Posts by Wonderment

15

18 definite ways women turn men off.

by Wonderment in

i picked the list below somewhere, and i would like to hear your opinions on it.

what would you keep or change?

18 definite ways women turn men off.

Wonderment

Vanderhoven 7: "By the way, these are 18 ways to turn off any spouse, male or female."

You are so correct with this observation.

15

18 definite ways women turn men off.

by Wonderment in

i picked the list below somewhere, and i would like to hear your opinions on it.

what would you keep or change?

18 definite ways women turn men off.

Wonderment

I picked the list below somewhere, and I would like to hear your opinions on it. What would you keep or change?

18 definite ways women turn men off. Warning! They are quite effective.

1. Don’t listen to what he has to say! Just do what you want. This is rule no. 1 to turn your man away. 2. Never take the blame! Instead, make him feel guilty at every chance you get.
3. Argue with him rather than agreeing with him. When you argue, make sure you have the last word.
4. Exaggerate all your feelings like a drama queen. All this drama is bound to make him keep the distance.
5. Just ask him for everything you need or want. Don’t pay anything, do not contribute to the monthly bills.
6. Be quick to insult him instead of praising him. You don’t want him to be too confident. Do you?
7. If you catch him looking at another woman, make him feel like no one else would do such a thing.
8. Show extreme jealousy at all times, and keep him away from intermingling with his (or your) friends.
9. Talk bad about him to your family members and friends. When he is present, ridicule him before others.
10. Whenever, or wherever, you want to go out, don’t tell him about it. He is not your boss, right?
11. Talk down on his family. Make him feel guilty about his dealings with them. Your family is better anyways.
12. Just for the fun, compare him to other men, and show him how he does not measure up.
13. Be willing to start heated arguments defending your friends, since they have more importance in your life.
14. Make your partner feel that you can out·smart him anytime. Getting your way makes you feel powerful.
15. Be in control at all times. Don’t let him get away with any of his sexual fantasies, for example.
16. Do the opposite of what he says. These jolting “challenges” of yours are added excitement to his life.
17. Shout instead of speaking to him. You will definitely get noticed more.
18. Overall, don’t let him dominate you. It is better to believe the biblical warning for wives to be “submissive” to their husbands does not apply in our era. Furthermore, “respect” is due to him only if he lives a “perfect” life. If he does not do everything by the book, why obey him?

If you do any of these things, you will surely succeed in bridging a gap between you and your man, if that’s what you want. Farewell!

7

Is your Bible Free of Bias?

by Wonderment in

is your bible free of bias?william d. barrick, professor of old testament wrote in 2001: “biblically based theology has no choice but to be wedded to bible translation.

one’s theology is heavily dependent upon one’s understanding of scripture in translation, whether it is one’s own or that of a published version.

on the other side of the coin, bible translation is inextricably linked with theology.

Wonderment

Phizzy: "No Translation of the Bible, or any other work, can be totally free of some sort of bias, even if in many cases the bias of honest translations is caused unconsciously."

So true!

7

Is your Bible Free of Bias?

by Wonderment in

is your bible free of bias?william d. barrick, professor of old testament wrote in 2001: “biblically based theology has no choice but to be wedded to bible translation.

one’s theology is heavily dependent upon one’s understanding of scripture in translation, whether it is one’s own or that of a published version.

on the other side of the coin, bible translation is inextricably linked with theology.

Wonderment

Is Your Bible Free Of Bias?

William D. Barrick, Professor of Old Testament wrote in 2001: “Biblically based theology has no choice but to be wedded to Bible translation. One’s theology is heavily dependent upon one’s understanding of Scripture in translation, whether it is one’s own or that of a published version. On the other side of the coin, Bible translation is inextricably linked with theology. As evangelicals we tend to guard ourselves with the dictate that the Scriptures in their original languages are the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. In reality, however, an OT theology teacher must communicate with his students via some form of translation. The students themselves will interact with theological teaching on the basis of the translations with which they are most familiar.” “Translation affects theology just as much as theology can affect translation. The translator must be keenly aware of the interaction of the two disciplines.” (THE INTEGRATION OF OT THEOLOGY WITH BIBLE TRANSLATION, TMSJ 12/1, Spring 2001, pp. 15,30)

The same can be said of the New Testament, if not more so. With this in mind, let’s examine the theological background of some well-known versions.

