| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2007 09:35:48 PM |
| Object: |
The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society's New World Translation version of
the Bible is regarded by Biblical language experts as one of the worst
translations available. Portions of it were intentionally altered to promote
the heretical agenda of the Jehovah's Witnesses parent organization. The
following article provides information for the professing Christian to know
if they are ever offered a copy.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS BOOK!!
Would you place you trust in a surgeon who was about to perform a major
operation on you, if he refused to give you his name or credentials? OR....
Would you place your faith in an attorney, who was defending you against
false accusations of felony charges, if he also refused to give you his name
or credentials?
We can see how important it is that we rely on the names and credentials of
those who serve us in the important aspects of our life. As in the case of
the lawyer, it is essential to know these things, for without knowledge, we
would have no assurance that he would truly and honestly represent you. It
is therefore of the utmost importance to know the men, the credentials and
the qualifications of those who we entrust our spiritual lives!!
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has failed the public at this most
crucial point, as they refuse to give their followers the names and
credentials of the Translation Committee of their Bible, The New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures (see pg. 258 of Jehovah's Witnesses in
the Divine Purpose). This is more important than the Watchtower Society
will admit since the New World Translation Committee has deceived many in
their translation of the Bible in the following ways:
1. They have invented non-existent rules of Greek grammar and then
proceeded to follow these rules only when necessary to support their
peculiar theology.
A clear example of this is John 1:1, where the Translation Committee has
rendered the Greek "and the Word was a god". We cite the appendix of another
Watchtower publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures, page 1158), for their footnote concerning John 1:1: "The reason
for their rendering the Greek word Divine and not God is that it is the
Greek noun Theos without the definite article..." May we call the
Watchtower Society's attention to verses 6, 12 and 13 (also found in the
first chapter of the Gospel of John). Here the Greek noun Theos appears
without the definite article (as in John 1:1) and yet the Translating
Committee has translated each verse as (Jehovah) God.
Another example of non-existent rules followed only when needed to support
their theology is found in the forward of the afore mentioned Kingdom
Interlinear Translation (pg. 18). Here we are taught how to restore the
Divine name. We are instructed that we can render the Greek words "Kyrios"
(Lord) and "Theos" (God) into Divine name by determining if the Christian
(Greek) writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). If
so, we can render "Kyrios" (Lord) and "Theos" (God) as Jehovah God. Once
again, the Watchtower "rule" is avoided by the Translation Committee as they
translate Philippians 2:11. The Apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 as he
states that "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God
(Kyrios) to the glory of God the Father.
2. The Translation Committee has made up a Greek tense that is
non-existent.
We cite the 1950 edition of their "New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures" rendering of John 8:58 where they have translated "ego
eimi" as "I have been" and state that it is "properly rendered in the
perfect indefinite tense" in the Greek language. There is NO "perfect
indefinite sense" in any language! After the Watchtower Society was informed
of this fact, they made the change to the "perfect tense indicative" but as
the Greek student knows, it is present tense and is correctly translated "I
AM" (see Exodus 3:14).
3. They have added words to Scripture which changes the meaning of the
texts to agree with their theology. Notice the Watchtower's rendering of
Colossians 1:16,17, where the word "other" has been added four times to the
text, completely changing its meaning. When Paul wrote those passages that
the Son created all things, it is obvious that the Son was not himself
created. The Watchtower, however, believes that the Son is also a created
being and has therefore added "other" - not found in the Greek Biblical text
at all - to make it appear that the Son is also a creature. As mentioned
before, the Translation Committee has added the word "a" to John 1:1 to make
the Son a creature rather than God Himself. Take note also of the same
deceitfulness displayed in Philippians 2:9 where the word "other" is again
added, when it is not found or even suggested in the original Greek.
4. The men who comprised the Translation Committee had no adequate
schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators. The
self-appointed "scholars" who made up this Translation Committee were: N.H.
Knorr, F.W. Franz, A.D. Schroeder, G.D. Gangas and M. Henschel. Aside from
the current President Franz, none of the Translation Committee members knew
Biblical Greek or Hebrew and Franz's ability is open to serious question.
This came out in the Scottish Court Sessions in November, 1954 (just four
years after the release of the Watchtower Scriptures). The following
exchange of question and answers between the attorney and Franz is taken
from the trial transcript:
Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
A. Yes....
Q. So that you have substantial linguistic apparatus at your
command?
A. Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew,
Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?
A. Yes.....(Pursuer's Proof, pg. 7)
Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
A. I do not speak Hebrew.
Q. You do not?
A. No
Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis.
A. You mean here?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I wouldn't attempt to do that. (Pursuer's Proof, pgs.
102,103).
What Franz failed to do was a simple exercise which an average first or
second year Hebrew student in any seminary would have no difficulty (see
further, "We left Jehovah's Witnesses - A non-Prophet Organization" - Edmond
C. Gruss, pg. 59-101). It is also interesting to note that no Greek scholar
with any credentials will endorse the New World Translation. Bill
Centnar,in 1954 (while still a Jehovah's Witness working at Bethel), was
assigned to interview a well known Bible translator, Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed,
asking him for his evaluation and recommendation of the New World
Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Dr. Goodspeed replied: "No, I'm
afraid that I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable...".
We agree with Dr. Goodspeed and go a step further and state that the
theology brought forth in this translation is a fatal distortion of Biblical
truth. We ask you not to put your trust in such a bias translation of Holy
Scripture or in the Society that has deceived many in the writing of it; we
ask that your faith and trust be placed in the Lord Jesus Christ who said
that unless you believe that HE IS the Eternal God (Ego Eimi - "I AM"), you
will die in your sins (John 8:24). It is because of the danger of the
reversion of the New World Translation of Holy Scriptures that this warning
has been written. Our concern is for you to come to know the TRUE LORD Jesus
Christ...
Let us help you discover more...
PERSONAL FREEDOM OUTREACH MIDWEST
P.O. Box 26062
Saint Louis, Missouri 63136
http://www.pfo.org/
.
|
|
| User: "Sarah Kanary" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
28 Jun 2007 08:59:00 AM |
|
|
On Jun 27, 10:35 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society's New World Translation version of
the Bible is regarded by Biblical language experts as one of the worst
translations available.
Tell it to the following scholars:
J.D. PHILLIPS: "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in
being an owner. You have done a marvelous work...I was happy, indeed,
to see the name Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in
the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to
His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the
effort and cost!"
ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version
committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek
text). "Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern
speech versions, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New
Testament(1950)." (The
Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)
BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a professor at Hebrew University
in Israel). "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew
Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what
is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling
repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to
achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.
Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it
renders the original words into a second language understandably
without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the
Hebrew...Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in
interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given
case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New
World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text
that it does not contain."
S. MACLEAN GILMORE: "In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their
New World Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the
New World Old Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition
was made by a committee...that possessed an unusual competence in
Greek." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page
25, 26)
WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR: "Just when the infidel universities of this land
thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up
surges"Jehovah's Witnesses". ...And with considerable scholarship they
get out their own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah
into the New Testament two or three hundred times...It ought to be
there [in the entire Bible] many times"
(The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)
C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias
"the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the
scrutiny of criticism." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch
Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280
CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the anonymous translators have certainly
rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and
acumen." (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239)
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED: (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at
the University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament
portion of "The Bible an American Translation"). "I am...much pleased
with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast
array of sound serious learning, as I can testify." (Personal Letter
to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8, 1950
ROBERT M. MCCOY: "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of
the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal
intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation." (The
Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)
STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known
as "The Bible in Living English"). "If you are digging for excellent
or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian
Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page 1296)
ALEXANDER THOMPSON: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled
and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true
sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of
expressing." (The Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52)
EDGAR FOSTER, (University of Scotland: "Before I formally began to
study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons, commentaries,
and other translations to try and determine its accuracy. It passed
the litmus test then and it also passes the test now for me...The NWT
is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation _par
excellence_."
