Originally posted by DowardSo you are not willing to conclude as he stated until he actually says it?
Yet he hasn't actually stated that he gathers with others in Jesus name. He siad that the logical answer would be Jesus, but they do everything in Jehovah's name, not in the name of Jesus. They deny Christ his rightful honor and glory.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHi Robbie and glad things are going ok. And I agree that this is a total waist of time with these few here. I'm only board to tell the truth and it's giving me something to do. Sad huh?
i am fine my dear Brother,
say something once, why say it again? what is there for me to discuss with RJHinds, Jaywill, Doward, Manny? I told them many times in a spiritual context that I am interested in what is actually in the Bible, not what is not, therefore the trinity holds no interest for me. If i was on their doorstep i would not hesit ca who are working hard to help others overcome all manner of problems - kind regards Robbie.
And the silly thing about this is they continue to blast the NWT but I never use it here just to show them that THEIR bibles, even being tainted with the trinity because of the tainted translators, they still don't support the trinity. But that seems to slip over their heads.
And even when it comes down to it they really don't agree among themselves what that trinity thing is.
But now I too am getting really borad with this issue and must move on. But I can't wait to find that book as it sounds really interesting.....
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCurmudgeon that I am, I likely would not accept any single translation as authoritative vis-à-vis the original texts (insofar as we have those; your point on the Coptic texts has always been a good one). The NW is one translation that I will have to get: do you have a cite to an online (or, better, PDF version) that is searchable—that I could set my slow dial-up to maybe download over night? My understanding is that it is non-literal translation (e.g., based on our discussions of the possible translations of the Hebrew YHVH), but a meaning-based translation—that is always a dilemma for translators: what is the literal word-for-word (if that is even possible)? But does that capture the basic intended (so far as that can be discerned!) meaning? Anyway, if there is no such thing as a downloadable/searchable version, I’ll go with my favorite format anyway: a book!
i am fine my dear Brother,
say something once, why say it again? what is there for me to discuss with RJHinds, Jaywill, Doward, Manny? I told them many times in a spiritual context that I am interested in what is actually in the Bible, not what is not, therefore the trinity holds no interest for me. If i was on their doorstep i would not hesit ...[text shortened]... ca who are working hard to help others overcome all manner of problems - kind regards Robbie.
Hope you and yours are very well in every way!
New Testament
A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world," including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version, examined several New Testament passages in which "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the most accurate of the translations compared", and thus a "remarkably good translation", adding that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation". BeDuhn said 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 "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament.[57]
Theologian and televangelist John Ankerberg accused the NWT's translators of renderings that conform "to their own preconceived and unbiblical theology."[58] Dr. John Weldon and Ankerberg cite several examples wherein they consider the NWT to support theological views overriding appropriate translation. Ankerberg and Weldon cite Dr. Julius R. Mantey, co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament and A Hellenistic Greek Reader, who also criticized the NWT, calling it "a shocking mistranslation."[58][59]
Dr. William Barclay, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, concluded that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in the New Testament translation. ... It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."[60]
Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."[61]
Robert McCoy stated "One could question why the translators have not stayed closer to the original meaning, as do most translators ... In not a few instances the New World Translation contains passages which must be considered as 'theological translations.' This fact is particularly evident in those passages which express or imply the deity of Jesus Christ." [62]
Former American Bible Society board member Dr. Bruce M. Metzger concluded that "on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators,"[63] but identified instances where the translation has been written to support doctrine, with "several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek."[64] He described the NWT's comma placement at Luke 23:43[65] as a device "supporting the doctrine of 'soul sleep' held by Jehovah's Witnesses,"[66] and said the insertion of the word "other" four times in Colossians chapter 1, "making Paul say that Jesus Christ is one among 'other' created things," was designed to provide support for the Witnesses' doctrine of nontrinitarianism, which he states was "totally without warrant from the Greek."[67] Metzger noted a number of "indefensible" characteristics of the translation, including its use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament. He said the insertion of the name "Jehovah" in Jude 11-15 was "singularly inappropriate," stating that the name was unknown to Enoch who is quoted as using it, and that the tetragrammaton is not used in "the Greek text of the Book of Enoch, with which the quotation by Jude agrees almost verbatim."[67]
Unitarian theologian Charles Francis Potter stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen."[68]
Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."[69]
Thomas Winter, an instructor of Greek at the University of Nebraska, considered the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to be a "highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek," adding that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."[70]
[edit]Rendering of John 1:1
Main article: John 1:1
The New World Translation has been criticized for its rendering of John 1:1. Most English translations render[71] this verse: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." By contrast, the NWT renders[72] the verse: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Controversy regarding the translation of John 1:1 is not unique to the NWT, but involves similar rendering of John 1:1 in such translations as Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott and Goodspeed's An American Translation.
