It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bible Translations compared

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   


Subject: Jeopardy Game Show Question.
Importance: High interesting Recently on Jeopardy, one of the answers was "It's the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures?" No one got the correct question, so Alex Trebek said "What is the; New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, printed by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society."


i received this excerpt in an email and i thought id share it with the rest of the forum.

the guy who wrote this book at the very least has some authority on the subject which of-course means little, and im also well aware that some scholars disagree with him. so im not posting this as a ¨ha ha, proof!¨ or anything. however in my personal investigation on this subject ive found that i agree with alot of the points this prof. BeDuhn brings to the table. his analytical approach and lack of flare and dramatics in his writing style eases my suspicions of ¨hidden agenda¨

i thought this might be an interesting read


Book: "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Author: Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington The Nine English Translations Compared in BeDuhn's book
are:

The King James Version (KJV)
The Amplified Bible (AB)
The Living Bible (LB)
The New American Bible (NAB)
The New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The New International Version (NIV)
The New World Translation (NW)
The (New) Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Today's English Version (TEV)

EXCERPTS FROM HIS BOOK:

Chapter Four:

Examples of translation of the Greek word "proskuneo", used 58 times in the New Testament. The word is translated various ways as worship, do obeisance, fall down on one's knees, bow before. Scriptures discussed include Matt.18:26; Rev. 3:9; Mark 15:18,19; Matt 2:1, 2, 8,11; Matt 14:33; Matt 28:9, "... in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NW... translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God." Regarding Matt. 28:16, 17, where all versions except the NW use "worship" where the NW uses "did obeisance": "Here all translations except the NW have recourse to "worship" -- a rendering which makes no sense inthis context... This contradiction seems to be missed by all the translators except those who prepared the NW."

Chapter Five:

A discussion of Philippians 2:5-1 1: "The NW translators... have understood "harpagmos" accurately as grasping at something one does not have, that is, a "seizure." The literary context supports the NW translation (and refutes the KJV's "thought it not robbery to be equal)..."

Chapter Seven:

A discussion on Col. 1: 15-20: "It is a tricky passage where every translation must add words." "The LB translator is guilty of all the doctrinal importation discussed above with reference to the NIV, NRSV, and TEV, and even surpasses them in this respect. So it is the NIV, NRSV,TEV and LB -- the four Bibles that make no attempt to mark added words - that actually add the most significant tendentious material. Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these four translations is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the NW is attacked for adding the innocuous "other" in a way that clearly indicates its character as an addition of the translators... But the NW is correct. "Other" is implied in "all", and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit... It is ironic that the translation of Col. 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the "added word s" are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek."

Chapter Eight :

A discussion on Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1, 2: "... the position of those who insist "God" and "Savior" must refer to the same being... is decidedly weakened."

Chapter Nine:

A discussion of Hebrews 8:1: "so we must conclude that the more probable translation is "God is your throne..., "the translation found in the NW... It seems likely that it is only because most translations were made by people who already believe that Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred."

Chapter Ten:

A discussion on John 8:58: "Both the LB and the NW offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom. The other translations fail to do this." "There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here, contrary to what the TEV tries to suggest by putting quotations marks around "I am." "The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of "I am", and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate." "All the translations except the LB and NW also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce sentence that makes no sense in English. These changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators." "No one listening to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression "I am," which, if you think about, is just about the most common pronoun-verb combination in any language." "The NW... understands the relation between the two verbs correctly... The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to be found in the... NW."

Chapter Eleven:

A discussion of John 1:1: "Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god." "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs. ... Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek" "Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John." "John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his Gospel." "All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun."

Chapter Twelve:

A discussion of holy spirit: "In Chapter Twelve, no translation emerged with a perfectly consistent and accurate handling of the many uses and nuances of "spirit" and "holy spirit." The NW scored highest in using correct impersonal forms of the relative and demonstrative pronouns consistently with the neuter noun "holy spirit," and in adhering to the indefinite expression "holy spirit" in those few instances when it was used by the Biblical authors."

