Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 64

Thread: Is the New World Translation Accurate?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    338
    Thanks
    784
    Thanked 152 Times in 95 Posts

    Default

    str8tawk vs heresy,

    If you object to the anglicized form of God's name (Jehovah), do you also object to the anglicized name of the Messiah (Jesus)? "Jesus" never appeared in the the original manuscripts. Neither did "Jeremiah", "Joshua", "Hezekiah", Etc.
    “Can we conceive of a greater incongruity, than for a Christian to go from his closet, where he has been praying for his enemies, and command his troops to plunge the weapons of death with fiend like fury, into the hearts of those very enemies? In the one case, he happily resembles his dying Master; but whom does he resemble in the other? Jesus prayed for his murderers. Christians murder those for whom they pray.” - Henry Grew, 1828

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    931
    Thanks
    88
    Thanked 231 Times in 191 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BibleStudent View Post
    str8tawk vs heresy,

    If you object to the anglicized form of God's name (Jehovah), do you also object to the anglicized name of the Messiah (Jesus)? "Jesus" never appeared in the the original manuscripts. Neither did "Jeremiah", "Joshua", "Hezekiah", Etc.
    I don't have as much of a problem with the name Jehovah as most might here, and for different reasons. I see the inherent problems with the NWT writers in the use of the name and adding it to the Greek Scriptures where it was not found and where WT doctrine influences the selectivity of its usage: http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH.htm

    One thing to point out in your argument here is an apples to oranges thing.

    The name "Jesus" comes from the Greek word Iesous. The Greek name Iesous is a transliteration not a translation. It also maintains its two syllables. You can hear it here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...&strongs=g2424 (Here is sounds like "yea-sus" other times I have heard it as "eye-sus") Latinizing the name allows for the "J" and the basic retention of the vowels used.

    Jehovah is not a Greek transliteration or translation because it was not found in Greek scriptures.

    In the attempt to translate the Hebrew YHWH it was Latinized to change it to JHVH, vowels were fabricated for development, and when finished it went from a two syllable word into a three syllable word.

    If Jehovah was translated from Greek, or if the Greek word for Jesus was Yehoshua, then your argument would have a similar comparison.
    "Beware of "organization." It is wholly un-necessary. The Bible will be the only rules you need. Do not seek to bind other consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours." CT Russell

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    888
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 149 Times in 117 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BibleStudent View Post
    str8tawk vs heresy,

    If you object to the anglicized form of God's name (Jehovah), do you also object to the anglicized name of the Messiah (Jesus)? "Jesus" never appeared in the the original manuscripts. Neither did "Jeremiah", "Joshua", "Hezekiah", Etc.
    As with Beowulf, I don't have an issue with "Jehovah." I do take issue with:
    1) The WT admit "Jehovah" is not the actual name.
    2) They are selective when it comes to where "Jehovah" is added in the NT of the NWT given what they say in their publications of the name from the OT to NT.

    Is it "accurate" to pick-and-choose when to put "Jehovah" in the NT of the NWT only where it suits the WT?
    Those who talk much, hear little, learn nothing.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,908
    Thanks
    1,206
    Thanked 2,800 Times in 2,205 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by str8tawk vs heresy View Post


    If "Jesus is a god" God created another god which makes WT witnesses polytheists.
    Do you know the Hebrew word Elohim? Did you know it was used in reference to the angels?
    Did you know God called the judges and kings of Israel gods?
    Did you know Moses was called god?
    Now because such things are in the Bible, do you claim faithful Jews were polytheists?
    Do you claim God was supporting polytheism?
    Agape,
    TBax

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,908
    Thanks
    1,206
    Thanked 2,800 Times in 2,205 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by str8tawk vs heresy View Post


    Is it "accurate" to pick-and-choose when to put "Jehovah" in the NT of the NWT only where it suits the WT?
    According to your OP, you objected to replacing it in the NT where it was quoting the OT verse. Why do you object?
    Agape,
    TBax

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    888
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 149 Times in 117 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBax View Post
    According to your OP, you objected to replacing it in the NT where it was quoting the OT verse. Why do you object?
    I said three things in the OP, two of which address directly why I object. You haven't seen that?
    Those who talk much, hear little, learn nothing.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Henrietta NY
    Posts
    1,518
    Thanks
    902
    Thanked 390 Times in 312 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:

    Comments on the NWT by scholarship

    Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)

    Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

    British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
    "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)

    Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
    "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
    the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)

    Hope this clarifies

    http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm
    How far must someone fall before they hit their head? b

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    338
    Thanks
    784
    Thanked 152 Times in 95 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnB View Post
    Comments on the NWT by scholarship

    Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
    "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
    the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
    I like this quote from "A Grossly Misleading Translation" by Julius Mantey:

    The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt*s rendering is "the Word was divine." Williams* translation is, "the Word was God himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek, For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done.

    If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they were distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the highest in existence, namely, divine. (emphasis mine)

    Based on his stated conclusions as highlighted, The NWT rendering is in line with what John wanted to get across. I also noted that Mantey is/was a professor at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary. Not exactly an unbiased opinion.
    “Can we conceive of a greater incongruity, than for a Christian to go from his closet, where he has been praying for his enemies, and command his troops to plunge the weapons of death with fiend like fury, into the hearts of those very enemies? In the one case, he happily resembles his dying Master; but whom does he resemble in the other? Jesus prayed for his murderers. Christians murder those for whom they pray.” - Henry Grew, 1828

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,908
    Thanks
    1,206
    Thanked 2,800 Times in 2,205 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by str8tawk vs heresy View Post
    I said three things in the OP, two of which address directly why I object. You haven't seen that?
    I see you asking 3 questions, and listed scriptures. So no, I do not know what you think.
    Last edited by TBax; 02-16-2017 at 04:52 PM.
    Agape,
    TBax

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,908
    Thanks
    1,206
    Thanked 2,800 Times in 2,205 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnB View Post
    Comments on the NWT by scholarship

    Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
    While the Bible, any translation, has God calling the judges of Israel gods. So basically Dr. Metzger's objection is a slant against the Bible as well, not just JW's NWT.
    Agape,
    TBax

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •