New World Translation: yea, or nay?

[Mark2020]

The NWT has been praised by many honest scholars ...

For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Scholars & NWT

 

[Mark2020]

I wonder what those same scholars think about the Coptic version of the Greek scriptures?

There is a reason why trinitarians shy away from the Coptic version. This version was translated by 3rd century Christians who lived in Egypt...

No one shies away from the Coptic version.

We have discussed that:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2612695-post22.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html

 

[Mark2020]

And Jesus was seated at the Right Hand of the Father. Separate beings. Not just "persons".
Yes. And I was shown that he is the First Created Being.

Wrong...
Remember what happened to an old heretic that said so?

Yes I have, and since then I've become a "Messianic". (Though I'm not quite in the majority of most "Messianic" theologies).

You remind me of:
(Matthew 9:16-17 [KJV])
No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

 

[Mark2020]

Is this correct?
Facts the Watchtower Society doesn't want you to know. | Hidden Facts about Jehovah's Witnesses

In the 1954 Douglas Walsh Trial in Scotland, Fred Franz, who was Watchtower president from 1977-1992, was asked about the Society’s changes in doctrine. Here is how he answered:

Q. So that what is published as the truth today by the Society may have to be admitted to be wrong in a few years?
A. We have to wait and see.
Q. And in the meantime the body of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been following error?
A. They have been following misconstructions on the Scriptures.
Q. Error?
A. Well, error.
— Douglas Walsh Trial, Pursuer’s Proof, 1954, p. 114​

“Satan attempted to use his influence in a subtle way, and in this he was successful. How so? By insinuation and falsehood. He put forth error, under cover of a lie, as a substitute for truth. In other words, he put darkness for light.” —The Watchtower, May 15, 1976, p. 304
​

“If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. ‘New light’ never extinguished older ‘light,’ but adds to it.... So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another.” — Zion’s Watch Tower, February 1881, p. 3
​

THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION:
In 1950, the Watch Tower Society came out with their own translation of the Bible, the New World Translation. Jehovah’s Witnesses are told that this translation is the most accurate, unbiased translation available. The Society claims that the New World Translation Committee was made up of highly trained Greek scholars who did their best to “transmit his [God’s] thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible.”18. However, when one endeavors to check into the credentials of these translators, one finds that the Society is unwilling to release this information, stating that the Committee desires that all the glory for this translation go to Jehovah God and therefore the translators desire to remain anonymous.
On the surface, this may sound quite noble and honorable; but one may wonder, is this the real reason why they desire to remain anonymous? Over the years, further investigation has revealed who the translators of the New World Translation were, and the facts show that they were totally unqualified for the task of translation. Five of the six Watchtower Governing Body members who were on the Translation Committee had no formal training whatsoever in the Biblical languages. The fifth one, Fred Franz, (former Governing Body member and Watchtower president from 1977-1992) claimed to have some education, but in the Douglas Walsh Trial in Scotland, he gave this testimony under oath:

Tuesday, 23rd November, 1954:
Frederick William Franz, Examined:​

Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
A. Yes....
Q. So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
A. Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French?
A. Yes.
Q. It is the case, is it not, that in 1950 there was prepared and issued what is called the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
A. Yes....
Q. I think that it was your duty, was it not, before the issue of that New World Translation by your Society to check that translation for accuracy?
A. That is true.
Q. In light of your studies and in light of your knowledge?
A. That is true.
Q. And did you do so?
A. I did so....
Q. And was it your duty on behalf of the Society to check the translation into English from the original Hebrew of that first volume of the Old Testament Scriptures?
A. Yes....
Q. In so far as translation of the Bible itself is undertaken, are you responsible for that?
A. I have been authorised to examine a translation and determine its accuracy and recommend its acceptance in the form in which it is submitted.
Q. Are the translators members of the Editorial Committee?
A. That is a question which I, as a member of the Board of Directors, am not authorised to disclose....
Q. When did you go to the University?....
Q. Did you graduate?
A. No, I did not....
Q. Had you done any Hebrew in the course of your University work?
A. No, I had not, but in the course of my editorial work, my special research work for the president of the Society, I found it was very necessary to have knowledge of Hebrew, and so I undertook a personal study of that.
​

ADJOURNED​

Wednesday, 24th November, 1954:
Frederick William Franz, Cross Continued:​

Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
A. I do not speak Hebrew.
Q. You do not?
A. No.
Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis? A. You mean here?
Q. Yes?
A. No, I won’t attempt to do that.
— Douglas Walsh Trial, Pursuer’s Proof, 1954, pp. 7-9, 88, 91-92, 102-103
​

This exercise which Franz was unable to do is something which the average first or second year Hebrew student could have accomplished without any difficulty. Is it any wonder the Society refuses to publicly reveal the people who were involved in the translation of their Bible? Would you put your trust in a doctor who refused to give his credentials? Yet, this is what many Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing when it comes to vital Bible truth.

 

[Protester]

Really to have material on them put in a good order you might wish to look at, The Jehovah Witness Section on the Southern Baptist , Ankerberg Site



Jehovah Witnesses... are critiqued, from a Baptist perspective, in that article as well and brings up many important points about the group.


Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible? the important elements of it are covered in this short monograph, and the translator problem is a particularity problem with it.


Dr. Mantey's Letter to the Watch Tower Society and how the WTS used his material to misinterpret and how they used it to misinterpret...John 1:1 is well known problem in the NWT .

 

[Pegg]

Is this correct?
Facts the Watchtower Society doesn't want you to know. | Hidden Facts about Jehovah's Witnesses

the trial was for the right of JW ministers to be exempt from military service in England... brother Franz wasnt on trial for his hebrew skills...he was there as a witness for the brother who was fighting for the right to not be drafted.

the only accurate point is that JW's dont claim their teachings are infallible. We make adjustments from time to time because sometimes our understanding is not completely accurate. As it becomes more clearer, the WT make the needed adjustment to the doctrine or teaching.

But the NWT was not on trial. I think this information has been taken out of context. The trial was about military service for our JW ministers...not our translation of the bible.

The case was about the interpretation placed on seven common, everyday words in the National Service Act of 1948....one clause in particular exempting a 'regular minister of any religious denomination' from military training. The clergy are exempted from the military and JW ministers were fighting for that right because the case against them was the they were not 'real' ministers and therefore, not exempt.

 

[Mark2020]

the trial was for the right of JW ministers to be exempt from military service in England... brother Franz wasnt on trial for his hebrew skills...he was there as a witness for the brother who was fighting for the right to not be drafted.

the only accurate point is that JW's dont claim their teachings are infallible. We make adjustments from time to time because sometimes our understanding is not completely accurate. As it becomes more clearer, the WT make the needed adjustment to the doctrine or teaching.

But the NWT was not on trial. I think this information has been taken out of context. The trial was about military service for our JW ministers...not our translation of the bible.

The case was about the interpretation placed on seven common, everyday words in the National Service Act of 1948....one clause in particular exempting a 'regular minister of any religious denomination' from military training. The clergy are exempted from the military and JW ministers were fighting for that right because the case against them was the they were not 'real' ministers.

Thanks for your reply, but how could such questions be taken out of context?

Q. And was it your duty on behalf of the Society to check the translation into English from the original Hebrew of that first volume of the Old Testament Scriptures?
A. Yes....
Q. In so far as translation of the Bible itself is undertaken, are you responsible for that?
A. I have been authorised to examine a translation and determine its accuracy and recommend its acceptance in the form in which it is submitted.
...
Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis? A. You mean here?
Q. Yes?
A. No, I won’t attempt to do that.

If the person "authorised to examine a translation and determine its accuracy and recommend its acceptance" is unable to translate a simple verse from English to Hebrew, I think there's something wrong here.

 

[Pegg]

Thanks for your reply, but how could such questions be taken out of context?

If the person "authorised to examine a translation and determine its accuracy and recommend its acceptance" is unable to translate a simple verse from English to Hebrew, I think there's something wrong here.

what has that line of questioning to brother franz got to do with the case, namely douglas Walshes refusal to do military service?

 

[Mark2020]

what has that line of questioning to brother franz got to do with the case, namely douglas Walshes refusal to do military service?

I don't care about what it has to do with the case.
I care about his linguistic skills.
Anyway its not me who asked him this question

 

[Pegg]

I don't care about what it has to do with the case.
I care about his linguistic skills.
Anyway its not me who asked him this question

sounds like a kangaroo court and if so, perhaps thats why brother Franz did not care to answer the mans questions. If thats how it went, then it was completely irrelevant to the case.

 

[Mark2020]

sounds like a kangaroo court and if so, perhaps thats why brother Franz did not care to answer the mans questions. If thats how it went, then it was completely irrelevant to the case.

He asked him to translate this verse because it contained the word YHVH.
אֵ֣לֶּה תֹולְדֹ֧ות הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּיֹ֗ום עֲשֹׂ֛ות יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

Probably the first verse in the Bible containing this word. Not difficult by the way.

 

[Pegg]

He asked him to translate this verse because it contained the word YHVH.
אֵ֣לֶּה תֹולְדֹ֧ות הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּיֹ֗ום עֲשֹׂ֛ות יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

Probably the first verse in the Bible containing this word. Not difficult by the way.

i still dont see whats relevant about it ?