THOMAS N. WINTER: (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of
Nebraska). "I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward
the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I
equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an
auxiliary test. After learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated
student could probably learn koine from this source alone. ...the
translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and
consistently accurate. ...In sum, when a witness comes to the door,
the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to
place an order." (The Classical Journal, "The Kingdom Interlinear",
April-May 1974, pages 375, 376) See Also: "Bible Translation how to
choose between them" by Alan S. Duthie,(Alan S. Dunthie is a professor
at the University of Legon), Page103. Comments by Dr. Rijkel ten Kate
Nicholas Kip, Professor of NT Greek, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA USA
says:
"Incidentally, right at the time when this publication(the KIT) came
out, I was assigned to teach at Phillips Academy a course in New
Testament Greek. The quality of Greek scholarship in the Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is very good. I feel
it's one of the greatly under appreciated jewels of the Watch Tower
Society's publications."
Portions of it were intentionally altered to promote
the heretical agenda of the Jehovah's Witnesses parent organization. The
following article provides information for the professing Christian to know
if they are ever offered a copy.
The ridiculous propaganda against it is addressed at
http://users.picknowl.com.au/~hepburn/nwt.htm
http://www.jehovah.to/exe/translation/index.htm
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm
Read the NWT for yourself and compare:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm
Better yet, obtain a Reference copy and look at the appendices and
footnotes. See who is speaking truth and who is not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
28 Jun 2007 12:15:27 PM |
|
|
On Jun 28, 9:59 am, Sarah Kanary <skan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:35 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society's New World Translation version
of
the Bible is regarded by Biblical language experts as one of the worst
translations available.
Tell it to the following scholars:
Your claims are quite disingenuous since the comments are taken out of
context, misrepresent what these people say plus you fail to supply their
backgrounds. However it's also obvious that you took these directly from
Watchtower publications without checking.
J.D. PHILLIPS: "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in
being an owner. You have done a marvelous work...I was happy, indeed,
to see the name Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in
the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to
His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the
effort and cost!"
It would be interesting to see Phillip's entire letter. Some statements
have apparently been edited out ("...") and the statement, "But you have
made a marvelous step in the right direction" seems to indicate some sort of
negative prior comment. In the quote provided, Mr. Phillips is
complimentary of the inclusion of Jehovah in the NWT Christian Greek
Scriptures. This would be an odd compliment for one "schooled in the
original tongues," given that there is no manuscript evidence supporting the
appearance of the Divine Name in the New Testament.
I have been unable to learn much about JD Phillips, other than his
connection with the Church of Christ and a peculiar dispute over the order
of communion. Phillips wrote a pamphlet advocating his view that a single
cup should be used, while others in his denomination favored a less
legalistic approach. In responding to one of his critics, Phillips
commented:
"I assure my readers that it was far from my intention in writing the tract
to indicate anything "learned" on my part. So far from trying to indicate
any learning on my part, I appealed to the best authorities on language,
such as lexicographers, grammars, concordances, professors of languages,
historians, etc., and then quoted verbatim et Ilteratim. What education I
have was gained in the University of Hard Knocks. In Bro. G.C. Brewer's
review of my booklet in the Gospel Advocate, he does me an injustice by
speaking of the work as a 'show of learning'" (Old Paths Advocate,
10/1/1936).
Thus, it does not appear that Mr. Phillips was formally "schooled" in the
original languages, and had no particular skill in them beyond his use of
standard lexical works. His endorsement of the NWT is therefore hardly that
of a noted Biblical scholar.
ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version
committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek
text). "Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern
speech versions, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New
Testament(1950)." (The
Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)
That's not what Mr. Wikgren wrote.
Here are Wikgren's comments in full:
"Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions,
such as Verkyl's New Testament (1945) and the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of
the New Testament (1950)" (The Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99).
Dr. Wikgren was quoted accurately and completely. That is to say, he does
not go on to define which "independent readings" of the NWT he finds to be
"of merit." We do not know what Dr. Wikgren thought about the NWT's more
controversial renderings, such as John 1:1 or Colossians 1:16.
Dr. Wikgren, referring to all of the modern English versions he has been
discussing says this: "A free, idiomatic rendering is not concerned about
literal meanings" (IBID). Thus, his endorsement may be less than Witnesses
would like.
Verkyl's New Testament (also known as the New Berkley Version) reads "and
the Word was God" for John 1:1c, and does not insert "other" into the text
of Colossian 1:16. None of the dozen or so other modern English versions
Dr. Wikgren discusses render these verses as does the NWT. It is therefore
unlikely that Dr. Wikgren would include the NWT readings of these verses
among those he considers meritorious.
BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a professor at Hebrew University
in Israel). "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew
Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what
is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling
repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to
achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.
Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it
renders the original words into a second language understandably
without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the
Hebrew...Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in
interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given
case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New
World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text
that it does not contain."
Benjamin Kedar received his PhD from Yale in 1969, but not in Hebrew. He is
professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. No
doubt, Professor Kedar is knowledgeable about Hebrew, but he is not a
recognized scholar in Biblical Languages.
In a form letter written to those asking for clarification of his apparent
endorsement of the NWT, Professor Kedar writes:
"A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are
open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding
to the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous
rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias."
It will be noted that Professor Kedar limits his comments to the Hebrew
Bible. Few scholars have complained about the Watchtower inserting its
dogma into the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, since the OT contains far fewer
explicit Scriptures teaching the orthodox doctrines that the Watchtower
denies - Christ's deity; the existence of the soul; and hellfire - it is not
surprising that the NWT Hebrew Scriptures are relatively bias-free.
Professor Kedar, of course, says nothing of the relative merits of the NWT
Christian Greek Scriptures.
Professor Kedar's preference for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is not shared by
other scholars. H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from
England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of
The Hebrew Scriptures:
"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate
any intelligent reader - if such it finds - and instead of showing reverence
for the Bible which the translators profess, it is an insult to the Word of
God" (Rowley, H.H., "Jehovah's Witnesses' Translation of the Bible" The
Expository Times 67:107, Jan. 1956).
S. MACLEAN GILMORE: "In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their
New World Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the
New World Old Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition
was made by a committee...that possessed an unusual competence in
Greek." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page
25, 26)
Again you too Gilmore's comments out of context. Very dishonest of you.
Here are Gilmour's comments in full:
"In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation Of
The New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament
translation is now far advanced. The New Testament translation was made by a
committee whose membership has never been revealed -a committee that
possessed an unusual competence in Greek and that made the Westcott and Hort
Greek text basic to their translation. It is clear that doctrinal
considerations influenced many turns of phrase, but the work is no crack-pot
or pseudo-historical fraud" ("The Use and Abuse of the Book of Revelation,"
Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966).
Aside from the negative portrayal of "doctrinal considerations," Mr. Gilmour
made several factual errors in his comments about the NWT, indicating that
he may not have been particularly familiar with the work he was reviewing
(for more information, see Ian Croft's "The New World Translation and its
Critics").
Not exactly the ringing endorsement you attempted to claim.
WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR: "Just when the infidel universities of this land
thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up
surges"Jehovah's Witnesses". ...And with considerable scholarship they
get out their own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah
into the New Testament two or three hundred times...It ought to be
there [in the entire Bible] many times"
(The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)
Not only is Taylor's comments taken out of context, but heavily edited as
well ("...").
The New Bible: Pro and Con is a polemical analysis of the Revised Standard
Version, in which the Baptist Taylor finds many more "cons" than "pros."
The section from which this quote appears is entitled: "Jehovah - The
Completely Banished Word." Taylor laments the RSV's complete removal of
JEHOVAH from its text, in favor of LORD or GOD. Taylor's overall tone can
be surmised from the conclusion he draws just prior to the quoted passage:
"This blackout [of the Divine Name], a vindictive intolerance of God himself
as revealed, is a scandal before the bar of the American conscience"
(Taylor, p. 75).
Taylor continues:
"Sometimes God chastens his people with pagans. Just when the infidel
universities of this land thought they had laughed out of court the very
Name Jehovah, up surges that plebeian and outrageous movement the Name as
their name, 'Jehovah's Witnesses.' And they gather in assemblies under the
very shadow of Columbia University, one hundred and twenty thousand strong.
