Serious Research?

[tigger2]

Hoghead1 wrote in post 148 of “What is a soul?�

FYI: [A] I've done some serious research on the NWT, which is precisely why I say it is bogus. For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were. [C]More importantly, the text, key points, has been unduly corrupted to suit the biases of teh WatchTower Society. For example, in the prologue to JN. the indefinite article "a" is inserted, so that the text is mistranslated as "and the Word was a God." The rules of Greek grammar rule out the use of teh indefinite article here, which is why it is absent in the solid, standard translations. The reason why the WatchTower Society want the "a" in there is that this will support their anti-Trinitarian bias. [D]Also, in passages that speak of Hell and torment, the NWT reads "annihilation." That was done to bludgeon Scripture to fit their bias about the afterlife. It is one thing to disagree with Scripture. I respect that. it is quite another to corrupt the translation so that it agree with your position. [E]Also, "Jehovah" is a serious mistranslation. And that is Hebrew 101 material. So I feel I have very good reason to write off the NWT as bogus and corrupt.

I intend to discuss the individual parts (A-E) of the above.

I’ll save part A for last.

B. You wrote:

“For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh [sic] Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were.�

For the first 30 years at least, the publishers of the NASB kept their translators anonymous:

“The Fourfold Aim of The Lockman Foundation
1.These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable to the masses.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; no work will ever be personalized.� - page v., NASB, Ref. Ed., Lockman Foundation, 1971.

“For many years the names of the NASB translators and editors were withheld by the publisher. But in 1995 this information was finally disclosed.� - http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html

Bible translations of the OT and NT texts should be judged according to their accuracy - not the person(s) who did the translation.

[tigger2]

[C] You wrote:

“More importantly, the text, key points, has been unduly corrupted to suit the biases of teh[sic] WatchTower Society. For example, in the prologue to JN. the indefinite article "a" is inserted, so that the text is mistranslated as ‘and the Word was a God.’ The rules of Greek grammar rule out the use of teh[sic] indefinite article here, which is why it is absent in the solid, standard translations. The reason why the WatchTower Society want the "a" in there is that this will support their anti-Trinitarian bias.�

1. Very little study will show that the indefinite article simply does not exist in NT Greek! All translators understand this and add “a� or “an� thousands of times as context requires throughout all the English translations of the NT. Nearly always when a proper example of a singular anarthrous nominative count noun is found in the Greek text, translators will insert the necessary understood indefinite article. For example, see John 1:6 where the Greek word for ‘man’ (anthr�pos) is found. I doubt you will find any English translation which does not render this word as “a man.�

2. The NWT has never rendered John 1:1c as you say: ‘and the Word was a God.’ Instead it has always rendered it as “a god.� What happened to your “serious research on the NWT�?

3. You wrote:

“The rules of Greek grammar rule out the use of teh[sic] indefinite article here, which is why it is absent in the solid, standard translations."

Not so. It is absent in most Bibles because the trinitarian translators, the trinitarian editors, the trinitarian publishers, and the trinitarian majority want “God� (without the grammatically required “a�) there so that this will support their trinitarian bias.

As with most (or all) proper examples of the singular anarthrous (without the article) Greek nominative count noun (as found in John 1:1c) in John’s (and all others) writings, the indefinite article is required. If you consider the fallacious ‘Colwell’s Rule' of 1933 or the equally fallacious “Qualitative� rule (1972?) as truly being “the rules of Greek grammar,� we can open a new discussion on that alone. - (First, you should examine my studies on these:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... c-a.html or

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... r_21.html )

[tigger2]

D. You wrote:

“Also, in passages that speak of Hell and torment, the NWT reads "annihilation." That was done to bludgeon Scripture to fit their bias about the afterlife. It is one thing to disagree with Scripture. I respect that. it is quite another to corrupt the translation so that it agree with your position.�

You need to give examples (including chapter and verse) of these 'bludgeoned' verses. It’s true that JWs believe that the words 'sheol' and 'hades' (commonly translated elsewhere as ‘hell’) indicate no more than the common grave of mankind. In other words the bodies of the dead return to the dust in their graves. And 'Gehenna' (also often translated as ‘hell’) or the ‘lake of fire’ is where those go who will not be resurrected - they merely cease to exist forever.

[tigger2]

E. You wrote: “

Also, ‘Jehovah’ is a serious mistranslation. And that is Hebrew 101 material

.�

It is a transliteration of YHWH as established in the English language as far back as 1300 A.D. Many translators and scholars (far above the “Hebrew 101� level) use it today:

“ Jehovah , the special and significant name (not merely an appellative title such as Lord) by which God revealed himself to the ancient Hebrews� - p. 330, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

“Jehovah denotes specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his truth. .... The substitution of the word Lord is most unhappy, for it in no way represents the meaning of the sacred name.� - p. 220, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Hendrickson Publ.

