• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Modern Day Translation Comparison

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
Every language has its own nuisances and you will never get a perfect direct word for word translation from one language to another. If you translate phrases known only to the culture or language then they would make no sense to the language you are translating to. If you are too liberal in your translation the meaning can totally change.

The same is true with Bible translations. An accurate and true to the original writing translation should stick as close to a literal translation as possible, but adding or changing words in the language being translated to when needed to do so provides a more accurate representation of what is being said in the original language.

Here are examples from the following scriptures using the modern language translation of the Bible the New World Translation (NWT) and the archaic English King James Version (KJV):


Genesis 25:29; Isaiah 14:23; Matthew 5:3; 11:12; 1 Corinthians 10:24, 25; Philippians 1:8.


 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Every language has its own nuisances and you will never get a perfect direct word for word translation from one language to another. If you translate phrases known only to the culture or language then they would make no sense to the language you are translating to. If you are too liberal in your translation the meaning can totally change.

The same is true with Bible translations. An accurate and true to the original writing translation should stick as close to a literal translation as possible, but adding or changing words in the language being translated to when needed to do so provides a more accurate representation of what is being said in the original language.

Here are examples from the following scriptures using the modern language translation of the Bible the New World Translation (NWT) and the archaic English King James Version (KJV):


Genesis 25:29; Isaiah 14:23; Matthew 5:3; 11:12; 1 Corinthians 10:24, 25; Philippians 1:8.


Indeed, but there are many other and better established translations than this JW one you mention.

I'd always take a JW version with a pinch of salt, in view of the JW's lack of respect for, and encouragement of, learning.;)
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
Indeed, but there are many other and better established translations than this JW one you mention.

I'd always take a JW version with a pinch of salt, in view of the JW's lack of respect for, and encouragement of, learning.;)

Interesting comment. Actually JWs were "learning" about such viewpoints as your this very day! Interesting...

"None of us like to be insulted. However, if our enemies do insult us and we are overly concerned with what they say, we can become discouraged. (Prov. 24:10) How, then, should we view the insults of opposers? Like Paul, we can “take pleasure . . . in insults.” (2 Cor. 12:10)... That proved true in the first century. Back then, those influenced by Greek culture viewed Christians as unintelligent and weak. And among the Jews, Christians were considered to be “uneducated and ordinary,” like the apostles Peter and John. (Acts 4:13) Christians seemed to be weak; they had no political influence or military power, and people viewed them as outcasts of society."

Today, as Jehovah’s people, we are sometimes looked down on and ridiculed as being unintelligent and weak. Why? Because we do not agree with the attitudes of those around us. We try to be humble, meek, and obedient. The world, on the other hand, admires the proud, the arrogant, and the rebellious. In addition, we do not get involved in politics, and we do not join the military forces of any country. We do not fit into the world’s mold, so we are considered to be inferior to others.
Read John 15:19; Rom. 12:2." - The Watchtower July, 2020 p 15
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
An accurate and true to the original writing translation should stick as close to a literal translation as possible, but adding or changing words in the language being translated to when needed to do so provides a more accurate representation of what is being said in the original language.
And who determines "what is being said in the original language" and how?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Interesting comment. Actually JWs were "learning" about such viewpoints as your this very day! Interesting...

"None of us like to be insulted. However, if our enemies do insult us and we are overly concerned with what they say, we can become discouraged. (Prov. 24:10) How, then, should we view the insults of opposers? Like Paul, we can “take pleasure . . . in insults.” (2 Cor. 12:10)... That proved true in the first century. Back then, those influenced by Greek culture viewed Christians as unintelligent and weak. And among the Jews, Christians were considered to be “uneducated and ordinary,” like the apostles Peter and John. (Acts 4:13) Christians seemed to be weak; they had no political influence or military power, and people viewed them as outcasts of society."

Today, as Jehovah’s people, we are sometimes looked down on and ridiculed as being unintelligent and weak. Why? Because we do not agree with the attitudes of those around us. We try to be humble, meek, and obedient. The world, on the other hand, admires the proud, the arrogant, and the rebellious. In addition, we do not get involved in politics, and we do not join the military forces of any country. We do not fit into the world’s mold, so we are considered to be inferior to others.
Read John 15:19; Rom. 12:2." - The Watchtower July, 2020 p 15
So if someone legitimately criticizes their scholarship, it's because the world is prideful and hates God's true children? Isn't that like going to college, getting a F for the semester, and claiming it's because the Dean is jealous of you and hates you because he's an atheist? It doesn't have anything to do with actual scholarship?

Excuses like that are always the first, and pretty much final clue as to what's really going on. "Just like early Christians were persecuted, so are our scholars." Doesn't ring sincere to me at all.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Every language has its own nuisances and you will never get a perfect direct word for word translation from one language to another. If you translate phrases known only to the culture or language then they would make no sense to the language you are translating to. If you are too liberal in your translation the meaning can totally change.

The same is true with Bible translations. An accurate and true to the original writing translation should stick as close to a literal translation as possible, but adding or changing words in the language being translated to when needed to do so provides a more accurate representation of what is being said in the original language.

Here are examples from the following scriptures using the modern language translation of the Bible the New World Translation (NWT) and the archaic English King James Version (KJV).

It would be nice we could get original texts, but none exist with any provenance nor documented authorship.

The JW attempt at translation and interpretation is not an unbiased academic attempt to be accurate and true to the original writing translation, In fact, the belief that any of the Bible is true to original author and dating of their claim the Bible was written is an unreasonable expectation. There is absolutely no evidence of the original writing known to exist, and the evidence is overwhelming that the different parts of the Bible are edited, redacted and compiled from earlier sources and traditional beliefs.

What evidence can you present of original transcripts of the different parts of the Bible as written by the author claimed? For example the Pentateuch has no known early text before 700-500 BCE and that is stretch, because the text id not known at that time, and the Hebrew language was a primitive Canaanite language.
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
......in view of the JW's lack of respect for, and encouragement of, learning

Like what, for example?

Because, really, this thread is discussing Biblical manuscripts. How does this relate to your post?
is what the OP posted about translating, inaccurate?
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Like what, for example?

Because, really, this thread is discussing Biblical manuscripts. How does this relate to your post?
is what the OP posted about translating, inaccurate?

It does relate to discussing the provenance of Biblical manuscripts. JW and many other fundamentalists reject and do not accept the progress in 'learning' of the academic science of archaeology, paleontology, biology and genetics, but cling to an ancient literal interpretation of scripture without provenance nor known authorship.

As far as understanding of the original language the Hebrew scholars have a far better understanding of the Tanakh as to its original meaning and context, but they often also over state the historical provenance and authorship of the text.

I personally have developed a library in books, and and online commentary of comparing different texts, and their interpretations from as many different sources.
 
Last edited:

cataway

Well-Known Member
there is that thing in translating one language to another , if you are not in the know . it can stump some people . for instance ,a direct translation could be something like this "throw the horse over the fence some hay" .there are some that would get lost in that reading and could not figure out why any one would try to pick up and drop a horse on the other side just so it cold get some hay. gee, why not just open a gate and let the horse walk through to get to the hay? could be their thinking.
fact is its more that just changing one language's words from one to one basis. the words need to be placed by the translator in the proper order .
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
there is that thing in translating one language to another , if you are not in the know . it can stump some people . for instance ,a direct translation could be something like this "throw the horse over the fence some hay" .there are some that would get lost in that reading and could not figure out why any one would try to pick up and drop a horse on the other side just so it cold get some hay. gee, why not just open a gate and let the horse walk through to get to the hay? could be their thinking.
fact is its more that just changing one language's words from one to one basis. the words need to be placed by the translator in the proper order .

There is some vague relevance in this view, but it does not address the claims of JW and many fundamentalist concerning 'their literal interpretation of a specific translation of the the Bible that lacks historical provenance and authorship.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
JW ...... reject and do not accept the progress in 'learning' of the academic science of archaeology, paleontology, biology and genetics

‘Reject Archaeology’? Why would you say that? Regarding paleontology, biology and genetics, JW’s are, for the most part, fascinated by technological advances made in these fields, but certainly reject some interpretations of the facts discovered. In reality, the more elegant and complex structures & functions found in the cell, the more it gives credence to design.
Of course, you won’t agree.

...but cling to an ancient literal interpretation of scripture without provenance nor known authorship.

That’s a broad generality! Like what, for instance?

As far as understanding of the original language the Hebrew scholars have a far better understanding of the Tanakh as to its original meaning and context

Could be. They should, mostly....it’s their ancient writings.

