Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 9 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9
Switch to Forum Live View Superior translation?
2 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2015 - 10:59AM #81
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

Sep 20, 2015 -- 5:27AM, Newtonian wrote:


4. (continued from above) The superior footnotes of NW ref.:


The footnote at Ephesians 5:17 reveals clues as to early tampering with the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures, aka NT:


(Ephesians 5:17) . . .On this account cease becoming unreasonable, but go on perceiving what the will of Jehovah is.


Footnote on "Jehovah" in NW ref.:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060052/...


“Of Jehovah,” J7,8; אD(Gr.), tou Ky·riʹou; AVgcSyp, “of God”; B, “of our Lord”; P46, “of the Christ.” See App 1D.


Usually, the older mss. are more reliable - P46 is the oldest in this case.   However, as FPD has pointed out in other posts, Lord/kyriou is also possible.


I consider two possibilities (there are others as well)


1.  The original had the Divine Name and was replaced very early with Kyriou/Lord which was then misunderstood to mean Christ instead of Jehovah and therefore copied as "of the Christ" in P46.


2.  The earlier not extant copies has kyrios/Lord which was thought to have replaced the Divine Name in the original, which therefore was copied as "of God" since Jehovah is God.  But in P46 again Lord/kyrios was misunderstood to mean Christ (who is also Lord) and copied as "of the Christ.


Whatever the reason, it is clear that there was tampering going on - something some, like FPD, choose to deny because they wish to believe the Divine Name was not in the original Greek of the Christian Greek Scriptures.


Which brings me to reason #4 as to why NW is my favorite Bible translation(s).   In my next post later.




Bump for FPD who brought up the tangent on which verses originally contained the Divine Name in my thread on the Bible translations now available on our website.  


For example, for Ephesisans 5:17, clicking on verse 17 in NW, our website has these translations:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/dx/r1/lp-e/1001061153/...


                                                                                         Reference Bible Eph 5:17

  • Kingdom Interlinear Eph 5:17



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2015 - 1:00PM #82
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

Here are some reasons why I believe the NWT is the most atrocious of all Bibles.  It isn't a translation because no one on the Watchtower translation committee had the ability to translate the KOINE.  It's actually a paraphrase with all the appropriate changes to the text to give the illusion that the Bible actually teaches Watchtower dogma, which it doesn't!


1) The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word THEON occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as "God." Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

2) The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts.

3) It is only the Watchtower's pre-conceived heretical beliefs that are behind the dishonest and inconsistent translation that is the New World Translation. The New World Translation is most definitely not a valid version of God’s Word. There are minor differences among all the major English translations of the Bible. No English translation is perfect. However, while other Bible translators make minor mistakes in the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek text into English, the NWT intentionally changes the rendering of the text to conform to Jehovah’s Witness theology. The New World Translation is a perversion, not a version, of the Bible.

4) In the 1/1/63 Watchtower magazine on page 95, an article cited a University of Chicago Press article written by Professor Colwell comparing various Bible translations.  Sixty-four criteria were used and the NWT was listed.  However, while the Watchtower article doesn't mention it, the original U. of Chicago article was commending the Westcott and Hort Greek manuscript that the NWT used and not the English NWT.  This amounts to dishonest scholarship.

5) The NT of the NWT contains 237 instances of the world "Jehovah" yet not a single one of the over 5,800 known NT Greek manuscripts known to exist contain that word.  Each and every insertion of the word in the New Testament of the NWT is totally and absolutely void of any textual authority at all.  There are some 50 quotes of OT passages in the NT where the Hebrew word "Jehovah" appeared.  Even if these quotes give a reasonable basis for using the word "Jehovah," that still means that 187 occasions of "Jehovah" in the NT remain totally fraudulent.

6) The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" in almost every instance in the NT (Mt. 26:18, 38; Mk. 14:44; Luke 22:38, etc.).  (See the Kingdom Interlinear.)  Why does the NWT translate this same Greek word as "means" in Mt. 26:26-28; Mk. 14:22-24 & Luke 22:19?  Why the inconsistency in the translation of this one word?

7) Over 50 times in the Bible, we read, "Verily, I say to you....  In the NWT, the comma is placed after the word "you" every time with the lone exception of Luke 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word "today."  Why is the comma placed after this one word in this one instance?  If the NWT were consistent in its placement of the comma in this phrase in Luke 23:43, what would the Bible really say?

8) In the ’69 ed of the NWT in the back they quote the Greek scholar Julius Mantey supporting the NWT of Jn. 1:1.  Mantey wrote the Watchtower headquarters saying he never supported it and he called it “a deliberate mistranslation.”  

9) Dr. Charles Feinberg, a noted Greek scholar, wrote, “The rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek Scholar.”  