“5. ‘Jehovah’ - The name most distinctive of God as the God of Israel is Jehovah .... The meaning may with some confidence be inferred ... to be that of the simple future, yahweh, ‘he will be.’ It does not express causation, nor existence in a metaphysical sense, but the covenant promise of the Divine presence, both at the immediate time and in the Messianic age of the future.... It is the personal name of God.... Characteristic of the OT is its insistence on the possible knowledge of God as a person; and Jehovah is His name as a person. It is illogical, certainly, that the later Hebrews should have shrunk from its pronunciation, in view of the appropriateness of the name and of the OT insistence on the personality of God, who as a person has this name. [The ASV] quite correctly adopts the transliteration ‘Jehovah’ to emphasize its significance and purpose as a personal name of God revealed.� - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1266, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984.

And even trinitarian translator and scholar Jay P. Green writes in the Preface of his The Interlinear Bible:

“The only personal name of God that belongs to Him alone was rendered Jehovah or, in its shortened form, Jah. We preferred the transliteration JHWH (thus Jehovah) over YHWH (or Yahweh) because this is established English usage for Bible names beginning with this letter (e.g., Jacob and Joseph). - p. v, Baker Book House, 1982.

Nearly all personal names in the Bible are “a serious mistranslation.� More accurately, they are serious mistransliterations (they are not written in English as they were pronounced in Hebrew/Greek.)

For example, the personal name of the person who most of Christendom declares to be God (Jesus) is a terrible mistransliteration! His name was probably pronounced as Yehoshua (or something similar) by the people who knew him. Greek transliterations of his name are Iesous (Yay-soos) which was then transliterated into English as ‘Jesus’ (Gee-zuz). Should we stop using it and rewrite our Bibles with ‘Yehoshua’ in place of ‘Jesus’ (and all the other Biblical names with strange-sounding transliterations that we think may be more accurate)? Until we do that “Jehovah� is the traditional transliteration and an honest use (whereas “LORD� and “GOD� replacing God’s personal name in most Bibles truly are “a serious mistranslation�).

The translators of the highly-praised American Standard Version (ASV) wrote about their translation:

“The change ... which substitutes ‘Jehovah’ for ‘LORD’ and ‘GOD’ (printed in small capitals) - is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament.... This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.� - Preface, p. iv, American Standard Version, Thomas Nelson and Sons. So “Jehovah� transliterates YHWH into English many thousands of times in the ASV.

Commenting on this restoration of God's personal name in the ASV, The Presbyterian and Reformed Review:

"We cannot understand how there can be any difference of opinion as to the rightness of this step. This is the Lord's personal name, by which He has elected to be known by His people: the loss suffered by transmuting it into His descriptive title seems to us immense. To be sure there are disputes as to the true form of the name, and nobody supposes that 'Jehovah' is that true form. But it has the value of the true form to the English reader; and it would be mere pedantry to substitute for it Yahwe or any other forms now used with more or less inaccuracy by scholastic writers. We account it no small gain for the English reader of the Old Testament that he will for the first time in this popular version meet statedly with 'Jehovah' and learn all that 'Jehovah' has been to and done for His people."


“God said further to Moses, You tell the Israelites: JEHOVAH ... has sent me to you. This is My name forever and by this I am to be remembered through all generations.� - Ex. 3:15, MLB (Cf. NEB, LB, ASV, KJIIV).

“Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, [O Jehovah - ASV] .... That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.� - Ps. 83:16, 18, KJV

[tigger2]

E. You wrote: “

Also, ‘Jehovah’ is a serious mistranslation. And that is Hebrew 101 material

.�

It is a transliteration of YHWH as established in the English language as far back as 1300 A.D. Many translators and scholars (far above the “Hebrew 101� level) use it today:

“ Jehovah , the special and significant name (not merely an appellative title such as Lord) by which God revealed himself to the ancient Hebrews� - p. 330, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

“Jehovah denotes specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his truth. .... The substitution of the word Lord is most unhappy, for it in no way represents the meaning of the sacred name.� - p. 220, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Hendrickson Publ.

“5. ‘Jehovah’ - The name most distinctive of God as the God of Israel is Jehovah .... The meaning may with some confidence be inferred ... to be that of the simple future, yahweh, ‘he will be.’ It does not express causation, nor existence in a metaphysical sense, but the covenant promise of the Divine presence, both at the immediate time and in the Messianic age of the future.... It is the personal name of God.... Characteristic of the OT is its insistence on the possible knowledge of God as a person; and Jehovah is His name as a person. It is illogical, certainly, that the later Hebrews should have shrunk from its pronunciation, in view of the appropriateness of the name and of the OT insistence on the personality of God, who as a person has this name. [The ASV] quite correctly adopts the transliteration ‘Jehovah’ to emphasize its significance and purpose as a personal name of God revealed.� - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1266, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984.

