The New World Tranlsation of the Holy Scriptures

[Jayhawker Soule]

Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 in relation to Jesus. so i guess it really is a messianic prophecy...be it an apparently stupid one!

In typical midrashic fashion, a story was fabricated using Jewish scripture as prooftext. Believe the silliness if you wish ...

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

wahey! why don't you just go ahead and say the whole bible is just made up, fabricated, chinese whispers that 1. never happened and 2. is a load of rubbish?!
would you say that you believe in the bible or not? i bet the only thing you believe about the bible, is that it a book that you can read. everything else is just one big fake that has been made up and messed around with be some jokers.
you automatically assume that everything must be fake cos there is no way that God could do stuff such as the miracles in the bible or the prophecies must be fake cos they must be fake cos there's no way that supernatural stuff can be possible!
it makes me wonder why people like you have any interest in spritual stuff if all you like to do is just write everything off cos you can't see how it can be possible for things to be just as they are. i bet if i told you a piece of paper was blue, you'd argue against it and say, well to your eyes it is, but how can you really know that we all have the same vision....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

you automatically assume that everything must be fake cos there is no way that God could do stuff such as the miracles in the bible or the prophecies must be fake cos they must be fake cos there's no way that supernatural stuff can be possible!

<yawn> The Virgin Birth narrative has all the characteristics of a late 1st century CE fabrication rendered in midrashic form. </yawn>

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

so are you believer or not? and instead of acting like a spoilt child who has to have his way no matter what, back up your statements!

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

<yawn> The Virgin Birth narrative has all the characteristics of a late 1st century CE fabrication rendered in midrashic form. </yawn>

and besides that's a weak argument. you could say that the transcripts of a real court case bear all the hallmarks of a modern crime novel...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

and besides that's a weak argument.

Perhaps. We can persue it in a separate thread on Isaiah 7:14 as prophecy if you wish.

Returning to the topic at hand, you have yet to address the textual variants found in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Isaiah 7:14. On what grounds would you maintain that the NWT provides the superior rendition?

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Returning to the topic at hand, you have yet to address the textual variants found in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Isaiah 7:14. On what grounds would you maintain that the NWT provides the superior rendition?

compared to which translation? i can't say much without knowing which translation you want to compare it to. pick one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The LXX.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

The LXX.

The LXX Reads Deut 32:8
When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.

The NWT Reads:
When the Most High gave the nations an inheritance, When he parted the sons of Adam from one another, He proceeded to fix the boundary of the peoples With regard for the number of the sons of Israel.

The LXX Reads Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.

The NWT Reads:
Therefore Jehovah himself will give YOU men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el.


To be honest, I’m not sure what the reasons for that way of translating those verses are. However, in their preface and various other explanatory works, they do explain why and how they come to the decisions they have, as regards to the overall translation of the NWT. I don’t have these to hand at the moment though, to look it up. I know that they do say that they carefully check with other translations and reference works in order to come to a decision. I also noticed that there are other translations that put the same verses in a similar way to the NWT. For instance:
NAS
A)When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples(B)According to the number of the sons of Israel.

KJV
8When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Darby
8When the Most High assigned to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To be honest, I’m not sure what the reasons for that way of translating those verses are.

It is not an issue of translation but of selection. Given that the LXX version is very early, that it is witnessed in the DSS vorlage, and that it is reflected in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Jonathan Ben Uzziel), I would suggest that the NWT chose wrong. This suggestion is supported by many of the world's leading scholars, including Emanuel Tov. Meanwhile, bible.org revers to the Masoretic variant in the following note ...

14 tc Heb “the sons of Israel.” The idea, perhaps, is that Israel was central to Yahweh’s purposes and all other nations were arranged and distributed according to how they related to Israel. See Driver, Deuteronomy, 355-56. For the MT la@r`c=y] yn}B= (“sons of Israel”) a Qumran fragment has “sons of God,” while the LXX reads ajggevlwn qeou' (angelwn qeou, “angels of God”), presupposing la@ yn}B= or <yl!a@ yn}B=. “Sons of God” is undoubtedly the original reading; the MT and LXX have each interpreted it differently. MT assumes that the expression “sons of God” refers to Israel (cf. Hos. 1:10), while LXX has assumed that the phrase refers to the angelic heavenly assembly (Pss 29:1; 89:6; cf. as well Ps 82). The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21), while reserving for himself Israel, over whom he rules directly. For a defense of the view taken here, see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001):52-74.​

I suspect that the NWT was either being sloppy or intentianally perpetrating an earlier harmonization. In either case, it does not speak well of the NWT.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

It is not an issue of translation but of selection. Given that the LXX version is very early, that it is witnessed in the DSS vorlage, and that it is reflected in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Jonathan Ben Uzziel), I would suggest that the NWT chose wrong. This suggestion is supported by many of the world's leading scholars, including Emanuel Tov. Meanwhile, bible.org revers to the Masoretic variant in the following note ...

14 tc Heb “the sons of Israel.” The idea, perhaps, is that Israel was central to Yahweh’s purposes and all other nations were arranged and distributed according to how they related to Israel. See Driver, Deuteronomy, 355-56. For the MT la@r`c=y] yn}B= (“sons of Israel”) a Qumran fragment has “sons of God,” while the LXX reads ajggevlwn qeou' (angelwn qeou, “angels of God”), presupposing la@ yn}B= or <yl!a@ yn}B=. “Sons of God” is undoubtedly the original reading; the MT and LXX have each interpreted it differently. MT assumes that the expression “sons of God” refers to Israel (cf. Hos. 1:10), while LXX has assumed that the phrase refers to the angelic heavenly assembly (Pss 29:1; 89:6; cf. as well Ps 82). The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21), while reserving for himself Israel, over whom he rules directly. For a defense of the view taken here, see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001):52-74.​

I suspect that the NWT was either being sloppy or intentianally perpetrating an earlier harmonization. In either case, it does not speak well of the NWT.

Good info there...but would you say, that in those instances, the NWT is no worse or sloppy than other commonly used versions of the bible? like i said, there are manny translations that also read 'the sons of isreal.'
also, do you think that the NWT is correct in restoring the name of God into verses that in most bilbe's read LORD or GOD etc? because, in my opinion, i think that any bible, such as the Darby Bible, that uses God's name is a better translation, on those grounds alone, then those that don't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good info there...but would you say, that in those instances, the NWT is no worse or sloppy than other commonly used versions of the bible?

Now there's a ringing endorsement! But, yes, I agree. With respect to Deuteronomy 32.8 it is "no worse or sloppy than other commonly used versions". But, since it was created after these "Commonly used versions", the real question is why it is not better. The answer which suggests itself is that the uniqueness of the NWT stems fom dogma, not scholarship. I find that to be intellectualy dishonest.

 

[may]

​

(Genesis 15:18) On that day Jehovah concluded with A´bram a covenant, saying: "To your seed I will give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Eu·phra´tes:


​

​

(Exodus 23:31) "And I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Phi·lis´tines and from the wilderness to the River; because I shall give into YOUR hand the inhabitants of the land, and you will certainly drive them out from before yourself.​

​

(Psalm 105:44) And gradually he gave them the lands of the nations, And they kept taking possession of the product of the hard work of national groups, .... ok i know i am a bit thick ,but is it that translating 32;8 the way they did is in line with the rest of the scriptures ,or shall i get my coat after all it is not a translation of other bibles but a getting back to accurate understanding .....maybe i am off track but the law of moses was transmited through angels ,to the mediater moses .ok i will get my coat now

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Now there's a ringing endorsement! But, yes, I agree. With respect to Deuteronomy 32.8 it is "no worse or sloppy than other commonly used versions". But, since it was created after these "Commonly used versions", the real question is why it is not better. The answer which suggests itself is that the uniqueness of the NWT stems fom dogma, not scholarship. I find that to be intellectualy dishonest.

so, if the LXX is so infallible, has it included or translated the tetragrammaton where it out to have, instead of replaced it with a title? LXX Psalm 83:18 'And let them know that thy name is Lord; that thou alone art Most High over all the earth.' and what are the reasons for doing that?

 

[sysint]

"The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21)"

Are you certain from that passage that angels from God have jurisdiction? It appears the angel was fighting against those 'princes' and got some help from Michael, "the prince of YOU people" (NW). This angel apparently was simply a messenger. I highly doubt that the Prince of Greece and Persia were commissioned by God and they were having a friendly debate.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

"The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21)"

Are you certain from that passage that angels from God have jurisdiction? It appears the angel was fighting against those 'princes' and got some help from Michael, "the prince of YOU people" (NW). This angel apparently was simply a messenger. I highly doubt that the Prince of Greece and Persia were commissioned by God and they were having a friendly debate.

hang on, who you talking to/ me or duet?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

so, if the LXX is so infallible, ...

Please indicate where I've suggested LXX infallibility or apologize.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

It is unclear if your petty distortions are the result of dishonesty or ignorance, but either indicate where I've suggested LXX infallibility or apologize.

ok, sorry if you get that impression. by saying that the NWT is incorrect in the translation of those verses according to the LXX you are saying, indirectly that it is better are you not. therefore i asked you the question that i did about the tetragrammaton. if the LXX omits certain words, or puts them in a different light, then surly, the same questions could be possed to it as are to the NWT. by the way, what are you comments to May's quoted scriptures?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ok, sorry if you get that impression.

I did not ask that you apologize for my impression, but for your distortion.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

ok, sorry about my distortion. what about my last post though? valid points or not?