English Standard Version: “The doctrinal perspective of the ESV Study Bible is that of classical evangelical orthodoxy, in the historic stream of the Reformation. The notes are written...within the broad tradition of evangelical orthodoxy, the notes have sought to represent fairly the various evangelical positions on disputed topics…..” (Introduction, p. 10, ©2008) “All [the scholars and advisors involved] are committed to historic Christian orthodoxy. […] “And so to our triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and to his people, we offer our work ….” (p. 12)

According to thegospelcoalition.org: “On the Christian Booksellers Association 2014 listing of top selling Bible translations, the ESV ranked fifth in dollar sales and fourth in unit sales. During the past 15 years, the ESV has distributed more than 100 million print copies as well as more than 100 million electronic copies.”

New International Version: “The Committee has also sought to preserve a measure of continuity with the long tradition of translating the Scriptures into English.” (2006) “Doctrinally, the [NIV] Study Bible reflects traditional evangelical theology.” (1985) Hence, a leading Bible translation gets its source of interpretation from “traditional evangelical theology.” What if this ‘traditional theology’ is wrong to start with?

Wikipedia says: “In 2009, the New Testament scholar N. T. Wright wrote that the NIV obscured what Paul the Apostle was saying, making sure that Paul's words conformed to Protestant and Evangelical tradition. He claims, ‘I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about,’ especially in Galatians and Romans.” Some of Wright's specific objections concerning verses later in the chapter (Romans 3) no longer apply to the 2011 revision of the NIV.

In Romans 9.5, the 1985 NIV Study Bible read: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” This version offers an alternate translation: “Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ, God who is over all be forever praised!” A footnote adds: “Christ who is God. One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation (see NIV text note).” (Italics added) The NIV Study Bible team of 1985 should be praised for openly admitting that popular renderings which cater to its evangelical base, like the one above (Rom. 9.5), are dependent on the personal exegesis of the translator. Notwithstanding, the 2011 revised edition conveniently removed this acknowledgment. Yet, many individuals are tempted time-and-again to use this Scripture as a “proof-text” in religious forums.

According to a source (CBA), the NIV has sold more than 450 million copies worldwide. Best-seller? Yes! Bias free? What do you think?

NWT: Frequently, Bible versions use the platform to promote their theological agendas. The NWT pushes 1914 C.E. as the time “Jesus hurls the serpent, Satan to the earth.” (Appendix B1) Also, this version wants everyone in their organization to believe there was a “governing body” precedent to justify the current authoritarian structure of their organization. (Acts, Outline of Contents, p. 1459) Furthermore, the name “Jehovah,” lacking in the oldest Greek manuscripts (with the exception of “Jah” in Revelation 19), is used for kyrios throughout the Greek Scriptures. There is some basis to believe the divine name appeared in the original autographs, which may justify its use in places where the Greek text quotes the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Ps. 110:1 – Mt. 22:44, etc.). However, at other times, the NWT Committee added the name arbitrarily without any background or evidence, seemingly done by a personal whim. The NWT is not alone in promoting theological doctrine. It has plenty of company. Is the Bible the place to thrust such independent speculations?

The Common English Bible is hailed as an interdenominational translation. Hence, they claim:
“The translation is sponsored by the Common English Bible Committee, which is an alliance of denominational publishers, including Presbyterian (USA), Episcopalian, United Methodist, Disciples of Christ, and United Church of Christ representatives. […] The CEB is truly a Bible created by churches and for the Church. ” (1st page of “Preface,” ©2013) Now, do you think all the denominational support makes this version less biased than the others?

At Mt. 10.28, this version translates the Greek “Gehenna” as “hell.” At John 1.18, the CEB calls Jesus Christ “God the only Son.” This expression may look fine to the modern western religious practitioner, but a scholar made this valid observation: “In Joh. I.18 it is hard to see why [monogenes huios], the reading of some editors, must be translated the only begotten Son, while [monogenes theós] which is given by Wescott and Tregelles after the very oldest MSS, must not be translated the only-begotten God, but God only begotten.” (Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, by W. J. Hickie) The author may be suggesting here that some scholars are actually dragging the traditional interpretations into the text of John 1.18 instead of translating by the most likely word meaning as they do in other places he mentions (i.e., John 3.16,18; Luke 9.38; Hebrews 11.17, etc.). In another place (Colossians 1.15 and 18), the translators interpret the genitive construction (of, from, etc.) of these two verses differently: In verse 15, the Greek word for “firstborn” is not even applied to Christ. Instead, Christ is said to be “the one who is over all creation,” excluding Christ from being a part of God’s creative acts. At verse 18, the translators have no objection in using the Greek word for “firstborn,” and translate the genitive as expected of Christ: “the one who is firstborn from among the dead.” (Italic letters added.) Why the discrepancy? Is this a form of bias? You decide!