 

[Mark2020]

i still dont see whats relevant about it ?

Does it really matter?

You can download the whole thing at:
The 1954 Walsh Trial Transcript by Court of Scotland in Religion & Spirituality

 

[Pegg]

Does it really matter?

You can download the whole thing at:
The 1954 Walsh Trial Transcript by Court of Scotland in Religion & Spirituality

why do you think they were questioning him about his translating ability?

 

[Pegg]

He asked him to translate this verse because it contained the word YHVH.
אֵ֣לֶּה תֹולְדֹ֧ות הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּיֹ֗ום עֲשֹׂ֛ות יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

Probably the first verse in the Bible containing this word. Not difficult by the way.

and just in case you want to know how it is translated in the NWT

"This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."


This veres seems to present a great difficulty for the 'learned scholars' who manage to translate YHWY as 'LORD' ....which if if they knew their hebrew, they'd know that the word for 'Lord' is ʼa‧dhohn′ (adonay) in transliteration....the hebrew letters for adonay are אֲדֹנָי - aleph res nun

the hebrew letters for YHWY are יְהוִה - yod het waw het

but because the 'learned scholars'....you know, the ones we are expected to trust....cant tell the difference between these two hebrew words, they substitute the divine name for a word that is not even there. Adonay means Lord. YHWY means Jehovah or Yahweh....not LORD. Thank goodness the NWT committee can tell the difference and had the heart to interpret it right...and honestly, i think they are proud to cop flack for their decision to do so.

 

[Mark2020]

why do you think they were questioning him about his translating ability?

I said I don't care.
He couldn't translate a simple verse!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I hope you don't mind me asking, but why is a discussion of Hebrew scripture deemed best if constrained to a Christian forum? Is there something about being a Christian that gives one an edge when it comes to matters of philology?

 

[Pegg]

I said I don't care.
He couldn't translate a simple verse!

he could translate yod het waw het corrrectly, which is more then I can say for many other 'translators'

 

[Mark2020]

and just in case you want to know how it is translated in the NWT

"This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."


This veres seems to present a great difficulty for the 'learned scholars' who manage to translate YHWY as 'LORD' ....which if if they knew their hebrew, they'd know that the word for 'Lord' is ʼa‧dhohn′ (adonay) in transliteration....the hebrew letters for adonay are אֲדֹנָי - aleph res nun

the hebrew letters for YHWY are יְהוִה - yod het waw het

but because the 'learned scholars'....you know, the ones we are expected to trust....cant tell the difference between these two hebrew words, they substitute the divine name for a word that is not even there. Adonay means Lord. YHWY means Jehovah or Yahweh....not LORD. Thank goodness the NWT committee can tell the difference and had the heart to interpret it right...and honestly, i think they are proud to cop flack for their decision to do so.

You think that they confused the two Hebrew words?
I don't think so.
Adonay doesn't even literally mean Lord.

he could translate yod het waw het corrrectly, which is more then I can say for many other 'translators'

Ah, so that's what you care about.
It's not even guaranteed that he got that right.

 

[Pegg]

You think that they confused the two Hebrew words?
I don't think so.
Adonay doesn't even literally mean Lord.

all bible translators render Adonay (Kyrios in greek) as Lord.

And if you dont believe me, read it here in the ESV bible preface:
"Instead of reading the word YHWH, they would normally read the Hebrew word adonai (“Lord&#8221, and the ancient translations into Greek, Syriac, and Aramaic also followed suit. When the vowels of the word adonai are placed with the consonants of YHWH, this results in the familiar word Jehovah that was used in some earlier English Bible translations. As is common among English translations today, the ESV usually renders the personal name of God (YHWH) with the word Lord (printed in small capitals).
An exception to this is when the Hebrew word adonai appears together with YHWH, in which case the two words are rendered together as “the Lord [in lower case] God [in small capitals].”

So even when YHWH and Adonay appear together in the text...such as at Ps 69:6 "O may those hoping in you not be ashamed because of me, O Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies"
They render it as 'LORD God' which is inaccurate. God is Elohim in hebrew...they basically are simply refusing the render the name of God, the author of the bible, in the bible. Its criminal.

Ah, so that's what you care about.
It's not even guaranteed that he got that right.

of course it is. We can read it in the hebrew texts and we can see the tetragrammaton in the text. Go to the Hebrew Interlinear and read it yourself

Ps 69:6 literally reads:
must-not-be they-are-being-put-to-shame in·me ones-expecting-of·you my-Lord
Yahweh-of hosts


Then go and look at Genesis 2:4 in the interlinear. You'll see the literal hebrew and you'll see the Tetragrammaton in the verse.