Jehovah's Witnesses Bible

[Ross]

Much debate has taken place over the change the Jehovah's Witnesses made to John 1:1 rendering GOD as 'a god'. Virtually all references made to the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the NWT of the Greek Scriptures included adjustments to the literal rendering of the Koine' Greek to English, with the notable exception of John 20:28.

This translation of the Greek Scriptures was performed in secret by a Translation Committee led by the President and Vice President without the knowledge of the Governing Body who had no option but to accept this once it was revealed, as back then the Governing Body had little power.

After this they produced the Hebrew Scriptures, and It didn't take long for them to carry out similar unfaithful translation.

Almost every Bible ever written translates the second part of Genesis 1:2 as it appears to us in the Hebrew Masoretic Text:

"And The Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters"

Jehovah's Witnesses assert that the Spirit of God, The Holy Spirit, is a none intelligent, none personal form of Gods power, likened in their literature to electricity that makes things work or happen.

Their official description and interpretation of the Holy Spirit is 'Gods active force'.

Genesis 1:2 reads in the New World Translation:

" and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."

Is this not the most blatant insertion of pre conceived doctrine into scripture you have ever seen?

[Ross]

Perhaps rather than just giving us your personal disapproval. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong. Perhaps you can show a scholarly reason why 'active force' can't be used?

It doesn't translate from the Hebrew Text.

It doesn't to you, but for REAL language translators there is more to it than just translating the Bible word for word from some interlinear translation. This because the word spirit as well as many other words can mean so many different things in Hebrew and Greek. The context determines its actual meaning of many of the words in a language. This includes Hebrew.

Even in English it takes context to understand the meaning of a word. Look at all the different meanings for the word spirit in English. I could say I drank a tasty spirit yesterday with my steak dinner. But I could replace spirit with scotch. I can also say, my spirits are down. I could replace spirit with, 'demeanor'. Note the context around the word spirit determines its meaning and with the changes the idea I'm trying to convey is more accurate.

If you can understand this concept then you can understand why the word spirit at Gen 1:2 can mean more than just spirit. Of course I don't expect you to except this as your devotion to your dogma will not allow it. Translators of the NWT and the Good News translation are not hindered by your dogma. Also, don't think I didn't notice that you're still not acknowledging the quotes from past scholars concerning Gen 1:2 that I quoted you and that you have no real response other than a single sentence which is not a strong enough argument to add to the debate, especially since you're not a REAL translator. You're just a plain person like me, except I actually seek out people smarter than me on a subject to gather information then make a choice based on that information. Not you though, for you it all depends on your personal opinion and religious dogma.

This is what I mean by your 'spin'. And what I meant by it flabbergasting me is that it lacks the same thing that is missing in the translation of the text, decency, honesty and integrity.

A lot of words to explain away clear scripture from God, or in this case the injection of your own religion's dogma into a Bible.

By the way, you are correct to compare the New World Translation to the Good News Translation, they are both abysmal.

Thanks though for the discussion, it was most appreciated.

[2timothy316]

Perhaps rather than just giving us your personal disapproval. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong. Perhaps you can show a scholarly reason why 'active force' can't be used?

It doesn't translate from the Hebrew Text.

It doesn't to you, but for REAL language translators there is more to it than just translating the Bible word for word from some interlinear translation. This because the word spirit as well as many other words can mean so many different things in Hebrew and Greek. The context determines its actual meaning of many of the words in a language. This includes Hebrew.

Even in English it takes context to understand the meaning of a word. Look at all the different meanings for the word spirit in English. I could say I drank a tasty spirit yesterday with my steak dinner. But I could replace spirit with scotch. I can also say, my spirits are down. I could replace spirit with, 'demeanor'. Note the context around the word spirit determines its meaning and with the changes the idea I'm trying to convey is more accurate.

