So where did Jesus, Gods first born son ,get his power from. oh yes , Jehovah his Father .he is the ultamate power source just like the scriptures inform us.without the Father Jehovah there would be no First born son He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 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. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist...colossians 1;15-17but remember ,the power source is Jehovah alone.Steve said: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).
-
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
- Thread starter dan
- Start date
The NWT has been put together to seek not the approval of men, but the approval of God. by rendering the word of God as purely and as consitently as their dedicated abilities make possible . There is no benefit in self-deception.There endeavour throughout has been to give as litral a translation as possible where the modern English idiom allows for it or where the thought content is not hidden due to any awkwardness in the litral redition.close watch has been kept against taking liberties with the text merly for the sake of brevity or shortcuts as i read and become familiar with this translation i find that more and more the harmony throughout the translation becomes clear. some people say the bible does not harmonize but i find this one does throughout:clapanders said:
Since the intent of the effort was to produce a text that better harmonized scripture with doctrine, this is hardly surprising, and I'm sure that we're all very glad that it makes you feel good. The question still remains as to whether or not it is a superior translation/emendation and, if so, where and why.may said:
What, for example, was the selection criteria in the NWT rendering of Deuteronomy 32:8 and why do you consider them appropriate?
ThisShouldMakeSense
Active Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
sorry to butt in, but i'm not sure what you mean. i looked at the KJV and compared it with the NWT and there's not much difference. the wording may be slightly different but that's all. the wording is different between most versions...
KJV says: When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
NWT says:8 When the Most High gave the nations an inheritance,
When he parted the sons of Adam from one another,
He proceeded to fix the boundary of the peoples
With regard for the number of the sons of Israel.
seems like they say the same to me....
As does the Masoretic. I remain interested in May's views ...ThisShouldMakeSense said:
ThisShouldMakeSense
Active Member
he probaly has the same views as i do...
thats for you to find out the same way that i did. as for the harmony, i am refering to the bible harmonizing throughout where as if i read bibles that cloud the thought with traditions of man . it becomes out of harmony .the bible then contradics itself .those who are searching for truth will find itDeut. 32.8 said:
What makes sense is that you plagiarize and evade because you can do little more. Very well. If and when you feel competent to discuss competing translations and variations, let me know.may said:
Selection by virtue of ignorance and doctrinal bias?ThisShouldMakeSense said:
In regards to Translation accuracy the NWT has more accurately translated the Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures whereas other translations do not. Period. Over 6800 times. Accurately.
In the Greek Scriptures the NWT has added the name in most quoted Hebrew Scriptures which is inaccurate to the Greek text (as far as we know currently), but is contextually accurate as the quote cited obviously used the Divine Name. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but I understand where someone may and would appreciate this as a footnote notation.
You may complain in the Greek scriptures, but remember the NWT has over a 6800 word headstart of accuracy over other works.
So, Duet - Have you read the Translation?
It's about time you do a little research rather than sit back and criticize. That gets old fast.
In the Greek Scriptures the NWT has added the name in most quoted Hebrew Scriptures which is inaccurate to the Greek text (as far as we know currently), but is contextually accurate as the quote cited obviously used the Divine Name. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but I understand where someone may and would appreciate this as a footnote notation.
You may complain in the Greek scriptures, but remember the NWT has over a 6800 word headstart of accuracy over other works.
So, Duet - Have you read the Translation?
It's about time you do a little research rather than sit back and criticize. That gets old fast.
So you claim, and no doubt the Shasu would be proud of you, but you have yet to identify even one of these cases and show the NWT to be more accurate. Nor will you be able to do so, but it will be fun to watch you try.sysint said:
Perhaps you are too daft to realize where the Tetragrammaton is located in the Hebrew Scriptures.
I feel as though I'm talking to the Horse's backside. Rather than sit back do something rather than waste everyone's time with your inane commentary.
You find the instances in the Hebrew scriptures whereby it's inaccurate. Of course, you may need to actually be familiar with the Translation, or have actually read it, which is in question at this point. When you do something that involves intelligence I will respond. Until then you are on your own.
In the meantime, moving to another aspect, concerning Philippians 2:5-11 NWT does a more accurate (unbiased) rendering of that passage. Much better than NIV (by way of example).
I feel as though I'm talking to the Horse's backside. Rather than sit back do something rather than waste everyone's time with your inane commentary.
You find the instances in the Hebrew scriptures whereby it's inaccurate. Of course, you may need to actually be familiar with the Translation, or have actually read it, which is in question at this point. When you do something that involves intelligence I will respond. Until then you are on your own.