Summary: "... it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared...the translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produced by single individuals." "Jehovah's Witnesses... really sought to re invent Christianity from scratch... building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this practice can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in may of the Protestant translations." "...Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament."

Commenting on bias in translation : "To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their "truth" enough. To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly that say conforms to expectations or accepted forms of modern Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, faith."

For those that want to add this book to their library, it's available on Amazon.com: www.amazon.com... 825568




posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: Hi miriam0566
Awesome OP!
Starred and Flagged.


BTW...your amazon link was faulty so I tracked the book down at amazon and provide it HERE!

Personal Disclosure: I am an ex-Jehovah's Witness (currently dis-fellowed for 15yrs+) and so I have had some direct experience with it (i.e The NW translation during theocratic ministry sessions [2x1hr specialized bible and witnessing lessons] held usually 1 per week all currently "witnessing" church members (i.e. any brother or sister who is actively recruiting [i.e.1hr/1wk or more] MUST ATTEND! Failure to do so will result in reprimand and focused re-education by the Elders of the Kingdom Hall usually directly under tutoring by a ministerial servant watched very carefully by an elder and failure to comply with that leads directly to being dis-fellowed!). But The book you refer to I am quite unfamiliar with and so I am wondering if BeDuhn addresses the NW translation of Jesus being executed by being nailed to wooden "stake" as opposed to the other translations who transcribe it as "cross", and whether he validates either one above the other?
Hope you can answer this for me. Thanks


Edited to change apposed (besides) to opposed(oppositional)

Edited to truncate confusing sentence! :bnghd:

[edit on 14-1-2009 by OmegaLogos]

[edit on 14-1-2009 by OmegaLogos]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


honestly, i have no idea if he addresses it. id love to read the book, however im short on funds at the moment. and like i send, this was sent in an email just like you see here.

i can offer my own personal insights on the subject if you want me to.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!


Explanation: Sorry for the slight misinterpretation mirian0566. MY BAD.
me a total
Please accept my unreserved apology.


Personal Disclosure: I would absolutely love to hear your views concerning my question but I suggest it be done via u2u so as to leave this thread about
the validity of the versions and not turn it into a thread on "it was a stake...it says
stake!!!"..."No No No its was cross! Some queen went and retrieved it from the holy land and now its broken up into religious icons everywhere!" ect
u2u me anytime you want miriam0566 as truly enjoy discussing these subjects with you. Thanks and



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
ill probably start a thread so others can participate



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Hi miriam. Haven't bumped into you for a long time. Nice to 'see' you again.

Obviously those who accept the teaching of the Watchtower Society will have a high opinion of their 'translation'. Those outside the society are pretty unanimous in rejecting it as a gross distortion of the original Hebrew and Greek - not surprising since four out of the five 'translators' were 'translating' languages they didn't know, and the fifth was a novice! (-See the quote below).

It simply came about as an attempt to promote the agenda of the society - i.e. it's teachings, which are regarded by virtually every branch of the Christian church as consisting of a long list of opposites to what the Bible actually teaches. The most fundamental denials of Biblical doctrine promoted by the Watchtower Society are well-known, such as the denial that Jesus Christ is, as He and the rest of the Scriptures claim in no uncertain terms, God in the flesh. The whole purpose of the New World Translation was to take out these teachings and replace them with what the perpetrators wanted to hear.

This is why the New World 'Translation' is the greatest indictment against the JW movement. It has shamelessly twisted God's Word in order to deceive those who are not aware of its origins, or of the reprobate status it holds amongst Christians.

Here is a very good summary:


What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University says:

"a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)

Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said:

"it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

British scholar H.H. Rowley stated:

"From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation."

Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT:

"a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation."

"the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers."

The NWT translators were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel

* "Fred Franz however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." ["Crisis of Conscience"; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50.]

* Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all. They had only a high school education. Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but dropped out after his sophomore year. When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek.

* What we are left with is a very inexperienced translating committee that twisted Scripture to make it fit the Society's doctrine.



Source: www.bible.ca...


Anecdotes about a 'Jeopardy' Game Show Question would be laughable, except the reality is so far from funny that such stories only deserve outright derision.

