Jehovah's Witnesses v Bible Translations

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:34 pm

Jehovah's Witnesses and various other Christian groups have revised their bible translations over the years.

Do you believe bible translations should be changed? Can translations be improved?

All opinions welcome.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:47 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote: Do you believe bible translations should be changed? Can translations be improved?

All opinions welcome.

I can't personally see where translations could help the Bible. As far as I'm concerned the overall story is the problem. In other words, in order to re-translate the Bible into a coherent meaningful story the re-translation would need to be so dramatically different from what the current Biblical story is that it's just not realistic to think that such a thing could be done.

I don't see translations or interpretations as being the problem with the Bible. It's the overall story that's the problem.

No matter how much you try to re-translate it it's still going to be a story where mankind "falls from grace" which is already extremely problematic.

No matter how much you try to re-translate it it's still going to be a story about a God who instructed men to stone sinners to death.

No matter how much you try to re-translate it it's still going to be a story about the Canaanites sacrificing their own babies to a God the had supposedly refused to appease.

No matter how much you try to re-translate it it's still going to be a story about a God who directs men to commit mass genocide and keep the virgin girls for themselves.

No matter how much you try to re-translate it it's still going to be a story about a God who instructs people on how to make blood sacrifices of animals to atone for their sins.

No matter how much you try to re-translate it it's still going to be a story about a God who's own temple and priests become corrupt and then call for the crucifixion of this God's virgin born Son.

I mean, you just can't change the story by re-translating it. That's not going to help it unless you do it to such an extreme degree that you end up with a whole different story, which isn't realistic to expect.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:20 am

JehovahsWitness wrote:
onewithhim wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]

This is an interesting thought... the NWT did leave some words that either do not have equivalents in target languages untranslated (transliterated) but the Revised version is simplier and easier to follow because it simply finds common words in the target language and uses them. It's (this is just my opinion) a little less "poetic" but a joy to read because it's so easy to understand and follow.

Even the King James has a modern translation ... a good move I think.

JW
Yes, even though they err by leaving out Jehovah's name completely. At least the KJV of 1610 had the Divine Name in there 4 times.

.
True but isn't there a Divine Name King James Version? That's at least out there... I think in a way the battle is lot for those that would like the name to disappear. Its not an issue anymore, people know God's name, in the West because of the internet and in developing countries because it's in many of the "Protestant" bibles they use.

JW

Yes, there is a "Divine Names KJV." I have one. Got it before it skyrocketed in price. It even has the Tetragrammaton on the cover and spine! It's very nice. It says that it is "hallowing the Divine Name," restoring it 6,972 times.

.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:42 am

[Replying to post 12 by onewithhim]

Yes, I think that the Divine Name KJV would make good reading, and also be very helpful when preaching to those that hold to the KJV as the only "authorized" version. An interesting point however came up a few weeks ago in the kr book, that it is God not humans that decides is a religion is worthy of bearing his name. That was very enlightening for me, as I had often thought that it was some that that don't want God's name not the other way round...

polonius · Post by **polonius** » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:29 pm

"James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

The early editions of the KJV are not based on the Received Text.
"Many KJV advocates claim that the KJV was translated from a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (TR) and that the TR is especially accurate and inspired. However, the TR did not exist in 1611 when the first King James Bible was published. The first TR was written in 1633. The current version of the TR was produced in 1894 by Scrivener."

"Conversely, most modern translations of the New Testament are based on critical Greek texts which take into account much more ancient and much less handled Greek manuscripts. A few of these Greek manuscripts date from as early as the third century."
http://newlife.id.au/church-history/7-t ... mes-bible/

polonius · Post by **polonius** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:12 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World ... Scriptures

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is a translation of the Bible published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961; it is used and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses.[6] Though it is not the first Bible to be published by the group, it is their first original translation of ancient Classical Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Old Aramaic biblical texts. As of November 2015, the Watch Tower Society has published 217 million copies of the New World Translation in whole or in part in more than 130 languages

New Testament:

Samuel Haas, in his 1955 review of the 1953 first volume of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, stated that although "this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages."[65]

Haas, Samuel S. (December 1955). "Reviewed Work: New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. I by New World Bible Translation Committee". Journal of Biblical Literature. 74 (4): 283. JSTOR 326168

William Barclay, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, concluded that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in the New Testament translation. ... It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."[71]

R. Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Zondervan, 2001, p. 94

Former American Bible Society board member Bruce M. Metzger concluded that "on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators,"[73] but identified instances where the translation has been written to support doctrine, with "several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek."[74] Metzger noted a number of "indefensible" characteristics of the translation, including its use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament.

Metzger, Bruce M, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), p. 151.

Bruce M. Metzger, "Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today, (April 1953 p. 74); see also Metzger, "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,".

polonius · Post by **polonius** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:16 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World ... Scriptures

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is a translation of the Bible published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961; it is used and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses.[6] Though it is not the first Bible to be published by the group, it is their first original translation of ancient Classical Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Old Aramaic biblical texts. As of November 2015, the Watch Tower Society has published 217 million copies of the New World Translation in whole or in part in more than 130 languages

New Testament:

Samuel Haas, in his 1955 review of the 1953 first volume of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, stated that although "this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages."[65]

Haas, Samuel S. (December 1955). "Reviewed Work: New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. I by New World Bible Translation Committee". Journal of Biblical Literature. 74 (4): 283. JSTOR 326168

William Barclay, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, concluded that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in the New Testament translation. ... It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."[71]

R. Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Zondervan, 2001, p. 94

Former American Bible Society board member Bruce M. Metzger concluded that "on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators,"[73] but identified instances where the translation has been written to support doctrine, with "several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek."[74] Metzger noted a number of "indefensible" characteristics of the translation, including its use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament.