And they baptize (real meaning of the word, too) over three thousand
converts to their Jehovah one day, and next year over four thousand in a
day. And one of their lawyers goes before our august Supreme Court and
defies the Catholic judge on it to hold back their liberties, and that judge
votes for him. And with considerable scholarship they get out their own New
Testament and, lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two or
three hundred times. And then our curious America says: 'What's it all
about? I bought a copy of the new Bible [the RSV]. But I didn't find that
word even in it. How come, professor? Weren't you on that committee of
translators?' Then will the professor-translator have to confess: 'We are
guilty of suppression of that Name. It ought to be there many times. We
banished it, from professorial pride and self-sufficiency. And God has
judged us with these pagan barbarians and brought it back into the thought
of all people. We ought not to have made that wrong and arbitrary decision.
The next Bible, I assure you, will not repeat our folly.' God said: 'This
is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all
generations' (Ex. 3:15). No. Not to the generation of readers of the RSV.
But wait a minute. Enter Jehovah's Witnesses. He is remembered, in
judgment if not in grace" (Taylor, pp. 75-76).
Taylor, quite clearly, is not endorsing the scholarship of the NWT, beyond
its inclusion of the Divine Name. Even here, it cannot be said that he
approved of the use of the Divine Name in the NWT Christian Greek
Scriptures - beyond the fact that it raised the issue of the Divine Name in
Bible translation to the public's attention. Indeed his "it ought to have
been there many times" refers to the "the new Bible" as a whole, not the New
Testament.
Taylor's work is more polemical than scholarly; for example, his complaint
that Paul's salutation to the saints "at Ephesus" has been placed in a
footnote: "Can you beat this?...This address, I say, has been dropped down
to the margin and put on the same level with so much spurious stuff" (IBID,
p. 76). Taylor seems unaware that three early MSS of Ephesians lack this
phrase. Thus, Taylor's credentials as a Bible scholar are questionable, at
best. Be that as it may, with the numerous attacks Taylor levels at far
less offensive translations in the RSV, one can only speculate what Taylor
would have said about the more controversial translations in the NWT.
C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias
"the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the
scrutiny of criticism." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch
Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280
Professor Houtman's article is not about the NWT, but a recent Dutch
translation of the Bible. His tangential reference to the NWT occurs in a
portion of his review in which Houtman expresses his view that while some
doctrinal bias may be present in a variety of translations, it is not as
great as some might suppose. He writes:
"The translator must know the subject. As we have seen in the past, people
expressed distrust of translations by those belonging to another
denomination or religious community, fearing that theological points of view
would affect the translation. When translations are assessed in a
professional manner it must be concluded that only in exceptional
circumstances can one point to passages in which the doctrinal (or
political and social) point of view of the translators can be traced. Even
the New World translation of the Jehovah Witnesses can withstand criticism
on this point" ("De Kritiek op de Groot Nieuws Bijbel," Nederlands
Theologisch Tijdschrift, 38, 1984, pp. 279-280).
Houtman says that the NWT may withstand criticism on the point that "only in
exceptional circumstances" can one identify bias. He does not claim the NWT
is bias-free, as your claim implies.
Further, while the article quoted only mentions the NWT tangentially,
Professor Houtman has written two articles that specifically evaluate the
NWT - and in his own words, those articles are "very critical." Houtman
assesses the NWT as follows:
"In my view, the New World Translation is an inadequate translation. The
Watchtower Society misuses my articles by quoting sentences without their
context."
Thus, it is certainly incorrect to claim that Professor Houtman endorses the
NWT.
CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the anonymous translators have certainly
rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and
acumen." (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239)
Once again, you (and the WTBTS) have taken Potter's words out of context.
Here are Potter's comments in full:
"Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word
stauros as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the
colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly
rendered the best manuscript texts both Greek and Hebrew with scholarly
ability and acumen" (The Faiths Men Live By, 1954 [fourth printing, 1955]
(NY: Prentice Hall), p. 300).
In the Preface to his book, Potter writes the following:
"This book is written to help people appreciate the good in religions other
than their own....It is true to some extent that 'every man grows in error,'
but too much stress has been put on that point by captious critics of
religion. In this book the emphasis is rather on the more inspiring fact
that 'every man glimpses a truth" (IBID, p. v).
Thus, it does not appear that Potter's intention is to render a critical
evaluation of the NWT. His words must be taken in the context of his
attempt to emphasize the "good" he finds in all religions. We must also
consider what criteria Potter uses to consider the merits he finds in the
NWT.
An interesting biography of Potter may be found at
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/charlesfrancispotter.html
The following remarks are excerpted from this source:
---Begin Excerpt---
He earned a B.D. in 1913 and an S.T.M. in 1917 from Newton Theological
Seminary as well as an M.A. from Bucknell in 1916.
Reflecting the continual development of his personal religious thought away
from orthodoxy toward more liberalism, Potter founded the First Humanist
Society of New York in 1929. The organization stated as its philosophy a
"faith in the supreme value and self-perfectibility of human personality,
conceived socially as well as individually." The First Humanist Society,
whose advisory board included such notables as Julian Huxley, John Dewey,
Albert Einstein and Thomas Mann, served as a model and catalyst for other
humanist organizations and for the humanist movement in general.
In founding the Humanist Society, Potter left the Unitarian ministry behind
and declared that the Society would have no creed, clergy, baptisms or
prayers. "I had given up my fast dwindling belief in the deity of Jesus and
the doctrine of the Trinity," he wrote. "Now, fifteen years later, I was
leaving not only Christianity-if Unitarianism is Christianity-but Theism as
well."
With his Humanist philosophy serving as a platform, Potter now became a
vocal advocate for social reform, campaigning vigorously against capital
punishment, promoting "civil divorce laws," and supporting birth control and
women's rights. In 1938 Potter formed the Euthanasia Society of America,
which eventually boasted a membership of 40,000 and raised the issue of
euthanasia before the American public.
In 1958, soon after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Potter published
perhaps his most popular book, The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed, an
interpretation of the scrolls' contents and their contribution to the
understanding of Jesus as a historical figure. Potter also developed an
interest in extrasensory perception and telepathy, subjects that were an
anathema to other humanists but which Potter believed were of prime concern
to Humanism
---End of Excerpt---
Potter's education does not reflect that of a trained Biblical scholar, and
he has not been recognized within the scholarly community as such. The
reader may judge to what degree Potter's theological "development"
influenced his favorable opinion of the NWT, which (as the full quote
indicates) is not entirely without criticism, despite the stated intention
of his book.
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED: (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at
the University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament
portion of "The Bible an American Translation"). "I am...much pleased
with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast
array of sound serious learning, as I can testify." (Personal Letter
to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8, 1950
This one is one of the WTBTS's biggest blunders because Goodspeed never
endorsed the NWT and in fact was highly critical of it. As evidenced above,
the WTBTS had to edit the quote (also taken out of context) to try to make
it appear Goodspeed was endorsing the NWT when in fact he was not.
Bill Cetnar, who worked at Watchtower Headquarters in New York during the
period when the New World Translation was being prepared, was sent to
interview Dr. Goodspeed in March, 1954 to seek his comments on the first
volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. Cetnar writes:
"During the two-hour long visit with him it was obvious that he knew the
volume well, because he could cite the pages where the readings he objected
to were found. One reading he pointed out as especially awkward and
grammatically poor was in Judges 14:3 where Samson is made to say: `Her get
for me....' As I left, Dr. Goodspeed was asked if he would recommend the
translation for the general public He answered, `No, I'm afraid I could not
do that. The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar. Be sure you
have that right" (Cetnar, W.I. & J., Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses Who
Love The Truth [Kunkletown, Pennsylvania: W.I. Cetnar, 1983], p. 64).
Dr. Goodspeed was, of course, not speaking here about the Greek (New
Testament) Scriptures, but about the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures,
while his earlier, favorable comments related to the Greek Scriptures.
However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's
Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity of
Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written signature and
appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed (to date, the
Society has not produced a signed original). Second, though the letter was
dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an endorsement of the NWT
until 1982. Third, the letter contains several very minor criticisms of the
NWT, but none relating to the more controversial translations - which would
seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own translation differed dramatically with the
NWT in several key texts. Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew,
reported that Goodspeed forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John
1:1 in a personal conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence
that Goodspeed actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he
refused to endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial
evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures,
either.
ROBERT M. MCCOY: "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of
the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal
intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation." (The
Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)
Again, the WTBTS does not offer the full words of someone they claim
endorsed the NWT. Furthermore, McCoy's background shows he was not a
Biblical languages scholar.