In the meantime, moving to another aspect, concerning Philippians 2:5-11 NWT does a more accurate (unbiased) rendering of that passage. Much better than NIV (by way of example).
It certainly is.sysint said:
Why would you believe that Jehovah is the proper rendering as opposed to, for example, Yahweh? How, for example, do you reconcile the initial yod with the 'J' in Jehovah?
More importantly, given the Ketib-Qere system in effect during the earliest witnesses, on what grounds (other than ignorance or arrogance) do you deem Jehovah more appropriate than, for example, HaShem or Adonai?
The NWT simply pretends to know a vocalization which is unknown. It then proceeds to impose this on the Tanach in a manner that can only be considered grossly contemptuous of Judaic traditions.
And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with translation, much less a superior translation. It has everything to do with arrogance, disrespect, and dogma.
I don't recall making a point of pronunciation. Again, putting words in my mouth. Read more carefully next time. I'm just trying to get you to consider the point I made rather than blast off a different direction. Your mis-direction doesn't play well with me.
If you feel the need to make the issue regarding usage of Yahweh, Jehovah, or even Adonai state your case if you want to move to a different topic. I will point out even KJV utilizes the name Jehovah along with YLT, ASV, Darby, ED, NEB, Living Bible, ERV, Webster, ..... I could go on but perhaps even you get the point. NWT consistently renders it (Tetragrammaton) Jehovah whereas the others do not or even render it LORD which is not a personal name. In the Hebrew scriptures the NWT has the most consistent and accurate rendering.
Apparently you say the name Jesus. To borrow your reasoning, "Why would you believe that Jesus is the proper rendering as opposed to, for example, Yeshua? I'll expect you never to utilize the name Jesus in the future unless it is consistent with the rendering of Jehovah. Of all these posts on this forum how many have Jesus instead of Yeshua or whether the pronunciation in that instance is not important.
Still side-stepping the issue of whether you have read the translation, so your position is very weak.
If you feel the need to make the issue regarding usage of Yahweh, Jehovah, or even Adonai state your case if you want to move to a different topic. I will point out even KJV utilizes the name Jehovah along with YLT, ASV, Darby, ED, NEB, Living Bible, ERV, Webster, ..... I could go on but perhaps even you get the point. NWT consistently renders it (Tetragrammaton) Jehovah whereas the others do not or even render it LORD which is not a personal name. In the Hebrew scriptures the NWT has the most consistent and accurate rendering.
Apparently you say the name Jesus. To borrow your reasoning, "Why would you believe that Jesus is the proper rendering as opposed to, for example, Yeshua? I'll expect you never to utilize the name Jesus in the future unless it is consistent with the rendering of Jehovah. Of all these posts on this forum how many have Jesus instead of Yeshua or whether the pronunciation in that instance is not important.
Still side-stepping the issue of whether you have read the translation, so your position is very weak.
Deut. 32.8 said:
I'm discussing accuracy, you are discussing traditions. Out of one side of your mouth you say that the NWT supports doctrine and traditions of the JW faith, then out of the other side complain it doesn't follow Judaic traditions.
Apparently you have issue with the many, many other translations that utilize the name Jehovah, "a vocalization which is unknown".
Weak. Very weak.
Steve said: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.
OK - so here it's almost like you have a point. But, no you don't have a point.
Do you always go around talking like Yoda? "Thirsty I am" or Test, you will"? Here's a link to help you out if you like that sort of thing: Yodatalk
In the meantime the English language is nice because the normal structure is a Subject, a Verb, and a Predicate. So, I'm thinking that if you want to translate John 8:58 rather than skew the meaning to suit some personal bias you would simply state it in plain English sentence structure.
So, now I'm off to find another instance of this in the scriptures .... (of which I'm certain to find somewhere very soon. Seems very idiomatic.)
I quote your "Enquirer" type site:
"The Jehovah's Witnesses have spent a great deal of time developing and crafting linguistic arguments to favor their translation of John 8:58. Wading through their arguments dealing with Greek tenses, verb forms, and grammar rules is beyond the scope of this paper. (bold italics are mine) However, it is sufficient to mention that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a theological bias against the deity of Christ. Their translation of John 8:58 and their attempts to justify this translation are directly related to their presuppositions against Christ and his deity. "
I'm sure Deut will be all over you for posting such un-scholarly work as this.
Steve said: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."
Taking in consideration the "Enquirer" type link this is I thought why not work on this one too. I noticed the NWT has bracketed words all the way into verse 20.