The Washington Post: “Most of Holman’s [Christian Standard Study Bible] contributors either graduated from or taught at a Southern Baptist seminary, and the work is committed to the conservative Southern Baptist understanding of the Bible.” “The Holman study Bible’s introduction makes clear that the translators and commentators started with fixed theological commitments and reassures readers the text is orthodox. ”

“Like the “ESV Study Bible,” the “NIV Zondervan Study Bible” affirms clear evangelical commitments.” “The theological profiles of the the ESV and NIV study Bibles are very similar. Editors of both volumes are connected to the Gospel Coalition, a network of Reformed churches. Many of the contributor to the two volumes have common affiliations at evangelical and Reformed institutions. A few scholars even worked on both study Bibles.” (Daniel Silliman, August 28, 2015)

In the case of Holman’s Christian Standard Study Bible, one Baptist belief reflected in this version can be read in their full page explanation of “Incarnation and Christology” (by Stephen J. Wellum, p. 1802). The author of this page calls Jesus “God the Son,” an expression commonly accepted among traditionalists. More importantly, these words, taken literally, appear nowhere in Scripture. Scriptures do mention “God” and “the Son” repeatedly (e.g. the Son of God, etc.), but the actual statement of “God the Son” is never stated in the Bible as such. The words do, however, appear in Bible translations promoting a particular agenda. Thus, the thought is interpolated into Scripture. The Bible simply says that “the Word became flesh”… that “God sent his only-begotten Son” to save the world. (John 1.14; 3.18) Then, where did the thought of “two natures” (God the Son) espoused by the author come from?

The same page states the author’s admission: “Later church reflection, especially at the council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) affirmed that we cannot do justice to Scripture without confessing that Jesus of Nazareth was fully God and fully man.” (Emphasis added) We have to ask: Can we “do justice to Scripture without confessing” the “later church reflection” affirmation?

The NET Bible: Of this version, Michale Marlowe, a self-proclaimed Protestant, writes: “Although the Introduction does not mention it, seventeen of these people ["Net Bible Team"] were teachers at DTS [=Dallas Theological Seminary*]; and of the remaining six, five were students at DTS. Only one (William Barrick) has no obvious connection to Dallas Theological Seminary. Some of them have no publications, and are little-known outside of DTS. Evidently the version was almost entirely a project of the members of the DTS faculty, assisted by their students.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html, 1 January 2007) (*DTS is known as an evangelical center of modern Dispensational teaching) Need I say more?

Jerusalem Bible: Michael Marlowe (q.v), claims the following in his review of this Catholic version: “The translation is little influenced by dogma (if at all), and even the annotations are of an ecumenical-scholarly character…. Traditional Roman Catholic exegesis is therefore largely absent from the Jerusalem Bible, just as traditional Protestant exegesis is absent from the Revised Standard Version. There are some notable exceptions to this rule…. 1 Timothy 2:4….” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerusalem-bible.html)

Both the Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version are known for being some of the least dogmatic biblical versions available. Nonetheless, both versions can’t avoid inserting their own interpretations in various places. In the JB you’ll find “hell” at Mt. 10.28 for the Greek “Gehenna,” and also for the Greek “Hades.” (Mt. 11.23; Lu. 10.15) At 1 Cor. 3.15, the JB notes: “This is not a direct reference to purgatory but several Doctors of the Church have taken it as a basis for that doctrine.” (Note d.)

In turn, the RSV uses “hell” for the Greek term “Tartarus” at 2 Peter 2:4. At Ps. 45.6 it has, “your divine throne” but at Hebrews 1.8 where it quotes the Psalm, it says: “Thy Throne O God...” Protestant beliefs do play a part in these assumptions. Do you think not?

A revision of the RSV resulted in the 1990 New Revised Standard Version. Both versions are favored by the scholarly community. The National Council of Churches, the largest ecumenical body in the United States, owns the copyrights of both versions. What do these churches believe? When we use these Bibles, are we conscious enough to the fact that we are reading the interpretations of an independent ecumenical body of religion?