Here are McCoy's comments in full:
"The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the
movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems
of Biblical translation. This translation, as J. Carter Swain observes, has
its peculiarities and its excellences. All in all, it would seem that a
reconsideration of the challenge of this movement to the historical churches
is in order (Andover Newton Quarterly, January, 1963).
McCoy, though generally well-disposed towards the NWT, is not above offering
some criticism, which is not generally included when Jehovah's Witnesses
cite McCoy as an endorsement.
For example, he chides the NWT for rendering Matthew 5:9 as "Happy are the
peaceable" rather than "the peacemakers:" "One could question why the
translators have not stayed closer to the original meaning, as do most
translators" (IBID).
McCoy continues with a more general assessment of the presence of
theological bias in the NWT: "In not a few instances the New World
Translation contains passages which must be considered as `theological
translations.' This fact is particularly evident in those passages which
express or imply the deity of Jesus Christ." (IBID).
Mr. McCoy was a graduate of Andover Newton Seminary. He held degrees of
Bachelor of Divinity (1955) from the Boston University School of Theology,
and Master of Sacred Theology from Andover Newton. Though well-educated, he
does not have the academic or professional credentials of a Biblical
scholar, nor is he recognized as one by those who are. His opinion, of
course, is worth hearing, particularly when all of it is heard.
STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known
as "The Bible in Living English"). "If you are digging for excellent
or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian
Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page 1296)
Again the WTBTS took Byington's words out of context. Here they are in
full:
"The book does not give enjoyable continuous reading; but if you are digging
for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines."
Not the ringing endorsement you and the WTBTS claim. Also, Byington was
actually not all that supportive of the NWT. Mr. Byington's full review of
the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures and his interaction with the Watchtower
can be read in full at http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Byington.htm
ALEXANDER THOMPSON: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled
and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true
sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of
expressing." (The Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52)
Thomson had no formal training in Greek or Hebrew. He published several
articles on the NWT in The Differentiator, apparently a privately published
journal that appeared briefly in the 1950's. The Differentiator is not
considered a scholarly journal and there is no evidence that it was so
considered during its publication.
Thomson later wrote that while he generally endorsed the NWT, he found it to
be "padded with many English words which had no equivalent in the Greek or
Hebrew" (The Differentiator [June 1959], cited in Ian Croft, "The New World
Translation and Its Critics").
Thus, Thomson does not appear to have been a recognized scholar in Biblical
Languages, his review of the NWT was not published in a scholarly journal,
and his endorsement is not quite as positive as the Watchtower might hope.
EDGAR FOSTER, (University of Scotland: "Before I formally began to
study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons, commentaries,
and other translations to try and determine its accuracy. It passed
the litmus test then and it also passes the test now for me...The NWT
is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation _par
excellence_."
I find it interesting that no source for the above quote from Foster is
given. In fact what you and the WTBTS conveniently leave out is that Edgar
Foster is a Jehovah's Witness and therefore is disqualified as being an
objective and reliable source.
THOMAS N. WINTER: (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of
Nebraska). "I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward
the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I
equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an
auxiliary test. After learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated
student could probably learn koine from this source alone. ...the
translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and
consistently accurate. ...In sum, when a witness comes to the door,
the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to
place an order." (The Classical Journal, "The Kingdom Interlinear",
April-May 1974, pages 375, 376) See Also: "Bible Translation how to
choose between them" by Alan S. Duthie,(Alan S. Dunthie is a professor
at the University of Legon), Page103. Comments by Dr. Rijkel ten Kate
Mr. Winter's positive comments are almost all directed towards the literal
translation in the KIT - very little is said of the NWT. The literal
translation in the KIT is generally very good and often may be used to
demonstrate problems with the NWT translation. Mr. Winter also liked the
layout of the KIT, with the English word appearing below the Greek word,
rather than in a side column - which is how the classical Greek interlinears
to which Mr. Winter compares the KIT are laid out. The fact that Mr. Winter
seems unaware of identically laid out Interlinear Bibles, such as those
published by Zondervan featuring the literal translation of Alfred Marshall,
would seem to indicate that he was more familiar with classical Greek
resources than those for Biblical Greek.
Indeed, Mr. Winter was trained in and taught classical Greek. His
familiarity with Biblical Greek is unknown, and he is not recognized as an
authority on the subject by Biblical Greek scholars.
Mr. Winter later wrote, "I am not happy with the use now being made of the
review," and he went on to note a few problems, such as Jesus' words in John
8:58 (which NWT translates as "I have been"). Winter commented, "No way to
go here but 'I am'" (Thomas N. Winter, in a letter to M. Kurt Goedelman of
Personal Freedom Outreach, dated 3 October 1980).
Nicholas Kip, Professor of NT Greek, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA USA
says:
"Incidentally, right at the time when this publication(the KIT) came
out, I was assigned to teach at Phillips Academy a course in New
Testament Greek. The quality of Greek scholarship in the Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is very good. I feel
it's one of the greatly under appreciated jewels of the Watch Tower
Society's publications."
As with Winter, Kip's comments are aimed at the Kingdom Interlinear which is
often used to demonstrate problems with the NWT translation. Furthermore,
you and the WTBTS conveniently leave out the fact that Kip is a Jehovah's
Witness which precludes him from being an objective and reliable source on
the NWT.
I surmise that you took the quotes directly from a Watchtower publication.
And that you never bothered to check them out for yourself. Let me offer as
rebuttal several quotes of interest from scholars critical of the NWT:
Edmund C. Gruss, Professor of History and Apologetics at Los Angeles Baptist
College, offers five main criticisms of the book: 20 a) The use of
paraphrasing in contradiction to the stated purpose. b) The unwarranted
insertion of words not found in the Greek. Alexander Thomson makes a similar
comment. c) Erroneous rendering of Greek words. d) Deceptive and misleading
footnotes and appendix. e) Arbitrary use and misuse of capitals when dealing
with the divine name. (For details of criticisms see footnote 20.) Gruss
concludes that the New World Translation Of The Christian Greek Scriptures,
"although outwardly scholarly, is plainly in many cases, just the opposite.
Its purpose is to bring the errors of the Witnesses into the Word of God.
This translation carries no authority except to its originators and their
faithful followers, and should be rejected as a perversion of the Word of
God."
(source: Gruss, E.C., Apostles of Denial (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1970, 211)
Ray C. Stedman (internationally known author, Bible teacher, pastor,
evangelist):
"A close examination, which gets beneath the outward veneer of scholarship,
reveals a veritable shambles of bigotry, prejudice, and bias which violates
every rule of Biblical criticism and every standard of scholarly integrity."
22
(source: Stedman, R.C., "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures," Our Hope 50; 34, July, 1953. 30 as quoted in Gruss, 209)
Walter Martin and Norman Klann (The late Dr. Martin was a leading Christian
apologist, known internationally for his studies of the Jehovah's Witnesses
and other groups.):
"Once it is perceived that Jehovah's Witnesses are only interested in what
they can make the scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has
already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will reject entirely
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower translation."
(source: Martin, W., & Klann, N., Jehovah of the Watchtower, (Minneapolis:
Bethany, 1974 161)
These authors claim that the New World Translation lacks scholarship, and,
in fact, reflects scholastic dishonesty.
Anthony Hoekema:
"Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective
rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased
translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower
Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself."
(source: Hoekema, A., The Four Major Cults (Exeter: Paternoster, 1963)
208-9)
Dr. Hoekema was Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Theological
Seminary, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., and the author of one of the most highly
regarded reference works on the Jehovah's Witnesses.
F. F. Bruce: (Dr. Bruce is Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis
Emeritus, University of Manchester, England. He is a world renowned Biblical
exegete who has issued his own translation of the the New Testament, and a
number of scholarly works on New Testament themes. The Jehovah's Witnesses
have quoted him as an authority on the New Testament on a number of
occasions.)
"Some of its distinctive renderings reflect the Biblical interpretations
which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses....Some of the
renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite
good..."
