- NEW!
by Roger Kovaciny on November 16th, 2006
How do I add my site to Deliverance Ministries?
by Answerbag Staff on August 16th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What is the meaning of Bishop Jugis'coat of arms?
by Answerbag Staff on August 7th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Who was St. Catherine of Siena?
by Answerbag Staff on August 2nd, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What does "monotheism" mean?
by Marky Mark on May 20th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Can a non-religious institution function as a religion?
by Marky Mark on May 19th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Are there any language experts who would call the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures accurate?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Thank you! Well said! Pray for the blind leading the blind! "Lord lift their veil and let them see Your Truth," I pray in Jesus' name!
by ViceGrip on November 16th, 2006
Roger, I respect you opinion and have enjoyed many of your answers.
Professor Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, Does not find Genesis or the other books translated in the Hebrew scriptures by the New World Translation "counterfeitted" or "doctored up".
He said in 1989, "I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.
by Perryman on November 17th, 2006
Perryman, ruakh means spirit, elohim means God, and when the two are put together it means "the spirit of God." That is an indisputable fact, not my opinion, and all dictionaries would back it up. Translating it "God's active force" is no more accurate than translating it "the mighty cosmic vacuum cleaner." You can consult every Hebrew dictionary ever written and you'll find the same thing. There are other issues, mostly in the New Testament, but the point is that they feel free to correct--rather than translating--what even they call "the word of God." Now, it is generally a word-for-word translation; I'll grant them that. But word-for-wording doesn't make Moses speak English, or Jesus either--neither of them walked around sounding either like the King James Version or like the NWTHS.
If they called it the NW Interpretive Translation, or Translation with Commentary, I wouldn't be writing this. But they call it a translation and that makes it a counterfeit.
by Roger Kovaciny on November 17th, 2006
Roger: I checked the NW Translation and this is how Genesis 1:3 is rendered,
"3 And God proceeded to say: Let light come to be. Then there came to be light".
There is no mention of "God's Spirit", active force, or Holy Spirit.
Did you perhaps mean some other scripture?
by Perryman on November 17th, 2006
Well... you did not really answer the question (I am guessing you would
basically answer "no"), but I think your input is useful. I'm also
guessing you meant Gen 1:2 in the NWT rather than 1:3.
by Thom64 on November 20th, 2006
Oops! I'm so embarrassed, Perryman. It was verse 2 not verse 3. Typo? Careless? Dumb mistake? Misread? Thank you very much.
by Roger Kovaciny on November 20th, 2006
Ruach is a Hebrew word meaning breath, wind, or spirit. Since breath, wind and spirit ARE invisible active forces ruach may be translated as such. The NWT translates ruach as 'breezy part' in Genesis 3:8; makes more sense than traslating it as 'cool' as these versions do: NIV, NASB, KJV, KJ21. The NWT translates ruach as wind in Genesis 8:1. The NWT does not hide how it was translated as the footnote for Genesis 1:2 shows that ruach can mean spirit. Since ruach can mean breath, wind or spirit, 'ruach elohim' can be translated 'breath of God,' 'wind of God,' or 'spirit of God.' Using 'active force' combines the general description of all three. More like a genius interpretation than incompetence.
by Max Power on December 22nd, 2006
It calls itself a translation, not a Bible commentary. Since I actually know what I'm talking about--I'm a full-time Bible translator and got paid hard cash for teaching Hebrew--I qualify as an expert, and it qualifies as "an inaccurate translation."
by Roger Kovaciny on December 22nd, 2006
Nice to see someone with credentials putting fourth an accurate dialouge.
by Abbyguy on December 24th, 2006
Ruach (Ruah) is Hebrew for 'breath,' and represents spirit- literally, the breath of God, synonymous with life. The root of the word is related to words meaning voice, thunder, and wind.
In Kabbalah, Ruach is one of the three elements that make up the Human soul, the animating principle that gives life to the bodies of humans and animals, and which returns to God at death. The ruach is associated with the lungs, with the breath, and the element of air (aleph).