The Holy Scriptures (Jewish Publication Society, 1917): “It aims to combine the spirit of Jewish tradition with the results of biblical scholarship, ancient, medieval, and modern. It gives to the Jewish world a translation of the Scriptures done by men imbued with the Jewish consciousness, while the non-Jewish world, it is hoped, will welcome a translation that presents many passages from the Jewish traditional point of view.” (Italics added.)

TANAKH - The Holy Scriptures (The New Jewish Publication Society translation, ©1985, “Preface”): “The proposed translation would… make critical use of the early rabbinic and medieval Jewish commentators, grammarians, and philologians and would rely on the traditional Hebrew text, avoiding emendations.” Thus, the interpretation of previous Jewish commentators, etc., whether right or wrong, would have a great bearing in the final product.

Jewish New Testament: The translator David H. Stern writes under “Translation Issues” ... “The Translator and His Interpretations”:

“Which raises the question of whether the translator should ‘inject his opinions’ into his translation. The Jewish New Testament cautiously answers in the affirmative, on the ground that it inevitably happens anyhow, so that the translator who supposes he ‘maintains neutrality’, merely channeling ideas from the source language to the receptor language without influencing the result, deludes both himself and his readers. For necessarily every decision as to how to render a Greek word or phrase into English expresses the translator’s opinion…. Therefore, a translator should decide what a word or phrase means (in his opinion!) and then convey that meaning as clearly as possible. ” (Introduction, pp. xx, xxi, ©1989)

The Wesley [Study] Bible (NKJV): “The study Bible is evangelical and Wesleyan. On the basic points of theological interpretation Wesleyans are in agreement with other groups of the evangelical community. Thus the bulk of the study Bible is best described as evangelical. Previous study Bibles have overlooked the distinctives of Wesleyan interpretation. The goal of the translators “was simply to explain the Bible text, showing how Wesleyans understand the teachings of Scripture and noting Wesleyan interpretation only when it is evident from the words of Scripture.” (Introduction, p. xviii, ©1990. Italics added.)

Wikipedia states that “the creation of Wesleyan-Arminianism has today developed into a popular standard for many contemporary churches.” Are Bible readers aware that some of their evangelical Bible translations actually reflect Wesleyanism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Methodism, etc, as sources of interpretation?

The Clear Word: “This is not a translation of the Bible but a condensed paraphrase for an easier reading of Scripture.” (Words by the author Jack Blanco, Retired Professor and Dean Southern Adventist University, 2005, under “Preface.”)

Being a Seventh-Day Adventist, the author of this paraphrase was likely committed to the importance of the Sabbath Day observance. This is seen in the following example of his paraphrase of Colossians 2.16: “Don’t let anyone tell you that you have to go through certain rituals, eat certain foods, keep certain feasts, or observe extra sabbaths to be saved.” (Italics added. Note the word “extra” added here.) Compare this to the reading of NRSV: “Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths [Literally: of sabbaths].”

Jack Blanco is Trinitarian, and perhaps feels uncomfortable with the explicit idea that Christ is less than God. He renders John 14.28 thus: “I’ve told you that I must leave, but I am coming back. If you love Me, you will be glad that I can go back to My Father. I’m telling you all this ahead of time so that when it happens, your faith in Me will be even stronger.”

Where then is the missing statement appearing in all other Bible translations, “I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I”? In sum, can the theological beliefs of the translator be reflected back into the translation? Certainly! It happens more often than we would like to believe.

The following book One Bible, Many Versions sums up quite nicely the whole matter of Bible translations: “All versions [including the most literal ones] translate thought for thought rather than word for word in many contexts. Some just do it more consistently than others.” (p. 30) “All translation involves a certain amount of interpretation.” (p. 166) “There are countless places in Scripture where the translators of every version were forced to make an interpretive choice. ” (pp. 168-169) “The real evidence in Scripture shows that the ideal of leaving the interpretation up to the reader is often an impossible goal to attain.” (p. 170. ©2013, by Dave Brunn. Emphasis added.)

I have barely touched this subject, which could fill the pages of countless volumes, but I hope that the reader of this page can see with just a few samples that Bible translations are not immune to personal interpretations and theological agendas. Sometimes, the translator simply cannot avoid inserting his or her own interpretation into the text. At other times, some translators in good faith focus their efforts in helping certain religious groups, at the expense of literal accuracy. It does not necessarily mean that those individuals had the initial intention of deceiving others by doing so, although the consequence of spreading religious error may be the final outcome.

All the translations above, in my view, are sincere efforts to provide the Word of God to people all over in a language that can be understood by most individuals. The truth of the matter is that Bible translations are done by imperfect humans with limited knowledge. The Septuagint translation was quoted by Jesus and his followers, warts and all. No matter, Bible translations are necessary if we want to know more about God and his purpose. We should do no less than appreciate the humongous efforts of Bible translators, regardless of their religious persuasion.

20

Nudity in the movie "Roma"

by Wonderment in

in the movie "roma," a man is shown making some martial type moves with a sword totally naked.

and the scene is not so brief, giving a clear glimpse of his private parts.

it is a very graphic scene.

Wonderment

In the movie "Roma," a man is shown making some martial type moves with a sword totally naked. And the scene is not so brief, giving a clear glimpse of his private parts. It is a very graphic scene.

Now, for those of you who have seen the movie, I ask, Was this scene necessary at all within the stated plot? Did I miss something?

108

New Upcoming Changes - No More Publisher Record Cards & Reporting Hours

by thedepressedsoul in

publisher record cards and reporting hours will be going away.

.

coming soon.. made this post 4 years ago, it happened - https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/24020002/kingdom-consolidation-sales-coming-reliable-source.

Wonderment

Me thinks the WTS is under pressure from some countries to enforce emerging strict privacy laws. If the past is any indication, when the WTS makes a change, it is a good bet that lawyers are behind some of these moves.

Also, the waning of new publication releases lessens the urgency to keep the system they have now, and the brotherhood apathy going on right now in the field with its corresponding low numbers of new believers may all play a part.

So, who knows? More changes may be coming our way.

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Wonderment

Thank guys for your comments!

careful, whenever you have a chance, could you provide us with more details about the Bill Cetnar / Goodspeed incident of decades ago. What you mentioned is very interesting, and I would like to know more about it, since this incident is all over the internet, used almost always as "proof" that the NWT translators were not up to the task of translating the Bible. Some of us would appreciate any effort you spend on this matter.

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Wonderment

Earnest,

Thank you for your words of appreciation!

You mentioned that you have "Alter's New Testament." What are you referring to?

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Wonderment

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

Three Volumes labeled as, "The Five Books of Moses"; "The Writings"; and "Prophets."

Verse numbers appear in the margins. My take: Some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading. However, other people dislike this arrangement, finding it more difficult to determine where a text begins, or ends. I I prefer this last method with the numbers appearing right before the beginning of a verse, for quick reference.

Goal of the translator:

“There is, as I shall explain in detail, something seriously wrong with all the familiar English translations, traditional and recent, of the Hebrew Bible…. The present translation is an experiment in re-representing the Bible – and, above all, biblical narrative prose – in a language that conveys with some precision the semantic nuances and the lively orchestration of literary effects of the Hebrew and at the same time has stylistic and rhythmic integrity as literary English.” (p. xiii)

“I thought it necessary to offer succinct explanations of some of the ancient Near Eastern cultural practices and social institutions that are presupposed by the narratives, for without an understanding of them it is sometimes hard to see exactly what is going on in the story.” (p. xii)

“No previous English translation has made a serious effort to represent the elevated and archaic nature of the poetic language in contradistinction to the prose, though that is clearly part of the intended literary effect of biblical narrative.” (p. xxxv)

Opinion: I welcome this effort highly, so long as accuracy is not affected.

The New York Times Magazine brought up the account of Genesis 21:1-3, where Alter offers new insights on Sara’s old-age experience in child-bearing for the first time. In verse one, Alter says that “the Lord singled out Sara” instead of “the Lord visited Sara” of most versions, adding new layers of tension in this story. When Sara does give birth to her first child, Alter has Sara saying in poetic speech: “Laughter has God made me, / Whoever hears will laugh at me.” Alter retained the ambiguous Hebrew verbal construction. “More startling still, Alter has taken advantage of another ambiguity in the Hebrew’s prepositions and has Sarah directly say that her society is not laughing with but at her. After giving birth, she feels mocked, shamed and socially demoted. At the end of her life, when she should be reaping the rewards of seniority and respect, she fears that she has been turned into a punch line.” (Quote by NY Times Magazine)

Footnotes: There are many footnotes throughout this Bible. Some cover as much as half-a-page. These deal with various subjects. I will give you an example. At Ezequiel 23:1-3 the main text says: “And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Two women were there, daughter of one mother. And they played the whore in Egypt, in their youth, they played the whore there. Their breasts were squeezed and there were their virgin teats fondled.’”