(source: Bruce, F.F., The English Bible: A History of Translations (London:
Lutterworth Press, 1961) 184 as quoted in Gruss, 210)
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at
Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the world's leading authorities on
the Greek language, and recognized as such by the Jehovah's Witnesses who
quote him on occasion in a favorable way, wrote an article in 1950 pointing
out the errors in many Christological passages in the New World Translation
of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
(source: Metzger, B.M., "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures" The Bible Translator 15:152, July, 1964)
H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding
the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. His
comments should be compared to those of Dr. Goodspeed quoted earlier:
"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate
any intelligent reader -if such it finds -and instead of showing reverence
for the Bible which the trans lators profess, it is an insult to the Word of
God.... "...this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be
translated."
(source: Rowley, H.H., "Jehovah's Witnesses' Translation of the Bible" The
Expository Times 67:107, Jan. 1956 as quoted in Gruss, 213 and "How Not to
Translate the Bible," The Expository Times as quoted in Gruss, 212)
The comments quoted above are but a sample of the many that have been
written over the years. Many more are available in reference to specific
details of the translation, especially the translation "...and the Word was
a god." which appears in John 1:1c in the New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures.
So Sarah, your claims of scholarly endorsement fall flat upon close review.
You, or rather your Watchtower overseers, have to rely on deceit to make it
appear the NWT is endorsed by many scholarly individuals when the facts show
no legitimate scholars endorse the NWT. The bottom line is the NWT is a
very poor translation rife with intentional insertions, deletions and
alterations intended to promote the unBiblical and heretical teachings of
the WTBTS. I pray and hope you will leave that wicked organization known as
the Watchower Bible And Tract Society and find a truly Bible-believing
church.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnOneOne" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
28 Jun 2007 07:05:06 PM |
|
|
On Jun 27, 10:35 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society's New World Translation version of
the Bible is regarded by Biblical language experts as one of the worst
translations available. Portions of it were intentionally altered to promote
the heretical agenda of the Jehovah's Witnesses parent organization.
Thank you for your opinion. Otherwise, it may interest some to know
that there have been others (equally or more qualified) who had come
to a different conclusion; to wit:
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Is The New World Translation Biased and Unscholarly?"
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/nwtbiased.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Truth In Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of
the New Testament."
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/beduhn_truth.in.translation.book.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~
Agape.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sarah Kanary" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
02 Jul 2007 08:05:53 PM |
|
|
On Jun 27, 10:35 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society's New World Translation version of
the Bible is regarded by Biblical language experts as one of the worst
translations available. Portions of it were intentionally altered to promote
the heretical agenda of the Jehovah's Witnesses parent organization. The
following article provides information for the professing Christian to know
if they are ever offered a copy.
Do you want them to check for themselves or just believe you? The NWT
can be read online at
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm
THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS BOOK!!
Would you place you trust in a surgeon who was about to perform a major
operation on you, if he refused to give you his name or credentials? OR....
Would you place your faith in an attorney, who was defending you against
false accusations of felony charges, if he also refused to give you his name
or credentials?
Nameless or not, when it comes to Bible translations we do have a
measure against which they can be evaluated. There are thousands upon
thousands of manuscripts of both the Hebrew Scriptures(O.T.) and
Christian Greek Scriptures (N.T.). Scholars called Textual Critics
have examined and compared these and have produced texts that come as
close to the original autographs as is possible. From these texts
translations into modern languages are made. The New World
Translation is based primarily upon the Westcott and Hort Greek text
but the Committee also consulted other texts such as Nestle, Bover,
and Merk. More recently they considered the texts of the United Bible
Society of 1975 and the Nestle-Aland of 1979.
We can see how important it is that we rely on the names and credentials of
those who serve us in the important aspects of our life. As in the case of
the lawyer, it is essential to know these things, for without knowledge, we
would have no assurance that he would truly and honestly represent you. It
is therefore of the utmost importance to know the men, the credentials and
the qualifications of those who we entrust our spiritual lives!!
It would be more accurate to illustrate the real situation with the
cases of a surgeon and a lawyer like this: The surgeon who is
unwilling to give you his name or credentials(which is borne from a
good motivation)offers you a complete history of his past work in the
operating room and how he performed these surgical operations. What do
you find?
That of the 100 people he has operated on 100 of them have been
complete successes. A 100% 'pass' rate! The lawyer you go to, while
refusing to give you his name or credentials(yet he has his good
reason for doing so), nonetheless shows you the 100 cases he has
handled. He proves that in all 100 cases he was successful in
defending his client. How then will we rate these professionals. By
their refusal to give us their name or credentials or by their openly
showing us their record of achievement? Obviously, the latter. Would
you then trust the surgeon to operate on you or the lawyer to defend
you?
However, even this analogy shows that making a comparison with
surgeons and lawyers with those who translate the Bible is flawed. To
practice as a surgeon or a lawyer one must pass officially recognized
examinations. But this not the case with anyone or group of persons
when it comes to translating the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible.
If a person or a group who educates themselves into the languages that
the Bible was originally written in so that they are in a position to
translate them and then proceeds to translate them into a modern
language they do not have to pass any examination before they can
proceed. So to judge whether or not their translation is an accurate
or honest one, one must simply go to the translation itself and judge
it on its own merits.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has failed the public at
this most
crucial point, as they refuse to give their followers the names and
credentials of the Translation Committee of their Bible, The New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures (see pg. 258 of Jehovah's Witnesses in
the Divine Purpose).
Is their position unique? On the jacket of the Reference Edition
(1971) of the New American Standard Bible we read:
"We have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations
because it is our belief God's Word should stand on it's merits." How,
then, could anyone appraise this modern Bible translation? By looking
not at the names or credentials of the translators but by looking at
the translation itself. True, one can discover both the names and the
credentials of the translators who were behind the New American
Standard Bible if that is one's wish. But this would not abrogate the
above sentiments by those very same translators. They are actually
asking the reader of their translation to judge their work of
translating the Hebrew and Greek scriptures on "it's own merits" - not
on who they are or what academic credentials that they undoubtedly
possess.
One could ask: If one did judge the New American Standard Version "on
it's [own] merits" and by doing so judged it as accurate and honest,
would then an examination of those who were behind it change that
'judgment'? Of course not! So all this hysteria about 'failing the
public' at this 'most crucial point' by refusing to give names of
translators is exposed as the hypocrisy it is.
Thus we see a double standard, one for the NWT, another for other
anonymous translations. Unless you want to add the NASB to your
'dangerous translation' list. Hmmm...
This is more important than the Watchtower Society
will admit since the New World Translation Committee has deceived many in
their translation of the Bible in the following ways:
1. They have invented non-existent rules of Greek grammar and then
proceeded to follow these rules only when necessary to support their
peculiar theology.
A clear example of this is John 1:1, where the Translation Committee has
rendered the Greek "and the Word was a god". We cite the appendix of another
Watchtower publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures, page 1158), for their footnote concerning John 1:1: "The reason
for their rendering the Greek word Divine and not God is that it is the
Greek noun Theos without the definite article..."
Look again. Is the footnote even referring to the NWT? What
translation renders "the Greek word 'divine' and not 'God'"???
Certainly not the NWT, for does NOT say 'divine' at John 1:1!
The translations of reference are Moffatt's and Goodspeed's, NOT the
NWT. The footnote is theirs. Another straw man.
May we call the
Watchtower Society's attention to verses 6, 12 and 13 (also found in the
first chapter of the Gospel of John). Here the Greek noun Theos appears
without the definite article (as in John 1:1) and yet the Translating
Committee has translated each verse as (Jehovah) God.
One of many straw-men: the mere lack of the article is only *part* of
the reason for 'the Word was a god' so the arguments fall flat from
there.
We might think then that the critic of the NWT rendering would be
critical of Moffatt and Goodspeed as well. For one must think that the
critic would have expected Moffatt and Goodspeed to have translated
"theos," without the article, in verses 6, 12 and 13 as "divine"
also!!
Obviously, both of these Bible translators felt that the significance
of the anarthrous theos at John 1:1c was being used differently by the
apostle John than the anarthrous ocurrences of theos at verses 6, 12
and 13[and, of course, the two others uses of theos in v.1]. The
critic must believe then that both these Greek scholars were also
"following" their own 'invented' "non-existent rule of Greek grammar"
at John 1:1c but not doing so at those other verses in John 1!
Of course, they were not doing anything of the kind and they were
right to treat the anarthrous theos at John 1:1c differently. Nor were
the NWTTC doing anything of the kind either.
