Messiah was to be sent by God for a saving purpose, not to take over God's place. When pagan nations challenged the God of the Hebrews, the prophets made clear that their God Jehovah was superior to all the other gods. God "alone" created the heavens and the earth, and everything in it, not the useless pagan idols. The Messiah was not in scope at the time in that sense. Why bring the Messiah into the creative process to complicate things before the pagans. Also, pagan nations worshipped a multiple number of gods, many being triads of gods, unlike the monotheistic Hebrews who only worshipped one God Jehovah.

But as promised, the only hope for Jewish salvation depended on the appearance of the Messiah, which God Almighty had promised through Abraham's descendants.

Thousands of years later, the Messiah shows up as "Jesus" the Savior of the world. However, the Jewish people were long entrenched in the mosaic code of law. To recognize Jesus as the Promised Christ required faith, and trickled revelations from Christ himself, in addition to powerful works by the holy spirit. Even with Jesus' miracles and other displays of God's might, most Jews ignored Christ as their Savior because they were expecting a quick liberation from the Roman forces. Jesus' followers kept the preaching work by spreading strong arguments that Christ was far superior to both the mosaic system and the Greek way of thinking. Greek philosophy was a strong force to be reckoned with, and so many were lured by it.

In that setting, it was convenient to exalt Christ to a degree they had never seen before. Christ was just not any human walking about, he was ‘the only-begotten Son of God.’ In fact, he was there "in the beginning with God [not God]." (John 1.2) Who else could one say that of? No other! Jesus was so "mighty" (divine; a god) that he was described as an "exact replica" of God, as a version described him at Heb. 1.3. He was ‘embodied with divine authority and power.’ (Col 2.9; Acts 10.38) The Greeks were very philosophical on the subject of creation.

Many Greco-Roman philosophers said that all things were held by together by Zeus or by the Logos, divine reason, emphasizing the unity of the cosmos. In Stoic thought, Wisdom existed before all things and through it God created and then shaped the world. Many Jewish writers, including Philo, gave angels a role in creation. In this backdrop of Greek-Judeo-Christian thinking, Paul set out to clear some matters.

Jesus was bigger and higher than any of these attention-grabbers. Imagine their response when Paul told the Greek gentiles that it was through Christ that God created everything. Paul never said that creation came out (Greek: "ex") from Christ as the source. Instead, Paul said that the source of creation was God (Greek: "ex," out of ), and through (Greek: "dia") Christ did all things, visible and invisible. That would put Christ above anything else within their mental comprehension. Paul would never complicate matters further by introducing a mix of "trinitarian" concepts of the gentiles with the recent Judeo-Christian doctrine of Christ being explained as ‘the way to God.’ (John 14.6)

“The Greek phrase through him indicates that the Word was the agent in creation, but at the same time the context clearly implies that God is the ultimate source of creation … Similar expressions are found in Paul's writings and in the Letter to the Hebrews … The Greek text indicates clearly that the Word was the instrument or agency employed by God in the creation.” (A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John, Newman & Nida, p. 10.)

Paul described Christ as seating "at the right hand of God." (Col. 3.1) It would be so strange to have Paul argue that ‘Christ was next to God,’ and at the same time claim that Christ is the Sovereign Creator (as Trinitarians want to believe), when "God" is the one being depicted throughout Colossians, at the center of it all.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

I keep hearing how the NWT is more biased than other versions. All versions of the Bible show personal bias to a certain degree. The amount of bias varies from version to version. I keep seeing lists presented by various posters (of versions that show translators generally agreeing with each other) with the apparent purpose of pointing out how the NWT by being different is wrong.

What the posters don't seem to grasp is that, generally speaking, these versions are Evangelical versions which show a similar pattern in translation practices. They equally show in varying degrees the same Protestant beliefs. The result is like asking 12 ardent JWs to translate the Bible for us, and the likely result of the experiment will produce similar theology and wording throughout. This product cannot logically be used to prove that a single Catholic, Jewish or other version is "biased" compared to the Protestant ones.

Why? Simply because they all have issues. All versions have issues. Just like every individual has personal issues to deal with. The religious groups themselves have issues. Perfection is not found in any individual or group, whether that be a person or a translation product.

Hate can blind us from seeing our imperfect actions and magnify everyone else's faults. Leaving the JW organization have freed us from a harsh religious environment with its slanted view of things. But then, some ex-JWs in their desesperation for religious guidance, seek such from Christendom's cornucopia of religious variance. Having the majority view behind us for support provides reassurance, it seems.

