i have noticed some posters (with frustration) asking for information regarding the nwt in various language editions.
here is a list of some of the nwt revised language editions published so far:.
albanian; arabic; armenian; chinese traditional 2017; danish 2017; dutch-netherlands 2017; estonian; haitian creole; italian 2017; korean 2014; modern greek 2017; norwegian 2017; portuguese 2015; romanian; russian; swahili 2017; swedish 2017; ukrainian; vietnamese.. not yet published: .
smiddy3,
The NWT is available in Urdu language (Pakistan); Indonesian (Revised Edition - 2017), and Arabic, as noted above (Qatar & Saudi Arabia both use Arabic.)
I see no NWT in Bangladesh in their language Bengali. Very few Witnesses there (perhaps less than 300 publishers in a land with 163 million people). The Witnesses have hardly a presence in Bangladesh.
i have noticed some posters (with frustration) asking for information regarding the nwt in various language editions.
here is a list of some of the nwt revised language editions published so far:.
albanian; arabic; armenian; chinese traditional 2017; danish 2017; dutch-netherlands 2017; estonian; haitian creole; italian 2017; korean 2014; modern greek 2017; norwegian 2017; portuguese 2015; romanian; russian; swahili 2017; swedish 2017; ukrainian; vietnamese.. not yet published: .
keinlezard:o It sound very strange to me ... we heard of French revised version since two or three years ...
What I see on the jw.org/fr[ench] website is the édition révisée - 1995 NWT with References - with black cover. The Revised Edition comes in Gray color.
i have noticed some posters (with frustration) asking for information regarding the nwt in various language editions.
here is a list of some of the nwt revised language editions published so far:.
albanian; arabic; armenian; chinese traditional 2017; danish 2017; dutch-netherlands 2017; estonian; haitian creole; italian 2017; korean 2014; modern greek 2017; norwegian 2017; portuguese 2015; romanian; russian; swahili 2017; swedish 2017; ukrainian; vietnamese.. not yet published: .
I have noticed some posters (with frustration) asking for information regarding the NWT in various language editions. Where are they?
Here is a list of SOME of the NWT REVISED Language Editions published so far:
Albanian; Arabic; Armenian; Chinese Traditional 2017; Danish 2017; Dutch-Netherlands 2017; Estonian; Haitian Creole; Italian 2017; Korean 2014; Modern Greek 2017; Norwegian 2017; Portuguese 2015; Romanian; Russian; Swahili 2017; Swedish 2017; Ukrainian; Vietnamese.
NOT YET PUBLISHED:
Afrikaans; Finnish; French; German; Polish; Spanish; Tagalog.
You will noticed that three major languages -- French; German and Spanish editions have yet to appear in the Revised Editions. Perhaps we’ll get to see them published this year.
sharp-witted and well-educated eastern orthodox philosopher and theologian david bentley hart, now a fellow at notre dame, has produced a nt translation (yale univ press 2017) that is causing a major stir.
one-man translations are pretty rare any more, but this one is making a real splash, largely because it does not surrender to the group/translation committee mentality.. .
even though it's been out only a few months, it's already been reviewed several times in well-known publications.
I too want to say, thanks!
steve2: Regarding translations by one man (I know of none by women) compared to a group of men: One of the pitfalls is that groups tend to have a moderating influence on the finished product whereas lone translators are free to play out their idiosyncratic reasonings.
Me: There have been several translations published by women.
"idiosyncratic reasonings" as they may be, it is this freedom that has made possible the valuable contributions to the genre these lone translators have made. Both type of translations (made by committees and individuals) have their pluses and minuses. It brings balance to the world of interpretation, where large committees have the upper hand, but are sort of obliged to do their translations with selected constituents in mind.
I think that both types of translations can be useful with the right mindset.
i was curious regarding jeremiah 10:16 and jeremiah 51:19. it reads as follows (roughly, including the portion of jacob) in in over 12 different translations (i will be using the nkjv):"the portion of jacob is not like them,for he is the maker of all things;and israel is the tribe of his inheritance.the lord of hosts is his name.".
and now i will read it in the rough, hebrew translation found in any interlinear bible:.
"not (adv) like them (pro), the portion (noun) of jacob (noun), for (conj) [is] the former (verb), of all (noun), he (pro) [things] and israel [is] the staff (noun) of his inheritance (noun) the lord (noun - the hebrew word used is yahweh/jehovah) of hosts (noun) [is] his name (noun).".
Aaron,
The biblical expression "the portion of Jacob," being not clear to the modern reader, has moved some Bible versions to simplify it. The allusion is to the God of Jacob in contrast to vain idols of the nations. It is used as a descriptive title for God Almighty. This is no reference of Jesus Christ. The verse itself ends with this: "Jehovah of Armies is his name." Below a sample of other versions concurring with this conclusion:
NEB: God, Jacob’s creator, is not like these...
GNT: The God of Jacob is not like them...
ERV: But Jacob’s God is not like the idols.
GW: Jacob’s God isn’t like them.
ICB: But God, who is Jacob’s Portion...
LB: But the God of Jacob is not like these foolish idols.
NCV: But God, who is Jacob’s Portion...
NRSV: Not like these is the Lord, the portion of Jacob...
VOICE: The portion of Jacob, the Eternal One...
NIRV: The God of Jacob is not like them.
seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.
prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.
so, what was jesus?.
freeman: "That said, I happen to know that there are literally legions of true scholars in this field that do not share your particular view [i.e. David_Jay’s], but rather lean more in my direction and present understanding."
Lots of scholars make weird assumptions because they too get emotionally tangled with the traditional religious standpoint where they do not want to give in to another viewpoint. Dr. James White is an example of one trinitarian apologist willing to argue publicly to prove others wrong. White’s assumption on the the Greek en is flawed. All one needs to do to verify whether his claim that en means eternity or not is by using a Greek-English Concordance in order to compare how the verb form was used throughout the NT.
