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.

Wonderment

HowTheBibleWasCreated:

I will briefly address the issues I was able to grab (The others were not clear to me).

John 8:58 as it's rendered in NWT is not a biased translation. It responds to both Greek and English idiom.

For example: Genesis 31:38 literally says in Greek LXX (Jacob to Laban): "These mine twenty years I am with you." How would an English speaker render those words into English?

John 8:58 has a similar Greek construction. In Ge 31.38, Jacob's statement contains an expression of past implications (These twenty years of mine). So when Jacob in LXX adds "I am," the translator would have to take into account the present verb used (I am) combined with words of action that began in the past. Charles Thomson dealt with this Greek construction this way: "These twenty years that I have been with thee." Thomson was correct in doing this.

An English speaker cannot properly use a present verb to convey present action having begun in the past. In the Hebrew narrative Jabob's words lack a verb, like this: "This twenty year I with-you."

How do modern translators render this? With an English perfect indicative of course, even though there is no Hebrew verb used. And just as translators normally do with this type of Greek construction. It is at John 8.58 where Trinitarian translators want to handle this construction differently in their obsession to make Christ equal to God. If there is no temporal modifier extending to the past before "I am," then "I am" means "I am."

Which insertations would you condemn? The NWT additions at Colossians 1:16, where they added, other to "all things," Or the one at Col. 1:17, where Trinitarians translators add "else" to "everything else"? (Check ISV; TLB; and CEV)

Genesis 1:2, which rendering is worse for you for the Hebrew w e ru'ach ?

"the breath of God" (Thomson)

"and God's wind" (Common English Bible)

"God's active force" (NWT)

"the power of God" (Good News Bible)

"the rushing-spirit of God" (Fox)

I like all of the above for Ge 1:2.

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:

Actually, I did not say that ESV translated monogenes incorrectly. What I did say is that the ESV translators focused and displayed in English the first part of the compound word mono-genes. The translators may have given the popular trinitarian definition found in trinitarian lexicons, but lexicons do not always show lexical particulars. The ESV translated monogenes as "the only God."

That may be acceptable to Trinitarians, but since the Trinity doctrine was developed after John's writings, one does well to question controversial renderings. The ESV translated like if the original reading was: "ho monos theós." Is this what we find at John 1:18? Please take a look at how monos is applied to God in the next few verses.

"O [Jehovah] our God...you alone [monos] are God" - Is. 37:20, Septuagint.

"Father,....to know thee who alone [monos] art truly God" - John 17:1, 3, NEB.

"from the one who alone [monos] is God" - John 5:44, TEV, cf. NEB, AB.

"he alone [monos] is God" - 1 Tim. 1:17, LB

"to the one only [monos] God" - Jude 1:25, AB, cf. LB.

Now, how should mono-genes be translated? Some Trinitarians avoid the -genes part of the compound. Some may think the -genes part is not necessary to translate the compound word. There may be a doctrinal objection to show a rendering for that part.

Take a look at how the ESV translated a compound word in Matthew 18:9, monó phthalmos = one eye. (mónos & opthalmós). This is in contrast to dúo o phthalm ó s = "two eyes." Yes, this rendering affects no religious doctrine.

Below you will find a list of compound words and their translations. Notice how the second part of the word is not ignored.

m onohḗmeros = one day; a day ( Wisdom of Solomon 5.14, LXX)

monókerōs = one horn ed ; “unicorn” (Job 39.9, ABP, LXX)

monózōnos = one girdle; “a band of troops” (NETS); “ lightly armed ” (2 Samuel 22.30, ABP, LXX.)

Modern Greek :

monokúttaros = one-celled

monódrama = single play, one [person] drama

monóprakto = one-act play

monódromos = one-[way] street

monoet ḗ s = one year

monographía = monograph

monóklino = single-[bed] room

monokommatikós = one party

monópeto = single breasted

monokómmatos = one piece

monóphylos = one-leaf

monochromía = monochrome

monócheiras = one-handed

monóchordos = one-stringed

monosántalos = [wearing] one-sandal

monóstichos = [of] one verse

monótrochos = one-wheeled

It is standard practice to consider the full meaning of Greek compound words.

Many scholars do define monogenes huiós/theós as the "only-begotten Son/God." This way, they are addressing the fact they are in presence of a compound term. Do you not think this affects accuracy?

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

Phizzy: "Jason BeDuhn is right of course that many religions, and others, use selective quoting, but that does not make it ethical."

I agree with you here. But the reason I submitted this quote was to address the charge made by the poster I was addressing that the WT ALWAYS quotes everybody wrong. In this case, Dr. BeDuhn acknowledged he was quoted accurately, with the exception they skipped some parts where the professor felt the NWT was weak. And even that, as Mr. BeDuhn himself pointed out, the practice of selective quoting is not uncommon. Why repeat that?

For the simple reason, that some posters here give the impression tha ONLY the WT do things like this. Like the poster I was addressing which seems to view things: good or evil. The WT is evil. Catholics and Protestants are the good. And that´s where I disagree with those holding such views. I see a problem with the JWs, Catholics and Protestants. Who is better or worst among these groups is not so easy to determine. They all have good and bad.

I dislike, to put it mildly, what the WT have done to my family and exJW friends. Overall, I lost them over two decades ago. Thus, I have suffered the consequences every day of my life since then. In fact, I don´t even know where my daughter lives. Do I think this WT practice is evil? Yes, but no less evil than what Catholics and Protestants have done throughout history. This is a reason why I have avoided going to any church, not because I don't think I could benefit somehow from it, I just lack the incentive to go. The hypocricy of most religious groups is easily evident. I wish we could find a realistic explanation for a lot of things.

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

Correction to my previous post:

The following words are from TTWSYF. Sorry about that, FFtruther144. "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?

See my response in my previous post.

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

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.