If you can understand this concept then you can understand why the word spirit at Gen 1:2 can mean more than just spirit. Of course I don't expect you to except this as your devotion to your dogma will not allow it. Translators of the NWT and the Good News translation are not hindered by your dogma. Also, don't think I didn't notice that you're still not acknowledging the quotes from past scholars concerning Gen 1:2 that I quoted you and that you have no real response other than a single sentence which is not a strong enough argument to add to the debate, especially since you're not a REAL translator. You're just a plain person like me, except I actually seek out people smarter than me on a subject to gather information then make a choice based on that information. Not you though, for you it all depends on your personal opinion and religious dogma.

This is what I mean by your 'spin'. And what I meant by it flabbergasting me is that it lacks the same thing that is missing in the translation of the text, decency, honesty and integrity.

A lot of words to explain away clear scripture from God, or in this case the injection of your own religion's dogma into a Bible.

By the way, you are correct to compare the New World Translation to the Good News Translation, they are both abysmal.

Thanks though for the discussion, it was most appreciated.

There is no spin. Just deeper discussion about the translation of scriptures than your dogma allows and I guess that is making your head spin? IDK
Thanks for sharing your opinions. It would have been more appreciated if you had given more references of scholars that actually support your opinion, other than what you personally find 'abysmal'. Opinions hold no weight but to the person that gave the opinion.

[Ross]

There is no spin. Just deeper discussion about the translation of scriptures than your dogma allows and I guess that is making your head spin? IDK
Thanks for sharing your opinions. It would have been more appreciated if you had given more references of scholars that actually support your opinion, other than what you personally find 'abysmal'. Opinions hold no weight but to the person that gave the opinion.

Why do you have to end a discussion with insults about your shallow reasoning apparently making my head spin? Don't flatter yourself and your limited intellect so much. I have no dogma. The dogma is all yours. As far as I am concerned I have blown your defence onto the backfoot and you have retreated and have no answer to your religion's unfaithful translation. Jehovah's Witnesses on this forum come across as very unpleasant people who claim some presumed victory as discussions close. I have seen this behaviour in similar debates.

I am on holiday for a week after tomorrow and will continue this discussion after then if you think you can handle it.

[2timothy316]

There is no spin. Just deeper discussion about the translation of scriptures than your dogma allows and I guess that is making your head spin? IDK
Thanks for sharing your opinions. It would have been more appreciated if you had given more references of scholars that actually support your opinion, other than what you personally find 'abysmal'. Opinions hold no weight but to the person that gave the opinion.

Why do you have to end a discussion with insults about your shallow reasoning apparently making my head spin? Don't flatter yourself and your limited intellect so much. I have no dogma. The dogma is all yours. As far as I am concerned I have blown your defence onto the backfoot and you have retreated and have no answer to your religion's unfaithful translation. Jehovah's Witnesses on this forum come across as very unpleasant people who claim some presumed victory as discussions close. I have seen this behaviour in similar debates.

I am on holiday for a week after tomorrow and will continue this discussion after then if you think you can handle it.

And your calling my favorite Bible translation 'abysmal' isn't an insult? You degrade what you can't even challenge with anything but personal opinion.
You say, " As far as I am concerned"... yeah as far as 'you' are concerned and that is all that matters isn't it? The whole thread was just you bad mouthing a translation and a religion. You start off with "Is this not the most blatant insertion of pre conceived doctrine into scripture you have ever seen?" Immediately start off with fighting words expecting what? For JWs to agree with you? Then when shown why the NWT says what it says, your ONLY retort is doubling down on your opinion.

JW come over as unpleasant is because we are treated unpleasantly to start with and if you look at this forum, many threads target us, eight of them including yours on the first page. So, of you want to see more pleasantness out of JWs stop targeting us. Target WHY the translation is wrong and show your scholarly references. Not some weak unsubstantiated personal comment about JWs. If you can't then accept defeat. Why didn't you start the thread with, "Should Gen 1:2 be translated as spirit or active force"? No, that isn't what you did. You went straight for the throat and call any translation you don't agree with what you think it should as 'abysmal' and biased.