....but they often also over state the historical provenance and authorship of the text.

Again, could be.

I personally have developed a library in books, and and online commentary of comparing different texts, and their interpretations from as many different sources

Yes, so do I. Varied sources are quite helpful.
But again, interpretations are many times, inaccurate. They’re designed to favor the a priori opinions of their authors. Which usually requires these ones to ignore other texts and sources.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
‘Reject Archaeology’? Why would you say that? Regarding paleontology, biology and genetics, JW’s are, for the most part, fascinated by technological advances made in these fields, but certainly reject some interpretations of the facts discovered. In reality, the more elegant and complex structures & functions found in the cell, the more it gives credence to design.
Of course, you won’t agree.

The belief in a literal Genesis contradicts the present 'learning' and knowledge, of archaeology, paleontology, physics, cosmology, biology, and genetics.

That’s a broad generality! Like what, for instance?

Genesis, and the Gospels lack provenance to original writings and authorship. The belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis is based on these being original documented writings.. We do not have any documents for Genesis older than a couple of hundred BCE.

Could be. They should, mostly....it’s their ancient writings.

It is also the ancient writings of Christianity

Yes, so do I. Varied sources are quite helpful.
But again, interpretations are many times, inaccurate. They’re designed to favor the a priori opinions of their authors. Which usually requires these ones to ignore other texts and sources.

Literal interpretations are inaccurate as far as human history and the and the history of the earth and life.
 
Last edited:

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
yet, the actual "authorship" of any version of the commercially available bibles is indeed in question.......since vague ambiguous claims disappear in the raised dust of 'history' and cannot be substantiated to satisfaction
which is the commentary of many....with good reason.
the bible is the most tinkered with story of all time to our knowing...what a book of magik!
got everyone polarized 'buy' its spell.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Only for Young -Earth creationism, which view JW's don't hold.
That is too simplistic and not the whole story concerning JW. JW is inconsistent concerning YEC AND OEC, and believers are divided. Also JW believes in a Noah 'Great Flood,' and there is absolutely no objective evidence for such an event in earth history. They oppose the physical evolution of life including humanity.

One of my main arguments here is the misuse of the science of regional and local floods in history to justify a Noah 'world flood.' These catastrophic local and regional events have been documented to be at different times, and the origin of the floods is known.
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
All natural bodies including human have to exist first before a spoken word is idealised.

Therefore the word was stated to describe natural presence first, before inferring of numbers to a quota of how to design the sciences.

A rational human therefore says, science never owned natural or mass as the statements expressed as a human in the terms human sciences. Thinking conditions.

You cannot think anywhere other than inside of a naturally formed gas history in a water/oxygenated microbial living life...with diversity from the . smallest to the highest, being self human thinker. Owner of forced change, by want of it.

Rational self logical advice.

12 hours of day light support all living organisms but 12 hours of day light also supports our death and decomposition. For in the exact same holy water body, bio life in our witness seeing in the EXACT same living conditions die and decompose.

Scientific relativity of the laws of life survival. Change no status or else all life would die and decompose. Rational advice.

When Nature as a body and form diversifies its species then so would word usage. If you increase worded idealism then word increased applied methodology, human choice would also change the use word. Common sense.

Every body of supposed order is stated by a biological scientist who claims detailed description of each body of the study, claiming what the body owns in self (ended) presence, owner of the body as an order. Why science as a philosophy of wisdom in the past quoted and no man is God. For science was proven wrong and told so.

That humans did not speak on behalf of natural presence. Learnt they were wrong when life began to die unnaturally in its sacrifice. So science virtually told itself that it was wrong, as the state science. Which most of the science community overlook as a self teaching to self. If the bodies which you study did not exist, then you would not own any discussions to the contrary, or information to quote what non existing for their forms meant in an ideal.

It was notified that you were detailing the destruction of everything by quoting when it never existed, when it did exist. If it did not exist you then quoted that the hot dense state did. And no living form began in the hot dense state.

Ancient male Earth realisation quotes that one as O one body of mass meant one ideal, the volcanic mass...to erupt and put Earth O one body/mass back into just being one body of mass. As false idealism of mis quoting word information about natural history. When self is only as old as self is today, as the conscious discussion. A number age value.
 
Top