Another example of non-existent rules followed only when needed to support
their theology is found in the forward of the afore mentioned Kingdom
Interlinear Translation (pg. 18). Here we are taught how to restore the
Divine name. We are instructed that we can render the Greek words "Kyrios"
(Lord) and "Theos" (God) into Divine name by determining if the Christian
(Greek) writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). If
so, we can render "Kyrios" (Lord) and "Theos" (God) as Jehovah God.
Once
again, the Watchtower "rule" is avoided by the Translation Committee as they
translate Philippians 2:11. The Apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 as he
states that "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God
(Kyrios) to the glory of God the Father.
Straw man alert! Read all of it:
"To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that
meaning as far as the context permitted. This, we know, has imposed a
restriction upon our diction, but it makes for good cross-reference
work and for a more reliable comparison of related texts or verses. At
the same time, in order to bring out the richness and variety of the
language of the inspired writers, we have avoided the rendering of two
or more Greek words by the same English word, for this hides the
distinction in shade of meaning between the several words thus
rendered."
The New World Translation has not been alone in restoring the Divine
Name into "OT" quotes. Many translations into other langauges made by
Christendom's missionaries as well as those "NT" translations into
Hebrew have also done likewise.
Btw, what theology were translators supporting when *removing* the
Divine Name completely from God's Word? What about the KJV, which
renders the Divine Name as "Jehovah" four times, but substitutes
"LORD" thousands of others? Is this a false "rule" they invented?
Should they be held to it? Is it reasonable to assume that God
inspired His Name to be written thousands of times and then removed?
Can you see that attacking one translation amounts to eventually
having to attack them all, thus questioning God's ability to preserve
His Word? Does this attitude betray trust in the Bible or lack of it?
2. The Translation Committee has made up a Greek tense that is
non-existent.
We cite the 1950 edition of their "New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures" rendering of John 8:58 where they have translated "ego
eimi" as "I have been" and state that it is "properly rendered in the
perfect indefinite tense" in the Greek language.
Uh.....that's rendered in the ENGLISH language, not Greek. Someone
has jumped to conclusions once again.
There is NO "perfect
indefinite sense" in any language!
Says who? Look at http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/sweet.htm
and then maybe rethink that assertion?
It is poor research by anyone to say that there is and has never been
the "perfect indefinite" or it's equivalent in the English language.
It has been in use for hundreds of years and can even be found in
modern English dictionaries.The NWTTC certainly did not "invent" this
tense either in the Greek(where it was never alleged to have existed)
or even in English. The NWTTC nor the WTBTS has ever said it was a
Greek tense but the footnote is clear it was the tense of the
*English* rendering.
After the Watchtower Society was informed
of this fact, they made the change to the "perfect tense indicative" but as
the Greek student knows, it is present tense and is correctly translated "I
AM" (see Exodus 3:14).
"Any Greek student" would probably be aware that even Strong's
concordance (G1510) lists "have been" "it is I" and "was" among the
definitions of 'eimi'. BDAG elaborates further on this. Were you
aware of this? Were you also aware that the 1977 NASB even has "I have
been" as an alternate rendering in the footnotes for John 8:58? Are
the scholars who wrote Strong's and BDAG and translated the NASB now
somehow 'suspect'?
At John 8:58, "eimi" is in the present tense, but the surrounding
context is not. This is called the "Extension from the Past" idiom or
PA (Present of Past Action). The reason for this are the words PRIN
ABRAAGENESQAI (before Abraham was).
If you check the footnotes in most mainstream Bibles, like the NIV,
RSV, NRSV, TEV, NEB etc, you will see that most will admit that other
renderings than the popular "I AM" are supported as well. But some
even have it in the main text:
The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in
existence before Abraham was ever born."
The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham existed I was."
The New Testament, An American Translation Goodspeed: "I tell you I
existed before Abraham was born."
New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: "I existed before Abraham
was even born."
The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly say to you, I existed
before Abraham was born."
The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is that I was in existence
before Abraham was ever born."
The Living Bible: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."
Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was
born."
The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, Lamsa: "Before Abraham was
born, I was."
An American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck: "I was before
Abraham."
The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before Abraham was born, I have
already been."
The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: "I am here-and I was before
Abraham."
The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams: "I existed
before Abraham was born."
The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham was, I have been."
A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before Abraham was, I have
been."
The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before Abraham existed I was."
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt& The Old Georgian
Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere: "Before Abraham came to
be, I was."
The New Testament, Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born."
The 20th Century New Testament: "In truth I tell you," replied Jesus,
"before Abraham existed I was."
The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham came to be, I was."
The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: "Before Abraham came into
being, I have existed."
The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson: "I existed even before
Abraham was born."
A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: "Before Abraham
existed, I existed, or.I have existed."
The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before Abraham was born."
The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive
fact, I existed before Abraham was born."
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: "I existed
before there was an Abraham."
Must the list of 'dangerous' Bible translations now swell further?
Exodus 3:14: Hebrew: "ehye asher eyhe"
John 8:58 Hebrew NT: "ani hu"
Why doesn't the Hebrew of the two verses match?
Exodus 3:14: Greek LXX: "eigo eimi *ho on*"
John 8:58: Greek: "ego eimi"
Why doesn't the Greek of the two verses match?
2 verses before Ex. 3:14 the same Hebrew word (EHYEH) is used, but
there it is universally translated "I WILL BE."
Actually, for a translation of the Hebrew to be "I AM THAT I AM" would
require the original Hebrew to read "ANI ASHER ANI", a reading that we
do *not* have at this verse!
It should also be noted that, in the LXX, God is identified as the "ho
on", THE BEING, not the I AM. Yet, this is not carried forth in John
8:58. "Ego eimi" appears over 200 times in the LXX and GNT and is used
by many different humans, as well as angels.
3. They have added words to Scripture which changes the meaning of the
texts to agree with their theology. Notice the Watchtower's rendering of
Colossians 1:16,17, where the word "other" has been added four times to the
text, completely changing its meaning. When Paul wrote those passages that
the Son created all things, it is obvious that the Son was not himself
created. The Watchtower, however, believes that the Son is also a created
being and has therefore added "other" - not found in the Greek Biblical text
at all - to make it appear that the Son is also a creature.
"On Colossians 1:15-20, you have focused precisely on the key to this
passage. By calling Jesus the "firstborn of creation" in v.15, *Paul
has explicitly identified Christ as part of creation*. Amazingly, most
Christians overlook this fact. Paul does not mean to assert that
Christ created himself, and he of course did not create God; rather he
is the agent of creating everything else. Let me add that Christ is
both part of creation and creator in this passage. It's not the simple
either/or that modern Christianity favors." Dr. Jason BeDuhn. Jason
BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard
Divinity School. He received a PhD from the University of Indiana in
Comparative Religious Studies. He believes the NWT and KIT(Kingdom
Interlinear Translation) to be generally accurate, and *uses the
latter when teaching Greek* at Northern Arizona University. Complete
info at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.htm
"In NWT the use of "all other" four times in Colossians 1 cannot be
viewed as bias, and it is not interpolation, since the very words of
1:15 reveal that Jesus Christ is a part of creation, which then
implies the word "other" in these four places." Professor Rolf Furuli,
University of Oslo, Norway.
As mentioned
before, the Translation Committee has added the word "a" to John 1:1 to make
the Son a creature rather than God Himself.
Each and every occurrence of "a" in the entire "NT" is ADDED in all
English translations! For biblical Greek has no indefinite article.
So now you have to dismiss ALL Bible translations as 'deceitful'
because they all 'add' the word "a" where it is NOT in the Greek text;
where will you stop?
"It is true that the most formal, literal translation of the words in
John 1:1c would be "and the Word was a god." The grammatical rules
involved in this passage weigh very heavily against the more commonly
seen, traditional translation, "and the Word was God."
"Because of this evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that for
John quality was the center of focus rather than category. Being
honest to the original Greek, we cannot narrow the range of acceptable
translation of John 1:1c any further than to say it is EITHER "And the
Word was a god" OR "And the Word was divine." I can, if pressed,
explain at length why these two translations amount to the same thing
FOR JOHN. But I also recognize that they leave open interpretation to
a range of possible understandings. I am afraid I cannot do anything
about that.