[Ross]

And your calling my favorite Bible translation 'abysmal' isn't an insult? The whole thread was just you bad mouthing a translation and a religion.

JW come over as unpleasant is because we are treated unpleasantly to start with and if you look at this forum, many threads target us, eight of them including yours on the first page. So, of you want to see more pleasantness out of JWs stop targeting us.

Well 2timothy, your people for decades knocked on the doors of the homes of nice God fearing folk, bad mouthing their Catholic and Protestant faiths claiming that all of their beliefs were falsehood.

Few had any defence against the JW prowess back then, but those you have to deal with now are more educated in Bible matters, mainly because of the internet and the expose' of your abysmal and comical religion.

So now it is your turn. The false prophet is in the Lake of Fire, and it is hot there.

[otseng]

Of course I don't expect you to except this as your devotion to your dogma will not allow it. Translators of the NWT and the Good News translation are not hindered by your dogma. Also, don't think I didn't notice that you're still not acknowledging the quotes from past scholars concerning Gen 1:2 that I quoted you and that you have no real response other than a single sentence which is not a strong enough argument to add to the debate, especially since you're not a REAL translator. You're just a plain person like me, except I actually seek out people smarter than me on a subject to gather information then make a choice based on that information. Not you though, for you it all depends on your personal opinion and religious dogma.

You main agenda is pushing anti-JW propaganda rather than directly addressing my replies. How weak and boring.

Moderator Warning



All these are personal comments and are not allowed on the forum.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JehovahsWitness]

DOES THE NEW WORD TRANSLATION MISTRANSLATE THE HEBREW RRUACH IN GENESIS 1 VERSE 2 ?

GENESIS 1:1, 2 - The New World Translation (2013 Revision)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force [Heb Ruach Elohim]was moving about over the surface of the waters.

* Footnote
Or “God’s spirit.”

ROOT MEANING

In the Hebrew Bible the word ruach occurs 378 times. Its base meaning is "moving air" — whether in the form of breath, a breeze, or violent storm winds. - Kohlenberger & Swanson, Hebrew English Concordance to the Old Testament (1998), p. 1461 entry #8120.

So Genesis 1 verse 2 literally reads " the BREATH or WIND " of God (Our English word “spirit” comes from the Latin spiritus, which simply means “breath.”)

A VERSITILE WORD

So why not consistently render the word as breath wind or spirit every time it appears in the bible? Because depending on the context RUACH can refer to a wide variety of things from ones attitude to one's life; indeed the Hebrew word "Ruach" has been described as one of the most generic words in the bible. Note for example...

Strong's H7307 renders the word : wind (92x), breath (27x), side (6x), mind (5x), blast (4x), vain (2x), air (1x), anger (1x), cool (1x), courage (1x), miscellaneous (6x)."siurce : https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

[ * ] NOTE There are a number of occassions when a particular rendition is used only once in the entire translation



GOD HAS WIND

The challenge then of the translator is to take a word in one language and to render it accurate and understandable in another. Would a literal rendition [wind] accurately transmit the intended MEANING in the case of Genesis 1:2? Refering to God's "wind" may either leave the modern reader wondering if YHWH has gastic problems or indicate he only had RUACH after the creation of air/oxgen ("breath"). And although, "spirit" is entirely acceptable, the translator might be able to better transmit the meaning of the Hebrew in this context by another term.

So from "the BREATH or WIND [of God]" how does one get "active force" ?

