Showing the JW's where their 'Bible' agrees with the Trinity

[VWcrazy]

Perhaps some self-reflection is in order VWcrazy. Do you really think you would endear anyone towards you or your religious faith by trying to insult them, changing the name of their religious organization?

BibleSteve,

Sorry, but I do believe you are in need of deep reflection. You have been shown many times the lies and inaccuracies of the Falsetower, but for some reason - you look the other way. If you were truly honest with yourself, you would see that the Falsetower for what it is - a cheap imitiation of Christianity.

Many of us here are praying for your conversion from the dangers of the Falsetower and into real Christianity.

 

[BibleSteve]

Steve, this seems somewhat naive.

Jehovah God chose simple, unlettered, uncredentialed men over those with “credentials” to write the Bible… Why? What was more important to him than “credentials”?

It’s naive to assume people’s prejudices can’t impact their translation.

I completely agree. And that is the whole point of Beduhn’s book. What’s naive is that most Christians think the Bible they are reading is completely free from theological bias. Do you really think your favorite translation is 100% free from bias?

That’s why I think it’s important to be able to verify the credentials of the translators, because if they are scholars in the field, they have a reputation to maintain and are somewhat restrained from inserting their own theology into the pages of the bible.

You would hope so, but this isn’t the case.

As Beduhn writes on page 9,10:

"Most of the “big” translations are the work of committees, combining the talents of several translators. These committees are sponsored by religious groups and operate under principles they all agree to in advance. As a committee, they discuss and debate the results of their work, and find the best reading they can all agree on.

The conditions that produce Bible translations naturally shape the outcome of the work. Since translations are made under the authority of denominations, a translation team must create something that will be acceptable to its sponsers. Translations are made not in the environment of academic freedom, but under the limitations of creedal commitment. The members of the team, drawn from a common religious community, share assumptions about the meaning of the Bible, rather than representing different viewpoints that must stand up to the scrutinity of other perspectives. These are far from ideal conditions for deliverying accurate, unbiased English Bibles.

I want to make it clear that I am not assuming any sort of intellectual dishonesty on the part of Bible Translators. I think it is the rare individual who goes into a Bible translation project thinking, “I am going to make the Bible fit my beliefs.” I believe that by far the majority of people involved in this work are honest, earnest people who want to produce the most accurate, understandable Bible they can. Bias is not the same as maliciousness or dishonesty. Biases are unconscious assumptions, or unrecognized blinds spots. The failings of most modern English Bibles are not deliberate; they are lapses, oversights, and inconsistencies. The faults of translators are of training and approach, not character…

Get a group of theologians together who share a common creed, and they will only reinforce each other’s assumptions, with no voice in the room to point out the blind spots. So, in my opinion, most Bible translations are born in adverse conditions.

So, what are the credential of the translators of the NWT and, if you don’t know, where are they listed?

The NWT is the product of the New World Bible Translation Committee.

The New World Bible Translation Committee requested the publisher, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, never to publish names of its members. According to its agreement the Watchtower organization has never confirmed or denied any names or biographical data regarding this committee."

The NWT is found online here:

watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm

You can read about the translation here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

 

[SerenaHC]

Jehovah God chose simple, unlettered, uncredentialed men over those with “credentials” to write the Bible… Why? What was more important to him than “credentials”?

BibleSteve,

Surely Luke, who was a physician and wrote the book of Luke and of Acts, and St. Paul, who wrote all those epistles, couldn’t be considered simple, unlettered men.

Besides, the writers of the New Testament were writing down their personal experiences with Jesus and the oral traditions of Jesus’ life. Writing about events to which your are privy is not the same as translating writings about those events into foreign languages over 1,000 years after the fact.

The fact that the origins of the NWT are hidden causes one to be suspicious of its credibility. Also, given your quote about denominations being biased in producing works that support their particular theology, I’m even more suspicious of the intentions of the translators. Thank you for that quote.

 

[SerenaHC]

Jehovah God chose simple, unlettered, uncredentialed men over those with “credentials” to write the Bible… Why? What was more important to him than “credentials”?

You can read about the translation here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

BibleSteve,

According to the Wiki article you referenced, the NWT committee seems to think there is value in scholarship:

“Additionally, over the centuries since the King James version was produced, more copies of earlier manuscripts of the original texts in the Hebrew and Greek languages have become available. In the publishers’ view, better manuscript evidence has made it possible to determine with greater accuracy what the original writers intended, particularly in more obscure passages. Additionally, they feel that certain aspects of the original Hebrew and Greek languages are perhaps better understood by linguists today than they were previously.”

They do not dismiss the work of linguists. Do you know what kind of linguistic training the translation committee had or how many linguists they employed?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

names of the so-called translation committee
freeminds.org/history/NWTauthors.htm

1. The men who comprised the Translation Committee had no adequate schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators. The self-appointed “scholars” who made up this Translation Committee were: N.H. Knorr, F.W. Franz, A.D. Schroeder, G.D. Gangas and M. Henschel. Aside from the current President Franz, none of the Translation Committee members knew Biblical Greek or Hebrew and Franz’s ability is open to serious question. This came out in the Scottish Court Sessions in November, 1954 (just four years after the release of the Watchtower Scriptures). The following exchange of question and answers between the attorney and Franz is taken from the trial transcript:

Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?

