1. 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!

Serious Problems With New World Translation

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by katiemygirl, Feb 11, 2015.

  1. lockyfan

    lockyfan Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    756
    Ratings:
    +13
    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
     
  2. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    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.
    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.
     
  3. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    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.
     
  4. Unification

    Unification Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    3,040
    Ratings:
    +341
    At the end of the day, you are all arguing over something useless and of no profit.... Your idol vs their idol. Your religion vs their religion. Your vain imaginations vs their vain imaginations. Your created world and empire within vs their created world and empire within. Your self created God vs their self created God. Not many are even reading or hearing another's response. They react without response and make it about themselves. Much study is a work of the flesh and a waste of time. . And how deceptive and tragic would it be to know that all of your own "head knowledge" and wasted hours and days of life being obsessive with something not alive or that gives any life...has been in vain?
     
  5. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    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.

    For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21


    Jesus made it crystal clear in Revelation.

    18. I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

    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.
     
  6. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,178
    Ratings:
    +14,249
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Perhaps a bit of an overstatement?

    I am reminded of a observation by Nahum Sarna who cautions that the the most repeated comment in the NJPS is [I'm paraphrasing here] "Heb. meaning uncertain," while Plaut notes that 'Yisrael' might actually be a misrendeing of 'Yesharel.' And then there are the persistent debates about the meaning of terms such as 'elep and 'elohim.
     
  7. Pegg

    Pegg Jehovah our God is One

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,450
    Ratings:
    +786
    Religion:
    Jehovah's Witness
    Did you never notice how the prophets called Jehovah 'One'? They never said he was three.

    ie,
    Isaiah 1:4 Woe to the sinful nation,+ the people heavy with error, an evildoing seed,+ ruinous sons!+ They have left Jehovah,+ they have treated the Holy One of Israel with disrespect,+ they have turned backwards.

    “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 6:4

    Zechariah 14:9 And Jehovah will be King over all the earth.+ In that day Jehovah will be one,+ and his name one.

    Mark 12:29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah* our God is one Jehovah,*

    Mark 12:32 The scribe said to him: “Teacher, you spoke well, in line with truth, ‘He is One, and there is no other besides him’;+


    Its no longer me you are arguing with....it is Gods Word.


    Thats ok. Our eternal future depends on knowing the true identity of the Father and of his Christ.
    I would much rather read a bible which clearly identifies both by its translation.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    What interests me is how emotionally charged people come across in accusations, but not so much in the defense.

    @katiemygirl , why don't you have the same zeal for cleaning up the spurious parts of your favorite Bible translation, the NKJV? Over our debates a number of these have come to your attention surely?

    Such as the obvious insertion of "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last: and," at Re 1:11.
    Or “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. And there are three witness bearers on earth” found at 1 John 5:7,8.

    These things do not belong, and are much more serious than using the divine name in Christian Greek Scriptures where ancient translators to Hebrew have done the same prior to the NWT.
     
    #28 Kolibri, Feb 24, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2015
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,920
    Religion:
    Atheist
    So, what is the purpose in knowingly producing an inferior work?

    Yet you say you're "producing a translation."

    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.

    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?

    Yes

    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 . . . . . . . . . ."
     
  10. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    10,975
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    Because most people aren't interested in learning dead languages and are content to deal with the inaccuracies inherent in translations.

    I distinguished between two cases. For languages I barely know, I'm essentially translating and I'd be better of reading someone else's translation. For languages I can read, the opposite is true.

    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.


    1) I'm not claiming that
    2) I'm am claiming everybody who studies languages or translates or is in some other way knowledgeable here knows: translations are always imperfect and will always present an additional barrier between reader and text
    3) Again, reading isn't translating.


    Why bother to do what? Learn the languages? Because every translator knows that her or his translation is imperfect, and knows that someone who can read the original would be better off. The reason for translations is because nobody can learn all languages and most people know only 2 or 3. I don't like reading things in translation, which is the reason must of the languages I know are dead and the few that aren't are of little use to me because most native speakers also speak English and at this point I'm so out of practice all I can do is read the language (and perhaps write).


