what would everyone recomend as far as what bible translation to read instead of the jw new world translation?.
Correction for above post, second paragraph:
Many Bible readers approach Bible purchases with the notion of finding those that agree with their theology.Those with a Catholic tendency, will purchase Catholic versions, while those "Evangelically" inclined, will likely end up with mainly Protestant versions, and so on.
what would everyone recomend as far as what bible translation to read instead of the jw new world translation?.
It all depends on what you are looking for. Looking for a Bible translation to replace the NWT is not necessarily the best approach. The best thinking approach would be of one adding to your knowledge by obtaining additional versions.
Many Bible readers approach Bible purchases with the notion of finding those tThose "Evangelical" inclined, will likely end up with mainly Protestant versions, and so on. The problem with that approach is that the person will be blocking or restricting himself/herself from possible new provoking religious insights from various other sources.
Thus, I recommend to get Bible translations representing various religious persuasions... some Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and yes, the JWs Bible (NWT) kept for study and research purposes. Doing so allows one to keep the mind more open to other views, letting each argument stand on its own, and hence, reducing personal bias as we gain Bible knowledge.
does anyone know for a fact whether the wts released any foreign language editions of either kit 1 or 2?.
such as french or german or spanish?.
I have found the Kingdom Interlinear and the one Bobcat recommended above, i.e. the Word Study Greek-English NT Interlinear (Paul R. McReynolds) the two most useful interlinears on the market. The others don't come close to this two.
I personally see an edge in the translated text itself of the KIT, but an edge in total usefulness for the McReynolds Interlinear, mainly because the English words in the Interlinear are coded to Strong numbers and other Bible aids are linked to the Concordance in the second half-portion of the book. The Concordance is very useful to the Bible student. For those comtemplating buying another interlinear, save your money. These two are it.
I don't recommend the Mounce Interlinear because of its awkwardness. The Concordant Greek Text translation is good overall, but not easy to use. Marshall's Translation surprises in some places. The Diaglott is good too, but the readability is poor. The only other Interlinear worth mentioning here, is The Apostolic Bible Polyglot, mainly because other Bible aids are published in line with it (Index and Concordance), and is the only Septuagint Interlinear available. With the Polyglot you get both the NT and OT Greek Text in One Volume...nice!
Comfort's; George Ricker Berry's; Jay P. Green's and Newberry's are of little use if you have the above recommended ones. I find them run-of-the-mill interlinears. They don't stand out in any major way.
does anyone know for a fact whether the wts released any foreign language editions of either kit 1 or 2?.
such as french or german or spanish?.
No, the WTS have not produced any foreign language editions of their KIT translation, nor are they likely to do so. That has never been a priority for them.
Heck, even finding the English edition is a challenge nowadays.
The KIT was published back then, seemingly for two reasons. First, Fred Franz, the supposed translator of the NWT, loved the subject, and was instrumental in having the WTS publish his KIT work. Secondly, during the 1950's and 1960's, the Society was more likely to respond directly to criticism of their translation and its doctrinal stand, than they are now. (Witness the early WT responses to NWT criticism in 1950 WT magazines. More recently they have allowed some knowledgeable Witnesses do the "dirty" work for them...aka, Stafford and Furuli.)
With that in mind, the WTS found fitting to produce the Greek-English Interlinear as a way to show the world, that they had the knowledge and necessary grasp to delve into the Greek Text, as well as anyone out-there. At the same time, for those within the WTS itching to find a substantive reference work based on the original, it was alluring.
A short conversation with the late Albert Shroeder confirmed that the KIT served its purpose, and that producing a counterpart Hebrew-English Interlinear was not as essential (it was not as imperative since the OT did not nearly pose the same doctrinal challenges to justify the total expense).
in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.
concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .
to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .
Bobcat:
That is an interesting comment!
Perhaps in line with your observation, you may find the following comment taken from the footnote of a prestigious Catholic Bible printed in Spain thought-provoking:
(Translation), "TODAY: more than a strict chronological indication (‘in these twenty-four hours’), although that meaning is not excluded, is the time of salvation, inaugurated by Jesus: ‘You don't have to wait. You're there, from now on.’” (Sagrada Biblia, by Santiago-Iglesias)
And a further comment from Dr. George M. Lamsa:
"According to the Aramaic manner of speech, the emphasis in this text is on the word ‘today' and should read, ‘Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.' . . . This is a characteristic of Oriental speech implying that the promise was made on a certain day and would surely be kept." (Gospel Light from Aramaic on the Teachings of Jesus)
in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.
concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .
to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } -->
Questions from Luke's account surrounding ch. 23:43:
What is the meaning of “Paradise”?
If the evildoer was a Jew, what understanding would he likely have of the word “Paradise”?
What would this criminal believe about the “kingdom” (“kingly glory”) of Jesus? Or, “the kingdom of God,” to have such longing to be with Jesus, and to ask to be ‘remembered’ at such time?
If Jesus was ‘dead’ for the part of three days, where then, was this criminal during that time?
If we accept the traditional rendering of Luke 23:43, are we then to understand that Jesus did not really “die,” but was in circulation (in spirit) somewhere (in a mystical “paradise”) with this criminal in company awaiting to be resurrected on the third day?
If Jesus and the criminal were ‘the very same day) taken to “Paradise,” how can we explain the “kingdom” of Jesus, “the kingdom of God”?
Jesus' disciples asked him (Acts1:6; many days after the resurrection of Jesus), if he was restoring the kingdom of Israel at that time. Now, if the malefactor fulfilled his wish of entering “Paradise” on ‘the very same day’ of Jesus death, then, it would mean that this criminal preceded those “faithful” and “loyal” disciples of Jesus to the kingdom.
Am I confused? Are these questions silly?
slimboyfat:
I tend to agree with you that Stafford is correct in pointing out that the dozens of examples (of, “Truly, I say to you”) provided by some websites are irrelevant to Luke 23:43. They do not have the word “today” in their statements. Given that ancient manuscripts did not have punctuation, the footnote of Lamsa is truly correct: “Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today.” So the underlined comment of The Analytical-Literal Translation of the NT ("There is really no reason to place the comma after ‘today’- unless someone is trying to uphold their pre-conceived theology." is a case of special pleading, and it would equally apply to him. (Underline added)
Context, then, is the strongest force for the appropriate translation of Luke 23:43. Ludwig Reinhardt disagrees with the Alt translator by saying: “The punctuation presently used [by most translators] in this verse is undoubtedly false and contradictory to the entire way of thinking of Christ and the evildoer. . . . [Christ] certainly did not understand paradise to be a subdivision of the realm of the dead, but rather the restoration of a paradise on earth.” (Protestant)
The Clear Word translator also disagrees: “I promise you today that when I set up My kingdom, you will be there.”
The Spanish Nueva Reina-Valera 2000 takes on orthodoxy as well : “Te aseguro hoy, estarás conmigo en el paraíso”. [Translation: “I assure you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”] There are other versions as well going against tradition.
i would love to be able to show them to my husband so he can check them for himself since he thinks the only changes made were that the nwt is in a "modern language" he gets quite upset with me when he tells me he has read the bible front to back several times and i say "yes you have, but the bible you are reading has been changed from what the scriptures in other versions of the bible say" thanks in advance for any help with this.grammy
Narkissos had this to say (11/24/2007): "The looooong lists of NWT "distortions" are usually compiled from the naive perspective of readers who hold some old, "classical" version like the KJV to be "the Bible," period. All changes from there are considered corruptions. From a scholarly standpoint (and leaving stylistic issues aside) they are not necessarily (and, in fact, rarely) so.
As a rule of thumb I would recommend checking every suspected "distortion" against a modern version (like the NRSV or JB). And drop it if you find out that they basically agree: there's usually a fairly good reason (from textual criticism, philology or exegesis) for the change. The resulting list will be much shorter and much better.
Don't take me wrong: I'm not saying the NWT is a good version. But you will find many debatable renderings in all versions, so listing merely debatable renderings in the NWT won't lead you anywhere."
Also, in fairness to fellow readers on this board, it should be noted not everyone succumbs to the notion that the NWT must be the most heretical version of all.
Dr. Alan S. Duthie (Ph.D in linguistics from the University of Manchester) stated:
“It [the NWT] is no more ‘full of heresies’ than any other translation.” (Bible translations and how to choose between them, p. 103)
Fuji and Gala!
Red delicious may taste great if you catch them fresh. However, if you buy them at the supermarket, they don't taste as good. And once you buy them, they have a short life in the fridge.
Fuji and Gala can last weeks even after buying them at the supermarket. I would have to try Pink Lady again, after reading the comments here.
One thing though, buying apples in the supermarket is a hit and miss thing. Sometimes, if you are lucky, you get awesome tasting apples from the market, other times, apples taste bland and hollow. Personally, I stay away from Red delicious from the s.market.
By the way, for those of you who enjoy apple juice in the bottle, make sure you get apple juice (NOT from concentrate) with just, apple and vitamin C as preservative. Make sure water is not listed. Otherwise you end up paying for water over apple juice as a second or third constituent.
"how to shit in the woods" ... this is actually a book title sold by the thousands, no, by the millions.
yep, over 2.5 million copies of the book have been sold, and the author is a woman (kathleen meyer).. now, if you are a man, do you feel comfortable with a woman telling you "how to shit in the woods"?
this book is in its third edition, in 8 languages to boot.
"How to Shit in the Woods" ... this is actually a book title sold by the thousands, no, by the millions.
Yep, over 2.5 million copies of the book have been sold, and the author is a woman (Kathleen Meyer).
Now, if you are a man, do you feel comfortable with a woman telling you "how to shit in the woods"?
This book is in its third edition, in 8 languages to boot. It is sold in Amazon, Books-A-Million, etc.
I never imagined a book with such title would sell in the millions. I am intrigued that a woman is bold enough to publish such book. Well, maybe not. Men could learn a lot of things from women. But still, what expertise does this woman bring to the table in the "elimination" department?
For more information: http://www.randomhouse.com/book/202954/how-to-shit-in-the-woods-3rd-edition-by-kathleen-meyer/
Do any of you own this book?
(the watchtower, 11/1/1990, p.25, par.
-the watchtower 1/15/2011, p.4, par.
-the watchtower 12/15/2007, p.14, par.
Darth Rutherford:
I appreciate the time and effort you put on this. I saved it.
Thanks!