Does that sound harsh? I have utter respect for your search for truth, miriam. But deliberately twisting God's self-revelation is one the most damnable activities a person can engage in. And that is the stamp of the NW"T", and the legacy of its creators.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
Obviously those who accept the teaching of the Watchtower Society will have a high opinion of their 'translation'.


the man who wrote this book is not a jehovah´s witness and is not at all associated with them, so im not sure where you get that impression


Those outside the society are pretty unanimous in rejecting it as a gross distortion of the original Hebrew and Greek -


empty assertion. there have been plenty of people (with scholarly authority) who have not ¨rejected¨ it as a ¨gross distortion¨

such people include -

Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska
Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation.
Alexander Thomson, Hebrew and Greek scholar
Greg Stafford
Rolf Furuli
Anthony Byatt
Hal Flemings

of course there are critics, but dont say they are unanimous, because they arent.

even james BeDuhn´s opinion toward the NWT is considered ¨neutral¨


not surprising since four out of the five 'translators' were 'translating' languages they didn't know, and the fifth was a novice! (-See the quote below).


yes, im very familiar with this argument. what amazes me is how an anonymous translation committee suddenly becomes the ruling body of the organization with little or no evidence to back that claim up. i took the liberty of doing a search for evidence that this committee was in fact who the critics claim they were. this is what i found....

¨While the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has never officially released the names of those on the Committee, several sources who were in a position to know have done so. These sources agree that Frederick Franz was the principle translator and served as the Committee chair (2).¨ - www.forananswer.org...

¨I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn't tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were,¨ - www.lookinguntojesus.net...

¨The New World Translation was produced by the New World Bible Translation Committee. This committee was originally formed some time in or around 1947 and, according to Nathan Knorr, its members had multinational background.[5] The New World Bible Translation Committee requested that the publisher, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, not publish names of its members.[6][7] Former high ranking Watchtower staffers have proposed their identities[8][9], though the Watchtower organization has never confirmed or denied the details.¨ - en.wikipedia.org...

¨The truth is that nowhere in the NWT or any WBTS literature are the names of the translators revealed; and while it is true that some other Bible translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) do not list their translators in their editions, only the NWT and the WBTS will not send the names to curious inquirers upon written request.¨ - www.4truth.net... cs.htm

in fact these ¨sources¨ who ¨leaked¨the names are William Cetnar and Raymond V. Franz, both only claimed that they (ruling body at the time) ¨headed¨ the translation committee. so, according to the critics, this apparently means that they did the translation themselves!

im now suppose to listen to critics smash the credentials of people who were POSSIBLY heading the committee? and even if they were heading the committee, so what? you still dont know who was doing the actual translation (which couldnt have been one person). you only have those in charge of the committee. how this equates to a ¨slam dunk¨ against the NWT, i dont know


It simply came about as an attempt to promote the agenda of the society - i.e. it's teachings, which are regarded by virtually every branch of the Christian church as consisting of a long list of opposites to what the Bible actually teaches. The most fundamental denials of Biblical doctrine promoted by the Watchtower Society are well-known, such as the denial that Jesus Christ is, as He and the rest of the Scriptures claim in no uncertain terms, God in the flesh. The whole purpose of the New World Translation was to take out these teachings and replace them with what the perpetrators wanted to hear.


the ironic thing about your statement is that it is very easy to prove that jesus isnt god using ANY translation of the bible. (accepting of course that the passage used isnt a forgery like 1 john 5:7). in fact i personally fight that doctrine using KJV. this little tidbit is ignored by those who feel strongly opposed to JW´s, even their own bible can be used to hack up their own doctrines like immortality of the soul, hellfire, trinity, etc etc. why? because they are not bible teachings. take anyone of those teaching and dig even just alittle, and you will find that they conflict with many of the passages in the bible.