Taken from wiki
Manny
Originally posted by vistesdthe truth of the matter is my dear and learned friend is that ALL Biblical translations demonstrate some bias, yet it is to what extent and why that bias has manifested itself that is of interest to us, because as beetle states, we are then able to make an evaluation with our own minds. Yes you are correct it is a dilemma in certain instances and it is very interesting, for one begins with a lexical (word for word) translation, which is not a translation at all, for Greek/Hebrew is not English and is merely a stepping stone to translation, after which the translator must deal with grammatical forms, the modification of the words root by markers that signal its relation to other words in the sentence and here the translator must use his or her training in Greek/Hebrew and is essentially where translation begins.
Curmudgeon that I am, I likely would not accept any single translation as authoritative vis-à-vis the original texts (insofar as we have those; your point on the Coptic texts has always been a good one). The NW is one translation that I will have to get: do you have a cite to an online (or, better, PDF version) that is searchable—that I could set m ...[text shortened]... ll go with my favorite format anyway: a book!
Hope you and yours are very well in every way!
Yet despite these steps bias has crept in, we can determine gender bias, outright inaccuracy, interpolation, distortion of the implicit meaning, tampering with tenses, strictly adhering to the Greek grammatical structure when it corresponds to ones theological bias, for example John 8:58, 'before Abraham was, I am', simply doesn't make sense in English, for the translators have allowed themselves to follow the Greek grammatical form, as it suits their theological bias, we know they recognise this form, for they translate it correctly elsewhere.
If you can find this book, Truth in Translation, Accuracy and bas in English translations of the New Testament by professor BeDuhn then he has an a section at the end dealing with the use of the tetragrammaton in which he probes the inconsistencies of its use.
As for the New world translation, ask any witness for a copy they would be happy to give it to you without charge (the best one is the reference Bible as it has all the footnotes, appendices, cross references in both Hebrew and Greek and a list of manuscripts and codices) failing that go to any Kingdom hall when a meeting is on and ask them for a copy and they will be happy to oblige without charge. I am not sure where you can download it, but i am sure some kind opponent has posted it on-line so that he can shoot at it with poisoned arrows.
Its always a pleasure to read your posts and i mean that sincerely, kind regards to you and yours and all the nondualists whom i originally thought were persons who had rescinded the practice of duelling with pistols and French foils at dawn, for the honour of some fair lady or slight of character, yet it turns out they are far more dangerous than even that😵
Originally posted by menace71then again you could always read the book for yourself rather than accept the second hand opinions of others posted on wiki. The very same persons who are guilty of demonstrating a bias in their own translations, as pointed out by professor BeDhun.
New Testament
A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world," including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version, examined several New Testament passages in which "bias i ...[text shortened]... m wiki
Manny
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am happy to see you are okay. HalleluYah.
then again you could always read the book for yourself rather than accept the second hand opinions of others posted on wiki. The very same persons who are guilty of demonstrating a bias in their own translations, as pointed out by professor BeDhun.
Originally posted by galveston75You dummy. He was talking about Enoch not Jesus.
What? Manny is the one saying he wasn't dead for those three days? You must feel the same and who's stupid?
Below is a cut and paste of his post:
He was flesh and did not die and God took him it says in the scriptures. Where did God take Enoch?
Manny
See, he said Enoch. He did not even mention Jesus. Wake up!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgreed no argument
then again you could always read the book for yourself rather than accept the second hand opinions of others posted on wiki. The very same persons who are guilty of demonstrating a bias in their own translations, as pointed out by professor BeDhun.
Originally posted by galveston75I never said he did not die I said DEATH could not hold him 🙂 Now I will insult you because you really do lack reading comprehension skills LOL
What? Manny is the one saying he wasn't dead for those three days? You must feel the same and who's stupid?
(The Top part is about Jesus)
Manny
I was asking what happened to Enoch? Enoch was taken by God. The bible does not say where however. Did God kill Enoch's flesh Body then take him to heaven?
Manny