The New World Tranlsation of the Holy Scriptures

James the Persian · Jul 22, 2005

May,

Whilst you're right on the name thing (it's an argument I would normally use against modalists like Oneness Pentecostals), I don't see how it bolsters your cause. If you're saying that we are to baptise by the authority of the Holy Spirit whilst also claiming that this is nothing more than God's active force in the world, then you are saying nothing at all. I may have authority, but how can my actions? In fact, you'd be left with something that would read like 'by the authority of God, the Archangel Michael and God's actions' doesn't make much sense to me.

You'd also have to explain why the Holy Spirit is always referred to using personal language, given titles etc. It is clear from an unbiased reading of the original text that the early Church conceived of the Holy Spirit in entirely Personal terms. There is no place for an impersonal 'Force' in Scripture. It's a long time since i've had a look at the NWT, though, so it could well be that it avoids the issue by use of (almost certainly deliberately) mistranslated Greek.

I'm also intrigued that you mention the Septuagint. I thought that JWs, like most of the post-Reformation denominations eschewed that. Or am I wrong? Do you actually use the deuterocannonical books? If you don't, then it seems odd that you would try to base your argument on Scriptures you do not, in fact, use.

James

may · Jul 22, 2005

Mister Emu said:
Yes it is, you just said so yourself. You had supposedly inaccurate translations, that did not fit your view, so you(JWs) made a new one, "getting back to the pure word of truth", or translating it to agree with you.

It sure should be, but if you have an agenda from the start, say that the other translations are wrong, then you start out biased and unable to objectively translate, because if you see that a word should be such, but it agrees with an "inaccurate" translation, well it must be wrong, and it means something else that fits in with your theology.

Are you aware that the KJV is a translation to fit aview . that is why the NWT is a word for word translation , the picture becomes clearer and is not clouded with manmade tradtions, the reason that JW can use other bibles and also see the truth, is because the bible as a whole does not teach a trinity .JW are not the only ones to not believe in the trinity there are other people who can see that the bible teaches that Jesus is the first born Son of God and not God himself JW are not on there own about this, its just that we feel it is important to do the will of God and make the truth known ,thats why they have made this bible available to the world

may · Jul 22, 2005

IacobPersul said:
May,

Whilst you're right on the name thing (it's an argument I would normally use against modalists like Oneness Pentecostals), I don't see how it bolsters your cause. If you're saying that we are to baptise by the authority of the Holy Spirit whilst also claiming that this is nothing more than God's active force in the world, then you are saying nothing at all. I may have authority, but how can my actions? In fact, you'd be left with something that would read like 'by the authority of God, the Archangel Michael and God's actions' doesn't make much sense to me.

You'd also have to explain why the Holy Spirit is always referred to using personal language, given titles etc. It is clear from an unbiased reading of the original text that the early Church conceived of the Holy Spirit in entirely Personal terms. There is no place for an impersonal 'Force' in Scripture. It's a long time since i've had a look at the NWT, though, so it could well be that it avoids the issue by use of (almost certainly deliberately) mistranslated Greek.

I'm also intrigued that you mention the Septuagint. I thought that JWs, like most of the post-Reformation denominations eschewed that. Or am I wrong? Do you actually use the deuterocannonical books? If you don't, then it seems odd that you would try to base your argument on Scriptures you do not, in fact, use.

James

Today, the Bible is the most widely translated book in history. Over 90 percent of the human family have access to at least part of it in their own language. We are particularly grateful for an accurate modern-language translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, now available in whole or in part in over 40 languages. The New World Translation of the Holy ScripturesWith References contains hundreds of footnote references to the Septuagint and to other ancient manuscripts. Indeed, the Septuagint continues to be of interest and value to Bible students in our day.

Mister Emu · Jul 22, 2005

that is why the NWT is a word for word translation

No it is not.