Make no mistake. We have to be just as selective with all the stuff out there just as we had to be with all the weird stuff coming out of New York. We cannot take anything or everything from mainstream churches for granted. Every doctrine should be carefully analyzed for its source. I am not saying doing all this is easy. The process poses a challenge, but quoting 10 experts from one single source does not necessarily prove a point.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

jw-rerite: Concerning the "first born of all creation", the greek word "arche" does not necessarily imply a creation but is related to the position of superiority or "leadership" of Jesus over the creation.

Am I supposed to accept based on your reasoning that "the firstborn from among the dead" meant Jesus was never "dead" That he was just "over" the dead?

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

leaving-quietly: No. Have you? You made some assertions in your OP. I simply stated my viewpoint. No need to attack. My view is simple: If it isn't in the original languages, then insertion is inappropriate. This applies to any translation, NWT or otherwise.

Please be advised that "attack" is not my intention. Sorry if I gave you that impression. But unless someone has done some translation work from one language to another it is difficult for the person to understand that consistent word-for-word translation does not produce the best results. Yes, I have done some translation work, not on the professional level, but enough to tackle lengthy material into another language. When I started, my tendency was to translate word-for-word, and that didn't go too well. With time, I improved the process. Now, when I do translation work for someone, I first try to grasp the goal of the writer, then use his wording as much as possible. But in the end, I have to consider how would someone most naturally say the phrase I'm working on into the target language. The whole adaptive process demands that words be added or removed as needed.

Proverbs and sayings are difficult to translate, since they are often unique in the first language and not in the second. In fact, in some cases, one must adapt the saying by using a totally different one that has the same meaning in the receptor language. Even book and movie titles are frequently changed to a new one which makes more sense in the second language than the original ever could, even when there is a corresponding word for it. Take a look at how the WT Society adapts book titles, for instance, into other languages.

If the translator wants to do justice to the original work, he or she must first consider how literal or free the translation will likely be. I am assuming the translator fully understands the original document. Once started, the translator has to consider if the ongoing work is accurate and sounds completely natural in the second language.

You insist that adding "other" is totally wrong at Col 1.16. To be honest, as you pointed out, it is not required in the translation of the verse. The context already places Christ under God in the epistle. At the same time, it is not absurd to include it. Why? Because Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthian 15.27 that in the meaning of the Greek word pan'ta, "God" was to not to be included in the "all things" being subjected to Christ. Applying his own reasoning at Col. 1.16, Paul could say that "through Christ all things were created." Pan'ta can indeed include the meaning of inclusion or exclusion depending on the context. In other words, God was not to be included in the "all things" subjected to Christ, nor would Paul ever intimate that "God" was created by Christ. The epistle puts God over Christ throughout. This would mean that Christ could be included within the creative acts of God. Just one verse earlier, Paul said that Christ was "the firstborn of all creation." Of the phrase, even the staunch trinitarian Willilam Barclay admitted in his Commentary: "‘If we want to keep both the temporal sense and honour combined we would translate the phrase: ‘He was begotten before all creation.’"

Although many individuals like to poke fun at the WT Society's translation methods, the truth is that the WT corporation has done more translation work through the years than most commercial entities on the planet. And experience still counts!

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

Wonderment

leaving-quietly: What really counts is: what did the original Greek say? If the original Greek did not say it, there is no justification to add it. It is NOT the job of the translator to make the implied something explicit. It IS the job of the translator to translate words. If the word was not there to begin with, then the translator is taking liberties he ought not.

Have you ever tried translating from one language to another? I ask, because I get the impression that the process of translation is foreign to you.

The translation process does involve translating thoughts, not only words. In one language you may say something one way, but when you strive to transfer the statement to another language, you may end up with different words altogether, unless you are satisfied with a wooden senseless rendering. One example -- 1 John 5.19 says in the original: "and the world whole in the wicked is lying." The Kingdom Interlinear Translation adds (one) to that like this: "and the world whole in the wicked (one) is lying." The "(one)" is not explicit but is implied. The NWT refines that literal reading for modern readers this way: "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." Can you blame the translators for that? Not if you seek to make sense from obscure expressions in the original. Back when those writings were made, the projected audience of the writer did not need the extra information. Today we do. If you look that scripture up in the link you mentioned, you will find that other translators have added similar words to capably connect to the modern reader of the intention of the original author. Of course, there are risks in translation work.

Providing a link to Col 1.16 to show that other translators do not add "other" to "all things" does not argue with what I have stated. Sure, those translators chose not to to add "other" in that place, because they are basically "trinitarian" versions. However, they do not hesitate to add it in other places where convenient.