    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.

    Then there are linguistic concerns. You can't just look up words and get some idea as to what a line means, because words are not the basic units of language. Constructions are. And even for those who do not adopt one or other construction grammar, they still have to translate numerous idioms, phrases that are meaningless if translated literally, collocations, prefabs, and finally the words as they are found in context. If one looks at the entries in the BDAG (the Greek lexicon for the NT and early Christian authors), one will find entries for words that can go on for a page or so, with meanings so diverse one can hardly imagine the same word can construe such different meanings.



    Legitimate translations can only be determined by context. The word also means injury, disagreeable, sad, etc.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. kjw47

    kjw47 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,815
    Ratings:
    +272
    Religion:
    Jehovah' witness

    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.
     
    #31 kjw47, Feb 24, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2015
    • Like Like x 5
  12. Nada

    Nada #

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,467
    Ratings:
    +973
    Religion:
    #
    Well said!:thumbsup:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,920
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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:

    "1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.*+ 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."
     
  14. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    Her issue with John 1:1 is that it reads "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.

    It is actually 237 times that the NWT uses the name Jehovah in the books from Matthew to Revelation. In all but one of these, (as of 1984), each of these has a precedent found when these books were translated over the centuries into Hebrew.

    Here is one example:

    He said to him: "'You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.'" - Mt 22:37. (The KJV says "the Lord thy God")

    Even without the precedent, this is valid as it is a quote of a passage that had the divine name included anyway, namely De 6:5.

    Another example, one that is not a direct quote, is Re 1:8

    "I am the Alpha and the Ome'ga," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty." (the KJV says "saith the Lord")

    Again this was not just a random or biased choice to add Jehovah to this verse. The precedent was set by early translations into Hebrew.

    The one exception to the rule, of using the precedent, is 1 Cor 7:17

    "Nevertheless, just as Jehovah has given each one a portion, let each one so walk as God has called him. And so I give this directive in all the congregations."

    I can not remember clearly if this verse was commented on verbally when the 2013 Revision was released. But it was acknowledged in the 1984 Reference Edition to be the exception to the rule used for limiting the free use of "Jehovah" in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
     
    #34 Kolibri, Feb 24, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2015
  15. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,920
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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."
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    I really appreciate both the alternate renderings in the footnotes and the Glossary of this Revision. A lot of effort has been put forth to broaden our comprehension of what is being said in the original languages.

    You can get a free copy of this Bible along with the KJV, ASV, and Byington for most smart phones and tablets via the app stores. The app is called JW Library.
     
  17. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    10,975
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    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.
     
  18. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    In conversation with @LegionOnomaMoi, we've found that it is not Colwell's rule after all but a variant that deals with qualative anarthrous predicate nouns that is used. I found @LegionOnomaMoi's ability to have these research papers at his fingertips and his grasp of the subject of Greek grammar to far outweigh my own current, and likely immediate, exposure. What I have walked away with is a greater appreciation for how carefully English translations have to be worded to bring the flavor of the subtle nuances found in the Greek to life. Koine Greek to English really requires the skills of a linguist to do a proper job of it.
     
    #38 Kolibri, Feb 25, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2015
  19. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,412
    Ratings:
    +437
    Religion:
    Christian
    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. Colwell’s rule simply explains why certain definite nouns can be anarthrous. 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.)

    For example : John 1:1 reads, in it’s separate phrases :

    Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, that is, "The logos was in the beginning..." (logos has the article and is definite)
    και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, "...and The logos was with The God..." (here both Logos AND God have the article and thus John is referring to “THE” God and not “A” God). This differentiation of these two is implied by articular distinction. Thus John is speaking of specific and definite entities.

    However despite giving θεος an article in the second phrase, he removes the article from θεοσ in the third phrase.

    και θεος ην ο λογος. "....
    and The logos was a God."

