• 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!

The New World Tranlsation of the Holy Scriptures

Scott1

Well-Known Member
sysint said:
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.
Ummm... forgive me for jumping in... I'm sure Deut will deal with this quite well... but I'm wondering what exactly you are defending. I take it you are a member of this faith?

The JW faith... as I understand it... revolves around an interpretation/translation of Scripture.

This translation flies in the face of established, historical Biblical scholarship/exegesis.... as James very cleary pointed out.

So... why, exactly, should I trust the content of a translation that was created to fit a preconceived theology?

... the only reason I personally would... is if the credentials of those who did the work were deemed to be unbiased and qualified to do the work.... both of which are LARGELY in dispute.... and ignored by you.:confused:
 

may

Well-Known Member
now ,this brings to mind that Jehovah God does use who ever he chooses to get things done Acts 4;13

they were men unlettered and ordinary

Rather than choosing just those admired according to worldly standards, God selected many plain, ordinary people for his service

You behold his calling of you, brothers, said the apostle Paul, "that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God."—1 Corinthians 1:26-29.....now that is something to think about

 

Aqualung

Tasty
may said:
regarding the scriptures in genesis 1; 26 and 3;22 when we have a correct understanding, the truth becomes clear, here Jehovah God was speaking to his firstborn son , Jesus was in the heavens with his father. Jesus had a prehuman life in the heavens before coming down to the earth as a man .so when Jehovah said let US make man he was speaking to his firstborn son in the heavens
Which is exactly what the trinity state - 3 seperate and distinct personages who always act together to accomplish the will of the father. When they say let US make man in OUR image, in reaffirms the concept of the trinity.

may said:
The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life.
Never once did I say that he didn't have a preearthly existence. I wasn't implying that, I didn't say that, and I don't think it has anything to do with the discussion. Actually, it seems to reaffirm the trinity. All three were there and all three work together, just as the trinity states they should.

may said:
Jesus said to them: "If God were YOUR Father, YOU would love me, for from God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth...John 8;42 yes thats right he was sent forth by his father from heaven
Yes, meaning that he is one of the three seperate and distinct personages who always acts in harmony with the father, just as the trinity staes they should.

may said:
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in [the] beginning with God....John 1;1-2 yes ,when the correct understanding is applied we find the bible as a whole harmonizes
Yes, harmonizes with the doctrine of a trinity or Godhead
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
sysint said:
Scholarship - I see. More important than accuracy to you. Produced to ensure a conformance..." Blanket statement.
What disingenuous claptrap! What is your criteria for judging the accuracy of a translation: the extent to which it serves a specific doctrine or the extent to which it reflects the best available scholarship?
sysint said:
They don't say who wrote it. When they do, (not some third party speculators) I still won't care much.
That much is obvious.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
may said:
regarding matthew 28;19
Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word most frequently used for "spirit" is ru´ach, meaning "breath; wind; spirit." In the Greek Scriptures, the word is pneu´ma, having a similar meaning. Do these words indicate that the holy spirit is part of a Trinity? no the holy spirit is Gods active force
No. It means, as you just stated, Gods "breath, wind, or spirit." This "spirit," not active force, is the third seperate and distinct personage of the Godhead which God uses to accomplish certain things. Becuase it is the only "spirit" in the Godhead, the holy spirit is for the things like being in everybody's heart, and giving people that still small voice. Just as the doctrine of the trinity states, it is a seperate and distinct personage that works to complete the Father's will.

may said:
THE Bible?s use of "holy spirit" indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of his purposes.
Exactly. It is a personage who does the will of the Father. Once again, it is in keeping with a trinity doctrine.

may said:
At Genesis 1:2 the Bible states that "God?s active force ["spirit" (Hebrew, ru´ach)] was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." Here, God?s spirit was his active force working to shape the earth
That's right. It was a seperate and distinct personage, not just God's "active force," which is a showing of the mistranslation, since
may said:
["spirit" (Hebrew, ru´ach)]
which, as I have said many times before, is in keeping with thte Biblical trinity. You see, the JWs have deliberately mistranslated the hebrew word for spirit into "active force" so there would be no trinity.

may said:
At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to "the name . . . of the holy spirit." But the word "name" does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say "in the name of the law," we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. Robertson?s Word Pictures in the New Testament says: "The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority." So baptism ?in the name of the holy spirit? recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will.
You essentially just stated that the trinity is Biblical. I never said the holy spirit was a person. It is a personage who always acts in accordance with the Father, or, as you said "baptism in the name of the holy spirit recognises the authority of the spirit, and that it is from God and funcions by divine will." Once again, in keeping with the trinity.
To say to do something in the name of the law recognises that the law exists, as the law, and not as something else. Therefore, in the name of the holy spirit reconises that there is a holy spirit, and it is seperate, and isn't just God's "active force"
 

Aqualung

Tasty
may said:
regarding JOHN 10;30 Yes you are quite right Aqualung ,to say that the meaning here is unity of purpose between Jehovah God and Jesus his son , no mention of the third part thou?
No. No mentioin of the unity of the third part in this exact verse. You have to read the entire Bible to get doctrine. It usually isn't spelled out exactly in one verse. And, once again, the Godhead is three distict personages acting with unity of purpose, which is in keeping with what is taught in the entire Bible, not just perhaps one verse.

may said:
the scriptures always harmonize when the correct understanding is applied
I know they always harmonise. I didn't say that they didn't. I'm saying that you are making up some wierd harmony that is not in keeping with what is really taught in the Bible, that you are, shall I say, not applying the correct understanding.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
I'll quote James here, becuase it is a really good post, and I didn't read it before I made my post, so I thought I would give it some public recognisiton, and because it is so good it deserves to be here again. Sorry, though, James, I have already frubaled you recently :(, so no pooints for this one.

