Jehovah's Witnesses v Bible Translations

[JehovahsWitness]

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]

"The NWT is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available."

Jason D. BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 161-169.

[onewithhim]

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?

You have shown an excellent example of picking out words here and there and taking them out of context. You did not quote the whole sentence from C. Houtman! He said: "Various TRADITIONAL translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded."

Big difference from what you are endeavoring to relay. Of course Houtman meant that it is the best possible understanding FOR EVERYONE.

[McCulloch]

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.

I am apparently naive. I would have thought that the point of translating any document, religious or secular, from one language to another would be to accurately convey the meaning of the original authors. When the original manuscripts are unavailable, we use copies, fragments, earlier translations etc to determine what the original texts were. In the case of the New Testament, I believe that scholars are reasonably certain that they are quite close to the original Greek text.

There is no textual evidence that any autograph of any of the New Testament books included the Divine Name or the Tetragrammaton. This, no accurate translation of the Greek New Testament would contain either. Inserting them into the text or as you claim restoring them, is an act of theological bias not translation.

"The NWT is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available."

Jason D. BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 161-169.

This would have a whole lot more weight if you were to include something about Jason D BeDuhn's credentials.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_BeDuhn
It would also be helpful to mention if his controversial views are shared by other experts in his field.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 22 by McCulloch]

You raised a good point. One of the major criticisms of the NWT is that it continually inserts the expression "Lord Jehovah" into the NT. That does not occur at all in the Greek texts. Hence, it is a serious corruption of Scripture. Furthermore, "Jehovah" is understood by biblical scholars as a major mistranslation of YHWH.

BeDuhn, as I mentioned in a previous post, is not a recognized authority in biblical studies. He is a professor of comparative religions at the University of Arizona, not biblical studies. Outside of his one book, he has not bothered much to dialogue with major biblical scholars on the subject. I know of at least one negative book review he has received.

[JehovahsWitness]

There is no textual evidence that any autograph of any of the New Testament books included the Divine Name or the Tetragrammaton.

This is simply untrue. I did write about this earlier, you may feel inclinded to see the link below

Is there any evidence that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original text of the NT?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 272#822272

Is there valid evidence to support the appearance of the Divine Name in the Christian Greek scriptures of the NWT?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 274#822274

[tam]

Peace to you!

Sometimes the wts can be more accurate than other versions and sometimes less accurate. If we are relying upon the bible or even on a particular translation to lead us into all truth, we will never be led into all truth.


One needs the Spirit (of Truth) for that.


That being said, the NWT is incorrect in places where it replaces Lord with "Jehovah" in the NT. Such as that verse Romans 14:8.


Starting at 14:7,8 (NIV)

For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

From the NWT Romans 14:7,8

Not one of us, in fact, lives with regard to himself only, and no one dies with regard to himself only. For if we live, we live to Jehovah,* and if we die, we die to Jehovah.* So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah.


However, as can clearly be shown from 2Corinthians 5:15 (in any translation)

And He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

That is not "Jehovah". That is CHRIST.


So that 2Corinth states clear (and identifies clearly) that we are to live for Christ, and not for ourselves. So that Romans 14:8 is correct when translating that we are to live for the Lord (meaning Christ); and the NWT has NO valid reason to replace Lord as "Jehovah" here.



NWT translators are not unbiased, or error free, and those biases and errors make their way into the text as well. Especially when this was not them even translating, but them inserting their own opinion into the text, misleading the people by removing who it is we are supposed to be living for from this verse.


I know the WTS has harsh words for those who removed the name of God (though at least there is a preface at the start of most if not all bibles where the translators STATE that LORD in all caps refers to YHWH). But then the WTS turns around and removes Christ - not His name, but He, Himself - from the verses that refer to Him.

And people are misled.


May any who wish them be given ears to hear, and may any who wish also hear the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of life!"


Peace to you all, and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

That being said, the NWT is incorrect in places where it replaces Lord with "Jehovah" in the NT. Such as that verse Romans 14:8.

No it is not.