Does that sound harsh? I have utter respect for your search for truth, miriam. But deliberately twisting God's self-revelation is one the most damnable activities a person can engage in. And that is the stamp of the NW"T", and the legacy of its creators.


it does sound harsh, but i dont mind. i wouldnt last long here if i was ¨soft¨


i just wish that people like you would investigate further, instead restating something that some disgruntled ex-witness has already said.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I have to think that the JW version of the Bible is nothing but a fabrication to promote their theology. Here is something I noticed that is inexplicable to me. I would like to know how they could have felt that they could get away with translating theos as He.
1 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in [the] world, was received up in glory.’
The King James Version of this text agrees with the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Greek Text. Whatever text Westcott and Hort pulled out to get this reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 is not accepted as legitimate by anyone before them or after them.

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
By Douglas Kutilek
None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. This includes translations done by theological conservatives — the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples — and translations done by theological liberals — the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

It looks like not an actual attempt at translation but an attempt to obscure plain teachings of the Bible concerning Christ. Paul is talking about a mystery which is godliness and something that has to be focused on by believers, as a group, in a serious manner. The best way to try to get a grip on the concept is to look at our best example, which was Jesus. Paul jumps right to the heart of the matter in a very unequivocal way by saying that God himself stands before us in the form of a man for us to look upon as the very essence of what is good and righteous and godly. Instead of coming to grips with the true significance of what Paul is pointing at, the JW fabricators sidestep the issue and leave God out of the equation of what godliness is. To me, this the very hand of Satan directing the pens of these deceivers and this one thing, by itself, should inform true followers of Christ to flee from the very sight of such a miscarriage of religion and distortion of the word of God that we call the Bible.


[edit on 15-1-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
hate to break this to you, but...

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

American Standard Version
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory. (which doesnt even have a pronoun)

English Revised Version
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.

so, this isnt exclusive to the NWT.

not even all the greek manuscripts have theos in them (i put - around the word so you know where to find it)

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 3:16 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
καί ὁμολογουμένως μέγας εἰμί ὁ ὁ εὐσέβεια μυστήριον ---ὅς--- φανερόω ἐν σάρξ δικαιόω ἐν πνεῦμα ὁράω ἄγγελος κηρύσσω ἐν ἔθνος πιστεύω ἐν κόσμος ἀναλαμβάνω ἐν δόξα

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 3:16 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· ---ὃς--- ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξη. (which you mentioned)

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 3:16 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed.
και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον ---ος--- εφανερωθη εν σαρκι εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανελημφθη εν δοξη

------------------




[edit on 15-1-2009 by miriam0566]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I have six print bibles and one of them is the NWT, which I find to be way better than the King James. I won't be getting anymore print bibles as I now use
www.biblegateway.com...

This is an excellent source for many different bibles.

I will say this for Jeopardy, their answers need to be right. And even if you dispute that answer, it still means the NWT is one of the top bibles in the world today.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



English Revised Version
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.
so, this isnt exclusive to the NWT.

The English Revised Version is part and parcel with the milieu from which the Westcott & Hort Version came from. It came out around that same time in the 1880’s and was mysteriously practically identical. It is a somewhat sorted history behind this effort to produce a new version of the Greek New Testament. The Anglican Church was set against such a project in the first place. The Northern half voted against it and the Southern half voted for it. The Americans were against it but somehow it was influenced to sanction it. They were given guidelines on how to carry out the project such as not to do it in secret. Once they got going they ignored their instructions and went into secret. They brought out old versions of the Greek like the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus that had long ago been rejected as defective. They were handed manuscripts by Rome that were probably written by Eusibius on behalf of Constantine to subvert Christianity and probably some collections from the Gnostic heretics.
This movement of subversion was an outgrowth of the Oxford Plot that was the workings of the Jesuits to infiltrate the Anglican Church and bring it into compliance with a Roman ritualistic form of worship. These Jesuit plots resulted in a lot of people dropping out of the Anglican Church and some of the leaders becoming Cardinals for the Roman Church.
After the introduction of the new Greek Bible by Westcott & Hort, people who knew them and even one of their sons and one’s mother wrote books about them denouncing their work as fraud.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