The footnote reads: “As in ch. 16, Ezekiel takes the conventional metaphor of whoring as an image of idolatry (and also of alliances with foreign powers) and pushes it to a level of sexual explicitness as does no other biblical writer. Nowhere else in the Bible does one find this sort of direct reference to fondling breasts in sexual play, and nowhere else does one encounter an evocation of a concupiscent woman allured by the largeness of the male sexual organ (verse 20). There are passages in this prophecy where the allegorical referent of idolatry virtually disappears as the sexual foreground is flaunted. Ezekiel looks distinctly like a man morbidly obsessed with the female body and with female sexuality, exhibiting a horrified fascination with both. The word in the second verse of this, dad, is represented by some as ‘nipple,’ but on dubious grounds. It is a phonetic cousin of shad, the standard word for ‘breast.’ It occurs only here and Proverbs 5:19, where it does not seem to mean ‘nipple’ either. In any case, ‘fondling’ (the more general sense of the verb is ‘knead’) does not work well for nipples, although it is appropriate for breasts.”

The Hebrew particle "waw" is rendered "and" repeatedly:

“Since a literary style is composed of very small elements as well as larger structural features, an English translator must confront the pesky question of whether the ubiquitous Hebrew particle that means ‘and’ should be represented at all in translation. This is obviously not a problem when the waw simply connects two nouns – as in ‘the heavens and the earth’ – but what of its constant use at the beginning of sentences and clauses prefixed to verbs? The argument against translating it in these cases is that the primary function of the waw appended to a verb is not to signify ‘and’ but to indicate that the Hebrew prefix conjugation, which otherwise is used for action yet to be completed, is reporting past events (hence its designation in the terminology of classical Hebrew grammar as ‘the waw of conversion’). It is far from clear, as modern Bible scholars tend to assume, that the fulfillment of one linguistic function by a particle of speech automatically excludes any others; on the contrary, it is entirely likely that for the ancient audience the waw appended to the verb both converted its temporal aspect and continued to signify ‘and.’ But semantics aside, the general practice of modern English translators of suppressing the ‘and’ when it is attached to a verb has the effect of changing the tempo, rhythm, and construction of events in biblical narrative.” (pp. xxi,xxii) “The translator’s task, then is to mirror the repetitions [including the waw] as much as is feasible.” (p. xxviii)

Alter cites a narrative sequence from Genesis 24 (Rebekah becoming the subject of a series of actions), where he compares his version’s use of the waw (“and”) with that of the Revised English Bible, beginning in the middle of verse 16. He writes: “The most striking difference between these two versions is that mine has fifteen ‘and’s’ corresponding precisely to fifteen occurrences of the particle waw in the Hebrew, whereas the Revised English Bible manages with just five.” He concludes: “The reiterated ‘and,’ then, plays an important role in creating the rhythm of the story, in phonetically punctuating the forward-driving movement of the prose.”

Opinion: I think this is a good idea. Obtaining original Hebrew nuances through this convention is a plus in my view. Incidentally, the early editions of NWT (OT) addressed the need to disregard the so-called “waw-conversive,” and represent the particle waw throughout the Hebrew text using conjunctions or phrases. The NWT Committee wrote: “Thus, although waw (“and”) is very repetitious in Hebrew, we do not ignore it and leave it untranslated as if unnecessary or cumbersome or old fashioned in style, but [in order to avoid monotony] we express it by using transitional words or phrases with the sense that the Hebrew leads us to feel. We bring out the force of the waw in its relationship to the verb with which it is combined. So this simple word waw in the Hebrew is used to convey many a shade of meaning besides its mere basic meaning ‘and.’” (1953 edition, p. 18)

One main difference between Alter’s and the NWT’s goal (in early editions, that is) in representing the Hebrew as closely as possible is that Alter generally does not stick to a pattern of drawing the distinctive force of the Hebrew perfect and imperfect verb forms throughout as the NWT does.

