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.

[tam]

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.

It is.

Not in every place (places that are a direct quote from the OT wherein God's name is used, makes some sense, but places that don't do that - such as Romans 14, does not). But in some places. There is no reason to change from Lord (which often refers to Christ in the NT), to "Jehovah", in places such as in the example that I gave.

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.

"Seems to be"... "alluding"... these are words that render this insertion a guess, something the translators thought should be there; rather than something the translators KNEW should be there.

And yet Paul does not "seem" to be alluding to anything in the verses where he states EXACTLY who it is we are to live for, such as in the Corinthians verse:

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.



Nor is this verse the only verse that states we belong to the Lord (meaning Christ), or that we are to live for Him.

and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God. 1Corinthians 3:23


So why change Lord in the Romans verse when it is true to begin with that we belong to Christ and that we live for Christ?

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.

I'm not sure why this list of scholars should mean anything to anyone, or even what any of them have to say about the verse in Romans. Indeed, there are plenty of scholarly opinions out there that you and your religion reject... so why post a list of scholars as if that means something?

There are always scholars to be found on opposite sides of an issue or debate.

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

Of course not, and I never said otherwise, so why would you bring this up?

Living for Christ means living for His Father also.

But this discussion was about whether or not Lord should have been rendered "Jehovah" in this verse.

In Romans Paul is discussing Christian living and in Chapter 14 urging Christian not to judge the personal choices of others (v1).

Yes.

He explains that whatever we do, we give thanks to God (v6).

Yes.

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).

Unless you wrote this wrong, then no, this is not accurate.

Christ is the Lord of both the living and the dead. That is how the verse reads. And we can use your own translation from the NWT to see this:

For to this end Christ died and came to life again, so that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living.


And this is verse 9.



And even your own words above show that the Lord being referred to in verse 4 is Christ. Because you said "Christ is the means by which that Christian may once again stand". And from verse 4:


And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

So Paul is absolutely referring to Christ as Lord, as he most often does (2Corinth 4:5, any translation: "For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but [Jesus] Christ as Lord"... and he also refers to the judgment seat of God and speaks of giving thanks to God. He is clearly referring to Christ in verse 4 and in verse 9, and in other places where he states who we are to live for, he states that we live for Christ.


Paul is a witness for Christ, in obedience to Christ who said:

"You will be MY witnesses."



Christ Himself is the true and faithful witness for God.

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.

See above.


]

CONCLUSION: Nothing in the context of Romans 14:8 imposes the reading that Paul is refering to Jesus in that verses,

Disagree, for the reasons stated.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[polonius]

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.

RESPONSE:

Lets look more accurate translations:

Psalm 146:2 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
2 Praise the LORD, my soul;
I will praise the LORD all my life,
sing praise to my God while I live.

Romans 14:8 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
8 For if we live, we live for the Lord*, and if we die, we die for the Lord; so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lords.

Strongs Definitions Legend)
* krios, koo'-ree-os; from k-ros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):"God, Lord, master, Sir.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

RESPONSE:

Lets look more accurate translations:

Psalm 146:2 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
2 Praise the LORD, my soul;
I will praise the LORD all my life,
sing praise to my God while I live.

Yes, let's look at them shall we: Do you know why LORD is in capital letters in the NAB?

[onewithhim]

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.

RESPONSE:

Lets look more accurate translations:

Psalm 146:2 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
2 Praise the LORD, my soul;
I will praise the LORD all my life,
sing praise to my God while I live.

Romans 14:8 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
8 For if we live, we live for the Lord*, and if we die, we die for the Lord; so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lords.

Strongs Definitions Legend)
* krios, koo'-ree-os; from k-ros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):"God, Lord, master, Sir.

Let's not say "more accurate," because the NWT is accurate according to many scholars.

Didn't we discern that wherever the OT says "LORD" in upper-case letters, that is where the name of God appears in the original language (the Tetragrammaton, YHWH)? Did that slip by your notice?