I will say this for Jeopardy, their answers need to be right. And even if you dispute that answer, it still means the NWT is one of the top bibles in the world today.
Being right may be a subjective experience when it comes to things like religious belief. All they have to do is to quote an authoritative source in order to establish what they think is the correct answer. There may be an article in an encyclopedia that quotes Jason David BeDuhn's discussion on the New World Translation but he is not agreed with by the majority of Biblical scholars.
My personal opinion is that the JW's would be well served by discarding their current publication and adopting a newer version based on a more widely accepted version of the Greek New Testament.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The English Revised Version is part and parcel with the milieu from which the Westcott & Hort Version came from. It came out around that same time in the 1880’s and was mysteriously practically identical. It is a somewhat sorted history behind this effort to produce a new version of the Greek New Testament.


ok fine, but my point stands. this passage is not exclusive to westcott and hort. other transcripts (especially coptic) render the passage with ¨he¨

besides that is the other thing that people just dont get. the wescott and hort used were the oldest transcipts they could find.

demonize them, call them satan worshipers and paganist all you want, they still used older transcipts, not the later ¨majority texts¨

attacking the personal character of them doesnt change where they got the information from.

one has to ask the question, how much of the bible has been manipulated to conform to beliefs. you blame the JW´s for this and yet you (critics in general) ignore the gross alterations in ¨popular¨ more ¨established¨ translations.

you want to bring up fraud? look up 1 john 5:7. see how many bibles have been changed to support a pagan belief. we dont have a simple change of a word here or there, they added nearly an entire verse to support something they wanted to believe in. and of course they had to, how else do you explain a foundational belief of the church when its not even mentioned in the bible?

think... if you have a scripture, and it says something that contradicts fundamentally with something that another part of the bible is clear about, what are the possible reasons? there are only 2 i can think of.

1. the passage is a bad translation, or lost in translation.
2. the passage is not inspired by god.

1 tim 3:16, ¨God was manifest in the flesh¨

think about this now. this scripture conflicts with several fundamental truths taught by the bible.

- noone has ever directly seen god, john 1:[18a] No man hath seen God at any time
- jesus cant be god (verse is referring to jesus) because jesus himself acknowledges their separate nature, john 14:[28c]I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I (i could quote many more scriptures, but this post would reach its word limit before i was done)

so what we have here isnt a conflict with JW belief, actually its a conflict with the bible itself. trinitarians and jesus divinians fail to acknowledge quite consistently that their beliefs disagree with most of the bible. its like picking and choosing which scriptures you want to believe in. they use john 1:1 to say jesus is god, but lets ignore scriptures like john 14:28.

so what happenes when the bible conflicts itself? well we have 2 options. 1. translation error or misunderstood because of loss in translation, or 2. one of the passages is uninspired by god.

well what would it look like if there was a translation error? either you would have a blazingly obvious translation error based on grammar (john 1:1 is the most obvious example), or maybe you would find a point where the transcripts change (meaning the scholar was attempting to alter the writings so as to support a belief). 1 john 5:7 is the obvious example, because the trinity ¨proof scripture¨ simply isnt found in any transcripts before the 3 to 4th centuries.

1 tim 3:16 falls in the same category. the farther back you go, the less ¨god¨, and the more ¨he¨.

of course everyone seems to hate the JW enough and are so quick to blame them for tampering that they overlook just how much ¨standard¨ and ¨authoritative¨ bibles have already been tampered with and just how much they dont reflect the older transcripts.

bad mouth them all you want, i have yet to see any compelling evidence that the NWT is rendering passages with a doctrinal slant



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566


so what we have here isnt a conflict with JW belief, actually its a conflict with the bible itself. trinitarians and jesus divinians fail to acknowledge quite consistently that their beliefs disagree with most of the bible. its like picking and choosing which scriptures you want to believe in. they use john 1:1 to say jesus is god, but lets ignore scriptures like john 14:28.

so what happenes when the bible conflicts itself? well we have 2 options. 1. translation error or misunderstood because of loss in translation, or 2. one of the passages is uninspired by god.

well what would it look like if there was a translation error? either you would have a blazingly obvious translation error based on grammar (john 1:1 is the most obvious example), or maybe you would find a point where the transcripts change (meaning the scholar was attempting to alter the writings so as to support a belief). 1 john 5:7 is the obvious example, because the trinity ¨proof scripture¨ simply isnt found in any transcripts before the 3 to 4th centuries.

