1 edit
@galveston75 saidYou are citing Jason David BeDuhn as supportive of the use of the word "Jehovah" in your non-profit non-stock corporation's specially commissioned version of the Bible?
Lol. We changed the Bible? Perhaps it's yours that was changed and we are correcting those changes back to it's original wordings. Ever consider that?
For instance in order to help facilitate the trinity doctrine, which is not a bible teaching, in most bible's the most important name in the universe was removed and that is Almighty God's name which is Jehovah, not Jesus ...[text shortened]... hat is compromised.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/new-world-translation-accurate/
From your link:
"Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”—Truth in Translation"
But, if you had read the next few sentences in Truth in Translation, the relevant bits of which I have actually read, you'd know that Jason David BeDuhn went on to say ~ with regard to the specific issue under discussion about which you are bizarrely citing him here in defence of your organization's customized Bible...
"The introduction of the name 'Jehovah' into the New Testament 237 times was not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy and that it violates accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God.”—Truth in Translation