    Was this accidental or did John realize the difference in what he wrote? I don't think John thought he had already introduced an articulated "θεος" in the two prior words and an article was not needed since he does not habitually write this way in other verses.

    For example : In John 6, vs 17, the disciples enter "a" boat ( "...εμβαντεσ εισ πλοιον..." - without the article) and later in vs 21 it is "the boat" ("...το πλοιον"... - with an article). John and his readers know that the boat in vs 21 is the same boat as introduced in vs 17. Still, John correctly uses the article in the later verse in this example. Yet John, in 1:1, inside of a single sentence, removes the article in the second introduction of the word θεοσ. Clearly, John realizes the implication of using the greek article in one phrase and of leaving it out of the very next phrase, yet he does it.

    The point is, Colwell's rule doesn't help us in determining context and that the rule supports the rendering of Johns use of "a God" as much or more in this context. The rendering of this verse as "a God" by the NWT is grammatically, correct.

    At any rate, I do not see how this specific issue can be solved by an appeal to greek meaning or greek grammar, but rather it is more likely to be and better solved by historical context. For example, one could look at the earliest Christian writings of the period closest to John’s writing such as diaries, commentaries, mishnas, fiction, sacred and profane descriptions of Christian doctrines, etc to determine how the earliest Judeo-Christians interpreted the biblical texts and what they believed concerning this specific doctrinal point.


    LegionOnomaMou , I also very much agree with you (against the criticism leveled at you by non-translators), that it is not an inflated ego that causes one to engage in personal “correction" or "re-translating" of texts, but merely ones personal observation that there are inaccuracies in the text that one sees once one can read the early language in these texts for themselves. For example, it is only someone who understands Hebrew who knows why if Jesus, spoke Hebrew, he could not have said “this is my Body”, but then they also understand why the translator rendered it that way in English bibles. I also assume that, as you have learned to read greek and hebrew, you have come to realize that the "experts" who translated and created bibles, were often, not particularly "expert" at translating.


    In any case, I wish you good luck and a wonderful journey in this life. I very much honor your commitment to ancient languages and hope to learn some things from you as soon as I have time to return to the forums.


    Clear
    τζνεφιω
     
    #39 Clear, Feb 25, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2015
  20. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    10,975
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    First, Colwell:
    (1) Definite predicate nouns here regularly take the article. (2) The exceptions are for the most part due to a change in word order: (a) Definite predicate nouns which follow the verb (this is the usual order) usually take the article; (b) Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article; (c) Proper names regularly lack the article in the predicate; (d) Predicate nominatives in relative clauses regularly follow the verb whether or not they have the article...a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a "qualitative" noun solely because of the absence of an article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the article. In the case of a predicate noun which follows the verb the reverse is true: the absence of the article in this position is a much more reliable indication that the noun is indefinite. Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article. The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος looks much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was divine" when viewed with reference to this rule."
    Colwell, E. C. (1933). A definite rule for the use of the article in the Greek New Testament. Journal of Biblical Literature, 12-21.




    Were this true, it wouldn't be a rule.

    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.

    However, what I was really addressing was a misconception of a misconception in one of the most popular "advanced" reference grammars for NT Greek: Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (presumably, it is more popular because the only other real contender in English is the BDF, and it is far less readable if one isn't used to those types of reference grammars; i.e., Smyth-Messing, Schwyzer, Kühner, etc.). In his second chapter on the article, Wallace states "Almost immediately scholars (especially of the more conservative stripe) misunderstood Colwell's rule. They saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1. But what they thought Colwell was articulating was actually the converse of the rule, not the rule itself. That is, they thought the rule was: An anarthrous predicate nominative that precedes the verb is usually definite. That is not the rule, nor can it be implied from the rule."

    Now, Wallace can be forgiven here, as we can't expect NT scholars to be well-versed in probability theory and statistical inference. It is true that the converse of a conditional if A then B does not entail if not A then not B. However, as any Bayesian would be glad to explain to you for hours upon end, it does make it more likely.

    Odd that Colwell failed to notice this.
     
Loading...