Darby, YLT, KJV and NASB have italics for this passage as well. Any reason that these translations have italics (could it <gasp> be similar to brackets?)?
I'm sure that will be an interesting discussion to leave out those italics in those translations. Or, simply use the NIV which doesn't even make the distinction. But wait, your little "Enquirer" link utilizes NASB! Please explain why some words are italicized in this same passage.
I wouldn't want to be led astray by italics!
Sysint,
Personal attacks are not tolerated, this is to be a civil debate. You have stated multiple times that the NWT is superior, yet I have not seen any evidence to back this up. No I have not read the NWT beyond a few verses here and there, just to get that out of the way. If you would provide just a few of the "over 6800" times the NWT is more accurate, we would all be appreciative.
On Philippians, please show why the NWT translation is more accurate, show basis of bias in other versions versus non-bias in the NWT also.
Personal attacks are not tolerated, this is to be a civil debate. You have stated multiple times that the NWT is superior, yet I have not seen any evidence to back this up. No I have not read the NWT beyond a few verses here and there, just to get that out of the way. If you would provide just a few of the "over 6800" times the NWT is more accurate, we would all be appreciative.
Actually it wouldn't, I use the KJV, and every time I come to an italicized(inserted) word I re-read the verse without it. Funny thing too, I have yet to come to a situation where the verse in question has its meaning changed drastically, such as the "other"s added in Colossians.
On Philippians, please show why the NWT translation is more accurate, show basis of bias in other versions versus non-bias in the NWT also.
Seriously? OK - Easy ones first, Psalm 83:18 and Ex 6:3. Or, any other spot in the Hebrew Scriptures you like that uses the capital "LORD" in place of the Tetragrammaton may be a start. Appendix 1A in the NWT notes the following reference, [font="]Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament[/font] that the Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. I do not have this reference work, however, I take them at their word. Perhaps you could examine the work yourself.
On Philippians I will hold to my response. Rather than let the detractors sit back - I say do a little homework. Look up the scripture in the NWT, as apparently some commenting haven't read the NWT.
"Actually it wouldn't, I use the KJV, and every time I come to an italicized(inserted) word I re-read the verse without it. Funny thing too, I have yet to come to a situation where the verse in question has its meaning changed drastically, such as the "other"s added in Colossians." - You simply don't like the connotation of [other]. Just as the bracketed "other" is added, so is all the italicized wording in the KJV. It is not found in the text. "Other" is perfectly acceptable as the KJV states plainly that "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. The word "over" is added and simply not in the Greek text. Really then, it is "the firstborn of all creation." So, by extension in this verse logically, all [other] things were created afterwards, Jesus being part of creation, the firstborn. That's according to what is written, your doctrine may tell you otherwise but it's not in Greek. Take away your "over" and you have a problem, not the NWT. You just have a hard time justifying what the Greek actually states regarding Jesus being "the firstborn of all creation". (I let you research that)
The word "other" gives you that uneasy feeling of not being able to misread the verse.
On another note, does "you must be joking" qualify as a personal attack? How about " What disingenuous claptrap!", or "rather than wasting time childishly confirming your inability to do either"? I sure hope you are being fair about things Mr. Moderator.
On Philippians I will hold to my response. Rather than let the detractors sit back - I say do a little homework. Look up the scripture in the NWT, as apparently some commenting haven't read the NWT.
"Actually it wouldn't, I use the KJV, and every time I come to an italicized(inserted) word I re-read the verse without it. Funny thing too, I have yet to come to a situation where the verse in question has its meaning changed drastically, such as the "other"s added in Colossians." - You simply don't like the connotation of [other]. Just as the bracketed "other" is added, so is all the italicized wording in the KJV. It is not found in the text. "Other" is perfectly acceptable as the KJV states plainly that "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. The word "over" is added and simply not in the Greek text. Really then, it is "the firstborn of all creation." So, by extension in this verse logically, all [other] things were created afterwards, Jesus being part of creation, the firstborn. That's according to what is written, your doctrine may tell you otherwise but it's not in Greek. Take away your "over" and you have a problem, not the NWT. You just have a hard time justifying what the Greek actually states regarding Jesus being "the firstborn of all creation". (I let you research that)
The word "other" gives you that uneasy feeling of not being able to misread the verse.
On another note, does "you must be joking" qualify as a personal attack? How about " What disingenuous claptrap!", or "rather than wasting time childishly confirming your inability to do either"? I sure hope you are being fair about things Mr. Moderator.