10) They quoted Johannes Greber who was a RC priest in Germany who left the Roman Catholic Church and married a spiritist medium.  She helped him render a translation of the Bible using their connections with the spirit world.  In 1956 Wt mag warned people to stay away from Greber and yet in 1962-63 they quote him because at the time he was the only one who rendered John 1:1 the same way they do.  

11) George Gangos (former member of the GB and known to be one of the seven members of the NWT translation committee) was a short order cook in Ohio before coming to Bethel.  

12) Here is a list of reputable Greek scholars and what they think of the NWT.  Bruce Metzger, “It’s a shame kind of scholarship.”  The NWT is a “perversion of the Bible.”  Jason BeDuhn calls the inclusion of “Jehovah” in NWT “inaccurate” and the whole Bible denominationally bias.”  Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaksi of Zurich, “It is monstrous to translate the phrase ‘the Word was a god.’”  Dr. Paual Kaufman of Protland OR.  “The Jehovah’s witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation.”  Dr. James Boyer Winona Lake Indiana, “I’ve never heard of, or read of any Greek scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse [John 1:1] insisted upon by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”  “I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”  William Barclay, “It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the NT like that is intellectually dishonest.”  Dr. J. Johnson of Calvifornia State at Long Beach.  “No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS ENO HO LOGOS as ‘the Word was a god.’  I’m neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.” 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2015 - 9:52PM #83
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

FPD - You posted:


1) The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word THEON occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as "God." Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.


____________________________


Did you think I didn't notice that you gave no Scripture references?


Also, how many translations read "In a beginning" instead of "In the beginning" in either John 1:1 or Genesis 1:1?


There is NO article before beginning in either verse.


NW ref has "the" in bracketts though - and that makes NW ref. a superior translation in my opinion, since it alerted me, the reader, to the fact that the definite article is not present - how many translations do that in either Genesis 1:1 or John 1:1?


It turns out that "the" is also indefinite - since the verse does not state the beginning of what - or which beginning - so that a beginning actually means the same thing as the beginning!


So merely comparing usage without considering context is not going to be a good way of determining superior translation.


I will wait until you actually cite the verses you are referring to.


_____________________


Add this to my list of reasons NW is my favorite translation - in this case NW ref. - namely the inclusion of bracketts to show no definite article is present in Gen. 1:1; John 1:1 - to wit:


(Genesis 1:1) . . . In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


(John 1:1) . . .In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 30, 2015 - 10:57AM #84
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

NEWT:  NW ref has "the" in bracketts though - and that makes NW ref. a superior translation in my opinion, since it alerted me, the reader, to the fact that the definite article is not present - how many translations do that in either Genesis 1:1 or John 1:1? 


FPD: Oh, so by putting "the" in brackets in two verses it qualifies the NWT as a "superior" translation?  How about the 237 inclusions of "Jehovah" in the NT and none of them have any textual support at all?  How about the unauthorized change of "me" to "that one" in Zech. 12:10?  How about the inclusion of the word "other" in Col. 1:16?  All of those are inexcusable molestations of God's Word. 


NEWT:  It turns out that "the" is also indefinite - since the verse does not state the beginning of what - or which beginning - so that a beginning actually means the same thing as the beginning!


FPD: So, let me see if I'm understanding this correctly.  You think the NWT is a "superior" translation because it inserts "The" in brackets in two verses.  Yet, the meaning of those verses are not altered at all.  Yet you insert "other" into Col. 1:16 and it certainly alters the meaning of the verse.  "Jehovah" in 237 instances is a flat and deliberate mistranslation of KURIOS in order to give the illusion that the Bible actually teaches Watchtower error.  So, knowing all that, you still think the NWT is a "superior" translation? You know, Newt, it's thinking like that that has given the Jehovah's Witnesses their fully earned reputation over the years of their existence. 


NEWT:  So merely comparing usage without considering context is not going to be a good way of determining superior translation.


FPD: The passage in Zech. 12:10 is Jehovah saying that He was the one pierced.  That passage is alluded to in John 19:37 and Rev. 1:7 applying it to Christ.  The original language of Zech. 12:10 has the word "me" without any question.  Your Bible changes it to "that one."  You can talk about context all you want to, here is a case where the Bible teaches Christ is Jehovah.  That's not what the Watchtower teaches, so you deliberately and without any authority alter the passage to hide that fact.  I don't see any excuse for doing that.  Is that a "superior" translation?  Any Greek scholar who has commented on the NWT has criticized it in various degrees. 


NEWT:  I will wait until you actually cite the verses you are referring to.


FPD:  All you had to do was count the verses down to John 1:6.  Here is an example of an anarthrous "THOU" that you don't translate as "a god."  With such inconsistencies to simply bolster Watchtower doctrine, you still consider it as a "superior" translation? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook