The New World Tranlsation of the Holy Scriptures

Aqualung · Jul 22, 2005

may said:
may said:

it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits

Click to expand...

Scott1 said:

Well... any group can say that.... heck... I'll write a Bible and you'll just have to take me at my word--- that it's God's Word.... it'll be AMAZING!

Click to expand...

:biglaugh:

I remember what Jehovah's Witness literature about the Mormon tradiotion of praying about scripture to see if it's true. That beleif should come from real scriptural knowledge, not just a warm fuzzy feeling. How is it that you can then go against that by saying that the credentials of the people who translated your Bible are of no matter, and that it was God who allowed them to do that? That's rather compromising, because I bet you felt all warm and fuzzy when you thought about how amazing it was that they translated it without any knowledge at all.

may · Jul 22, 2005

Aqualung said:
They should be inspired. They shouldn't just sit down one day and say "I think I'll make my own translation of the Bible," without being called of God to do that, or they will translate it to fit their notions, and they will put there biases all over the translation. Only with inpiration from God can we make sure that the Bible remains God's inspired word, no matter which language it is in.

i think you misunderstand,no translation in the world is inspired, only the originals penned by those who God inspired . all other copies of those are only translations .and yes you are right people should not just think to themselves i think i will make my own translation, what would be the point in that ?the reason for translation should be to get back to the original thoughtsthats why the NWT is a good translation because it gets back to the original thoughts
due to the activities of archaeologists and Bible scholars, older and more reliable Bible manuscripts have been discovered, many of which are in the original tongues. Thus today there exist some very fine Bible manuscripts that were transcribed in the fourth and fifth centuries of our Common Era and some papyrus fragments of the Christian Greek Scriptures that go back to the middle of the second century. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls of books of the Hebrew Scriptures, dating back to before our Common Era, have thrown added light on Bible passages. The older the Bible manuscript is, the closer it is likely to be to the original autographs of the inspired writers, none of which are in existence today

Scott1 · Jul 22, 2005

may said:
The older the Bible manuscript is, the closer it is likely to be to the original autographs of the inspired writers, none of which are in existence today

... I wonder why you don't apply that thinking to the Biblical Canon... or theology.... or Christology.... should I go on?

Aqualung · Jul 22, 2005

may said:
i think you misunderstand,no translation in the world is inspired, only the originals penned by those who God inspired . all other copies of those are only translations .and yes you are right people should not just think to themselves i think i will make my own translation, what would be the point in that ?the reason for translation should be to get back to the original thoughtsthats why the NWT is a good translation because it gets back to the original thoughts
due to the activities of archaeologists and Bible scholars, older and more reliable Bible manuscripts have been discovered, many of which are in the original tongues. Thus today there exist some very fine Bible manuscripts that were transcribed in the fourth and fifth centuries of our Common Era and some papyrus fragments of the Christian Greek Scriptures that go back to the middle of the second century. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls of books of the Hebrew Scriptures, dating back to before our Common Era, have thrown added light on Bible passages. The older the Bible manuscript is, the closer it is likely to be to the original autographs of the inspired writers, none of which are in existence today

Fine. Maybe inspired has too much connotation. *rolls eyes*
I'm sure that once we find all the original manuscripts, we will find that the Bible that was translated into English because God commanded it, and not because there was a "need" to translate yet another version, will be the ones that are in keeping with everyting.

Melody · Jul 22, 2005

Original Freak said:
So not only do you have to pick the right religion now but you have to pick the right version of the holy text that religion uses? I'm sorry, but I think the odds are against everyone from actually finding the right combination.

No...the truth is there for those who listen...and you can take that any way you choose.

may · Jul 22, 2005

Aqualung said:
Fine. Maybe inspired has too much connotation. *rolls eyes*
I'm sure that once we find all the original manuscripts, we will find that the Bible that was translated into English because God commanded it, and not because there was a "need" to translate yet another version, will be the ones that are in keeping with everyting.

good point the bible does say that the light will get brighter and brighter
Under the illumination of increased Bible knowledge "the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established."Prov. 4:18. bible translation is never complete because better understanding becomes available in these last days. things are unearthed that reveal truths. yes ,the original word of God was complete but it has been adultarated down through time to fit in with false doctrines. that is why we need translaters who are not afraid to expose falsehood . the trinity doctrine is one such falsehood and it is a very big deception. and the hellfire doctrine,plus the false belief that humans have an immortal soul .oh dear , people are so misled.

This twentieth century represents the culmination of this corruptive process. During the nineteen centuries since the days of Christs apostles there has been a great departure from "the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones". (Jude 3, NW) The faithful apostles, and the Hebrew prophets before them, and, in fact, the typical history of the nation of Israel, foretold unitedly that there would be a great "falling away" from the original pure faith and its practice. About the middle of the first century the apostle Paul declared that the "mystery of this lawlessness" was already at work in his day, and he gave repeated warnings against what to expect. (2 Thess. 2:3, 7, NW) The prophecies of these things have proved to be inspired, for they have come true, as all the facts of history show.

sysint · Jul 23, 2005

On Hebrews 1:3 it states NWT "He is the reflection" or as ED "effulgence". Not the same personage.

vs 9 - latter part therefore, "thy GOD anointed thee, "O GOD, with the oil of "Exulatation beyond thy ASSOCIATES." - or fellows/partners.