1 tim 3:16 falls in the same category. the farther back you go, the less ¨god¨, and the more ¨he¨.

of course everyone seems to hate the JW enough and are so quick to blame them for tampering that they overlook just how much ¨standard¨ and ¨authoritative¨ bibles have already been tampered with and just how much they dont reflect the older transcripts.

bad mouth them all you want, i have yet to see any compelling evidence that the NWT is rendering passages with a doctrinal slant










Hi miriam. I will say this. I will not bash the JW followers because they believe much of what I believe in. That being said, I think you need to understand the word "GOD" in the John 1:1 passage and elsewhere when referring to Jesus Himself.

The word "God" is used in many hebrew and greek words translated to english as "God". What most don't realize is that in the sense of Genesis 1, it refers to "Elhoim" which is a plural word for God which implies a "Godhead" or "family of God" with God at the head of the family. This word "Elhoim" is clearly evident in the opening chapter of the bible.

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

note here that reference bibles refer to John 1:1-3 which reads

1- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (singular), and the Word was God (plural).

2-He was in the beginning with God. (Implies that He existed with God before creation. He wasn't created but was Creator).

3- All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (The Word of God was Creator of all things in heaven and on earth as mentioned in this verse).

Now back to Genesis to explain the plural in God's name...

If you notice in John 1:1, Jesus is refered to as the Word of God.

2- God SAID "Let there be light" and there was light. (Commanded as the Word implying that Jesus created light. This is implied throughout the verses of creation).

Skip to verse 26 of Genesis 1.

26- Then God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness;....

Now I am starting to wonder if the translators of the NWT noticed the plural used right in the beginning chapter of the entire bible. The implication from what I've read is that these translators only concentrated on the New Testament to argue with. Linking the information of the Old testament with the New, some of these greek words that give no complimenting adjectives or punctuation that you see in english language, deserve a translation that is understandable and is linked with what is already taught in the hebrew text. Maybe a literal translation implies that "the Word was a god" but as is mentioned by other posters, this would imply that there is more than one God and the bible is clear that there are no gods before "I AM". Jesus being the "Word of God" implies that He was an attribute of God before becoming flesh. Jesus was a part of God which is why He's referred to as the Son of God. This explains the "Godhead" doctrine which uses God as the head of the family with Jesus, the Son/Word of God being the Heir of the Kingdom. God gives the Word a kingdom to be ruled on Earth. The family of God grows through resurrections of saints and the repentant. Angels are explained in the bible as servants of God but humans are compared to as "children of God" which shows that "He has a family" and in turning the Word of God into flesh, allowing the Word to die innocent, and resurrecting the Word creates a gate for humans to enter the "family of God". Having this understanding on God's family and realizing that some of the english translatings being "God" don't always imply a singular being but a family.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
In addition I will add my opinion on bible translations. The King James Version is the only "Authorized Version" of the bible but we can all admit that the KJV has many mistranslations and the english in it is out of date. I prefer and recommend the New King James Version which is the King James in modern english. The thing is, NKJV did not directly translate from the KJV but simply followed the structure of the KJV. NKJV translated from the ben Asher text of the Hebrew bible which is a form of the Masorite text. For those who don't know, these texts were copied from the original texts by scribes who by the sixth century became known as the Masorites. The ben Asher text came from the 12th century and was known as the only recognized form of Hebrew texts passed down by the Masorites. These texts are known now collectively as the Biblia Hebratica. These are the Old Testament texts used in the NKJV. The New Testament translations come from the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text. Recieved Text is what the Majority Text mainly parallels in translation.

Basically the NKJV uses the two most reliable hebrew and greek texts to translate from. Keeping the structure of the original Authorized KJV, the NKJV also corrects the many mistakes in translation of the KJV. It is known to some as the "most acurate translation of the Holy Bible to english." Additional text in the NKJV are italicized as is in the KJV and other translations. This is used to let the reader know, a word or phrase was added to clarify or articulate a point in the bible. Most NKJV reference bibles give alternate translations of words or the original greek or hebrew word in the center-column references in order for the reader to further research words.