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
 

sysint

Member
Scott1 said:
Ummm... forgive me for jumping in... I'm sure Deut will deal with this quite well... but I'm wondering what exactly you are defending. I take it you are a member of this faith?

The JW faith... as I understand it... revolves around an interpretation/translation of Scripture.

This translation flies in the face of established, historical Biblical scholarship/exegesis.... as James very cleary pointed out.

So... why, exactly, should I trust the content of a translation that was created to fit a preconceived theology?

... the only reason I personally would... is if the credentials of those who did the work were deemed to be unbiased and qualified to do the work.... both of which are LARGELY in dispute.... and ignored by you.:confused:
I'd rather not enter into argumentum ad hominem so your on your own with your conclusions in regards to authorship or my own credentials. It serves no purpose.

I will also not make commentary on what the JW's believe. I don't care really as it doesn't help the discussion as to the quality of the translation.

Before more consideration of Hebrews, have any of the detractors actually read the Translation?
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
sysint said:
Before more consideration of Hebrews, have any of the detractors actually read the Translation?
I have.... does my having read it help explain all the errors?
 

Aqualung

Tasty
may said:

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.

Spurious, or inspired? I think one has to be both knowledgeable and inspired by God to make a good translation. I think the NWT is only a knowledgeable translation. I think the KJV is knowledgeable and inspired. Don't you know that what manuscripts we have are really, really incomplete? The Bible is riddled all over with mentions of certain scipture that are lost. That's why you have to be inspired of God to make a good translation, not just a translation that is in keeping with what our very incomplete records state.
 

may

Well-Known Member
It is a challenge for any translator to take material in one language and make it understandable to those reading and hearing another language. Some Bible translators have done their work with a keen awareness that what they were translating was the Word of God. Others have simply been fascinated by the scholastic challenge of the project. They may have viewed the contents of the Bible as merely a valuable cultural heritage. For some, religion is their business, and getting into print a book that bears their name as translator or publisher is part of making a living. Their motives obviously influence how they go about their work

Noteworthy is this statement made by the New World Bible Translation Committee: "Translating the Holy Scriptures means rendering into another language the thoughts and sayings of Jehovah God . . . That is a very sobering thought. The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation. It was with such a sense of solemn responsibility that over the course of many years this committee of dedicated men have produced the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures." The goal of the committee was to have a translation of the Bible that would be clear and understandable and that would hold so closely to the original Hebrew and Greek that it would provide a foundation for continued growth in accurate knowledge....Now that sounds about right to me would you not agree

 

Aqualung

Tasty
may said:
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.)
So you're extending meanings in order to get the Bible to fit your (JWs) views? That doesn't seem like something anyone should be doing.

may said:
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
This is exactly what the holy spirit is. Something invisible to human sight which does the will of the Father in every way. Sounds like the third part of the Godhead to me...
 

Aqualung

Tasty
IacobPersul said:
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

Gosh James,. Wvery time I post something, I read that you have already posted the same thing. :bonk:

Edit: Well, perhaps not the same thing, becuase you speak so much more eloquently than I, and oboiusly have quite a bit of knowledge that I don't, but it's usually just aobut what I was thinking, anywhay. :)
 

Aqualung

Tasty
sysint said:
I'd rather not enter into argumentum ad hominem so your on your own with your conclusions in regards to authorship or my own credentials. It serves no purpose.

I will also not make commentary on what the JW's believe. I don't care really as it doesn't help the discussion as to the quality of the translation.

Before more consideration of Hebrews, have any of the detractors actually read the Translation?
Yes. I have read it quite extensively, along with many other transltaions.
 

may

Well-Known Member
Aqualung said:
Spurious, or inspired? I think one has to be both knowledgeable and inspired by God to make a good translation. I think the NWT is only a knowledgeable translation. I think the KJV is knowledgeable and inspired. Don't you know that what manuscripts we have are really, really incomplete? The Bible is riddled all over with mentions of certain scipture that are lost. That's why you have to be inspired of God to make a good translation, not just a translation that is in keeping with what our very incomplete records state.
translators are not inspired, the original word of God was inspired , but translators after that are just that translators. but Jehovah God does use people who are looking to do the will of God
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
may said:
The goal of the committee was to have a translation of the Bible that would be clear and understandable and that would hold so closely to the original Hebrew and Greek that it would provide a foundation for continued growth in accurate knowledge....Now that sounds about right to me would you not agree
Well... I do agree.. that's the problem.... you can only translate something to be close to the original Hebrew and Greek IF YOU UNDERSTAND Hebrew and Greek.

Among the translators, only Franz studied non-biblical Greek (for only two years), and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language.... I didn't think this was disputed... remember how charming it is that they were "unlettered and ordinary";)
 

Aqualung

Tasty
may said:
translators are not inspired, the original word of God was inspired , but translators after that are just that translators. but Jehovah God does use people who are looking to do the will of God
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.
 

sysint

Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
What disingenuous claptrap! What is your criteria for judging the accuracy of a translation: the extent to which it serves a specific doctrine or the extent to which it reflects the best available scholarship?
That much is obvious.
Have you read the Translation or not? Simple question, do you have an honest answer or not?
 

may

Well-Known Member
Scott1 said:
Well... I do agree.. that's the problem.... you can only translate something to be close to the original Hebrew and Greek IF YOU UNDERSTAND Hebrew and Greek.

Among the translators, only Franz studied non-biblical Greek (for only two years), and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language.... I didn't think this was disputed... remember how charming it is that they were "unlettered and ordinary";)
yes amazing isnt it:)


Who​
were the translators?





When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures.​

Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: "We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits

 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
may said:
yes amazing isnt it
I would use another word....
it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits
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!
 
Top