And later in Hebrews 2:7 where Jesus was "made a little lower than angels". NIV footnote likes to say "little while". (as does NWT ftn) A direct quote from Psalms:

Psalms 8:5And causest him to lack a little of Godhead, And with honour and majesty compassest him. YLT
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings [ftn] and crowned him with glory and honor. NIV ftn - Or than God

Of course this refers to angels as the KJV and NWT point out KJV saying "angels" and NWT "godlike ones" - which is accurate as it's elohim.

At any rate it is God doing the "making". God is the one making the decisions, both in Psalm 8 and also in Hebrews.

There are many referred to as "gods". Even Moses was to be as "god to Pharoah". Which is why it is important to leave the Divine name of God in the Bible rather than pull it out. It creates unnecessary confusion and the necessity for doctrine. (and doctrine to explain the doctrine ie hypostasis)

I find most NWT detractors really have an issue with the belief system of the JW's, not the translation. I find most links citing problems with translation revolve simply around the differing belief.

Hebrews 1:8,9 ED - The throne of thee the god for the age [of the ages] a sceptre of rectitude the sceptre of the kingdom of thee. Thou didst love righteousness, and thou didst hate lawlessness; on account of this anointed thee the God of thee, oil of extreme joy beyond the associates of thee.

8but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.9Thou hast loved righteousness and hast hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with oil of gladness above thy companions.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 23, 2005

sysint said:
I find most NWT detractors really have an issue with the belief system of the JW's, not the translation. I find most links citing problems with translation revolve simply around the differing belief.

Rather than whining about detractors - which is little more than poorly concealed ad hominem - it would be far better to justify the NWT.

If the differences are simply a matter of taste, then let us acknowledge that tastes differ and move on to more productive topics.
If, however, the differences are substantive (or, more accurately, to the extent that you find some difference to be substantive), identify those instances and explain why yours is the superior translation.

To the extent that you honestly attempt the latter, you'll have little option but to confront the issue of competing scholarship. I have little reason to believe that you'll take that route ...

sysint · Jul 23, 2005

Have you read the Translation? -Apparently not, which is astonishing as you seem to have some opinions. You are the one without an apparent position. My only "whine" is someone who states the translation is inferior but apparently doesn't examine the content or has even read the translation. Even authorship of some areas of the Bible is up to question, so a primary empahsis has to be put on content.

Also, don't put words in my mouth. I utilize many translations and don't consider the NWT "mine".

I appreciate that the NWT puts the Divine name of God in it's rightful position.

What you can count on is that I won't put an over-emphasis on snobbery or pedigree over content. I will have no recourse but to avoid that juvenile behavior. My appeal to you would be to examine content. That is the thread.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 23, 2005

sysint said:
Have you read the Translation? -Apparently not, ...

Really?

sysint said:
You are the one without an apparent position.

I have a very clear position: that those who counterpose a new translation bare the burden of proof.

sysint said:
My only "whine" is someone who states the translation is inferior but apparently doesn't examine the content or has even read the translation.

And where, precisely, have I done so?

sysint said:
Even authorship of some areas of the Bible is up to question, so a primary empahsis has to be put on content.

In other words, you prefer those translations which cohere to your doctrinal beliefs irrespective of the competency of translation.

sysint said:
What you can count on is that I won't put an over-emphasis on snobbery or pedigree over content. I will have no recourse but to avoid that juvenile behavior.

Thank you for making clear your disdain for scholarship.

sysint said:
My appeal to you would be to examine content.

No doubt. It is clear that you would much rather preach.

sysint · Jul 23, 2005

Have you read the Translation? Possibly this time you could answer this very simple question rather than being completely evasive.

"In other words, you prefer those translations which cohere to your doctrinal beliefs irrespective of the competency of translation." - Stop your dribble. State your specific verses you have problems with.

You seem to rip apart my commentary but give no response to my simple question stated above or even my emphatic statement that the NWT is more accurate in the use of the Divine Name.

You are trolling and I am already done with you. You have nothing substantial to say.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 23, 2005

sysint said:
... my emphatic statement that the NWT is more accurate in the use of the Divine Name.

More accurate where? Based on what evidence?

sysint · Jul 23, 2005

I'll give you that information on the Divine Name.

Got to go for now - back later with that.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 23, 2005

sysint said:
I'll give you that information on the Divine Name.

Got to go for now - back later with that.