"If I were to say that the NWT translation is the only possible one, I
would be committing the same offense as those who have said that "And
the Word was God" is the only possible translation. The whole point
of my work is to get us past these false assertions, and follow the
original Greek, and follow it only as far as it takes us.
"What I can say is that "And the Word was God" is extremely difficult
to justify, because it goes against the plain grammar of the passage.
Either of the other two translations are acceptable, because the Greek
allows them, while it does not obviously allow the traditional
translation. 'The Word was divine' agrees 100% in meaning with "The
Word was a god" and only 50% with "And the Word was God." What must
be given up from the latter wording is the absolute identity between
Word and God that the traditional translation tried to impose. John
clearly did not intend to make such an absolute identification, and
that is precisely why he very carefully manipulates his word in the
passage to rule it out. But, yes, John is putting the Word into the
"god" or "divine" category, and that is as true if the wording is "a
god" or "divine."
"Of course, people who favor the traditional translation are likely to
seize upon my acceptance of "The Word was divine" as somehow a defense
of their view. That is also something that cannot be helped. The
idea of a Trinity developed over the centuries after the Gospel of
John was written precisely as one solution to the questions raised by
John's wording. The JWs have a different solution to those same
questions. I am not in a position to arbitrate such historical
interpretations of the text. I think John went as far as he felt
inspired to go in his understanding of things, and I do not fault him
for not going further and for not answering all of the additional
questions people have been able to raise since his time.
"The bottom line is that *"The Word was a god" is exactly what the
Greek says*. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek
phrasing. *"The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out* by the
phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine"
because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the
meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual
(God)."
Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University.
Carl, will you continue the hasty accusations, or will you exhibit
Christian reasonableness? Other translations of controversial verses
are clearly possible. This does not prove any translation as 'wrong'
but it does prove that the hysteria against 'the Word was a god' is
unwarranted and biased.
Take note also of the same
deceitfulness displayed in Philippians 2:9 where the word "other" is again
added, when it is not found or even suggested in the original Greek.
Then you must again add to your list of 'deceitful' translations, for
the following 7 e-Sword Bibles(NON-JW) also insert the word "other" at
this verse!:
"An Understandable New Testament", Contemporary English Version, the
Good News Bible, "God's Word" translation, the Twentieth Century New
Testament", Williams New Testamant, and Weymouth's New Testament.
Your list of 'dangerous' translations adds yet another 7!
4. The men who comprised the Translation Committee had no adequate
schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators. The
self-appointed "scholars" who made up this Translation Committee were: N.H.
Knorr, F.W. Franz, A.D. Schroeder, G.D. Gangas and M. Henschel. Aside from
the current President Franz, none of the Translation Committee members knew
Biblical Greek or Hebrew and Franz's ability is open to serious question.
This came out in the Scottish Court Sessions in November, 1954 (just four
years after the release of the Watchtower Scriptures). The following
exchange of question and answers between the attorney and Franz is taken
from the trial transcript:
Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
A. Yes....
Q. So that you have substantial linguistic apparatus at your
command?
A. Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew,
Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?
A. Yes.....(Pursuer's Proof, pg. 7)
Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
A. I do not speak Hebrew.
Q. You do not?
A. No
Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis.
A. You mean here?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I wouldn't attempt to do that. (Pursuer's Proof, pgs.
102,103).
So it is NOT from the court transcript, but an 'anti' book.
What Franz failed to do was a simple exercise which an average first or
second year Hebrew student in any seminary would have no difficulty
Franz was not on trial, and the fact that Franz refused to translate
something from English to Hebrew, doesn't mean that he couldn't do
it. After all, his knowledge of Hebrew or Greek was not in the
slightest relevant to the subject of the court case at hand, which was
*whether Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to ordain ministers of
religion*. A court is not a circus and Franz certainly wasn't obliged
to go along with some lawyer's dubious tactics. Franz stood up for
himself and refused to play along.
Is translating from English into Hebrew the same as translating from
Hebrew into English? No. Far from being something that 'an average
first or second year Hebrew student could do without difficulty':
"All learning is in context. The context, however, is not artificial,
composed perchance by one who does not use the language naturally, but
rather it is the actual language of those who used it as their mother-
tongue. For this reason, I refuse to ask the students to compose
sentences in Hebrew. To do so is to impress errors on the student's
mind. And, frankly, most of us who *teach* Biblical Hebrew do not have
sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it." William
Sanford LaSor, Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978)
So most who TEACH Biblical Hebrew can't speak or write it. A far cry
from being something an average first or second year Hebrew STUDENT
could do!
It is also interesting to note that no Greek scholar
with any credentials will endorse the New World Translation.
What exactly do you consider "credentials"??? I'm still waiting for
your *specific* and *consistent* criteria for judging such.
It is also interesting that almost all those scholars who will not
"endorse" the New World Translation are either Trinitarians or those
who work at a Trinitarian college. Should this surprise anybody?
It is obvious that some 'Greek scholars with credentials', DO agree
with the NWT rendering of John 1:1c:
"and the Word was a god.":
The New Testament in an Improved Version(1808)
The New Testament in Greek and English(A. Kneeland, 1822.)
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament(H. Heinfetter, 1863)
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R. Young, 1885)
The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G. W. Horner, 1911)
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J. L.
Tomanec, 1958)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four
Evangelists(J. S. Thompson, 1829)
Are you going to admit that the anti-NWT hysteria is just anti-bible
mud-slinging, or will you now add the above translations to your
'suspect' list? How far would you take this?
Endlessly attacking translations that don't agree with your theology
is self-defeating, for it eventually forces people to make a choice of
jumping on the KJV-only bandwagon, dismissing the Bible as completely
corrupted, or hopefully, realizing that its Almighty Author has the
ability to preserve His Word.
Bill
Centnar,in 1954 (while still a Jehovah's Witness working at Bethel), was
assigned to interview a well known Bible translator, Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed,
asking him for his evaluation and recommendation of the New World
Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Dr. Goodspeed replied: "No, I'm
afraid that I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable...".
Opinions vary:
"I myself have compared the entire Hebrew OT text with the English
text of the NWT verse by verse, and it is evident to me that the
translators have done a very good job." The Role of Theology and Bias
in Bible Translation with a Special Look at the New Word Translation
of the Jehovah's Witnesses by Rolf Furuli, p. 297.
If one focuses on Christ and his teachings found in whatever
translation is available, one will be able to easily identify his true
followers:
John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if
you have love for one another."
Trinitarian Christendom has been engaged in bloody battles within
itself for centuries; and a house divided cannot stand, as the Lord
Jesus Christ said. (Matt. 12:25, in ANY Bible) The body of Christ is
not broken, but united above all else.
I'm finished with this subject. If you still want to accuse, have at
it. But keep in mind who is the Constant Accuser. (Rev. 12:10) Christ
our Exemplar refused to be drawn into endless polemics with those who
had no love of truth, but of controversy. He had a job to do, and so
do his followers:
2Ti 4:1 "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ
Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing
and His kingdom:
2Ti 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate
for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
2Ti 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn
aside to myths.
2Ti 4:5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work
of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."
Peace. I hope you find some and spread it around. :-)
-----------------------------------------
Why You Can Trust the Bible
http://www.watchtower.org/e/t13/article_01.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
02 Jul 2007 08:23:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:05:53 -0700, Sarah Kanary
<skanary@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:
On Jun 27, 10:35 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society's New World Translation version of
the Bible is regarded by Biblical language experts as one of the worst
translations available. Portions of it were intentionally altered to promote
the heretical agenda of the Jehovah's Witnesses parent organization. The
following article provides information for the professing Christian to know
if they are ever offered a copy.
Do you want them to check for themselves or just believe you? The NWT
can be read online at http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm
And will still be a problematic translation. :)
THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS BOOK!!
Would you place you trust in a surgeon who was about to perform a major
operation on you, if he refused to give you his name or credentials? OR....
Would you place your faith in an attorney, who was defending you against
false accusations of felony charges, if he also refused to give you his name
or credentials?
Nameless or not, when it comes to Bible translations we do have a
measure against which they can be evaluated. There are thousands upon
thousands of manuscripts of both the Hebrew Scriptures(O.T.) and
Christian Greek Scriptures (N.T.). Scholars called Textual Critics
have examined and compared these and have produced texts that come as
close to the original autographs as is possible.
Actually, that's not true.
From these texts translations into modern languages are made.
That is also not true.
The New World Translation is based primarily upon the Westcott
and Hort Greek text but the Committee also consulted other texts
such as Nestle, Bover, and Merk. More recently they considered
the texts of the United Bible Society of 1975 and the Nestle-Aland
of 1979.
Those are not "texts", as in the original Greek texts
of the NT. Those are peoples' compilations of only
the text(s) that they liked and their ideas about what
it should be. In fact, all of what you just named,
actually boils down to only one corrupted Greek text
that they are taken from. In fact, almost every single
modern English translation/version, is based off of
this same one text, with one other to fill in the gaps.
And that one text is the highly corrupted Sinaiticus.
I do not read any Bibles (except to note the errors in them),
that is not based off of the Majority Texts (Greek NT), which
would include the Textus Receptus, which is part of the
Majority Texts. Anything less than that, only ends up with
a highly corrupted Bible, which is not worthy to be called
God's word, plain and simple. And I do not say that to
attack you, nor anyone else. I am simply stating the
facts of the case.
But first, before we get to exploring my statements,
let's deal with yours first, since your claims were
posted first and are what i am responding to. :)
Now since you seem to be promoting the modern English
versions, specifically the NWT, I would ask that you
support your assertions and specifically that it/they are
based on "thousands of texts". And FYI, I do not mean
doing so, by pasting in someone else's spiel/sales pitch.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sarah Kanary" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
04 Jul 2007 06:30:05 PM |
|
|
On Jul 2, 9:23 pm, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Now since you seem to be promoting the modern English
versions, specifically the NWT, I would ask that you
support your assertions and specifically that it/they are
based on "thousands of texts". And FYI, I do not mean
doing so, by pasting in someone else's spiel/sales pitch.
Dave, I'm not 'promoting' any particular translation. If I were, I
would have brought up the subject. The best Bible is one that is
read. I'm simply responding to those who make sensational claims
against a particular translation.
No translation of the Bible records any disputes among early
Christians as to whether the Hebrew Scriptures or the LXX were the
"best" Bible. I trust God to preserve His Word to the degree
necessary to get to know Him and do His will. I will bash NO
translation of the Bible.
What do you think? Does calling the texts of God's Word "corrupted"
inspire trust or distrust in the Bible?
Peace. Spread some around.
The answers to the following question can be found in ANY Bible:
If God is Love, Why Does He Permit Wickedness?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_08.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
05 Jul 2007 08:36:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:30:05 -0700, Sarah Kanary
<skanary@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:
On Jul 2, 9:23 pm, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Now since you seem to be promoting the modern English
versions, specifically the NWT, I would ask that you
support your assertions and specifically that it/they are
based on "thousands of texts". And FYI, I do not mean
doing so, by pasting in someone else's spiel/sales pitch.
Dave, I'm not 'promoting' any particular translation. If I were, I
would have brought up the subject. The best Bible is one that is
read. I'm simply responding to those who make sensational claims
against a particular translation.
No translation of the Bible records any disputes among early
Christians as to whether the Hebrew Scriptures or the LXX were the
"best" Bible. I trust God to preserve His Word to the degree
necessary to get to know Him and do His will. I will bash NO
translation of the Bible.
What do you think? Does calling the texts of God's Word "corrupted"
inspire trust or distrust in the Bible?
False dichotomy.
The fact is, that what I said is true and if you wish
to place your trust in one that is based off of a
single corrupt text, that is up to you.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald More-More Moshki" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
05 Jul 2007 11:52:56 PM |
|
|
On Jul 5, 9:36 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:30:05 -0700, Sarah Kanary
<skan...@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:
On Jul 2, 9:23 pm, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Now since you seem to be promoting the modern English
versions, specifically the NWT, I would ask that you
support your assertions and specifically that it/they are
based on "thousands of texts". And FYI, I do not mean
doing so, by pasting in someone else's spiel/sales pitch.
Dave, I'm not 'promoting' any particular translation. If I were, I
would have brought up the subject. The best Bible is one that is
read. I'm simply responding to those who make sensational claims
against a particular translation.
No translation of the Bible records any disputes among early
Christians as to whether the Hebrew Scriptures or the LXX were the
"best" Bible. I trust God to preserve His Word to the degree
necessary to get to know Him and do His will. I will bash NO
translation of the Bible.
What do you think? Does calling the texts of God's Word "corrupted"
inspire trust or distrust in the Bible?
False dichotomy.
The fact is, that what I said is true and if you wish
to place your trust in one that is based off of a
single corrupt text, that is up to you.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
The OT begat The NT which begat The Koran.
This is The Holy Trinity of Evil
Now, if believing is seeing, picture all vivisectionists being
murdered by a just god. Of course, you cannot.
"Just Walking In A Dream." Believing is NOT seeing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
06 Jul 2007 09:24:17 PM |
|
|
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:36 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:30:05 -0700, Sarah Kanary
<skan...@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:
On Jul 2, 9:23 pm, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Now since you seem to be promoting the modern English
versions, specifically the NWT, I would ask that you
support your assertions and specifically that it/they are
based on "thousands of texts". And FYI, I do not mean
doing so, by pasting in someone else's spiel/sales pitch.
Dave, I'm not 'promoting' any particular translation. If I were, I
would have brought up the subject. The best Bible is one that is
read. I'm simply responding to those who make sensational claims
against a particular translation.
No translation of the Bible records any disputes among early
Christians as to whether the Hebrew Scriptures or the LXX were the
"best" Bible. I trust God to preserve His Word to the degree
necessary to get to know Him and do His will. I will bash NO
translation of the Bible.
What do you think? Does calling the texts of God's Word "corrupted"
inspire trust or distrust in the Bible?
False dichotomy.
The fact is, that what I said is true and if you wish
to place your trust in one that is based off of a
single corrupt text, that is up to you.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
===>But Scripture is full of a variety of doctrines. -- L.
The OT begat The NT which begat The Koran.
This is The Holy Trinity of Evil
Now, if believing is seeing, picture all vivisectionists being
murdered by a just god. Of course, you cannot.
"Just Walking In A Dream." Believing is NOT seeing.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
02 Jul 2007 08:38:08 PM |
|
|
On Jun 27, 10:35 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society's New World Translation version of
the Bible is regarded by Biblical language experts as one of the worst
translations available. Portions of it were intentionally altered to promote
the heretical agenda of the Jehovah's Witnesses parent organization. The
following article provides information for the professing Christian to know
if they are ever offered a copy.
If you're going to use it for what *I'm* going to use it for,
who cares about the quality of the translation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ur_droll" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
03 Jul 2007 02:40:30 AM |
|
|
On Jul 3, 1:38 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:35 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society's New World Translation version of
the Bible is regarded by Biblical language experts as one of the worst
translations available. Portions of it were intentionally altered to promote
the heretical agenda of the Jehovah's Witnesses parent organization. The
following article provides information for the professing Christian to know
if they are ever offered a copy.
If you're going to use it for what *I'm* going to use it for,
who cares about the quality of the translation.
sounds like it's about to have the contents shown for what they are
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Book! |
28 Jun 2007 12:13:31 PM |
|
|
On Jun 28, 9:59 am, Sarah Kanary <skan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:35 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society's New World Translation version
of
the Bible is regarded by Biblical language experts as one of the worst
translations available.
Tell it to the following scholars:
Your claims are quite disingenuous since the comments are taken out of
context, misrepresent what these people say plus you fail to supply their
backgrounds. However it's also obvious that you took these directly from
Watchtower publications without checking.
J.D. PHILLIPS: "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in
being an owner. You have done a marvelous work...I was happy, indeed,
to see the name Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in
the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to
His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the
effort and cost!"
It would be interesting to see Phillip's entire letter. Some statements
have apparently been edited out ("...") and the statement, "But you have
made a marvelous step in the right direction" seems to indicate some sort of
negative prior comment. In the quote provided, Mr. Phillips is
complimentary of the inclusion of Jehovah in the NWT Christian Greek
Scriptures. This would be an odd compliment for one "schooled in the
original tongues," given that there is no manuscript evidenc | |
