Moderator: Moderators
That insertion is not my insertion, but is there in the Amplified translation of the Bible. It reveals a blatant Trinitarian Bias that no Jew would accept.God said, Let us [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] make mankind in our image...
I agree that the NWT has some problems. But letting the sense of the passage dictate the translation of the passage seems entirely reasonable.McCulloch wrote: [Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]
For example, Luke 2:23 in Greek is, "καθὼς γÎγÏ�απται á¼�ν νόμῳ κυÏ�ίου ὅτι Πᾶν ἄÏ�σεν διανοῖγον μήτÏ�αν ἅγιον Ï„á¿· κυÏ�ίῳ κληθήσεται."
Most translators render this something like, "as it is written in the Law of the Lord 'Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord.'"
But the New World Translation renders this as, "just as it is written in Jehovah’s Law: 'Every firstborn male must be called holy to Jehovah.'"
The word Jehovah is a transliteration of a Hebrew word. That Hebrew word or its equivalent occurs exactly zero times in the texts of Greek scriptures. To render κυ�ίουnas Jehovah is not translation; it is interpretation.
McCulloch wrote:The word Jehovah is a transliteration of a Hebrew word. That Hebrew word or its equivalent occurs exactly zero times in the texts of Greek scriptures. To render κυ�ίουnas Jehovah is not translation; it is interpretation.
JehovahsWitness wrote:McCulloch wrote: [Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]
Translators from Greek into English render the Greek name Ἰησοῦς into Jesus. Ἰησοῦς is, of course, a Greek form of a Hebrew name. The Hebrew root for Jesus' name does not justify translating en entirely Greek word into the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.
What do you mean by "[an] entirely Greek word into the Hebrew Tetragrammaton" this sentence makes no sense to me, could you explain?
Elijah John wrote: Genesis 1.26
That insertion is not my insertion, but is there in the Amplified translation of the Bible. It reveals a blatant Trinitarian Bias that no Jew would accept.God said, Let us [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] make mankind in our image...
Talk about ignoring "original intent"!
For debate, how common is this kind of corruption in the various translations of the Bible?
Do you have examples of other Bible corruptions?
I disagree on both counts, because of their translations of John:1.18.bjs wrote: It depends on the translation. The NWT has been mentioned for its translation problems. The Living Bible is another famous example of a text that is not a faithful translation (though in that case the paraphraser had a note at the beginning saying that it was not a strict translation and should not be read as such).
Other better reviewed translations, like the NIV or the NRSV, are more faithful to the original. They include footnotes about manuscript issues and more explicit “amplifications� are rare to non-existent.
That is indeed an interesting passage. The original Greek does not include the word “son.�Elijah John wrote: I disagree on both counts, because of their translations of John:1.18.
Both have Jesus as the Son of God, but both also call him, "God".
The NIV, "the Son, who is himself God"
The NKJV "God the only Son".
There is a difference between the terms "Son of God" which is Biblical, and "God the Son" which is Church derived theology.
Even the KJV does not go as far as the NIV or the NRSV.
I will offer:Elijah John wrote: For debate, ...Do you have examples of other Bible corruptions?
κυ�ίου is an entirely Greek word. In both biblical and secular contexts it is usually translated into English as lord. There is no textual reason ever to translate this word into Jehovah.JehovahsWitness wrote:What do you mean by "[an] entirely Greek word into the Hebrew Tetragrammaton" this sentence makes no sense to me, could you explain?McCulloch wrote:Translators from Greek into English render the Greek name Ἰησοῦς into Jesus. Ἰησοῦς is, of course, a Greek form of a Hebrew name. The Hebrew root for Jesus' name does not justify translating [an] entirely Greek word into the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.
---------------------In my first posting in this thread, I wrote: Rather famously, the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation of Greek scriptures into English includes an English transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, without any textual justification whatsoever.
It seemed to me that in this you were justifying the translation of κυ�ίου into Jehovah because Jesus' name is at its root a Hebrew word. Maybe I was wrong. Was there some other reason that you bring up the Jewishness of Jesus' name?In reply you wrote:It also uses the English form of Yeheshua (JESUS) .... so?! Do you have a problem with English?