.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 33 by onewithhim]

"Jehovah" is a major mistranslation and is not found in the NT. Although the Society claims the NWT is acclaimed by biblical scholars, that proves to be largely propaganda. The majority of biblical scholars have blasted it as a highly corrupted translation. Metzger, one of the great deans of NT scholarship, called the NWT "a frightful mistranslation,"" erroneous, "pernicious," and "reprehensible." Barclay stated that "it is absolutely clear that a sect which can translate the NT like that is intellectually dishonest." Rowley stated that "from the beginning to the end, this volume (the NWT) is s shinning example of how the Bible should not be translated." Mantey complained that the Society seriously misrepresented him in quoting him as approving to the translation. Goodspeed also told the Society it was a bad translation. Interestingly enough, the Society claims it has a letter from him approving the translation, but refuses to show the signed original. No one on the translation committee was a qualified biblical translator, including the head hauncho, Franz, who admitted in open count that he couldn't read Hebrew. The undue insertion of the article "a" in the NWT's translation of John 1 breaks all the rules of Greek grammar and so is a totally corrupted translation.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm not sure why this list of scholars should mean anything to anyone, or even what any of them have to say about the verse in Romans. Indeed, there are plenty of scholarly opinions out there that you and your religion reject... so why post a list of scholars as if that means something?

There are always scholars to be found on opposite sides of an issue or debate.

This is true, so then do we refrain from referring to experts in a particular field, relying instead on our "feelings" and personal bias? The references were provided for the same reason anyone on this forum provides references, to prove that a particular point has been academically supported by other scholars in the field. Even if you yourself are claiming to be a linguistic expert, specializing in producing peer reviewed analysis of the subject, you would I feel confident, agree that your opinion is one in many.

How much more if you are not, and essentially rely on those that have studied the relevant manuscripts to provide an educated opinion on what the original script may or may not have been refering to.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 33 by onewithhim]

"Jehovah" is a major mistranslation and is not found in the NT. Although the Society claims the NWT is acclaimed by biblical scholars, that proves to be largely propaganda. The majority of biblical scholars have blasted it as a highly corrupted translation. Metzger, one of the great deans of NT scholarship, called the NWT "a frightful mistranslation,"" erroneous, "pernicious," and "reprehensible." Barclay stated that "it is absolutely clear that a sect which can translate the NT like that is intellectually dishonest." Rowley stated that "from the beginning to the end, this volume (the NWT) is s shinning example of how the Bible should not be translated." Mantey complained that the Society seriously misrepresented him in quoting him as approving to the translation. Goodspeed also told the Society it was a bad translation. Interestingly enough, the Society claims it has a letter from him approving the translation, but refuses to show the signed original. No one on the translation committee was a qualified biblical translator, including the head hauncho, Franz, who admitted in open count that he couldn't read Hebrew. The undue insertion of the article "a" in the NWT's translation of John 1 breaks all the rules of Greek grammar and so is a totally corrupted translation.

What you are telling me is nothing I haven't heard before and have discounted as rubbish. Those men that you refer to may have those opinions, but a whole list of other scholars who LIKE the NWT has been provided, so you can stop throwing out your pathetic accusations.

"Jehovah" is not an erroneous pronunciation, any more than "Jesus" is an erroneous pronunciation. Your argument is worn out and frayed at the edges.



.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Yes, but you see, you have failed to provide any evidence to back your position. If you feel you are qualified enough in biblical languages to get into the ring and duke it out with major scholars such as Metzger, Barclay, Rowley, and win, feel free. But I'm not holding my breath.

Also where is the whole list of major biblical scholars who back the NWT? You cited, at one point, Beduhn, but he is not a recognized biblical scholar. Also, he has said that he prefers to translate Jn. 1 as "divine." Mantey claims the Society seriously misquoted him. Godspeed's approval looks pretty phony. So no, you haven't really provided a definite list at all. Even if you did, you would still face the daunting task of overcoming major critics such as Metzger et al.

"Jehovah" is not some kind of Anglicization. It is simply a serious mistranslation, based on a lack of knowledge how the vowel indicators functioned in the OT.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 35 by JehovahsWitness]

The problem is how reliable are the Society's claims that a certain scholar actually backs such-and-such an opinion. It is well-documented that the Society has seriously misrepresented what major scholars have actually said.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 32 by JehovahsWitness]

There is no "Jehovah" in the NT. Tis is but another example of the NWT being a corrupt translation.