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.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:03 pm

As newly discovered manuscripts, which may be earlier versions---closer to the original (which we don't have)---are brought to light, it might be efficacious to perhaps adjust certain passages or words if it seems reasonable to do so.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:08 pm

[Replying to post 2 by onewithhim]

I agree, there are those that insist we read archaic old English, such as is found in the original King James Version.

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:25 pm

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes, but there is no "Jehovah" in the NT. The NWT is a corrupt translation here and elsewhere.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:57 pm

Yes translations should change. The Hebrew Scriptures didn't stay in Hebrew only. It could also be found in Greek during Jesus' day. I'm sure those translations improved over time as well. The important part of any Bible is it's message. In some languages translating the Bible is not easy at all. There are some words in Hebrew and Greek that don't exist in other languages. Like in some places, what translates into our English word for snow doesn't exist. Because a certain area has never seen snow, thus there is no word for it. I think they use the concept, 'white rain'. Even some concepts that don't translate very well from Hebrew or Greek in to another language. Like the use of animals that we have never seen and references to areas of land that don't look the way they do today. Or the use of terms that sound like insults. Like in the Song of Solomon when the woman's lover compares her hair to that of a goat. (SoS 4:1) If I told that to my wife I don't think she'd be impressed. But at the time, that was a huge compliment.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:36 pm

[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

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:10 pm

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

Indeed! The KJV was written in Elizabethan English. It was meant to make the Word of God elevated above common English and beautiful to listen to. But one must consider what really elevates the Word of God? It seems to me what elevated the Word of God is it's meaning. I love listening to people that speak the French language. It sounds fluid and light...but I have no idea what they are saying. So while something might sound nice or what we might call an 'elevated' language the Bible says in Revelation 14:6 that the Good News will go out to people of every language. "And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue* and people." (*fn language) So while some are trying to put God's Word in some 'higher' language or trying to convince others that the Bible must be read in it's original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Truly, it doesn't matter because Jehovah's angel is declaring the Good News in every language. That means, Bible translations will change so the Good News is understood by everyone, no matter if we want them to change or not.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 8:11 am

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.

.

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 5:38 pm

[Replying to onewithhim]

"Jehovah", however, is a serious mistranslation. YHWH, yes; Jehovah, no.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:05 pm

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