Metzger, Bruce M, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), p. 151.

Bruce M. Metzger, "Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today, (April 1953 p. 74); see also Metzger, "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,".

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:51 am

[Replying to post 15 by polonius.advice]

Critiques have falllen on both sides when it comes to the NWT. The best thing a reader can do therefore is to read the translation and make up their own mind about its quality.

** The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Refering to the NWT reference edition): "[Jehovah's Witnesses'] translation of the Bible [has] an impressive critical apparatus. The work is excellent [...]"
**Andover Newton Quarterly of January 1963 said: "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."

**As Theologian C. Houtman explains regarding the unorthodoxy of the New World Translation: "Various traditional translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded, apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding."

**REGARDING the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek "New Testament" in An American Translation, wrote in a letter dated December 8, 1950: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."

**Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: "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."

** "I have never discovered in the 'New World Translation' [of the Hebrew Scriptures] any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain" -- Professor Benjamin Kedar, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

**Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson wrote: "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, pages 52-7.

** In its review of Bible translations released from 1955 to 1985, The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary listed the New World Translation as one of the major modern translations.

polonius · Post by **polonius** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:25 am

JW posted

**As Theologian C. Houtman explains regarding the unorthodoxy of the New World Translation: "Various traditional translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded, apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding."

QUESTION:

"...important terms from the original text have been discarded..."

"...apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding..."

And for whom is this the "best possible understanding"? Why?

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:10 pm

polonius.advice wrote: "James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

The early editions of the KJV are not based on the Received Text.
"Many KJV advocates claim that the KJV was translated from a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (TR) and that the TR is especially accurate and inspired. However, the TR did not exist in 1611 when the first King James Bible was published. The first TR was written in 1633. The current version of the TR was produced in 1894 by Scrivener."

"Conversely, most modern translations of the New Testament are based on critical Greek texts which take into account much more ancient and much less handled Greek manuscripts. A few of these Greek manuscripts date from as early as the third century."
http://newlife.id.au/church-history/7-t ... mes-bible/

The KJV was translated mostly from a LATIN text. That committee was skeptical about the Greek mss. that they had so relied on the Latin text. As was said above, today we have more and better Greek mss.

.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:39 pm

polonius.advice wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World ... Scriptures

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is a translation of the Bible published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961; it is used and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses.[6] Though it is not the first Bible to be published by the group, it is their first original translation of ancient Classical Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Old Aramaic biblical texts. As of November 2015, the Watch Tower Society has published 217 million copies of the New World Translation in whole or in part in more than 130 languages

New Testament:

Samuel Haas, in his 1955 review of the 1953 first volume of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, stated that although "this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages."[65]

Haas, Samuel S. (December 1955). "Reviewed Work: New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. I by New World Bible Translation Committee". Journal of Biblical Literature. 74 (4): 283. JSTOR 326168

William Barclay, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, concluded that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in the New Testament translation. ... It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."[71]

R. Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Zondervan, 2001, p. 94

Former American Bible Society board member Bruce M. Metzger concluded that "on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators,"[73] but identified instances where the translation has been written to support doctrine, with "several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek."[74] Metzger noted a number of "indefensible" characteristics of the translation, including its use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament.

Metzger, Bruce M, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), p. 151.

Bruce M. Metzger, "Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today, (April 1953 p. 74); see also Metzger, "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,".

Excuse me, but "religious bias" colors every single version of the Bible that there is . The King James Version is biased along the lines of what the Church of England taught---trinity and all. Then most other versions went along with the KJV because of its loooooong usage; something that has been around for so long must be right! More up-to-date versions have realized that a lot of the KJV is badly translated in many parts.

How Haas, Barclay, Rhodes and Metzger can say such outrageous things, I don't know. It is beneficial to the inquiring mind to note that Metzger hasn't disagreed so much on the New World Translation as a whole, but to the use of Jehovah's name in the New Testament. It's kind of funny that he wouldn't know about early Greek mss. that included that Name, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. As I give Jason D. BeDuhn who wrote an excellent book called Truth in Translation (well worth the price of the book). He also criticized the NWT for including Jehovah's name in the New Testament, which is understandable to a point---but even when Jehovah's name is QUOTED in the N.T.? That I don't get.

Anyway, BeDuhn says this about the New World Translation: (He goes through why the NWT is superior to other versions on pages 161-163, then goes into more detail.) "Jehovah's Witnesses are more or less alone in the thought that the Bible alone is the true source of truth in its every detail." The Catholic Church relies on tradition that has solidified over the centuries, and Protestants basically go along with that thinking. "The Jehovah's Witness movement was and is a more radical break with the dominant Christian tradition of the previous millennium than most kinds of Protestantism. This movement, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch. It resulted in the JWs approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there." So....BeDuhn is saying that JWs started out with no agendum to create a version that leaned toward any particular bias! He says, "The biases of the NWT translators do not account for most of the differences of the NWT from other translations. Most of the differences are due to the GREATER ACCURACY OF THE NWT as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers."

Debating Christianity and Religion

Jehovah's Witnesses v Bible Translations

Jehovah's Witnesses v Bible Translations

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses v Bible Translations

How reliable is the King James Bible?

Some comments on the NIV translation

NWT of the Bible 1961

Re: NWT of the Bible 1961

Re: How reliable is the King James Bible?

Re: NWT of the Bible 1961