And even trinitarian translator and scholar Jay P. Green writes in the Preface of his The Interlinear Bible:

“The only personal name of God that belongs to Him alone was rendered Jehovah or, in its shortened form, Jah. We preferred the transliteration JHWH (thus Jehovah) over YHWH (or Yahweh) because this is established English usage for Bible names beginning with this letter (e.g., Jacob and Joseph). - p. v, Baker Book House, 1982.

Nearly all personal names in the Bible are “a serious mistranslation.� More accurately, they are serious mistransliterations (they are not written in English as they were pronounced in Hebrew/Greek.)

For example, the personal name of the person who most of Christendom declares to be God (Jesus) is a terrible mistransliteration! His name was probably pronounced as Yehoshua (or something similar) by the people who knew him. Greek transliterations of his name are Iesous (Yay-soos) which was then transliterated into English as ‘Jesus’ (Gee-zuz). Should we stop using it and rewrite our Bibles with ‘Yehoshua’ in place of ‘Jesus’ (and all the other Biblical names with strange-sounding transliterations that we think may be more accurate)? Until we do that “Jehovah� is the traditional transliteration and an honest use (whereas “LORD� and “GOD� replacing God’s personal name in most Bibles truly are “a serious mistranslation�).

The translators of the highly-praised American Standard Version (ASV) wrote about their translation:

“The change ... which substitutes ‘Jehovah’ for ‘LORD’ and ‘GOD’ (printed in small capitals) - is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament.... This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.� - Preface, p. iv, American Standard Version, Thomas Nelson and Sons. So “Jehovah� transliterates YHWH into English many thousands of times in the ASV.

Commenting on this restoration of God's personal name in the ASV, The Presbyterian and Reformed Review:

"We cannot understand how there can be any difference of opinion as to the rightness of this step. This is the Lord's personal name, by which He has elected to be known by His people: the loss suffered by transmuting it into His descriptive title seems to us immense. To be sure there are disputes as to the true form of the name, and nobody supposes that 'Jehovah' is that true form. But it has the value of the true form to the English reader; and it would be mere pedantry to substitute for it Yahwe or any other forms now used with more or less inaccuracy by scholastic writers. We account it no small gain for the English reader of the Old Testament that he will for the first time in this popular version meet statedly with 'Jehovah' and learn all that 'Jehovah' has been to and done for His people."


“God said further to Moses, You tell the Israelites: JEHOVAH ... has sent me to you. This is My name forever and by this I am to be remembered through all generations.� - Ex. 3:15, MLB (Cf. NEB, LB, ASV, KJIIV).

“Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, [O Jehovah - ASV] .... That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.� - Ps. 83:16, 18, KJV

[tigger2]

A. You wrote:

I've done some serious research on the NWT, which is precisely why I say it is bogus. …. So I feel I have very good reason to write off the NWT as bogus and corrupt.

Your comments in the OP above show that you may have gone to an anti-JW site and read some of their distortions. But you obviously have not done any serious research on the NWT itself. Your misunderstanding of the reasons for the NWT translation of John 1:1c speaks for itself. I don’t claim that the NWT perfect. But as for an honest translation, it is among the best.

[tigger2]

A. You wrote:

I've done some serious research on the NWT, which is precisely why I say it is bogus. …. So I feel I have very good reason to write off the NWT as bogus and corrupt.

Your comments in the OP above show that you may have gone to an anti-JW site and read some of their distortions. But you obviously have not done any serious research on the NWT itself. Your misunderstanding of the reasons for the NWT translation of John 1:1c speaks for itself. I don’t claim that the NWT perfect. But as for an honest translation, it is among the best.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by tigger2]

I would agree, and wonder how much "serious research" has been done if the poster is unaware there have been a number of anonymous committee responsible for bible various bible translations [A]

I doubt if you'll see head nor hide of hoghead in this thread; people rarely show up when lack of serious research is exposed. Still I would love to be proven wrong and read his response, in the meantime thank you for addressing some of these "bogus" accusations.

JW

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 5 by tigger2]

I would agree, and wonder how much "serious research" has been done if the poster is unaware there have been a number of anonymous committee responsible for bible various bible translations [A]

I doubt if you'll see head nor hide of hoghead in this thread; people rarely show up when lack of serious research is exposed. Still I would love to be proven wrong and read his response, in the meantime thank you for addressing some of these "bogus" accusations.

JW

It appears you are correct about hoghead's lack of response. Although there is a slight possibility that he has not read this discussion nor the link to it in the "soul" discussion.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by tigger2]

Fair enough. We shall wait and see. In any case kudos for posting. I tend to just ignore points that are not directly related to the thread at hand.

JW