Accuracy as a whole with comparisons in the Old and New Testament... in my humble opinion belongs to the "New King James Version" bible. Easy to read and easy to follow with a King James bible with corrections in bad translations.

My vote is NKJV bible which was not included with the author's list of translations researched.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
forgive me locoman. i wrote quite a lengthy response to your posts and for the first time EVER, my txt editor crashes.

ill rewrite it, but right now im simply too furious to. lol

im sorry



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


besides that is the other thing that people just dont get. the wescott and hort used were the oldest transcipts they could find.
Ok, so someone produces a piece of parchment and a scribe letters it. No one likes it and it gets pushed back in a shelf and it lasts forever.
Another parchment is produced and considered a fine piece of work and it gets put to use and before it is completely worn out, someone copies it.
Hundreds of years later someone is handed two documents; one is obviously a copy of an older text and the other is certifiably ancient.
Which one is better?

. . . a blazingly obvious translation error based on grammar (john 1:1 is the most obvious example). . .
That is maybe true of the English translation of it. Another bad English translation is the "I am" verse where is is made out to be Jesus saying something that does not bear out in the Greek.



[edit on 16-1-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Ok, so someone produces a piece of parchment and a scribe letters it. No one likes it and it gets pushed back in a shelf and it lasts forever.
Another parchment is produced and considered a fine piece of work and it gets put to use and before it is completely worn out, someone copies it.
Hundreds of years later someone is handed two documents; one is obviously a copy of an older text and the other is certifiably ancient.
Which one is better?


except you are talking about 100´s of years. the latin vulgate (which the king james is mainly based on) didnt appear until about the early 5th century.

about 200 years before that, pagan doctrines like the trinity were already taking form. of course the previous transcripts would be rejected. they didnt follow the changing policies of the church



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



trinitarians and jesus divinians fail to acknowledge quite consistently that their beliefs disagree with most of the bible.

Maybe you can expain this a little. What is a "Jesus Divinian"? Is that someone who thinks Jesus is divine, or has a divine nature? Is Jesus holy and perfect, or is he flawed in some way?
I might be a "divinian" and is that wrong?
Here is something I found on wikipedia that talks about some people that were suggested to me as being similar to JW's:

Socinians held views rooted in skepticism and rationality only and rejected orthodox teachings on the Trinity and on the divinity of Jesus, as summarised in the Racovian Catechism. They also believed that God's omniscience was limited to what was a necessary truth in the future (what would definitely happen), and did not apply to what was a contingent truth (what might happen). They believed that, if God knew every possible future, human free will was impossible; and as such rejected the "hard" view of omniscience. They are to be differentiated from Arians, who believed in a preexistent Christ. The Socinians held that the Son of God did not exist until he was born a man.
I do not think there is a direct correlation but it might be something to think about. I guess I lean more towards the Arian way of looking at the God concept. I have to think that the person we know as Jesus Christ exists now but was not some sort of automatic thing that just came into existence because he is identical to a person who already existed but was out of sight up in Heaven or somewhere. It may be that I am like a Socinian in that I am skeptical and believe in rationality but do not agree with them in their particulars. Jesus is "divine" as it says in the Bible but it has to be understood in the way the word is used and that it means he is faultless and holy. We are not and may never be equal to him since even if we were to gain a kind of cessation of sinning, it does not mean we are perfect. Jesus was born with a quality that is a quality of God Himself and in his acting out on that quality through out his life he has attained a stature that is insurpassible that for us to behold is for us, to look upon God Himself were it possible, which it is not.


[edit on 17-1-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Maybe you can expain this a little. What is a "Jesus Divinian"?


trinitarians believe that the father and son and holy spirit are 3 and yet at the same time are 1 person.

i have met some who say they dont believe in the trinity but still assert that jesus and god are the same person. i dont know what to call them lol.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join