A. Yes…

Q. So that you have 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…(Pursuer’s Proof, pg. 7)

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 wouldn’t attempt to do that. (Pursuer’s Proof, pgs.
102,103).

What Franz failed to do was a simple exercise which an average first or second year Hebrew student in any seminary would have no difficulty (see further, “We left Jehovah’s Witnesses - A non-Prophet Organization” - Edmond C. Gruss, pg. 59-101). It is also interesting to note that no Greek scholar with any credentials will endorse the New World Translation. Bill Centnar,in 1954 (while still a Jehovah’s Witness working at Bethel), was assigned to interview a well known Bible translator, Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, asking him for his evaluation and recommendation of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Dr. Goodspeed replied: “No, I’m afraid that I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable…”.

groups.google.com/group/free.christians/browse_thread/thread/7f13469dc1d2e497/d312b7063737e07c?lnk=raot

 

[BibleSteve]

Also, given your quote about denominations being biased in producing works that support their particular theology, I’m even more suspicious of the intentions of the translators. Thank you for that quote.

Dear Serena,

“Do you really care about knowing the truth? There is specific evidence that your favorite translation has significant errors based on the bias of it’s translators.”

I have received that message from JW-critics hundreds of times over the last 30 years. I’m so serious about accurately knowing the truth I spent hundreds of dollars(actually a couple thousand, now that I think about it) purchasing books and thousands of hours to investigate each and every charge.

Now, I’m asking you the same questions…

You say you favor the RSV…

I’m telling you there is specific, documented evidence of translation error due to the bias of the translators of the RSV and 8 other popular translations. The specifics are detailed in this book. How serious are you about knowing the truth? Will you investigate?

Truth In Translation

I’ve done alot of homework investigating the pro’s and con’s of dozens of translations.

If you’re interested in exploring the accuracy of translations, I’ll be glad to point you in the right direction. But, there’s no need to try to instill doubt in me about the NWT. I’ve done more than enough homework on this question.

Will you take the first step and go to the library or buy the above mentioned book?

 

[SerenaHC]

Dear Serena,

“Do you really care about knowing the truth? There is specific evidence that your favorite translation has significant errors based on the bias of it’s translators.”

That quote was not from me.

You say you favor the RSV…

I’m telling you there is specific, documented evidence of translation error due to the bias of the translators of the RSV and 8 other popular translations. The specifics are detailed in this book. How serious are you about knowing the truth? Will you investigate?

Truth In Translation

I followed this URL to Amazon and it does not include the RSV.

So, this book is not helpful to me re: the RSV.

If you’re interested in exploring the accuracy of translations, I’ll be glad to point you in the right direction. But, there’s no need to try to instill doubt in me about the NWT. I’ve done more than enough homework on this question.

So, are you saying you promote the NWT as an accurate or the most accurate translation available today? Or are you saying you’ve done enough research into the NWT to know it is grossly inadequate?

 

[SerenaHC]

Dear Serena,

“Do you really care about knowing the truth? There is specific evidence that your favorite translation has significant errors based on the bias of it’s translators.”

This was not my quote. Perhaps you wish to reply to someone else on this.

 

[SerenaHC]

Dear Serena,

You say you favor the RSV…

I’m telling you there is specific, documented evidence of translation error due to the bias of the translators of the RSV and 8 other popular translations. The specifics are detailed in this book. How serious are you about knowing the truth? Will you investigate?

Truth In Translation

I’ve done alot of homework investigating the pro’s and con’s of dozens of translations.

BibleSteve,

I followed this link and this book does not contain any information on the RSV or the RSV-Catholic edition. It only covers the New RSV, which I dislike. Did you know there was a difference?

 

[BibleSteve]

So, are you saying you promote the NWT as an accurate or the most accurate translation available today? Or are you saying you’ve done enough research into the NWT to know it is grossly inadequate?

I’m saying I’ve done more than enough investigation to know that the NWT is an excellent translation. Far more accurate than most in many ways. Is it perfect? No. Does it warrant the criticism it gets from JW-critics? No.

 

[BibleSteve]

BibleSteve,

I followed this link and this book does not contain any information on the RSV or the RSV-Catholic edition. It only covers the New RSV, which I dislike. Did you know there was a difference?

Yes, you will find the same translation errors in both the RSV and the NRSV.

ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutnrs.html

 

[Uknowhoo]

So, BibleSteve,

You’ve been around here long enough to know the Catholic faith. When I read your posts, I think of the expression, “Me thinks he dost protest too much.”

When are you gonna come and join the one, true, holy, Catholic, and apostolic faith? We’ll welcome you with open arms and hearts.

SerenaHC

You know- that’s the impression I got too!

btw- BibleSteve, did you get my message?

 

[SerenaHC]

Yes, you will find the same translation errors in both the RSV and the NRSV.

ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutnrs.html

BibleSteve,

Okay, you lost me on this. I’ve read this and it sounds like it offers the highest praise for the RSV. It acknowledges the difficulties inherent in translating ancient texts, when originals no longer exist, but shows the absolute necessity for ongoing scholarship regarding Bible translation. It says in part:

"The Revised Standard Version Bible seeks to preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the years. It is intended for use in public and private worship, not merely for reading and instruction. We have resisted the temptation to use phrases that are merely current usage, and have sought to put the message of the Bible in simple, enduring words that are worthy to stand in the great Tyndale-King James tradition. We are glad to say, with the King James translators: “Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better.”

This is what I love about the RSV. Of course, my English professor told me I used archaic and Elizabethan language, so I guess this is part of the appeal.

I didn’t see anything new or unusual in this article and certainly didn’t see anything that would cause me to think the RSV is not an excellent translation. I’m not sure what your point is, other than to show that the RSV has been translated by an ecumenical group of eminent scholars who are trying very much to produce the best possible translation for the edification of christians.

 

[BibleSteve]

I didn’t see anything new or unusual in this article and certainly didn’t see anything that would cause me to think the RSV is not an excellent translation. I’m not sure what your point is, other than to show that the RSV has been translated by an ecumenical group of eminent scholars who are trying very much to produce the best possible translation for the edification of christians.

The point is that most Catholic and Protestant Bible readers are completely oblivious to the fact that their favorite translations are filled with critical errors that were introduced by the inherent bias of the translators.

The RSV and the NRSV are no different in this fact. Even with the best of intentions, the translators have made mistakes and these are documented in this book.

When another translation comes along that specifically and carefully translates the material correctly, you’ll notice the difference and immediately think it’s wrong because it’s different.

Most people will never do the homework to see the truth. Will you?

It’s far easier to just go along with the flow and assume your church or the translators are 100% perfect in every way and it’s those crazy JW’s who have it wrong.

Daniel Marsh, VWCrazy and other JW-critics haven’t taken the time to read BeDuhn’s book. They always have an excuse that they are right and they don’t have read any other sources.

If you are a person who thirsts for truth and values truth more than simple conformity to your current belief system, widen out and read, read, read, other sources.

BeDuhn’s book is an excellent read that will open your eyes.

 

[VWcrazy]

Daniel Marsh, VWCrazy and other JW-critics haven’t taken the time to read BeDuhn’s book. They always have an excuse that they are right and they don’t have read any other sources.

BibleSteve,

I have asked which other denominations use the NWT. You have failed to answer this question. If only the Falsetower uses this version, it sends up a red flag.

 

[graceandglory]

I appreciate the sincerity of the invitation. However, when I read the Bible and look at what the Catholic Church teaches, I see huge differences.

Don’t forget who gave us the doctrine of the Trinity. And the Bible.
That would be the Catholic Church.

The Church put the Bible together, and taught us about the Trinity.
Kind of seems irreverent to take the gifts and ignore the giver.

 

[graceandglory]

BibleSteve:
Why don’t you list your Religion on your profile?
Your leaving it off says a lot.

 

[graceandglory]

No need to “investigate” the lie. I already given you two reasons why the NWT is a false translation - which you apparently have “overlooked”.

That is so true. When you know the Truth, you will recognize the lie.
I don’t need to study someone else’s children in order to recognize my own.

 

[cascherman]

Steve,

First off, if Jason David BeDuhn is a genuine scholar and truly wanted to bring out the truth of the translations, and which is most unbiased or most correct, I hardly see how he could come up with the NWT as the choice. How can he support a translation that assumes the tetragrammaton was used in the New Testament and uses Lord and Jehovah interchangably wherever it suits that particular JW belief of Christ and the Father, when there has yet to be ONE source found including YHWH in the New Testament. Do you see the license that gives to make obvious differentiation for every JW to see when Lord is used and it is changed to either Lord or Jehovah, when there is not such differentiation supplied by the manuscripts we have.

In other words, no one has any evidence that the word Lord used to describe Jesus Christ and the word Lord used to to describe Jehovah were not intended to be one and the same, by the manuscripts that we have at this time. It was chosen between the two wherever the NWT translators found in appropriate.

How can an unbiased scholar write a whole book defending a translation that takes such an obvious and significant liberty pertaining to the name of God in the NT.

 

[BibleSteve]

Don’t forget who gave us the doctrine of the Trinity. And the Bible.
That would be the Catholic Church.

The Church put the Bible together, and taught us about the Trinity.
Kind of seems irreverent to take the gifts and ignore the giver.

Yes, the Catholic Church created the false doctrine of the Trinity.

Inspired scripture existed long before the Catholic Church existed.

The Catholic Church can be credited with simply acknowledging the canon that Jehovah God had determined Himself hundreds of years before the Catholic Church existed.