Posts by leaving

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

leaving_quietly

I keep hearing how the NWT is more biased than other versions. All versions of the Bible show personal bias to a certain degree. The amount of bias varies from version to version. I keep seeing lists presented by various posters (of versions that show translators generally agreeing with each other) with the apparent purpose of pointing out how the NWT by being different is wrong.

Why do we pick on the NWT? Because that's the translation we are all familiar with, and we hung our entire belief system on what it said and how it was worded. A one word change, a change in placement of a comma, or anything like that can drastically change the meaning of a sentence, which, in turn, could drastically change a doctrinal teaching. Case in point: Luke 23:43's placement of the comma. I'm not debating this one... just pointing out that there is a lot of controversy in the placement of the comma in that verse with some translations done just like the NWT and some not done that way. That one punctuation mark makes a HUGE difference in what the verse is saying. I won't argue either way, so please don't start debating this one. I just use it as an example.

With the NWT, it does show a bias very clearly in a number of places. Since your OP was about Col 1:16, that's the one we were discussing for the most part. Another one I could point to is John 14:14 where the NWT omits the word "me," even though it is in the Greek, showing a bias that JWs believe that praying to Christ is wrong. Even the Kingdom Interlinear includes the word "me" in there.

Again, we pick on the NWT because we're most familiar with it. If we were of a different religion, we'd probably pick on a different translation. Just look at how many pick on the NIV, especially the 2011 version.

With that said, the NWT's Reference Bible is, in my opinion, a very valuable resource because of all the footnotes. It is one of many translations I refer to when researching a subject. The 2013 revision is a pretty big diversion from it, with the acknowledged goal being that it's a "witnessing Bible." So, the 2013 revision doesn't make it into my study tools, other than for comparison. And the 2013 revision injects bias into the book highlights at the beginning of each chapter (for example. referring to the "governing body" in the highlights for Acts.)

There may be some here who would rather toss the NWT and never use it again. I do not share that view. It's a tool for me to use. I do not place it at the top of my list, though.

With this post, I'm done with this thread. It's been mostly enjoyable to contribute to.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

leaving_quietly

Please be advised that "attack" is not my intention. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

Thank you for saying that. I did get that impression. It is often modus operandi that JWs use where they start attacking the person in order to avoid the actual issue being discussed, especially when backed into a corner. I sort of felt like that was happening (not that I backed you into a corner... far from it... I'm not seeking to win any argument... just stating my position on this particular matter.)

You insist that adding "other" is totally wrong at Col 1.16. To be honest, as you pointed out, it is not required in the translation of the verse. The context already places Christ under God in the epistle. At the same time, it is not absurd to include it.

@menrov makes a valid point.It bible translators believe they need to add or remove a word, for whatever reason, they should explain it with a proper footnote so the reader understands what has been done and can decide if he agrees or not.

I would accept this in a translation. It's one of the reasons I like the NET Bible, even though it is not the best translation. They have tons of footnotes explaining various ways something can be translated. In the case of Col 1:16 in the revised NWT, there is no footnote at all and "other" is not in brackets, misleading the reader to think that it was in the original text. In Rbi8, there is a footnote, but it has nothing to do with why it's there. There are brackets around "other", which is at least something because they explain in the Introduction: "Single brackets [ ] enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text. Double brackets [[ ]] suggest interpolations (insertions of foreign material) in the original text." No such thing exists in the revised NWT.

As far as Bible translation goes, there are different methods of translating that basically fall into one of two camps: exegetical or eisegetical.

"While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis)

The NWT was translated in an eisegetical method. The bias of the JW religion shows throughout. I am NOT saying it's entirely wrong, just as I'm not saying that all JW doctrines are wrong. Some are. Some aren't. I AM saying they have decided to impose their own doctrinal beliefs into the translation, which is why they strongly frown on the use of other translations in their meetings. They quote from other translations when it suits them. If I were to start using the ESV or the NIV or some other translation at the meetings, I'd get a stern talking to by the elders. Of that, you can be sure.

