Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Any translation, such as the NWT, that adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 287 times, and adds other words not found in any extant Greek manuscript is a farce and should be avoided at all costs. We have been given the command to STUDY, and that requires looking at the original languages. I hope you're not suggesting that the NWT translators were reknowed, credible scholars."Skwim, post: 4182329, member: 23688"]Are you actually suggesting that a personal translation would be more accurate than what scholars and those with better access to sources have come up with?
I hope you apply this same thinking to the NWT because nearly ALL English translations of the Bible say "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Gid, and the word was God." John 1:1. They don't translate "a god" making Jesus into some sort of lesser god....but lacking any evidence one way or the other I choose the most popular.
There is a HUGE difference. The name Jehovah has been added to the NT 287 times, not to mention other words which have been added, changed or removed. The OP shows evidence of such tampering with the Scriptures.Whats funny is that they dont. You read a kjv and nwt they are pretty much the same, just said differently to mean the same thing with the exception of the trinity, and a couple of other things
You've just given more evidence of our triune God. Other verses say the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets. Thank you very much ! I hadn't thought about this evidence until you pointed out the verses from Ezekiel and Jeremiah.read any of the writings of the prophets of the hebrew scriptures and they clearly state the name of the one who inspired them to write.....Jehovah.
ie Eze 24:20 I replied to them: “The word of Jehovah has come to me, saying, 21 ‘Tell the house of Israel: “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says, ‘I am about to profane my sanctuary
Jeremiah 1:13 The word of Jehovah came to me a second time
And Jesus himself was also speaking by the spirit of Jehovah his God for he said:
John 6:16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me
According to the scriptures, the one who inspired all the prophets is Jehovah. Therefore, by inserting the name Jehovah at Rev 22:6, it clearly identifies who that Lord is. True, Jesus is Lord...but he is not the Father Jehovah....and he himself was sent by the Father Jehovah. We must recognise that and ensure that the scriptures reflect that.
NWT Rev 22:6
6 He said to me: “These words are faithful* and true;+ yes, Jehovah,* the God who inspired the prophets,+ has sent his angel to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place.
American Standard Version (ASV)
6 And he said unto me, These words are faithful and true: and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angels to show unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass.
King James Version (KJV)
6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Modern English Version (MEV)
The Coming of Christ
6 The angel said to me, “These words are faithful and true. The Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show to His servants the things which must soon take place.”
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
6 And he said to me, `These words [are] stedfast and true, and the Lord God of the holy prophets did send His messenger to shew to His servants the things that it behoveth to come quickly:
Good News Translation (GNT)
The Coming of Jesus
6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are true and can be trusted. And the Lord God, who gives his Spirit to the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen very soon.”
1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
6 And he said unto me, These words are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy Prophets sent his Angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be fulfilled.
J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
The angel endorses the revelation
6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are true and to be trusted, for the Lord God, who inspired the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must shortly happen.”
All the above say the same thing.... the angel was sent by the one who inspired the prophets. If we are honest, we have to agree that the God of the prophets is Jehovah. So there is nothing inaccurate about inserting the name Jehovah into the text...it actually helps us have a correct understanding which none of the other translators do because they all view Jesus as being the God who inspired the prophets which is unscritpural.
Perhaps a bit of an overstatement?No translation is (or rather, they are all inaccurate). Learn Greek & Hebrew, and then you won't have a problem here.The NWT is not trustworthy!
You've just given more evidence of our triune God. Other verses say the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets. Thank you very much ! I hadn't thought about this evidence until you pointed out the verses from Ezekiel and Jeremiah.
Did you catch that? Jesus says ANYTHING!
That means "Don't mess with my word, not even one of them!" Hey, if you want to risk your eternal future, then you are free to do just that. Don't say you weren't warned. Jesus made it very clear.
So, what is the purpose in knowingly producing an inferior work?You raise an important point. There are some languages I am familiar with such that given a reference grammar and lexicon I can work my way through a text written in that language (Portuguese, for example, or Ugaritic). I am not reading these texts, I am producing a translation that is bound to be inferior to any produced by one who knows the language enough to read it without depending upon such tools.
Yet you say you're "producing a translation."If one can read the language, one is not only free of the bounds to pick a single way to render a given line, but free of picking any particular rendering at all. In short, one isn't translating but reading.
In other words your translation is, in fact, better in that it provides a clearer---read "more accurate"---presentation of the intent of the original authors. The aim of any translator who comes down the road.A decent student of the Biblical languages can, the standard two semester introductory courses and two semester intermediary courses, take a text written in one such language and (with some help from tools such students use) better understand the original text than if the same student relied on translations.
Have to disagree. To take it upon oneself to better divine the intended meaning of a verse is a matter of ego: "I can do what no one before me has done: translate X better." And if this isn't one's goal then why bother?No, simply an understanding of how translating works (and the fact that there is no one way in which it works, as different theories exist as to what makes a better translation, but everybody agrees that translations are inevitably inaccurate).
YesBy "versions", do you mean translations?
Whatever the case, I believe there's always a bias or dictate that steers the translator through the choice of options. "While 'evil,' 'calamity,' and 'bad times' are legitimate translations of the Hebrew רַע (ra`), in Isaiah 45:7 we're going to go with 'disaster' because . . . . . . . . . ."And if so, there aren't always any such powers, and most of the time the "power" that "commissioned" the translation is either identical to the group of translators or the latter are members of the former (e.g., the "scholar's version" (SV) was a product of the Jesus seminar, whose members translated the NT into the SV).
Because most people aren't interested in learning dead languages and are content to deal with the inaccuracies inherent in translations.So, what is the purpose in knowingly producing an inferior work?
Yet you say you're "producing a translation."
There are some languages I am familiar with such that given a reference grammar and lexicon I can work my way through a text written in that language (Portuguese, for example, or Ugaritic). I am not reading these texts, I am producing a translation that is bound to be inferior to any produced by one who knows the language enough to read it without depending upon such tools.
Again, I specifically stated that when I am "producing a translation", it is "bound to be inferior" to any translation produced by someone who can read the language. This is the case when I can't read the language. If I can read it, I'm not translating.In other words your translation is
1) I'm not claiming that"I can do what no one before me has done: translate X better."
And if this isn't one's goal then why bother?
Of course. But the most fundamental or important ones aren't a matter of doctrine (at least not religious doctrine). Many people enjoy Young's literal translation, thinking that it somehow gets them closer as it is (misleadingly) called a "literal" translation. I read many such translations when I was first learning Greek, because until one is sufficiently used to flexible word order and other grammatical complications, it can be hard to understand a line because e.g., the main verb may be omitted or be in the infinitive form because of indirect discourse. Literal translations help beginning students match words up with the text so that they can figure out how the grammar works. Then they stop being helpful. For those who only have the translations, they are not helpful but misleading. Translators try to be faithful to the text, but also to render the source language into idiomatic English (or whatever the target language). Some find being faithful more important and some find being as readable as possible (idiomatic) more important.Whatever the case, I believe there's always a bias or dictate that steers the translator through the choice of options.
Legitimate translations can only be determined by context. The word also means injury, disagreeable, sad, etc."While 'evil,' 'calamity,' and 'bad times' are legitimate translations of the Hebrew
According to the NWT, Jesus is the one who sent the angel to John in Revelation 1:1.
I agree this is what the verse says.
1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John,"
(NWT)
According to the NWT, Revelation 22:16, it is Jesus who sent his angel.
I agree that this is what this verse says.
"I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star."
(NWT)
According to NWT, Revelation 22:6, it is Jehovah who sent the angel.
This is a contradiction. I disagree, not only because the name Jehovah is not found in any extant Greek manuscript, but it is a direct contradiction of Rev. 1:1 and Rev. 22:16.
Compare Revelation 22:6 in the NWT to the NASB rendering.
Revelation 22:6
And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place.
It is Jesus who is the Lord (kyrios), the God (ho Theos) of the spirits of the prophets according to the apostle John.
The NWT is not trustworthy!
