Posts by Wonderment

36

NWT is soooo inaccurate....

by iwasblind in

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!.

Wonderment

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?

36

NWT is soooo inaccurate....

by iwasblind in

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!.

Wonderment

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.

8

Holy Spirit question

by TweetieBird in

does the new world translation ever reference the holy spirit as a "him"?

if not, does it refer to it as an "it"?.

thanks!.

Wonderment

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.)

16

Did Jehovah's Witnesses dishonestly insert the word "Apostate" in their custom version of the Bible

by Watchtower-Free in

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.

Wonderment

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."

11

"Neither can salt water produce fresh water." - James 3:12, RNWT

by 88JM in

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.".

Wonderment

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."

8

Request for Research . . .

by Bobcat in

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. .

Wonderment

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.

8

Request for Research . . .

by Bobcat in

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. .

Wonderment

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.

8

Request for Research . . .

by Bobcat in

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. .

Wonderment

Bobcat,

I have a set mail-ordered, and may have it in a week or so. Just in case you are willing to wait, I'll be more than happy to meet your request.

4

What keeps me away from the JWs religion!

by Wonderment in

there are a few things that have kept me away from the jws organizaction.

these are the most prominent.. 1. jesus has been pushed aside, and replaced by the governing body.

wrong!!!!!!.

Wonderment

There are a few things that have kept me away from the JWs organizaction. These are the most prominent.

1. Jesus has been pushed aside, and replaced by the governing body. WRONG!!!!!!

2. The JW ecosystem overall is pharisaical. The whole system promotes a critical and judgmental spirit. Not pleasant to be a Witness at all.

3. Doctrines imposed on the flock by force. The 1914 doctrine, the blood doctrine, and birthdays, to name a few, should be left to the conscience. These should not be mandatory.

4. The disfellowshipping and shunning practice is appalling. It causes untold damage to family members. Tell me about it! I have been a victim of it for more than 20 years.

Is there anything positive? Yes, the religion can make you feel like we have the answers to many questions. But then, this turns negative. It is an illusion. It is not true. No one on earth have all the answers. Jesus Christ is the way to God. Not a group of Christians claiming to have the Keys to the Kingdom.

My reaction to the New World Translation has been mostly positive. I really like this version, but then again, I feel nearly the same way with other versions.

Any WT efforts to lure me back with a published brochure (Rumor has it that one is coming up for release) will fall flat on its face. To WT leaders: Stop the nonsense! Change the fricking system if you want us to listen to you.

6

New Portuguese rendering of John 8:58 in Revised Edition NWT

by Wonderment in

previous rendering of john 8:58: jesus ldisse-hes : digo-vos em toda a verdade: antes de abraao vir a existencia, eu tenho sido.. new rendering: jesus lhes disse: digo-lhes com toda a certeza: antes de abraao vir a existencia, eu ja existia.. i am calling attention to the words in bold letters.

the previous rendering: "i have been.

the new reading: "i already existed.

Wonderment

wifibandit: "Three non JW translations and the Greek have it as : I AM. The JW versions show: I have been. Or I already was." "This change is not a minor one if you look at it from the optic of those who think Jesus = I AM WHAT I AM."

One common misconception in Bible translation, is that to be faithful, one must transfer the original language sayings to the receptor language word-for-word. Not necessarily! Over all, one has to take into account the context, and whether there is an existing flag somewhere in the text that could point to another understanding. This is what happens with John 8:58.

For example, Jesus said to Philip word-for-word in John 14.9: "So much time with you I am and not you have known me Philip?" Now, how should one to render this in standard English? Try it!

As to the statement about those who think of Jesus as the "I am what I am." I cannot find that statement anywhere associated with Jesus Christ. But I did find that Paul, a Christian follower, said (that is, if we take his words out of context): "I am what I am." (1 Cor. 15:10) Isn't it ironic that we find Paul enunciating those words, yet there is no record of Jesus Christ ever saying those words? At most, we find Jesus saying "I am" with a variety of nuances.