Originally posted by rwingett Refined gold? What's the difference between 'refining' and 'adulterating'? And why would we need a more accurate English translation in the first place? Oh, wait, it's because of that whole Tower of Babel thing isn't it?
why would we need a more accurate English translation in the first place?
An excellent question my son, simply put, languages change and terms may become obsolete, for example, we no longer say, harlot, but prostitute, we no longer say dumb, but speechless, we no longer say fornication, but sexual immorality, thus its imperative my son that we reflect these changes and render a Bible that is accurate and understood.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie why would we need a more accurate English translation in the first place?
An excellent question my son, simply put, languages change and terms may become obsolete, for example, we no longer say, harlot, but prostitute, we no longer say dumb, but speechless, we no longer say fornication, but sexual immorality, thus its imperative my son that we reflect these changes and render a Bible that is accurate and understood.
Originally posted by divegeester Could you provide the link to the full review please.
I'd be interested in a number of topical issues not least of which being his view on the NW translation's importation and use of the name "Jehovah" over the original text, how it is used in regard to the scriptures related to Jesus and the subsequent impact on the positioning level of Christ in relation to the Jehovah Witness previously established doctrine.
Thanks.
The original text had YHWH instead of Jehovah. Same thing.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung The original text had YHWH instead of Jehovah. Same thing.
Indeed it is, in fact, its amazing that the haters of Jehovahs witnesses have no problem referring to Jesus as Jesus and not Yashua, but have a strange aversion when it comes to doing exactly the same thing with pronouncing Gods name.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Indeed it is, in fact, its amazing that the haters of Jehovahs witnesses have no problem referring to Jesus as Jesus and not Yashua, but have a strange aversion when it comes to doing exactly the same thing with pronouncing Gods name.
As fascinating as your opinion is, it is not what your referenced professor in OP thinks. I suggest you read and consider his entire broadcast and not just the pieces that support you doctrine. Blunt, but actually exactly what he is saying about your corporation's reluctance to translate independently of its firmly held doctrine.
PS I don't hate JWs, never have done and never will despite your attempts to solicit persecution.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Indeed it is, in fact, its amazing that the haters of Jehovahs witnesses have no problem referring to Jesus as Jesus and not Yashua, but have a strange aversion when it comes to doing exactly the same thing with pronouncing Gods name.
Do you think anyone here believes that you are not reading my posts? You are an interesting character. 😵
Originally posted by robbie carrobie The worlds 'most accurate English translation', (independently assessed by associate professor Jason BeDhun) has undergone its latest revision. Begun sometime in 2005 this refining process took eight years and a team of volunteer researchers to accomplish and we thank them for their hard work! We are reminded of the words of the psalmist, that Gods w ...[text shortened]... r God be with you.
'Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my roadway' - Psalm 119:105
What's the matter? Did you guys not move as many of these as usual this month?
Sorry, my dogma comes from the Bible. I didn't have to write my own Bible to justify my dogma.
'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.' -- Psalm 119:105, KJV
Originally posted by AThousandYoung The original text had YHWH instead of Jehovah. Same thing.
The original HEBREW text, i.e. the Old Testament.
The New Testament is Greek, and therefore no tetragrammaton.
And no, they can't get away with claiming that the NWT is 'the world's most accurate translation' and still insert words into the New Testament that aren't there.
Originally posted by Suzianne The original HEBREW text, i.e. the Old Testament.
The New Testament is Greek, and therefore no tetragrammaton.
And no, they can't get away with claiming that the NWT is 'the world's most accurate translation' and still insert words into the New Testament that aren't there.
There are hundreds of direct quotations from the Hebrew portion in the Greek scripture many of which do contain the tetragrammaton, tell us why we should not insert it if its found in the Hebrew portion of scripture? and we did not say its the most accurate, an associate professor who just happens to know what hes talking about did after making a comparison of nine of the most common English translations, hard for you to take i know, why don't you read his book, who knows , you might learn something about translation.
Originally posted by Suzianne What's the matter? Did you guys not move as many of these as usual this month?
Sorry, my dogma comes from the Bible. I didn't have to write my own Bible to justify my dogma.
'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.' -- Psalm 119:105, KJV
Oh dear, so bitter, so jealous and so living in the past, i sayeth merrily unto thee, be goneth! You have no idea what is accurate and what is not, so enough of your pretentiousnesses, please.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie There are hundreds of direct quotations from the Hebrew portion in the Greek scripture many of which do contain the tetragrammaton, tell us why we should not insert it if its found in the Hebrew portion of scripture? and we did not say its the most accurate, an associate professor who just happens to know what hes talking about did after making a com ...[text shortened]... ke i know, why don't you read his book, who knows , you might learn something about translation.
The somewhat obscure professor you cite in your OP also criticises the NWT for being doctrinally biased. Did you omit to read that bit?
Originally posted by divegeester The somewhat obscure professor you cite in your OP also criticises the NWT for being doctrinally biased. Did you omit to read that bit?
OF COURSE the NWT is "doctrinally biased"! That's why it was created, to justify JW doctrine that was established way back when they used a real bible, yes, the King James Version. They realized their biggest problem was that their various doctrines were not supported by the KJV, and so they created their own bible which... (wait for it)... DID support their theories. (I know, what a shocker.)
I find it amusing that BOTH sides trot this guy out to prove their points.
Originally posted by Suzianne OF COURSE the NWT is "doctrinally biased"! That's why it was created, to justify JW doctrine that was established way back when they used a real bible, yes, the King James Version. They realized their biggest problem was that their various doctrines were not supported by the KJV, and so they created their own bible which... (wait for it)... DID support th ...[text shortened]... , what a shocker.)
I find it amusing that BOTH sides trot this guy out to prove their points.
bwahaha, so your an expert on translation and claim to know what motivated the writing committee of the New world Translation yet have no way of knowing what an accurate translation is nor of what motivated them, that's brilliant, you couldn't make this stuff up. I find it rather puzzling that you haven't even read his book but somehow feel qualified to comment on those who have, bitchin forum that a way ------> neeeeeeext!
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
09 Oct '13 11:361 edit
Back to Top