Note the following commentaries regarding the meaning of RUACH:

The meaning of the word is to be deduced only from its usage. The one root idea running through all of the passages is invisible force. . . . n whatever sense it is used, [it] always represents that which is invisible except by its manifestations.- E.W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, Appendix 9

[Commentary on ]Isaiah 30:1

"Ruach is translated as "wind" in the Old Testament. Here, the Greek word is pneuma, which is the equivalent of the Hebrew ruach meaning "an invisible force or power." The illustration refers to wind. A person cannot see air, but it is real, is it not? Its molecules can be packed so solidly, so close together, that they will lift a huge airplane right off the ground. One cannot see the molecules, the atoms, the electrons, or protons, but they are there. We deal with other invisible forces or powers, like electricity and light, on a daily basis, and they certainly exist. That is the gist of the meaning of spirit. . ..." - John W. Ritenbaugh

"air; wind, breeze; vanity; side, quarter (of heavens); breath; vital breath (spirit, life); spirit (versus flesh, invisible power of God, of inspired prophets); mind, purpose; courage. " - Alexander Harkavy, Students' Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament (pages 661-62)

[...the ruah ('breath,' 'wind') of God, the outgoing divine energy and power." The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (1962), page 531.

[[Regarding] Genesis 1:2: "There is little to commend "a mighty wind" (NEB, Speiser, von Rad); in the relatively few passages where "God" is used as a superlative, the context usually makes it clear. The sense is excellently given by "the power of God" (GNB)." - A Bible Commentary for Today, General Editor G. C. D. Howley (1973), page 135.

"Common connotations include "energy" and "invisibility"…. Broadly speaking, God's ruah is represented 1: as God's power in the creation of the cosmos (Gn. 1:2; Ps. 33:6 etc.)." The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Edited by T. D. Alexander (2000), page 551.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

[otseng]

and the expose' of your abysmal and comical religion.
So now it is your turn. The false prophet is in the Lake of Fire, and it is hot there.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid crossing over into incivility and disrespect.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Miles]

DOES THE NEW WORD TRANSLATION MISTRANSLATE THE HEBREW RRUACH IN GENESIS 1 VERSE 2 ?

GENESIS 1:1, 2 - The New World Translation[/size] (2013 Revision)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force [Heb Ruach Elohim]was moving about over the surface of the waters.

* Footnote
Or “God’s spirit.”

ROOT MEANING

In the Hebrew Bible the word ruach occurs 378 times. Its base meaning is "moving air" — whether in the form of breath, a breeze, or violent storm winds. - Kohlenberger & Swanson, Hebrew English Concordance to the Old Testament (1998), p. 1461 entry #8120.

So Genesis 1 verse 2 literally reads " the BREATH or WIND " of God (Our English word “spirit” comes from the Latin spiritus, which simply means “breath.”)

So from "the BREATH or WIND" how does one get "active force"? or "active force" from "Heb Ruach Elohim"?

A VERSITILE WORD

So why not consistently render the word as breath wind or spirit every time it appears in the bible? Because depending on the context RUACH can refer to a wide variety of things from ones attitude to one's life; indeed the Hebrew word "Ruach" has been described as one of the most generic words in the bible. Note for example...

Strong's H7307 renders the word : wind (92x), breath (27x), side (6x), mind (5x), blast (4x), vain (2x), air (1x), anger (1x), cool (1x), courage (1x), miscellaneous (6x)."siurce : https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

[ * ] NOTE There are a number of occassions when a particular rendition is used only once in the entire translation

Just so there's no misunderstanding about the 378 times the Hebrew word (רוּחַ), rûaḥ has been translated into English, here's a breakdown:

As Spirit or spirit (232x), 61% of its 378 occurrences (somehow overlooked above )

As wind (92x), 24% of its 378 occurrences

As breath (27x), 7% of its 378 occurrences

As side (6x), insignificant (1.6%)
As mind (5x), insignificant
As blast (4x), insignificant
As vain (2x), insignificant
As air (1x), insignificant
As anger (1x), insignificant
As cool (1x), insignificant
As courage (1x), insignificant
miscellaneous (6x). insignificant
source

.

[JehovahsWitness]

So from "the BREATH or WIND" how does one get "active force"? or "active force" from "Heb Ruach Elohim"?

See edit : final subheading (in bold)