The Greek ēn appears 315 times in the Greek text (Englishman’s Concordance), so right away we can observe that the majority of such ocurrences have nothing to do with Jesus‘ eternity claim. The verb eimí the source word for en is so common that for anyone to claim it means ‘eternity’ it would require that everyone else linked to the en be also eternal. Preposterous is such claim!
En is linked to a lot of individuals and things known not to be eternal. I pointed out that in Matt. 1:18 the verb form en was connected to the origin or birth of Jesus. No eternity there.
I also mentioned John 15:27, where according to Jesus his disciples were with him from the beginning (obviously the start of his ministry) = literally, "that from beginning with me you are." Both esté in John 15:27 and en of John 1:1 have their root in eimí. So does the "I am" of John 8:58 (I am) where it is used simply to express existence. The concept of eternity is not required in any of these texts. The concept of eternity is read into those verses by trinitarian believers.
In Revelation 17:8, it is said that "the wild beast that you saw was, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction." Should we claim the beast was eternal?
A.T. Robertson, a trinitarian, said under Doubtful Imperfects: "Hence we need not insist that ἦν [en] Jo. 1:1 is strictly durative always (imperfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist [which views the whole of the verbal action as a single, unitary event] also." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research) (Page 883)
does jw org claim to have translated the nwt into other languages from greek/hebrew?
because if they did claim that they would have to have biblical scholars in biblical greek/hebrew from every language, that would be a ton of ppl!
and take a lot of time!.
David_Jay,
Thanks for the insight on Jewish culture.
You said: "The Watchtower would not get permission, to begin with, to connect a copy of the New Testament to an already existing published Hebrew version of the Tanakh. Why?
While Jews are not forbidden from reading or owning the New Testament, putting the books together like that would not be allowed by Jewish law. The combination creates the Christian canon, which was created by Christian church authority which Jews are not subject, nor is Jewish scripture."
Do you know of any instance of someone combining the New Testament together with the Old Testament for Jewish Christians?
Also, I noticed there are a few New Testaments done by Jewish scholars. Would they object to combining the NT with the Hebrew cannon in one book outside of Israel?
seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.
prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.
so, what was jesus?.
freeman: "En archē ēn ho Lógos (the first part of John1:1) means that the word existed before all time." ... The Greek language is very precise, no ambiguity, no interpretation. It literately says the Word was already existing (Past tense ) before all time, no creation of the word or Jesus is even remotely possible, he always existed ... It doesn't matter what your belief system is, if your an Atheist, Agnostic a Baptist or Buddhist. They believe John 1:1 and the Greek is the Greek, En archē ēn ho Lógos means that the word always existed, period."
That´s a bold assertion. Can you provide any evidence that En archē ēn ho Lógos can only mean grammatically that the Logos was eternal? I ask because in Matt. 1:18 the Greek says: "Of the but Jesus Christ the origin thus was [Greek: en]." In this text "was" is associated with the birth of Jesus, not eternity. And the way archē is used in John 15:27 is obviously of limited duration meaning, as in Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint, where ´the heaven and earth were made in the beginning.´
does jw org claim to have translated the nwt into other languages from greek/hebrew?
because if they did claim that they would have to have biblical scholars in biblical greek/hebrew from every language, that would be a ton of ppl!
and take a lot of time!.
David Jay,
I appreciate your response. You make some valid points.
When I said: "Also, the NWT has a Hebrew edition of the New Testament, first published in S e l t e r s / T a u n u s (Germany) in 2012. They are presumably working on the Old Testament counterpart."
The first part of the statement is a fact, no question about it. The second statement is not a fact, just speculation. I based my speculation on past WT trends of targeting completion of the Bible to include both the Hebrew and the Greek Scripture portions whenever feasible.
Now, you mention some provocative points. First of all, Israel does not have many JW publishers in the country, so the WT would have to count on a larger target -- the diaspora of Jews worldwide. Still, it would be costly and time-consuming to engage in such a project (Biblical Hebrew to NWT OT Hebrew edition).
To that, we would have to consider whether it makes sense to do so as you pointed out. If they were to engage in doing an adaptation from Biblical Hebrew to NWT OT Hebrew edition, it would pose many a challenge for any translator. You are so right about that. It may not make sense at all.
A better guess, perhaps, for what the WT would or could do is to include their NWT NT Hebrew edition with the Hebrew Bible (OT) now extant within the pages of one volume, like they have done in the past with some languages, as someone here mentioned with the Tagalog language. Considering the WT is obviously going through some financial crisis, that would be a better option for them. What do you think?
does jw org claim to have translated the nwt into other languages from greek/hebrew?
because if they did claim that they would have to have biblical scholars in biblical greek/hebrew from every language, that would be a ton of ppl!
and take a lot of time!.
BluesBrother: I heard this from the Freeminds site many years ago. Cris Sanchez, one of the people purged from Brooklyn in the 1980's said this about the original Spanish translation NWT. He said the foreward comments about being translated from original languages in that Spanish Bible were untrue , nobody knew Greek.
That may have been true of those working with Chris Sánchez. However, the Spanish translation reveals someone had command of the Spanish language and correspondingly enough knowledge of some critical differences between both languages. We may not be getting the full story.
I suspect, there was an editor somewhere who made those occasional critical decisions needed to overcome the translations difficulties. Fred Franz knew Spanish very well, and Greek George Gangas had a working knowledge of Spanish as well, because he also translated between those languages for the WT. Who knows if Fred Franz added his input to the Spanish edition without Chris Sánchez´ determinations.