Read Genesis 1:2 NWT :

Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and Gods active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

ruwach, translated as "active force" means wind, breath, mind, and spirit. Already we have a deviation of this "word for word" translation.

may · Jul 22, 2005

Aqualung said:
The trinity is biblical.
Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image" (don't give me the whole "we as in what monarchs use" line, either)
Gen 3:22 "Man has become as one of us"
Matt 28:19 "baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
John 10:30 "I and my father are one" (you may say, "yes. One in purpose." That is what the trinity is - 3 seperate and distict personages who are united in purpose)
John 10:38 "the father is in me"
John 17:21 "That they all me be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee"
Acts 17:29 mentions a "Godhead" or trinity. so do Romans 1:20 and Col 2:9 (except in the JW bible.)
1 Cor 8:6 "To us there is but one God"
2 Cor 4:4 "Christ, who is the image of God"
1 Jn 5:7 "Tree that bear record in heaven, the Father, The Word [as you can see in Hebrews 1:1-5ish], and the Holy Ghost"

Just because the Bible doesn't come right out and say "there is a trinity. This is what it is." does not mean that its principle are unBiblical in any way, and I have shown that they are indeed Biblical.

It should be noted that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are "not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself." A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.RS, NE, NAB.

James the Persian · Jul 22, 2005

may said:
Today, the Bible is the most widely translated book in history. Over 90 percent of the human family have access to at least part of it in their own language. We are particularly grateful for an accurate modern-language translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, now available in whole or in part in over 40 languages. The New World Translation of the Holy ScripturesWith References contains hundreds of footnote references to the Septuagint and to other ancient manuscripts. Indeed, the Septuagint continues to be of interest and value to Bible students in our day.

Well, for some of us, the Septuagint is of much more value than just as a source of footnotes, it's the Old Testament we continue to use. I must say that I find it very strange when groups argue that the Masoretic Text (despite being post-Christian) is the correct one to use and yet continue to use the Septuagint when it suits them better, or to provide additional information. I just stick with the Old Testament the Church used from the begining and which is overwhelmingly quoted in the New Testament - the Septuagint.

James

James the Persian · Jul 22, 2005

Mister Emu said:
No it is not.

Read Genesis 1:2 NWT :

ruwach, translated as "active force" means wind, breath, mind, and spirit. Already we have a deviation of this "word for word" translation.

Yes, quite right. I also fail to see how you could have a 'word for word' translation. It would be unreadable - translators always have to rephrase things to preserve the original meaning.

I have had the misfortune to read religious texts translated word for word from Romanian into English. I speak both languages and find it easier to read them in either the original Romanian or a proper English translation. In order to read a word for word translation you need to simultaneously think in English vocabulary and Romanian grammar and idiom - it's nigh on impossible.

James

may · Jul 22, 2005

Mister Emu said:
No it is not.

Read Genesis 1:2 NWT :

ruwach, translated as "active force" means wind, breath, mind, and spirit. Already we have a deviation of this "word for word" translation.

The Greek pneu´ma (spirit) comes from pne´o, meaning "breathe or blow," and the Hebrew ru´ach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ru´ach and pneu´ma, then, basically mean "breath" but have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; ones spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and Gods active force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartners Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects...........its the meaning that is important, if the understanding of a word is applied right the thoughts of God are enduring forever. its finding the meaning word for word

James the Persian · Jul 22, 2005

may said:
...........its the meaning that is important, if the understanding of a word is applied right the thoughts of God are enduring forever. its finding the meaning word for word

So, then it's not a word for word translation at all. That would render the word as spirit or breath. What the JW translators have actually done is find the (rather stretched) meaning they most liked, applied that and claimed that it was the original writer's intent, the vast majority of Biblical scholars' opinions past and present, be damned. That's what's meant by translations based on an agenda. It's also translation based on a tradition (paradosis), no matter how much you dislike the word.

James

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 22, 2005

may said:
The New World Translation of the Holy ScripturesWith References contains hundreds of footnote references to the Septuagint and to other ancient manuscripts.

The NWT is the translation of a particular sect, made by individuals of unknown credentials operating under the discipline of that sect, and produced to ensure a conformance between scripture and the revealed truth of that sect. As such, it is the inverse of scholarship.

In those cases where they choose one vorlage over another, or one translation over another, can you offer evidence that these choices are the consecuence of superior scholarship?

may · Jul 22, 2005

IacobPersul said:
May,

Whilst you're right on the name thing (it's an argument I would normally use against modalists like Oneness Pentecostals), I don't see how it bolsters your cause. If you're saying that we are to baptise by the authority of the Holy Spirit whilst also claiming that this is nothing more than God's active force in the world, then you are saying nothing at all. I may have authority, but how can my actions? In fact, you'd be left with something that would read like 'by the authority of God, the Archangel Michael and God's actions' doesn't make much sense to me.

You'd also have to explain why the Holy Spirit is always referred to using personal language, given titles etc. It is clear from an unbiased reading of the original text that the early Church conceived of the Holy Spirit in entirely Personal terms. There is no place for an impersonal 'Force' in Scripture. It's a long time since i've had a look at the NWT, though, so it could well be that it avoids the issue by use of (almost certainly deliberately) mistranslated Greek.

I'm also intrigued that you mention the Septuagint. I thought that JWs, like most of the post-Reformation denominations eschewed that. Or am I wrong? Do you actually use the deuterocannonical books? If you don't, then it seems odd that you would try to base your argument on Scriptures you do not, in fact, use.

James

In the Scriptures it is not unusual for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have children. (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are called kings. (Romans 5:14, 21) At Genesis 4:7 The New English Bible (NE) says: "Sin is a demon crouching at the door," personifying sin as a wicked spirit crouching at Cains door. But, of course, sin is not a spirit person; nor does personifying the holy spirit make it a spirit person

may · Jul 22, 2005

IacobPersul said:
Well, for some of us, the Septuagint is of much more value than just as a source of footnotes, it's the Old Testament we continue to use. I must say that I find it very strange when groups argue that the Masoretic Text (despite being post-Christian) is the correct one to use and yet continue to use the Septuagint when it suits them better, or to provide additional information. I just stick with the Old Testament the Church used from the begining and which is overwhelmingly quoted in the New Testament - the Septuagint.

James

the problem there is, the church had already started to deviate from the pure word of God by that time ,just like the bible said it would

James the Persian · Jul 22, 2005

may said:
the problem there is, the church had already started to deviate from the pure word of God by that time ,just like the bible said it would

Really? That's the first time I've ever heard it argued that the Church was already corrupt at the time the New Testament was written. Usually the finger is pointed at St. Constantine. If what you say is true, then how can you trust any of the Scriptures at all, even in the NWT version?

Also, I think you are misreading Scripture somewhat. In our version at least, whilst it says that false teachers will arise, it most certainly does not say that the Church will apostasize. It actually says quite the opposite, describing the Church as the pillar and ground of the Truth and saying that the gates of Hell will never prevail against Her. Where do you read evidence for a mass apostacy in Scripture?

James

jeffrey · Jul 22, 2005

As long as is brings people to God and Jesus, why not? I think to many people try to make the Bible to be fact, when it is not. It is the truth, but not all fact. There is a difference. For instance in Luke it states Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room in the in. But In Matthew it says Jesus, when Herod called on the 3 wise men, found Baby Jesus in a house. The truth is Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary. Is it fact that he was born in a manger? Don't know. But I know the truth., not the fact. In Genesis 1 God created man last, but in Genesis 2, God made man 1st. What is the truth? That God created man. The facts very, but the truth remains the same. Am I making sense? LOL.

may · Jul 22, 2005

IacobPersul said:
Really? That's the first time I've ever heard it argued that the Church was already corrupt at the time the New Testament was written. Usually the finger is pointed at St. Constantine. If what you say is true, then how can you trust any of the Scriptures at all, even in the NWT version?

Also, I think you are misreading Scripture somewhat. In our version at least, whilst it says that false teachers will arise, it most certainly does not say that the Church will apostasize. It actually says quite the opposite, describing the Church as the pillar and ground of the Truth and saying that the gates of Hell will never prevail against Her. Where do you read evidence for a mass apostacy in Scripture?

James

How did this apostasy, this rebellion, develop? At 2 Thessalonians 2:6, Paul wrote, regarding his day, about "the thing that acts as a restraint" on the lawless one. What was that? It was the restraining force of the apostles. Their presence, with their powerful gifts bestowed by holy spirit, prevented apostasy from then becoming an epidemic. (Acts 2:1-4; 1 Corinthians 12:28) But when the apostles had died, by about the end of the first century, the restraining brakes were removed.

may · Jul 22, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
The NWT is the translation of a particular sect, made by individuals of unknown credentials operating under the discipline of that sect, and produced to ensure a conformance between scripture and the revealed truth of that sect. As such, it is the inverse of scholarship.

In those cases where they choose one vorlage over another, or one translation over another, can you offer evidence that these choices are the consecuence of superior scholarship?