Pronouns relating to "deity" are capitalized. In my opinion, a bad idea, for the most part. It is distracting, to say the least. And the Hebrew language did not differentiate between pronouns relating to “deity” or other. Why should we then? Isn’t Alter’s version designed to mirror the Hebrew closely?

On the name of God: “The confidence of biblical scholarship that the original pronunciation was in fact Yahweh may not be entirely warranted.… In any case,‘Yahweh’ would have given the English version a certain academic-archaeological coloration that I preferred to avoid, and it would also have introduced a certain discomfort at least for some Jewish readers of the translation. I rejected the option of using ‘YHWH’ because it cannot be pronounced whereas the dimension of sound seemed to me vital to the translation. I have therefore followed the precedent of the King James Version in representing YHWH as the LORD, the last three letters in small uppercase to indicate that, like ‘adonai, it is an anomaly, a substitution for another name.”

“Admittedly, any of the choices [LORD for YHWH; ‘elohim; El; Elyon; and Shaddai] I have described may be debatable, but in all of them my aim has been to name the deity in English in ways that would be in keeping with the overall concert of literary effects that the translation strives to create.” (pp. xxxix, xl) Alter did represent the Tetragrammaton in a few places, e.g.: Exodus 17:15,16, YHWH Nissi [italics], the LORD is My Banner." [...] "Yah's throne."

Is fair to ask then: Should an “overall concert of literary effects” in the translation justify removing the divine name throughout Scripture? ‘Following the precedent of the King James Version in representing YHWH as the LORD’ is not the best model, since the substitute used does not properly represent the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (a personal name) as other scholars have acknowledged. For instance, the NIVIHEOT Interlinear (1987) says: “...According to Scripture, [Yahweh] is God’s special name, and it has no direct connection with the idea of lordship.” (Introduction, p. xxi)

Let’s see what Robert Alter’s version of Malachi 3.16,17 says: “Then did the LORD-fearers speak together, each man to his neighbor, and the LORD hearkened and He heard, an a book of remembrance was written before Him for the LORD-fearers who value His name. And they shall become for Me, said the LORD of Armies, a treasure on the day that I prepare.”

Do we really show ‘fear’ of God and ‘value God’s name’ by replacing it with surrogates? Jesus Christ apparently went against human tradition, for he said: “I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world.” (Mark 7.13; John 17.6, NRSV) Let’s not forget, the Bible we have today is not a 100% faithful representation of the originals, since we mainly have copies written centuries after they were written.

Bill Cetnar, the NWT and Dr. Goodspeed: According to an ex-Bethelite (Bill Cetnar), Dr. Goodspeed made the following comment in reference to a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures of the NWT (in 1954): “The grammar is regrettable”. (Bill Cetnar, Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses Who Love the Truth - Kunkletown, PA: W. I. Cetnar, 1983), 69) Cetnar writes of Goodspeed: "One reading he pointed out as especially awkward and grammatically poor was in Judges 14:3 where Samson is made to say: `Her get for me.…'" In this text, Samson asks his father (to get him a particular Philistine woman for wife), according to the NWT of 1953: “Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes.” By 1961, the one volume revised edition, read: “Get just her for me...” And the NWT 2013 edition went further by simplifying Samson’s statement: “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.”

If Bill Cetnar reported the encounter with Dr. Goodspeed correctly, I would have to agree with Dr. Goodspeed. The way the NWT of 1953 rendered this verse back then, was very awkward in English, one could say, ‘regrettably.’ Should we be surprised? No. A stated goal for the early NWT editions was mentioned in the Foreword, 1953 edition: “The aim is to convey the flavor of the ancient Hebrew realm, its way of thinking, reasoning, talking, social dealings, etc. … So the reader will find quite a bit of idiomatic Hebrew.” Did Bill Cetnar ever tell you this?

Applicable to this story, 64 years later, a prominent Hebrew scholar of our times (yes, Robert Alter), has rendered this verse very much like the early NWT editions did, namely, with the pronoun “her” at the start of Samson’s petition: "And Samson said to his father, 'Her take for me because she pleases me'" A footnote says: "because she pleases me. The literal sense is 'because she is right in my eyes.'" Why would he do that? Apparently, Alter saw a benefit of mirroring the Hebrew syntax here, instead of considering it ‘regrettable grammar,’ as Goodspeed allegedly did regarding the NWT’s choice of Judges 14:3. By the way, Dr. Goodspeed’s expertise was in the Greek department, not with the Hebrew language. As far as I know, Bill Cetnar did not report Goodspeed pointing out ‘Greek errors’ in the NT of the NWT.

