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 1 of 9  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Superior translation?
2 years ago  ::  Sep 16, 2015 - 2:37PM #1
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719
ELOQUENS: With the use of a superior translation the NWT, the context is made clear and says it all.

FPD: What makes you think the NWT is a "superior" translation?  Anyone else think the same thing? 
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2015 - 7:26PM #2
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

Me.  For so many reasons.  Here are a few - not in order of importance:


1.   Correcting the Hebrew text which was changed by the Sopherim - for example:


(Habakkuk 1:12) . . .Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. O Jehovah, you appointed them to execute judgment; My Rock, you established them for punishment. . .


NW ref footnote:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060038/...


“You do not die.” Heb., loʼ ta·muthʹ. This was the original reading, but the Sopherim changed it to read loʼ na·muthʹ, “we shall not die”; T, “your word [Aram., mehm·rakhʹ] will stand (endure) to times indefinite.” See App 2B.


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060083


See the latter link for the examples where NW corrects the masoretic (M) text to restore it to the original reading.


2.   Taking note of the waw conversive involving the Hebrew imperfect tense:


See appendix 3C in NW ref:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060087?q...


Excerpt:


Regarding the validity of this theory, O. L. Barnes wrote on p. 1 of his work: “We may rightly ask why the ‘and – Waw ו’ has this strange converting power. Some recent grammars, in an attempt to by-pass the absurdity, state that it is not really the ‘and – Waw ו’ that has this converting power, but it is the key or guide we must look for to indicate the conversion; in end-result, therefore, it amounts to precisely the same thing. I trust it will be evident from what is stated here that in fact the ‘and – Waw ו’ neither has this power, nor is its assumption necessary to explain the rapid, sometimes abrupt, change in sequence of the Hebrew Tenses. In other words, we may dispense completely with the mythical Waw-Consecutive theory invented by grammarians.”


.....


Following, we give Ge 1:3-8 from three different versions: Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation, New World Translation and James Washington Watts’ translation.


Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)


And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future].


New World Translation (1953)


3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light.


James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)


3 Afterward God proceeded to say, “Let there be light”; and gradually light came into existence.


Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)


And God proceeded to view [future] the Light, that it [was] good; and God proceeded to divide [future] between the Light and the darkness;


New World Translation (1953)


4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness.


James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)


4 Also God proceeded to observe the light, [seeing] that it was good; so he proceeded to divide the light and the darkness.


Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)


and God proceeded to call [future] the light Day, and the darkness He called [not “proceeded to call”; the past tense is used] Night; and evening proceeded to be [future], and morning proceeded to be [future] Day one.


New World Translation (1953)


5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.


James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)


5 Then God began to call the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Thus there came to be an evening and a morning, even one day.


Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)


And God proceeded to say [future] Let there become a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it become divisive between waters and waters.


New World Translation (1953)


6 And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.”


James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)


6 Then God continued, saying, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, also let there be a separation between the waters.”


Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)


And God proceeded to make [future] the firmament, and proceeded to divide [future] between the waters which [are] below in relation to the firmament and the waters which [are] above in relation to the firmament;


New World Translation (1953)


7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so.


James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)


7 Accordingly, God proceeded to divide the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and gradually it came to be so.


Benjamin Wills Newton’s translation (1888) (brackets his)


and God proceeded to call [future] the firmament Heavens; and evening proceeded to become [future] and morning proceeded to become [future] Day second.


New World Translation (1953)


8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.


James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his)


8 Thereafter God began to call the expanse Heavens. Thus there came to be an evening and a morning, a second day.


The New World Translation has not followed the unfounded theory of Waw Consecutive when translating Hebrew verbs. This age-old theory does not convey the power and forcefulness of the Hebrew verbs in their original states. Therefore, the New World Translation presents the Hebrew verbs with accurate meaning and dynamism by maintaining a distinction between the perfect and the imperfect states of the Hebrew verbs.


____________________


Just two of the many reasons NW is my favorite Bible translation - more reasons to follow.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2015 - 7:48PM #3
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

Some other reasons I prefer NW:


3.  Distinguishing plural and singular "you."


See:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060001#h...


Excerpt:


SECOND PERSON PLURALS: Where “YOU” is printed in small capital letters, it shows that the pronoun is plural. Also, where the plural number of a verb is not apparent, its plurality is indicated by printing it in small capital letters. If the context already clearly indicates plurality, then no special capitalization is used.


4.   Extensive footnotes using specifically identified manuscripts - so many examples - here is just one:


(Psalm 82:1) . . .God takes his place in the divine assembly; In the middle of the gods he judges:


NW ref footnote on the first "God" -


wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060022/...


“God.” Heb., ʼElo·himʹ.


NW ref. footnote on "Divine One"


wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060022/...


Or, “God.” Heb., ʼEl; LXXVg, “gods”; Sy, “angels.”


NW ref. footnote on "gods"


wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060022/...


Or, “godlike ones.” Heb., ʼelo·himʹ; LXXVgc, “gods”; Sy, “angels”; T, “judges.”


__________________


Thus NW makes clear that there are serious manuscript variations for Ps.82:1 which is one reason Jesus chose Psalms 82:6, not verse 1, to defend his deity - since verse 6 "cannot be nullified" while verse 1 could read God, gods, angels or even judges!


As Jesus said in quoting verse 6:


(John 10:34-36) Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called “gods” those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?


Another example of the outstanding and rather unique footnotes in NW ref. will follow in my next post - where P46 is a variant!



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 20, 2015 - 5:27AM #4
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 20, 2015 - 3:19PM #5
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

NEWT:  Me.  For so many reasons.  Here are a few - not in order of importance: 1.   Correcting the Hebrew text which was changed by the Sopherim - for example:  (Habakkuk 1:12) . . .Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. O Jehovah, you appointed them to execute judgment; My Rock, you established them for punishment. . .




FPD: The Sopherim were a sect of Jews who jealously guarded what they believed was the essence of Judaism.  They manipulated the text in 134 instances which they thought countered their monotheistic theology or where they thought it was degrading to God.  This is one of those emendations.  To me, this is a very obscure and inconsequential change.  Your beloved RNWT has it listed as an alternative reading which would indicate to me that they didn't think it was very significant either.  But what is interesting is that among these 134 known changes by the Sopherim was the change from"Jehovah" in Ps. 110:5 to the word "Adonai" (Lord) as it appears in most English versions.  If nothing else, the Sopherim were maticulous record keepers and the changes that they made and the reasons they made them are recorded.  They changed the word "Jehovah" to "Adonai" because in the original Hebrew it indicated that more than one person inhabited the Godhead.  You can see in 110:1 that Jehovah says to someone else "Sit at my right hand."  You have reverted to the pre-Sopherim text and in verse five you have, ""Jehovah will be at your right hand."  The "your" is referring to Jehovah (verse 1).  The context very clearly identifies the right hand as being that of Jehovah, which means there are two beings, one on the throne and the other at his right hand who are both called Jehovah which is a Trinitarian passage obscured by the Sopherim but clarified by the Watchtower, of all people.  So, in behalf of all Bible believing Trinitarians, may I say a hardy "Thank you."   



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 20, 2015 - 3:36PM #6
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

NEWT:  Thus NW makes clear that there are serious manuscript variations for Ps.82:1 which is one reason Jesus chose Psalms 82:6, not verse 1, to defend his deity - since verse 6 "cannot be nullified" while verse 1 could read God, gods, angels or even judges!


FPD: The reason Jesus used Ps. 82:6 is never given in Scripture.  This is pure conjecture on your part. 


NEWT:  As Jesus said in quoting verse 6:  (John 10:34-36) Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called “gods” those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?


FPD: We've dealt with this in another thread. 


NEWT:  Another example of the outstanding and rather unique footnotes in NW ref. will follow in my next post - where P46 is a variant!


FPD:  The quotation of Ps. 82 is found in John 10:34cf.  P46 is listed in the Gregory-Aland list as an early 3rd century papyrus from the Beatty Collection that only contains the epistles of Paul, which means it is totally irrelevant to this question.  The only variant in John 10:34-36 is the phrase "...been written in your law..."  Some manuscripts have the pronoun "your" such as p66 and p75 and a long list of other papyri and codexes.  Some omit the pronoun such as p45 and Tertullian, Cyrprian and Eusebius. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 20, 2015 - 3:43PM #7
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

NEWT;  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.


FPD: As I've mentioned before, the "J" documents are Hebrew texts none earlier than the 14 century which were translated out of the original Greek for Hebrew speaking audiences.  They contribute nothing to textual issues.  The Watchtower uses them in references to make it appear that words like "Jehovah" were originally found in the early text, but this is a ruse and not a very good one.  Anyone familiar with the science of textual criticism can spot this piece nonsense right away.  Again, the Watchtower lacks any serious scholarship and in this case is embarrassed by this deliberate attempt that is an outright misrepresentation.  That is something that sinks way below just sloppy scholarship. 


NEWT:  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.


FPD: Any textual variant is a tempering with the text of Scripture, but "J" documents are not scripture nor are they early manuscripts.  I wish to believe the Scripture the way it was written not the way I wish it was written.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 20, 2015 - 10:34PM #8
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

FPD - I did not refer to the J documents in my understanding of how Ephesians 5:17 was tampered with - you need to read my post more carefully.


My point is that most translations do not point out this evidence - and, btw, obviously in this case I prefer the reference edition of NW since  the newer addition is meant for the use of everyone worldwide - including many humble peoples - and therefore is simpler and lacks the complex footnotes of NW ref.


You asked why we prefer NW as a superior translation - you have given no examples of other translations which have the same superior features - for example the rejection of the waw conversive theory of grammarians and instead an accurate rendering of Hebrew verbs into English - notably the Genesis creation account which is shown to be scientifically accurate when the Hebrew imperfect tense is conveyed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 20, 2015 - 10:46PM #9
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

FPD - My comments are in blue - and you are ignoring reason # 4 - specifically the footnotes on Psalms 82:1.


Sep 20, 2015 -- 3:36PM, five_point_dad wrote:


NEWT:  Thus NW makes clear that there are serious manuscript variations for Ps.82:1 which is one reason Jesus chose Psalms 82:6, not verse 1, to defend his deity - since verse 6 "cannot be nullified" while verse 1 could read God, gods, angels or even judges!


FPD: The reason Jesus used Ps. 82:6 is never given in Scripture.  This is pure conjecture on your part. 


Wrong FPD - What I posted is stated in John 13:35.   Also you are ignoring reason # 4 - the very footnote in Psalms 82:1.


NEWT:  As Jesus said in quoting verse 6:  (John 10:34-36) Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called “gods” those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?


FPD: We've dealt with this in another thread.  


You are still ignoring reason # 4.


NEWT:  Another example of the outstanding and rather unique footnotes in NW ref. will follow in my next post - where P46 is a variant!


FPD:  The quotation of Ps. 82 is found in John 10:34cf.  P46 is listed in the Gregory-Aland list as an early 3rd century papyrus from the Beatty Collection that only contains the epistles of Paul, which means it is totally irrelevant to this question.  The only variant in John 10:34-36 is the phrase "...been written in your law..."  Some manuscripts have the pronoun "your" such as p66 and p75 and a long list of other papyri and codexes.  Some omit the pronoun such as p45 and Tertullian, Cyrprian and Eusebius. 


Well, you need to read my posts more carefully - the footnote was on Ps.82:1 not verse 6 - again you are ignoring reason # 4.


Also, P46 is in the footnote on Ephesians 5:17, not Psalms 82:6.




So what translation that you prefer has footnotes comparable to NW ref.?   And please include the link so I can examine it.    Thank you in advance.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 20, 2015 - 10:56PM #10
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

FPD - As you can see from my post, I did not refer to the J documents.   So you were not actually responding to this post.


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.




FPD - The J documents (not all of them) restore the Divine Name to Ephesians 5:17 - they have zero bearing my two possibilities above - so why bring these up?   Can you respond on those 2 possibilities or give a third or fourth you prefer?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 9  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook