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!

The New World Tranlsation of the Holy Scriptures

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by dan, Jul 19, 2005.

  1. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,470
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hmm, I read the first one wrong. And still you would have to prove that Jehova is the true rendition, otherwise it is no better than LORD.

    I have, and you are the one making a claim, you say that it is a superior translation, please cite evidence pointing to this conclusion.

    On the KJV, as I said before, not an interesting discussion. For one who harps on reading translations it seems a bit hypocritical to not show the same courtesy when detracting from others. The KJV does not add the word "over" to the text(I am supposing you meant colossians 1:15?) if you would like to start a discussion on that verse by all means do so. Your translation however, still adds words that serve no other purpose than to harmonize the Bible and JW beliefs.

    No, it gives me more of a quesy feeling of seeing the holy word of the Lord being twisted to fit an unbiblical belief.

    No. Calling someone daft and a horse's backside do though.

    Edit: However on that note, Duet, I would be appreciative if you could tone it down as well. Even though you feel what you say is applicable, you don't have to insult to debate.
     
  2. sysint

    sysint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    40
    Ratings:
    +3
    The NWT is not "my" translation. I am simply responding to those who think it is a poor translation, which couldn't be farther from truth.

    You simply cannot justify your position on Colossians. The NWT is not incorrect. It is not an issue with doctrine. The KJV most certainly does add the word "over" where is simply does not exist in the Greek text. Or, can exist. By comparision, the NWT is a better and more accurate rending of the passage. "Over" is out of line taking a liberty that doesn't exist to satisfy doctrine. "Other" is not.

    You may say "unbiblical". What you really mean is that it doesn't support your beliefs, not whether or not it is correct. I don't have that crutch. I am unemcumbered by either your or the JW group doctrinal issues.

    "Hmm, I read the first one wrong. And still you would have to prove that Jehova is the true rendition, otherwise it is no better than LORD."

    Do you go against the KJV stating Jehovah in Psalm and Exodus as well or that you just have the problem with the NWT using it?

    - I'd fully expect you never to use the name Jesus because you don't know the pronunciation (by your reasoning). In fact, use some title rather than any name at all. Will you do that from now on?

    Apparently (if you believe the Bible inspired) God thought the name was important, being in the Hebrew Scriptures over 6800 times. Even Jesus stated in John 12:28: Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. KJV

    Perhaps get past your doctrinal bias and eventually I'll move on to areas of NWT that are not so good.
     
  3. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,470
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    Religion:
    Christian
    Repetition does not equate evidence. You have yet to show any reason to accept NWT as a accurate translation.

    Yes it is. The word other does not occur in the greek.

    No, it does not. The KJV is the version I read, I went back to check it over, because your statement did not sound right, and guess what, it isn't. It states, "the firstborn of all creation", doesn't add the word over.

    Just what exactly would be the difference(once again, the word "over" does not appear in Col. 1:15) between adding over, and adding other, neither occur in the original language, and both would change text to fit a doctrinal view.

    No, I mean unbiblical.

    I have no issue with its usage, but in saying that said usage makes one translation a superior version.

    Actually I do know the pronunciation. When the name(whether Yeshua, or Yehoshua, or whatever) was transliterated into greek it was Iesus(sp), to latin it was Jesu, then to english, Jesus.
     
  4. ThisShouldMakeSense

    ThisShouldMakeSense Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +19
    Really? the tetragrammaton is made up of YHWH. One translation states in it’s preface that one of the reasons it's pronounced Jehovah is because Y make a J sound and W, a V sound. The Tetragrammaton is used in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Septuagint. The name was used by Jesus and his disciples as they were familiar with the Septuagint. Jesus read from Isaiah when in the synagogue at Nazareth. Isaiah used the Tetragrammaton and Jesus pronounced the name then too.
    as a side point, remember the first line of the lords prayer. 'Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.' or sanctify, lift above, glorify your NAME! Not title. People must know his name in order for it to be sanctified.
    The Jews all knew God's personal name. it was Jewish tradition and superstition that went on to take the ten commandment's order not to take his name in a worthless way too far. They thought that if they didn't use it at all and replaced it with titles instead, then they wouldn’t run the risk of taking it in vain.
    that tradition has continued down through the years, so much so that his name has been removed from most translations and replaced by titles and has served to distance people from the true God, who he is, what he stands for and what his purposes for the earth are.
    and as has already been argued, does it mean that just because you don't know how to pronounce someone's name, you don't have to use it?

    take my name for example, some people pronounce it differently to how it should be pronounced. some even struggle to say it altogether. but they never think that perhaps they should take the easy option and call me Mr, Sir, or Man! And I accept whichever way the pronounce it, as I know it’s me they are talking to. If I was in a room full of people and someone called out ‘Sir!’ many of us would turn around. Call me by my name and you’ll get me direct attention.
    The first thing you do when you want to become friends with someone or get to know them is....ask their name! once you know their name, you will get to know them better. So it's very import that we use his name and not just a title. so on those grounds alone, the NWT is superior to many other translations as it had restored his name for people to know him, instead of hide him.

    On to the KJV. It is a well known fact that the language of the KJV is archaic. It was written hundreds of years ago in the language of the time. and here's the thing. the actual words used in many verses have changed in meaning over the years. they were correct at the time but are no longer understood in the same light today. For instance, it uses the word 'allege' in the sense of 'prove'. So it’s not be deception, but it sure is misleading. The NWT doesn't have words that have different meanings for us today. so it's superior in that sense too. Then there are the word endings such –est –eth and it’s thy, thee, thou’s. it’s not in modern easy to understand English. So the NWT is better in that sense too. More people can actually understand what it’s message is and don’t have to study Shakespeare to understand it.
    And as far as additions go and accusations of adding things to fit agenda's and doctrine, how about this one? There is a spurious text, which is found at
    1 John 5: 7. It's a verse that many say shouldn't be as it is, as it was added very much after the book was actually written. There is no footnote in the KJV telling people that it's spurious and that it isn't actually like that in the older manuscripts. So you accuse the NWT of adding things to fit JW teachings, well how about that one being left in, in support of the trinity? If that isn't misleading, I don't know what is...
     
  5. Jayhawker Soule

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

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,019
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Conversely ...
    Given your touching concern for the ineffable name, you might consider the Jerusalem Bible which renders the tetragrammaton as Yahweh.
     
  6. ThisShouldMakeSense

    ThisShouldMakeSense Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +19


    That maybe so. My point is that it is important to pronounce God's name, be it yaweh or jehovah. it must still be accepted that alot of Bible's to spell it as Jehovah tho and a lot of people see it that way too. it is a commony accepted view of pronouncing the name. here is a list of languages and how it's pronounced:
    Awabakal - Yehóa
    Bugotu - Jihova
    Cantonese - Yehwowah
    Danish - Jehova
    Dutch - Jehovah
    Efik - Jehovah
    English - Jehovah
    Fijian - Jiova
    Finnish - Jehova
    French - Jéhovah
    Futuna - Ihova
    German - Jehova
    Hungarian - Jehova
    Igbo - Jehova
    Italian - Geova
    Japanese - Ehoba
    Maori - Ihowa
    Motu - Iehova
    Mwala-Malu - Jihova
    Narrinyeri - Jehovah
    Nembe - Jihova
    Petats - Jihouva
    Polish - Jehowa
    Portuguese - Jeová
    Romanian - Iehova
    Samoan - Ieova
    Sotho - Jehova
    Spanish - Jehová
    Swahili - Yehova
    Swedish - Jehova
    Tahitian - Iehova
    Tagalog - Jehova
    Tongan - Jihova
    Venda - Yehova
    Xhosa - uYehova
    Yoruba - Jehofah
    Zulu - uJehova

    The fact is, no one know exactly how it's pronounced, and as i said, the important thing is that we address him by name and not just title.
     
  7. sysint

    sysint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    40
    Ratings:
    +3
    Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature - KJV
    He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. - NKJV
    He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. KJV 21

    The word "over" is not in the Greek text and shouldn't even be acceptable by implication.

    Anyway, Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation" according to this verse. It's simple reason that all other (there's that word again) things were created as the scriptures state.

    Jesus is "of creation" and you simply don't like to be reminded of that throughout the passage. You want him to be God, but that's not what this passage states, calling him plainly the "firstborn of all creation". The word for all implies other.

    16For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him.

    "all things" - For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. - again, "all things" naturally implies "other" in English. Paul makes the point for you.


    Again, do you take issue with the way the KJV or others represent the Divine name as "Jehovah" or is it simply the NWT? Apparently you accept the way the name Jesus came about but not Jehovah.

    "Actually I do know the pronunciation. When the name(whether Yeshua, or Yehoshua, or whatever) " - Sounds very positive and convincing.
     
  8. Jayhawker Soule

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

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,019
    Religion:
    Judaism
    So you say, but that is an issue of doctrine, not accuracy. Have you given any more thought to Deuteronomy 32.8?
     
  9. ThisShouldMakeSense

    ThisShouldMakeSense Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +19


    Nope, as i don't know what point you're trying to make...
     
  10. Jayhawker Soule

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

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,019
    Religion:
    Judaism
    This is the second time you've said this. I'm curious as to where it comes from.
     
  11. ThisShouldMakeSense

    ThisShouldMakeSense Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +19

    what? the word jesus, or the word jehovah? seeing as JW's are the ones that know so much about the subject, check this link out for more info
    http://www.watchtower.org/library/na/article_02.htm
     
  12. sysint

    sysint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    40
    Ratings:
    +3
    How about statements like the following (for starters):

    "Actually I do know the pronunciation. When the name(whether Yeshua, or Yehoshua, or whatever) was transliterated into greek it was Iesus(sp), to latin it was Jesu, then to english, Jesus."

    I would ask you next what is the meaning of the name Jesus? And also, yod is typically pronounced how in the English language?
     
  13. sysint

    sysint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    40
    Ratings:
    +3
    Preface to the ASV: "I. The change first recommended in the Appendix - that which substitutes "Jehovah" for "LORD" and "GOD" - is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries. This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15, and emphasized as such over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God, as the covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people; -- not merely the abstractly "Eternal One" of many French translations, but the ever living Helper of those who are in trouble. This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim."

    Psalm 83:18
    That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth -KJV
    That they may know that You, whose name alone is the LORD, Are the Most High over all the earth. -NKJV
    that men may know that Thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth.- KJ21

    That they may know that You alone, whose name is the LORD, Are the Most High over all the earth. -NASB

    That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth. -NWT
     
  14. Jayhawker Soule

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

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,019
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I honestly do not recall making such a statement. Perhaps you could provide the citation.
     
  15. Jayhawker Soule

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

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,019
    Religion:
    Judaism
  16. ThisShouldMakeSense

    ThisShouldMakeSense Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +19
    has it clarified anything for you?
     
  17. Jayhawker Soule

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

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,019
    Religion:
    Judaism
    It said nothing of substance that I was previously unaware of, and certainly nothing to suggest that the NWT is a superior translation (as opposed to a more doctrinally sanitized one). I actually find the insistence on 'Jehovah' more than a little silly. I'm far more interested in the choices made in verses such as Deuteronomy 32:8 and Isaiah 7:14.
     
  18. ThisShouldMakeSense

    ThisShouldMakeSense Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +19
    what is your problem with those verses? i don't want to sound funny, i really don't know what you're getting at. can you please spell it out?
     
  19. Jayhawker Soule

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

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,019
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I believe that the former reflects a harmonization, with the LXX (for example) more accurately reflecting the 'original' text.

    As for Isaiah, while I appreciate the honest translation of 'almah', the NWT verse rolls of the tongue like duck turds ...
    ... Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el. ​
    ... possessing all the elegance of a carney at a freak show:
    Step right up folks and look! She is giving birth to a son.​
    I much prefer: "Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son."

    On the whole, I find the NWT typically wrong with regards to Deuteronomy, and better (and uglier) than most with regards to Isaiah.
     
  20. ThisShouldMakeSense

    ThisShouldMakeSense Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +19


    So it's more a matter of personal taste rather than accuracy or message...
    and i mean, look at the this one from the new living version. 'He said, "The young woman, who has never had a man, will give birth to a Son. They will give Him the name Immanuel. This means God with us." '

    i mean that one says she's never had a man! oh, my, that's terrible! and the NIV puts it like this: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel— which means, God with us.'
    pretty ugly too, eh? but who cares? really?? don't be so silly...you like having you ears tickled do you? awww...shall i wrap the bible up in nice cuddly wuddly words for you? :jiggy:
    ps. you must know what it feels like to have duck turds roll off your tongue then, in order to make that comparison...
     
Loading...