In Hebrew, the normal word order in a verbal sentence is first the verb, then the subject, and finally the object. Thus, when a different word order is used, it makes the part of speech that is placed first prominent. In this case, the direct object “her” was placed before the verb to focus attention on it. What this account shows is that the NWT translator was bent on reflecting the Hebrew style & rhythm as closely as possible, as stated in the Foreword of the Bible. If anything, it contradicts the perceived notion that the NWT translator was unable to read Hebrew.

Ecclesiastes 1:2, "Vanity of vanities" becomes, "merest breath." ... "Merest breath, said Qohelet, merest breath. All is mere breath."

Trinitarian dogma:

Those wishing to find support for the trinitarian dogma in Bible translations will likely be disappointed that this version did not follow the tradition in some places. To name a few (emphasis added):

Gen. 1:2, "breath" for "spirit":"and God's breath hovering over the waters." Footnote: "God's breath-wind-spirit."

“Spirit” here is being described as as a powerful force = “breath-wind,” instead of as a “person.”

The “I am” phrase is not found in Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, ''Ehyeh-'Asher-'Ehyeh, I-Will-Be-Who-I-Will-Be,' And He said, Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ' 'Ehyeh has sent me to you.'"

Robert Alter footnotes that “the common rendering of ‘I-Am-That-I-Am’ cannot be excluded.” However, he states that ‘I-Will-Be-Who-I-Will-Be’ is the most plausible construction of the Hebrew...”

Isaiah 9:6, "Mighty God" is translated as "divine warrior." This would make the often-heard claim that Jesus is ‘Almighty God’ a bit more difficult to sustain since this verse never made such claim in the first place.

Alter footnotes: “The most challenging epithet in this sequence is ‘el gibor, which appears to say ‘warrior-god.’ The prophet would be violating all biblical usage if he called the Davidic king ‘God,’ and that term is best construed here as some sort of intensifier. In fact, the two words could conceivably be a scribal reversal of gibor ‘el in which case the second word would clearly function as a suffix of intensification as it occasionally does elsewhere in the Bible.”

Habakkuk 1:12, The English Standard Version reads like so in this verse: “Are you not from everlasting, O Lord my God, my Holy One? We shall not die,” Alter’s version says instead: “Are you not of old, O LORD, my holy God? You shall not die!” (And the NWT: “O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.”)

Some may prefer the ESV reading (We shall not die) over Alter’s version (and the NWT) which communicates that ‘God cannot die.’ The later concept can present a problem for Trinitarians, for they believe that God later ‘died’ in the form of Jesus Christ = Incarnation doctrine.

However, Alter explains in a footnote: “The Masoretic Text shows ‘We shall not die,’ but this is a tiqun sofrim, a euphemistic scribal correction so as to eliminate the necessity of saying ‘God shall not die,’ when all know that death is not a category that applies to God.”

Thus, any hint that God could conceivably ‘die’ was offensive to the Jews, who always thought of God as immortal, hence, the scribal alteration. This brings up the question: If the Jews objected so strongly to any suggestion that God could die, why would Christendom later insist on adopting this very same concept abhorred by Jews... of ‘God becoming man to die in the cross’ in order to save mankind? Was it a “deviation” of Christianity?

In all, I welcome the release of this complete publication into the Biblical world in early 2019. It has a good number of features attractive to those seeking more Hebrew insight within Scripture, particularly, the special focus given to the literary merit of the translation, which may be its greatest accomplishment, and that I barely addressed. Many of the footnotes are interesting and informative. I hope the few samples above taken from The Hebrew Bible by Robert Alter can help you decide if this work is worth obtaining.

7

"Romans" added to NWT Study Bible, and one omission.

by Wonderment in

rom.

14:1 says: "welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions.

" (italics added.).

Wonderment

blondie, thanks for bringing these references to our attention.

Really, that's not many Watchtower references of Rom. 14.1 considering the importance of the unifying message of the verse to the Christian congregation. Compare that to Mt. 24.45, or Mt. 24.14 where the Watchtower pushes these verses repeatedly at every publisher in existence.