Thank you.

may · Jul 24, 2005

"FULL of falsifications!" Back in the 16th century, that is what opposers said about Martin Luthers translation of the Bible. They believed they could prove that Luthers Bible contained "1,400 heretical errors and lies." Today, Luthers Bible is viewed as a landmark translation. The book Translating the Bible even calls it "a work of genius"!

In this 20th century, the New World Translation has also been charged with falsification .now thats an interesting thought ,and where did the opposition come from in luthers day,oh yes, the so called religious leaders.just something to think about i thought.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 24, 2005

may said:
... ,and where did the opposition come from in luthers day,oh yes, the so called religious leaders.just something to think about i thought.

That is pathetic nonsense, may. If the NWT is a superior translation, indicate where and why, rather than wasting time childishly confirming your inability to do either.

may · Jul 25, 2005

Many Bible translators have abandoned literalness for what they consider to be elegance of language and form. They argue that literal renderings are wooden, stiff, and confining. However, their abandonment of literal translation has brought about, by the introduction of paraphrase and interpretation, many departures from the accurate original statements of truth. They have, in effect, watered down the very thoughts of God this is not the case with the NWT

. The NWT must be appraised on its own merits.

What

kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.

Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally find that some other translators have also seen the need to express the matter in a similar manner.

anders · Jul 25, 2005

May, is this what you want:

"there was one time created gods the heavens and the earth."

I haven't translated the accusative particle, occurring twice, as it has no correspondence in English. Otherwise, that translation is as perfectly literal as can be.

Another literal alternative is "at the beginning created gods ...", depending on how you solve the syntax problem. (It could of course also be argued that the first word should be in, or on, or according to, or...)

Ru'ach Elohim having been mentioned, I give you one translation that can be argued is more literal than the usual ones:

... and god, how wind was blowing!

or, in the words of prof. Gerhard von Rad, "Ru'ach Elohim is better translated 'storm of God', i.e., terrible storm (cf. 'mountain of God', 'lands of God', 'silver of god', meaning simply the superlative."

It should be obvious that there can be no such thing as a "literal" translation, but to make my efforts as literal = corresponding to the letters as possible, I've used only lower-case letters, because there are no upper case letters in Hebrew.

Steve · Jul 25, 2005

may said:
Many Bible translators have abandoned literalness for what they consider to be elegance of language and form. They argue that literal renderings are wooden, stiff, and confining. However, their abandonment of literal translation has brought about, by the introduction of paraphrase and interpretation, many departures from the accurate original statements of truth. They have, in effect, watered down the very thoughts of God this is not the case with the NWT

You must be Joking right? NWT more literal! Ive recently posted this in another thread but ill post it hear also as its very relavant.

The following from http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm is quite interesting.

In the mean time, let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:.

The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not.

*

Not only this but the NWT includes things like "active force" etc which are certainly not literal and far from the meaning of the original texts.

*

Then theres Colossians 1:15 - http://www.carm.org/jw/col1_16-17.htm shows another example of how NWT has been translated to support their theology rather than derive their theology from the scriptures.

"because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." The New World Translation - Emphasis added

The Jehovah's Witness organization has altered the biblical text to suit to its theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. This is why the new world translation adds the word "other" four times in Col. 1:16-17, even though it is not in the Greek text. There exists two Greek words for "other": allos which means another of the same kind; and heteros which means another of a different kind. Paul could have used either word here if he wanted to show that Jesus was "another" created thing. But he did not. There is no linguistic reason at all to insert this word here four times -- unless you are trying support the presupposition that Jesus is not God.

Below is a copy out of the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom interlinear. This book has the Greek words and their exact English translation underneath each word. The right hand column is how the New World translation renders the Greek into the English. I have added red squares is in order to demonstrate the additions into the English text that are not supported in the Greek.

In the New World Translation you will notice that the word "other" is in brackets. This is an admission that the words are not in the original text. Of course, the Watchtower Organization claims that the insertion of the word "other" four times is necessary to clarify the text. It isn't. If anything, it misleads the reader. Nevertheless, if you have the opportunity, ask a Jehovah's Witness to read the text without saying the word "other." Usually, he will have difficulty. Also, ask him what he thinks the text is saying without the word "other" added in. It will be an interesting discussion.

Basically, Jehovah's Witness theology maintains that God created Jesus and then Jesus created all other things.1 If follows that if Jesus "was used by Jehovah in creating all other things"1 then Jesus was with God and used by God as the instrument of creation. Unfortunately for Jehovah's Witnesses God says that He created the heavens and earth "all alone."

"Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASB).

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 25, 2005

may said:
Many Bible translators have abandoned literalness for what they consider to be elegance of language and form. [/size][/font]

How fitting that you should resort to plagiarism - see, for example, here - rather than attempt an honest response. Again: if the NWT is a superior translation, indicate where and why, rather than wasting time childishly confirming your inability to do either.

The New World Tranlsation of the Holy Scriptures

Tasty

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Tasty

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

-- untitled --

Member

-- untitled --

Member

-- untitled --

Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

-- untitled --