Col 1:16 really is an example of eisegesis in translation. I happened to personally agree with this particular teaching, but I do not agree that it belongs in the translated text. At least, as @menrov wisely suggested, not without a footnote explaining why they put it there.

If you get some time, you may want to view this video. It's lengthy, almost an hour. But I found it fascinating as he describes the various purposes of Bible translation. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion, but the video is somewhat informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYc2KjRKlKU

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

leaving_quietly

Have you ever tried translating from one language to another? I ask, because I get the impression that the process of translation is foreign to you.

No. Have you? You made some assertions in your OP. I simply stated my viewpoint. No need to attack. My view is simple: If it isn't in the original languages, then insertion is inappropriate. This applies to any translation, NWT or otherwise. I have spent the better part of the last four years researching stuff like this. The NWT is not alone in erroneous translations, but since they claim to be the most accurate, they should expect to be criticized at the highest level. As a person raised as a JW and having spent more than 40 years in the religion, I have had to take a hard look at every aspect of the things I was taught, including the translation that I once held most dear.

Don't get me wrong. I do not throw away the entire NWT because some verses are incorrect. But, I have to acknowledge that the NWT DOES have a lot of bias in it, more so that many other translations, which you refer to as "trinitarian versions."

Four years ago, I would have argued as hard as you, and I would have thrown out the same strawman arguments you're using. But, today, I wouldn't be quite so anxious to defend this position, and I'm certainly not going to say I'm 100% right. I've been 100% right for my whole life. Until I found out I wasn't. So, take this with a grain of salt. My view is my view based on my own research and conclusions. If you want to go on with the idea that "other" is completely valid in 1 Col 1:16, I have no problem with that. I simply do not share the same view any longer.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

leaving_quietly

Would you believe if I tell you that various modern Greek Bibles do insert the word "állos" (the Greek word for "other") in various contexts. Why would they do so if is totally unwarranted? Answer: “ἄλλος [állos in the Greek text] is sometimes omitted where we would add ‘other.’” (Greek Grammar, Blass, Debrunner and Funk, Ibid, p. 160.)

I suspect a few do, and as I said, anyone (not just the NWT translation committee) who arbitrarily inserts words, whether to support their own bias (whether right or wrong,) or to clarify a thought, is wrong to do so. I'm not picking on NWT specifically, though out of all the parallel translations listed here (http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-16.htm), NONE have "other" in the text. Not saying there aren't some out there that do, but most do not. Definitely the most widely used translations do not. Translations that do are going beyond the original Greek. That's my position on this subject.

The excuse of "making the implicit explicit" doesn't fly with me. Since we weren't there when it was written, there is no way we could possibly know that it was implied verses intentionally left out. Just because some authors say it was left out does not mean a thing to me. What really counts is: what did the original Greek say? If the original Greek did not say it, there is no justification to add it. It is NOT the job of the translator to make the implied something explicit. It IS the job of the translator to translate words. If the word was not there to begin with, then the translator is taking liberties he ought not. In this case, állos does not exist in the originals as far as I can tell.

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B51C001.htm#V16

Again, my only issue is with taking translational liberties. Nothing more. I happen to agree with the NWT, but I don't think the translation committee should have put it in there.

59

John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2

by Wonderment in

continued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.

the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.

the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.

leaving_quietly

My personal issue with the insertion of the word "other" is simply that it is not in the Greek, and that anyone (not just the NWT translation committee) who arbitrarily inserts words, whether to support their own bias (whether right or wrong,) or to clarify a thought, is wrong to do so. To me, this is not a trinity issue. It's a translation issue. For an organization who has claimed for years that it has the MOST ACCURATE translation, there is simply no excuse for this. An accurate translation is one that translates the words into another language without losing thought, but also without adding things that aren't there.

The addition of the word "other" in Col 1:16 is unnecessary, too, as the previous verse calls Christ "the firstborn of all creation" which is a correct translation from the Greek. As a firstborn, Christ would have had to have been created himself. Thus, the word "other" is an unnecessary addition in verse 16 and really does serve to show a bias.

For the record, I am not a trinitarian. I DO believe that Christ was created, and I DO believe that Christ was used to create everything else. I DO NOT believe that Christ and God are one and the same. I DO believe that God has elevated his son to a position equal to his own and has given his son ALL authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18) similar to how Pharaoh gave Joseph authority over all things in Egypt (Gen 41:39-44) and I DO believe that Christ is of a divine nature, worthy of the same honor and service I would bestow to God himself. (John 5:22,23; Psalm 2:12; Dan 7:13,14)

9

WatchtowerBrooklynRealestate com Created Date: 2015-11-17 by WT

by Watchtower-Free in

https://watchtowerbrooklynrealestate.com/.

its their site.

https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=watchtowerbrooklynrealestate.com.

leaving_quietly

I was under the impression they sold off their NYC properties. Guess I was mistaken.

60

Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

i've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.

seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.

they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.

leaving_quietly

I've actually been told by a JW that Jehovah is allowing these things to occur the same way he allowed Saul to continue despite him no longer being anointed. Jehovah is "allowing" JW's loyalty to be tested.

This has nothing, NOTHING to do with loyalty to Jehovah. Any JW that says that is attempting to hide their head in the sand. This has EVERYTHING to do with JUSTICE and MERCY for the victims.

And since Saul was brought up here, this is a stupid red herring. David's loyalty to God was not in question, and neither is a JW's loyalty to God in question with this issue. Was IS in question is whether this organization will continue on their pharisaical, rigid path, or bend a little for the benefit of the victims.

60

Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

i've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.

seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.

they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.

leaving_quietly

The November 9, 2015 response is the one I'm reading, and yes, there is quite a bit of arrogance, telling the Commission what is and what is not within their "Terms of Reference" and even calling one "junior lawyer," "inexperienced". Here's what caught my attention:

5.18 Jehovah’s Witnesses consider that the requirement for two witnesses is not a matter for debate as it is based on Scriptural requirements found in the Mosaic Law and reiterated by Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.37 Even when the requisite Scriptural evidence is lacking, elders nevertheless take precautionary measures.

While the Mosaic Law DOES permit a single witness in an extenuating circumstance, as was proven more than once in the hearings, the organization blatantly REFUSES to bend on this. Deut 22:25-27.

By saying that Christ reiterated this is Pharisaical. Christ also said this: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness."

23

Anointed Directing the Anointed?

by compound complex in

[.

] resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today.

revelation: its grand climax at hand!, pages, 124, 125, paragraph 17..

leaving_quietly

leaving _quietly. are you trying to take our fun away with this idea we like?

It kinda all gets thrown to heck if you think about the 12 seeing Jesus conversing with Moses and Elijah ....

Except it was only three, not the twelve.

"28 In fact, about eight days after saying these words, he took Peter, John, and James along and climbed up the mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his face changed and his clothing became glitteringly white. 30 And look! two men were conversing with him; they were Moses and E·liʹjah.

Luke 9:28-30

23

Anointed Directing the Anointed?

by compound complex in

[.

] resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today.

revelation: its grand climax at hand!, pages, 124, 125, paragraph 17..

leaving_quietly

As usual, the organization takes, "may be", "perhaps", "evidently" and the like literally. I can recall hearing one GB member saying that Guy Pierce was already helping to direct in his new position in heaven.

They base this particular doctrine (that they've already been raised) on 1 Cor 15:22,23:

For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.

This is because of their insistence that parousia means "presence", not "coming" or "arrival", and their mistranslation of the Greek work "en" as "during" instead of "at". Verse 23 should read, "But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ at his arrival."

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly