WJ:
| Quote |
| Your precious NWT goes against hundreds of Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic scholars who were the translators of all the major and credible translations that we have today. |
FALLACY #1: Yes, that's called an appeal to authority, and apparently, it proves nothing.
For if it did prove anything, evolutionary biology would clearly be true. Wait, didn't the “experts” in that field think that “lucy” was the missing link for several decades, and didn't it turn out to be the head of a human and the body of monkey? It's all about being in the club. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to accept what “we” say because we won't give you any respect if you don't. You won't be taken seriously unless you conform.
Needless to say, appeals to authority mean very little. Yes, there were scholars, many of them….
Jason DeBuhn:
“Certainly Metzger is a giant in my field, and he has made very important contributions that are unimpeachable. I can hope to accomplish only a fraction of what he has accomplished in his eighty years, and I am still relatively early in my career. The fact remains that in his published remarks on John 1:1c, Metzger argues primarily on the basis of theology, rather than language. His only linguistic argument is “Colwell's Rule,” which he misunderstands, just as you recognize. So on this particular topic, Metzger fares rather poorly, despite his expertise and accomplishments in other areas.
Responce by Robert Hommel:
“I agree that he misunderstood the application of Colwell's rule (as did Colwell himself, and scads of other scholars).However, I'm not sure that I agree that his other reasons were on “the basis of theology.” At least not entirely.”
Yes, it is possible that SCADS OF SCHOLARS follow the mistake of another scholar. We find some bones of a monkey and the skull of a human and we assume. Some “expert” says it's the truth. Once this is accepted, it takes forever to correct, in that case many many decades if I remember correctly.
| Quote |
| NWT stands alone. |
This is a false statement if you're saying that it stands alone in not translating it: “the Word was God”. I've already listed a dozen or so Bible's that see the need to translate it differently.
The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text (1808), published in London:
“the word was a god.”
The Emphatic Diaglott (1864; as printed in 1942), Benjamin Wilson’s Interlinear reading:
“and a god was the Word.”
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed, by James L. Tomanek. (1958):
“and the Word was a God.”
Todays English Version:
“and he was the same as God.”
The New English Bible (The Revised English Bible):
“and what God was, the Word was.”
The Bible—An American Translation (1935), J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed.
“the Word was divine”
(The translation by Hugh J. Schonfield is the same.)?
A New Translation of the Bible (1934), James Moffatt:
“the Logos was divine”
La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel (1928):
“and the Word was a divine being.”
The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey:
“and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.”
Reflecting an understanding of Jn 1:1 with the New World Translations' :
“and the Word was a god,” we also have:
The New Testament in Greek and English(A. Kneeland, 1822.)
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament(H. Heinfetter, 1863)
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R. Young, 1885)
The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G. W. Horner, 1911)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
FALLACY #2. So, as we can see, when you say: The NWT stands alone, you are committing another fallacy. First, it's just not true, but secondly, you're trying to scare people into “going with the crowd,” “peer pressure” afraid of being different.
Please! I feel like I've alread pointed this out to you a while ago.
| Quote |
| I have already asked you to please give me some info on the translators of the NWT and their credentials. |
I have a question: If there are other Bibles where those who translated them didn't devulge their identities, would you consider these Bible's credible or unscholarly? Because there are such Bible's and once again, the NWT doesn't stand alone in this respect.
James Parkinson has said on his webpage,”The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT, 1950) offers a relatively accurate translationfrom a different theological perspective. Like Rotherham, though, it is often not smooth reading.” (Not smooth reading comes from it being largely a literal translation.)
Alan Duthie, in his book already quoted from ('How To Choose Your Bible Wisely'), said:”..for detailed word studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a very literal version like the N[ew] A[merican] S[tandard], N[ew] W[orld] T[ranslation…”p.225.
One has to wonder how Duthie could recommend the New World Translation in relation to a study of the “original languages”, that is, both the Hebrew and the Greek, when “it is questionable if any Hebrew or Greek scholar worked on it[the NWT]?” What is questionable then, is the veracity, the credibility, of the critic?
Let us listen to what Jason BeDuhn has said:
“Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate” may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that “all reputable scholars,” “every Greek or biblical scholar,” etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between. For [this]characterization to be correct, [a critic] would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the last month, no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). The fact is that the NWT is what I call a “hyper-literal” translation, it sticks very close to the Greek, even making awkward English reading. Ther
e are a few places where the translators seem to have gone far out of their way, sometimes to clarify something suggested by the Greek, often for no apparent reason (maybe my ignorance of fine points of Witness theology prevents me from grasping what they are up to). And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek.”
Dr Jason Beduhn had used the Kingdom Interlinear Translation,which in his words is,”Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available,” in instructing a class of students in Biblical Greek. Obviously, it must have a scholarly status for him to do so. The KIT was produced by the NWT Translation Committee in 1969. So what does this indicate about those behind both the NWT and the KIT? That they must have had a good grasp of Kione Greek. That they must have been scholars in their own right.
“If, however, you want an objective assessment of bible translation, don't ask theologians, ask secular bible scholars at public universities.”–Debuhn.
“If, however, you want an objective assessment of bible translation, don't ask theologians, ask secular bible scholars at public universities.”
| Quote |
| If you you cant answer these questions, then how can you make arguments about scriptures found in our Bible when your Bible does not match or line up to or agree with the translations and scriptures that we have? |
So you're really actually saying and believe that majority is right and minority is wrong? (Please read the Greek scriptures.)