A Fresh Translation. The New World Translation is a fresh translation from the original Bible languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. By no means is it a revision of any other English translation, nor does it copy any other version as to style, vocabulary, or rhythm. For the Hebrew-Aramaic section, the well-refined and universally accepted text of Rudolf Kittels Biblia Hebraica, the 7th, 8th, and 9th editions (1951-55), was used. A new edition of the Hebrew text known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, dated 1977, was used for updating the information presented in the footnotes of the New World TranslationWith References. The Greek section was translated principally from the Greek master text prepared by Westcott and Hort, published in 1881. However, the New World Bible Translation Committee also consulted other Greek texts, including Nestles Greek text (1948). The translation committee has made a vigorous and accurate translation of the Bible, and this has resulted in a clear and living text, opening up the way to a deeper, more satisfying understanding of the Word of God.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 22, 2005

may said:
A Fresh Translation. The New World Translation is a fresh translation from the original Bible languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. By no means is it a revision of any other English translation, nor does it copy any other version as to style, vocabulary, or rhythm. For the Hebrew-Aramaic section, the well-refined and universally accepted text of Rudolf Kittels Biblia Hebraica, the 7th, 8th, and 9th editions (1951-55), was used. A new edition of the Hebrew text known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, dated 1977, was used for updating the information presented in the footnotes of the New World TranslationWith References. The Greek section was translated principally from the Greek master text prepared by Westcott and Hort, published in 1881. However, the New World Bible Translation Committee also consulted other Greek texts, including Nestles Greek text (1948). The translation committee has made a vigorous and accurate translation of the Bible, and this has resulted in a clear and living text, opening up the way to a deeper, more satisfying understanding of the Word of God.

How clever of you to quote all this (without attribution) while saying nothing. Certainly none of that babble addresses the issues or questions raised in my post. No doubt you're still working on these. In the meantime, would you please divulge the members of this "New World Bible Translation Committe" and their credentials?

sysint · Jul 22, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
How clever of you to quote all this (without attribution) while saying nothing. Certainly none of that babble addresses the issues or questions raised in my post. No doubt you're still working on these. In the meantime, would you please divulge the members of this "New World Bible Translation Committe" and their credentials?

How clever of you not to reply anything of substance.

Have you read this Bible translation in it's entirety? Have any of you detractors? I will start to contribute to this thread shortly, particularly in regards to Hebrews. I'm amazed after watching this thread. However, the fantastic links provided were subpar, and the commentary is no better thus far. Mr. "Deut", what are your esteemed qualifications? Perhaps you thought the apostles incapable as well? Try considering the actual content rather than your perceived pedigree.

You have to give the JW's credit, it's a very nice translation. They have managed to put the divine name back which most translations leave out thousands of times to mere peer pressure. Who's tradition is being followed by the removal? (And, to remove the thoughts of the obvious following posts, nobody really know the proper pronunciation of "Jesus" either.)

In regards to the NWT I quote; ".. an effort has been made to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern-English idiom allows and hwere a literal rendition does not, by any awkwardness, hide the thought." I'll let you detractors read the rest of the paragraph.

I work on Hebrews next... no more lurking.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 22, 2005

sysint said:
How clever of you not to reply anything of substance.

Please address the points raised.

sysint said:
Perhaps you thought the apostles incapable as well?

Actually, yes, but that is a different topic. Now, again, please address the points raised.

sysint · Jul 22, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
The NWT is the translation of a particular sect, made by individuals of unknown credentials operating under the discipline of that sect, and produced to ensure a conformance between scripture and the revealed truth of that sect. As such, it is the inverse of scholarship.

In those cases where they choose one vorlage over another, or one translation over another, can you offer evidence that these choices are the consecuence of superior scholarship?

Scholarship - I see. More important than accuracy to you.

"Produced to ensure a conformance..." Blanket statement. Very ambiguous. Please state some facts.
They don't say who wrote it. When they do, (not some third party speculators) I still won't care much. I would suggest concerning yourself more with content.

The New World Tranlsation of the Holy Scriptures

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Well-Known Member

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Well-Known Member

Dreptcredincios Crestin

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dreptcredincios Crestin

â Ãig Dogâ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Member

-- untitled --

Member

â Ãig Dogâ