When the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original Hebrew text that was being quoted by the first-century Bible writers, numerous Bible translators have for good reason concluded that the Christian writers would not have substituted the Divine Name in their own writings and would have used the Divine Name when alluding to specific passages in the Hebrew bible. This, it has been deemed, is the case for Romans 14:8

The NWT translates Romans 14:8 as, For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah.

Paul seems to be alluding to YHWH as indicated in Psalm 146:2 Which reads "I will praise Jehovah all my life. I will sing praises to my God as long as I live." This conclusion is supported by a number of other bible translators, referenced below.

J7 Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.

J8 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Robertson, London, 1661.

J10 The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vol. I-III, containing Matthew"1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805.

J13 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by A. McCaul, M. S. Alexander, J. C. Reichardt and S. Hoga, London, 1838.

J14 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt, London, 1846.

J15 Luke, Acts, Romans and Hebrews, Heb., by J. H. R. Biesenthal, Berlin, 1855, 1867, 1853 and 1858 respectively.

J16 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt and J. H. R. Biesenthal, London, 1866.

J18 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London.

CONCLUSION: Far from being an arbitary and baseless "substitution", the inclusion of the Divine name in the Christian Greek scritpures and specfically in Romans 14:8 is based on a studied analysis of contextual, cultural and historical evidence that indicate the Name was indeed in the passage.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 25 by tam]

King James Bible
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. - Romans 14:8

# QUESTION: Does 2 Corinthians 5:15 prove that Romans 14:8 was in fact refering to Jesus rather than his Father Jehovah?

Firstly as has been noted above, it seems Paul was in fact alluding to Psalms 146:2 and there is ample evidence that when refering to scriptures that contain the Divine Name the Christian writers would have included that name in their own writings. Psalms is speaking of Jehovah and not of Jesus so there is reason to conclude that Paul was indeed refering to JEHOVAH in Romans

2 CORINTHIANS 5:15 reads
"And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."

There is absolutely not basis in scripture to imply that one has to choose between living for Christ or living for God.

Those that insist that this means Paul must have been speaking about Jesus in Romans 14:8 (since this verse speaks about living and dying for God) need to answer the the following question: If we live for JESUS does this mean we cannot also live for God? The Apostle Peter wrote: "[Christians] do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God - 1 Peter 4:1, 2, NIV. Are we to conclude that Peter, by advocating Christians live "for the will of God" saying they could no longer live for Jesus?

The reality is that in living for Jesus we are living for his Father and visa versa. As Jesus himself explained "I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one--as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us" Jesus and Jehovah are in complete union, but Jesus is not the end in itself, Jesus is the means by which we live for God. He explained "My Father is honored by this, that you bear much fruit and show that you are my disciples." so the point of living in Christ is to bring honour to the Father.


Romans 14

In Romans Paul is discussing Christian living and in Chapter 14 urging Christian not to judge the personal choices of others (v1). He explains that whatever we do, we give thanks to God (v6). So the discussion is our standing before the one we give thanks to for everything including our life ie Jehovah. Paul's mention of Christ is incidental to that point, in that Paul points out that even if a Chrisitan were to die, Christ is the means by which that Christian can once again stand before the God of both the living and the dead (v12). Nothing in the context of the theme imposes the reading that verse 8 refers to Jesus. Indeed the whole discussion implies that it does not.


CONCLUSION: Nothing in the context of Romans 14:8 imposes the reading that Paul is refering to Jesus in that verses, and the only way that 1 Corinthians 5:15 changes this is the suggestion that Jesus and Jehovah his Father are not in complete harmony which would be a scripturally unsound position to take.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Paul may well be alluding to that Psalm, but never does the NT speak of "Lord Jehovah," "Jehovah" being a major mistranslation anyway. So you are way, way off here.

[JehovahsWitness]

I can't personally see where translations could help the Bible. As far as I'm concerned the overall story is the problem.

I personally don't see the overal story being a problem. In any case whether the "story" the bible presents is problamatic is really more a question of values and world view than anything else.

JW