You are missing truth here-- a revelation given to Jesus by God--making it 100% for sure they are separate, not 3 in one. That is why Jesus and all his real teachers--teach--Jesus has a God, his Father= 100% truth--but 2 billion refuse to believe Jesus and them over the lies of the trinity falsities--John 20:17, Rev 3:12-- 2Cor 1:3, 1VCor 8:6, 1Cor 15:24-28,Eph 1:13,17, 2Cor 11:31. Coll 1:3---1Peter 1:3---Rev 1:6---how many times does it have to be told to you by Jesus and his real teachers that Jesus has a God???? its the #1 teaching in the whole NT---its a guarantee today his real teachers teach the same truth. 0 doubt. You are standing in opposition to Jesus' real teachers. They corrected the bad translating done centuries ago to fit Catholicism council teachings.
Undeniable fact of Israelite history--4000 years of it--- From Moses on up to today--they all serve YHWH(Jehovah) a single being mono God--this is the God Jesus was taught his first 30 years attending the synagogues--he never refuted it--trinity translators screwed it all up to mislead--they are a disunified mass of confusion--Mark 3:24-26--a house divided will NOT stand.
I'm not familiar with the NWT, so just where is "Jehovah" added to the text? A few example will suffice.Any translation, such as the NWT, that adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 287 times, and adds other words not found in any extant Greek manuscript is a farce and should be avoided at all costs. We have been given the command to STUDY, and that requires looking at the original languages. I hope you're not suggesting that the NWT translators were reknowed, credible scholars.
Not understanding what you're getting at. John 1:1- 3 in the NWT reads:I hope you apply this same thinking to the NWT because nearly ALL English translations of the Bible say "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Gid, and the word was God." John 1:1. They don't translate "a god" making Jesus into some sort of lesser god.
I'm not familiar with the NWT, so just where is "Jehovah" added to the text? A few example will suffice.
Not understanding what you're getting at. John 1:1- 3 in the NWT reads:
I just noticed the asterisk following "and the Word was a god.*+ " Clicking on it brings up a footnote that says "Or “was divine.” In other words the verse could just as well read; " . . . the Word was divine."Her issue with John 1:1 is it says "the Word was a god" instead of "the Word was God." We've gone over and over about how the NWT is not alone in this difference and that there are grammatical reasons for the variation - grammatical reasons that the KJV acknowledges in other passages that cannot be twisted to make Jesus equal to God Almighty.
Colwell's rule on anarthrous predicate nouns. Technically, the rule doesn't say that the predicate noun in this case must be definite, just that if the predicate noun is definite then the subject NP must be definite. However, the rules makes it far more likely to be definite than not.grammatical reasons
Colwell's rule on anarthrous predicate nouns. Technically, the rule doesn't say that the predicate noun in this case must be definite, just that if the predicate noun is definite then the subject NP must be definite. However, the rules makes it far more likely to be definite than not.
I dropped by the forum for a second and noticed this thread. I just had a couple of quick comments.
LegionOnomaMoi said in post #37 : "Colwell's rule on anarthrous predicate nouns. Technically, the rule doesn't say that the predicate noun in this case must be definite, just that if the predicate noun is definite then the subject NP must be definite. However, the rules makes it far more likely to be definite than not."
LegionOnomaMoi : regarding your comment on Colwell’s rule on anarthrous nouns.
Colwells rule does NOT “make it far more likely to be definite than not.”.
Colwell's rule is contextual. Only the original writers context actually makes the word “God” definite or indefinite in this sentence.
Not only did Colwell do no such thing, but he could not have. Those who studied languages were not in a place to be able to even understand notions like definiteness at that time (though linguistics, philologists, classicists, biblical scholars, etc., did not know this). Colwell looked for patterns in order to identify how certain distributions of word order could make a PN definite despite the lack of an article (among other things). And as shown above, he applied this rule to John 1:1.Colwell’s rule simply explains why certain definite nouns can be anarthrous.
Odd that Colwell failed to notice this.In this case Colwell’s rule can just as likely be used to SUPPORT the case that John meant “a God” rather than “the God” and this was the reason he wrote the sentence as it stands (i.e. without the article.)