In Christian and Gnostic traditions, the Ruach is synonymous with the Holy Spirit, personified as the dove and a "rush of wind."
by Abbyguy on December 26th, 2006
Well, Perryman, Dr. Kedar is one witness; he disagrees with almost every other witness and all dictionaries concerning this translation of ruakh elohim. If you want to explain ruakh elohim as "God's active force," that's your privilege. But you can't translate it that way. It's not a matter of opinion, like it's a matter of judgement whether the fourth man in the fiery furnace was "a son of the gods" or "the Son of God." It is intentional mistranslation of a simple term so as to import JW doctrine into Scripture, and it is as dishonest as it would be for a liberal Bible translator to translate the word "day" in Genesis as "eon." If liberals want to explain "yom" that way, that's their privilege, but they can't honestly translate it that way and still call it a translation. It's a paraphrase--closer to the original than the Living Bible, perhaps--but still a paraphrase. And the question is whether it is an accurate translation. Sometimes, absolutely not.
by Roger Kovaciny on December 27th, 2006
It could mean your deeply ingrained beliefs about what the Bible should say might prevent you from finding what it really says.
by anonymous on January 7th, 2007
The Bibles you work on to make sure they're accurate, do they have a name where it says "this is my name to time indefinite",Ex3:15.
Or have you removed it?
by anonymous on January 7th, 2007
"And the question is whether it is an accurate translation." No, actually the question is "are there any experts who believe it is accurate?" It is well documented, the support of the translation by numerous experts, whose credentials are equally as valid as your own.
by anonymous on January 12th, 2007
Xander:
I beg to differ. There are far more that do not accept NWT becuse of the inacurate tranlation. Regardless, it is clear in both translations that they way to salvation is through no other name than JESUS CHRIST. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. 1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
To name a few.
by Abbyguy on January 12th, 2007
If you call the NWTHS the worst you've seen you are either dishonest or uneducated.OOOH, did I say that out loud? There are dozens of Bibles which take out the name of God and put iin its place names of local deities, change and alter whole books to suit local customs and beliefs.
We're talking Gods name is Beelzebob and he is the spirit of the tree you worship changes here.
Take for example a comparison of the King James Version to the New King James Version. In the old one it translates nephesh as soul, everywhere, but then they changed it so that instead of saying "the soul that sinneth, it itself shall positively die" it now says "the living being that sinneth, it itself shall positively die", and just in this one spot use lving being instaed of soul, but in the rest of the translation continue to translate nephesh as soul.
An outright changing of the meaning of the word to support their beliefs. But it's OK, cause it's not JW.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Not that the NKJV is the one I'm referring to as worse than the NWT, but I am just so sure that it is one that you worship as infallible.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
If the translation youare so taken aback by is "closer than the living Bible", how is it that you can attest to the "deliberate mistranslation", how could it be anytihng but you disagreeing with the interpretation based on your preconcived ideas of what you think it should mean? You said yourself the NWt is a word for word for the most part, but you mus t realize that it can not be made word for word and be understandable in a different labguage? The translators MUST determine the meaning and make sure the word for word translation reflects accurately what the orginal intending meaning was, even if it doesn't agree with waht YOU believe, the writers certainly think it is accurate and your "deliberate mistranslation" is a ridiculous and ignorant accusation.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Xanderman--a pompous ignoramus--calls someone who dreams in four languages, teaches five, and is a full-time professional Bible translator "uneducated." Which shows that his opinion about anything concerning the subject is worthless. He's quoting other people, because he hasn't taken the trouble to learn the languages himself. Like virtually all Witnesses, he learns how to spell five Hebrew words and ten Greek so as too fool other people. I, however, have actually translated a Hebrew textbook and am close to finished with a Greek textbook and dictionary. But Xanderman calls me "uneducated." Typical Witness. Lots of confident-sounding opinions about things he knows nothing about. And he's afraid to check out what his leaders tell him by studying with anyone outside the organization.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 16th, 2007
Wow, that put me in my place, you totally backed up your argument with all those facts and figures about inaccuracies in different texts, impresive!
Not! Now how about dealing with the point i made, that there are literally dozens of translations which are worse in every way than the NWt that you seem completely oblivious to. I guarantee I can find errors i the text you are translating as well, but would you be so quick to say that you pruposefully and with forethough delibrately mistranslated it? It is your prejudice against JWs which I have now exposed which is misguiding your input here, and it is now plain for all to see just how biased your own opinions are.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Perhaps you should also read the Bibles you are translating, do they have some information there about pride? How about info on the education level of the apostles of Jesus? Do you have any comments regarding the Bibles advice regarding worldly wisdom, and arguing over words?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Nice ad hominem by the way, simply saying I'm uneducated and it is not even worth considering my input becasue if I disagree with you, obviously I must be stoopid cuz y'alls jus soooo smart. Good mix of argument from authorith and ad hom. bravo, I can see how you got your degrees with your well honed debating skills.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Get real, Xanderman. First you call me uneducated, and then you say that the Apostles were uneducated (though Paul and Luke certainly weren't). Before you use "uneducated" as an insult word, decide whether you despise education or respect it. As far as Biblical education is concerned, isn't it strange that Jews, Christians, and even atheistic antiquities scholars who know the Biblical languages almost all independently arrive at the same conclusion--that the Watchtower translation is the most biased one in existence?
Next time, think up a better insult word than "uneducated." I'd suggest "Nyeah, nyeah, you stink!" Because maybe I do. But although I don't take a great deal of pride in my education--since I know so many people with more and better who got better grades--you really shouldn't have said I was "dishonest and uneducated" until you had reason to think it was the case.
A gentleman would apologize.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 16th, 2007
I'm no gentleman, nor a JW, though my wife is. I am smart enough to, though, to know how to get you out in the open with
your prjudism against JWs, and show that you couldn't make an unbiased appraisal of their translation becasue of your preconcieved ideas about their motivation for it..
Tell us, just how do you get to peer intot he hearts of men and see their heartfelt desires, the reasons behind their translation decisions? Where many, many Bibles have many more errors than the NWT they are acceptable becasue of their "intent", but you can see into the hearts of these men and see they are doing it wrong purposefully.
Quit with the and address the point. Is it the "worst ever", based on quantitative, unbiased appraisal?
If you say yes, you confirm my accusation, for it is clealry not, and you must be dishonest to maintain your point, or have not read it?
Open your studied copy to page 783 and tell us what it says, left column.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
by the way, "or", not and, a language expert should not be seen misquoting
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Guys; Agree to disagree, it's getting ugly. Nothing is solved by name callig and bashing the other guy, trust me I just went through it with other A.B.ers and I won't do it again. Roger, you will almost never be able to convince a seasoned J.W. that they are wrong and Xanderman the same is true of a devout Christian. We should all focus on the treachings of jesus as the perfect example and try to do our best to get along. That is, I believe, what He would have done.
by Abbyguy on February 16th, 2007
I do know the meaning of educated, and in this context my meaning was that you were not familiar with this translation or others, and not able to make an appraisal of which is the most accurate, because if you have read many, you could not state that the NWT is the worst, so, either you have not read this or a bunch of others, or you have but will not state an unbiased opinion about it. It is not an insult in any way, merely a statement that you are not familiar with many of the translations. Unless you mean the dishonest part, that is an insult if it is true.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Abbguy read the posts before you start with adhominem BS, sesoned JWs can't be resoned with. Many people that get in the middle of something end up getting the worst of it.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
I agree 100% abbguy, we should be focusing onthe teachings of christ, love and forgiveness, which is why I have such a problem with RK, becasue he is totally overlooking the good things in this translation to figt over a few words, while it remains an overall very good book. Judging the entire group of people, saying they are uneducated as a whole and dishonest
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
I'm still waiting for your narrative on pg 783 left, should only take 30s to a book shelf, 60 to find it, 60 to read it, 20 to type...maybe you could help me with the math? 170 seconds, you're now at 600, going to the local JW clan to borrow one? Oh yeah, the digital online one and cd-rom, no page marks...
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Oh, come on now, you're debating this book, bashing the Jws every day and you don't have it handy? Where are you getting your references? In this paragraph they use this word and blah, heretics, blah blah, are you just googling the answers?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Xanderman says we should be focusing on "love and forgivenss," and starts the discourse with a pair of gratuitous insults. Still waiting for my apology. Didn't your mother teach you any manners? Didn't the Witnesses?
by Roger Kovaciny on February 16th, 2007
Well, I guess I just have to assume you don't have a copy of this book which you are evaluating, not surprising. I assume that you will be trying to get one shortly and then maybe we can actuall y have an effective debate regarding the pointd of translation, and not the "deliberateness of the mistranslation"
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
This is exactly why I am not a witness, perhaps? I am not going to apologize until you get a copy of the book you are bashing and apologize tot he 6.5 million people you have been insulting.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Go and sulk on you own time, address the issues raised. Have you evaluated many modern versions? Which ones? How many errors were in each? How many in the NWT and where, exactly? Not just one or two examples, but a comprehensive listing and total. How many in the others? Don't even bother with the "wilfully doctored up" or deliberately mistranslated" BS, you can not see into the hearts of men and judge them. What quantitative value is related to this particular translation? 300 errors? 350? How do other translations compare? AND...some new questions; do you have a copy? Have you read it?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
I'm not the one who tosses around lying insults like "uneducated." As it happens, I have a bachelor's and master's degrees with concentration on the Biblical languages. But we've established that you insult strangers without foundation, and will neither retract nor apologize for them when you're proved wrong. I'll debate with polite people like Perryman, for instance, but you are beyond the pale.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 16th, 2007
So you haven't read it?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
That response is exactly what i expected. Lacking ability to defend your critique it only makes sense that you would say you hear your mommy calling and you can't play any more. I didn't expect the closing "argument from authority" approach, should have been so predictable too, shucks.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Yes, I'm a big meanie, cause I said that people I've never met, who wrote a book I've never read, wilfully mistranslated it and are counterfeiters...oh wait, that was you, now I remember, it was you who said "Like virtually all Witnesses, he learns how to spell five Hebrew words and ten Greek so as too fool other people... Typical Witness. Lots of confident-sounding opinions about things he knows nothing about. And he's afraid to check out what his leaders tell him by studying with anyone outside the organization." Pure prejudiced propoganda, the same you've been spiouting for months but the Jws are too noce to call you a fraud and a liar. I'm not, and when you oppose the devil he will flee. Run away, shoo.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
I've met and talked with Witnesses. One who had studied Greek was polite and respectful to me. The rest went elsewhere when I pointed out that what they were saying was incorrect.
To answer the original question about the New World Translation, there isn't anybody else on earth who will use this translation because it has nothing to recommend it. P.S. What's wrong with you that you can't make a simple apologize for a lying false accusation? If I were in your shoes, that's the first thing I would have done.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 16th, 2007
If you were me then I'd be you, and I'd use your computer to call your accusations against the WTBS false and misleading, as well as slanderous. Even if you could speak a hundred languages and had degrees in twenty different fields you couldn't tell me the intentions of the people who wrote that translation. Noone on earth? You are a fraud and a liar. I know there are at an absolute minimum 6.5 million. Possibly more than 25 million associated with the Jehovahs Witnesses. Do your multiple degrees not tell you that 25 million is mor than zero? What's wrong with you that you can't debate this topic without spouting lies? How do you prove something is true, by lying? No, that is how you deceive and cover over the truth. You know, if and when I'm a witness I'll have to betactful and nice to you, 'til then when you lie to me and everyone else expect me to confront you directly.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
You still ahve not even comented on whether you have read the text in question, have not cited the requested text from it to show you have a copy, it's just ridiculous that you are even here debating a book you haven't read. I know in your courses they can't read every translation and compare them, it would take many decades. Most likely they have a spiel about it, "this horrible translation is wrong cus this verse and the writers are the antichrist" propoganda, and so you have never even read it, being beneath an academic level, so why masquerade as an expert. Can't you just admit you have no DIRECT knowledge regarding this particular translation? Stick to what you know.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
I'm sure you've spent many thousands of hours researching different translations, the NWTHS is not one of them. It is not even mentioned in most evaluations or comparisons of Bible translations, except to say somebody, once upon a time apparently read it and it is the work of the devil or some crap, and you all keep repeating this in a multigenerational deception, becasue in fact there has been no complete, honest and unbiased review of it.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
How do I know? Because I grew up my whole life hating them, I know all the rumours, all the accusations and prejudiced views. My mother owned a christian bookstore, it was actually in my bedroom and from the age of 8 I lived right in it. Anglican, Baptist, United and Protestant from birth. Now I have actually read it, seen what they are really like and your portrayal of them as mindlessly following a leader is ridiculous. Every single one of them is equal and responsible for teaching one another, there are no "leaders", and what they are urged to do is test out and question every single teaching they have and make sure it is accurate. I doubt very much that if you have met and debated with them that you listened to or understood anything they said because you do not understand these very simple arrangements they have, let alone advanced subjects.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Every word you have used to describe them and their translation practices is a flagrant falsehood that can only be based on ignorance of the facts or wilfully misrepresenting them.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
But I should apologize to you?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Rave on. I'm enjoying this.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 16th, 2007
That is your best response when I point out the fact that every tangible piece of inforamtion you provide, amongst numerous "red herrings" and deceptive techniques, is fallacious?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
I have to tend to my family, so we'll have to leave this until tomorrow. I'll just leave it at this; there are more than 25 million people associated with the Jehovahs Witnesses. Every one of them accepts the translation as accurate, actually more accurate than any other. Probability absolutely precludes the possibilty that not one of them is an expert on translation. Any statement that there are no experts supporting it are inherently false. Also, noone except God can look into the hearts or tell us the intentions of the translators, their motives. Any satement that they wilfully misinterpreted it is similarly false, but even more so, it is an ad hominem attack and slanderous.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
If there are Bible translation experts at the Watchtower, surely you could come up with one or two names. Who has written a textbook of either Greek or Hebrew? Who has written a dictionary? Who has a job teaching either language at ANY secular university, forbidden by law to ask about religious preferences and hiring only by merit? In what journals have they published? Name one or two, state his or her credentials, what he has published and where. Perhaps at Jehovah College? Or isn't there such a place? I would guess that any Witness who became expert in either Greek or Hebrew would leave the Witnesses, as so many others have done--there are more ex-Witnesses in the world today than Witnesses. Of course I can't assert a universal negative. But any OTHER church body of your size would have a substantial number of publicly recognized Greek and Hebrew scholars, as you can see from such free sources as the catalogs of Zondervan publishers in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 16th, 2007
As an ex J.W. (well almost, I was never baptized, which is a requirement)I say you have an interesting point Roger.
by Abbyguy on February 16th, 2007
Roger, I'm suprised you care so much about academic credentials. Who did Jesus choose as his apostles? If Jesus didn't look at education then why are you? --Now, I'm not saying we don't need to be educated.-- I'm saying that many times, so called credentials, mean nothing.
by Max Power on February 16th, 2007
Well the kids are in bed so I have a minute, I'm not surprised you waited until you thought I would be gone for a while before you actually try to make a defense of your answer. Lack of opposition makes it easy for you. I'm sure there are such ones, but to find the truth of a matter requires no degrees. Noone can say I am right because I have a degree in? Arguments must be made to stand on their own merits and not lean on the credentials of the one posing them. For example, you may know of the flat earth theory a while back. It was the learned professors and proud religious law keepers who maintained the doctrine, by leaning on their authority, credentials and associations. A very few spoke out against it and were stripped of credentials, as you do to any who support the Jehovahs Witnesses, so they didn't have to actually reason or debate with them, but declared them heretics on the basis of their own authority, not by reasoning from the scriptures.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
So that being the case, that we do not have to rely on credentials to make a point, as the apostles, and Jesus himself, but by reasoning from the scriptures, it is not proper to try to raise ourselves up above our fellow man by flaunting credentials, or to expose oursleves to ad hominem and personal attacks. Back to that first run-on sentence;what degrees did Jesus hold? At what university dod he study? How did the scribes and Pharisees view his credentials, or lack thereof? I am certainly not saying there are no witnesses with credentials, just that they don't need to show them to be right, or to be heard.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
I am not saying that education is a bad thing either, or serves no purpose. My point is that with all the degrees in the world, all of the education in the world, you can still be wrong. The only thing it means is that you are ina greement with the world in general regarding the teachings of that particular course of academic study. It means you have been indoctrinated with the dogmas of orthodox CDhristianity and have shown the people marking your tests that you agree with what they want you to believe, or what they believe. It doesn'y make you, or them, right.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Now what about Debuhn? He is definitely an expert on at least the old testament or Hebrew part of the translation, no honest person can contest that fact. Will you continue to ignore his in-depth evaluation of the texts? Can you still ssay there are no experts when there is not one, but at least two named in this section?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
wow, you guys are either really slow typers or thinkers, don't know which, but it's getting frustrating waiting an eternity between your posts. Just speak extemporaneously, say what you're thinking without editing and re-editing for crying out loud, I don't have all night! Quit with the proof reading and spell checks, a typo won't invalidate your point, and I don't care if you know how to spell, your ideas are the same no matter how it is expressed.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
The point, Xanderman, is that among your 25 million members, there is nobody with any credentials that anybody ELSE recognizes in academic disciplines that anybody can excel in--Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, freethinker, atheist, agnostic, seeker... why can't Witnesses? A denomination one tenth your size should have ten times as many. But nobody, and I mean NOBODY, outside of your cult uses your translation, because it IS a cult translation. Everyone who evaluates it independently comes to the same conclusion and the only people who think any differently so do because they're told to do so by higher authority.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 16th, 2007
So Debuhn was well respected and accredited, but when he supported the NWT he became, what? Discredited? That he supports NWt is proof enough that he is incompetent in your opinion?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Nobody outside of this RELIGION use it because you and others like you tell them it is wrong, end of story. If you and your coworkers made an honest evaluation of it and stopped telling people it was bad, it would be the most popular version worldwide. Oh wait, isn't it? It is published in more then 250 languages. There are over 200 million prints in circulation, wait, doesn;t that mean the 150 million people outside of this organiztion who have Bible studies with them also use it? That is 150 million people, outside of this religion, who use the NWT and agree it is accurate. Can you stop lying for even one comment Roger?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Before you try to correct me on my arithmetic, the members typically have more than one copy each.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
The insidious cult reference is also a form of an ad hominem attack, this is why your studies with JWs didn't progress, becasue whether you know it or not you are insulting from the very first post you've made right to now, which is why I'm so hostile. Such an educated person should be able to conduct themselves a little better if they want to maintain an air of superiority.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
By the way, it is registered as a religion in most civilized nations, and the WBTS licensed as a charitable society.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
"Members of my first church told the story about how some Jehovah's Witnesses came around to see them while their pastor was at the house. He listened to the way they ripped Bible passages out of context and left them with the entrails hanging, and said, ``Give me that Bible.'' He opened it and read, ``Judas went and hanged himself, Mt. 27:5 Go and do thou likewise, Lk. 10:37 And what thou doest, do quickly!" So you told the witnesses to kill themselves, how funny, ha ha! What a proud display of love for your neighbour, what a way to open your ten commandments of bible translation. Maybe you should have given the sermon on the mount? Of course you are the ideal candidate to make an unbiased evaluation of the NWT, seeing how you're not full of hatred and bigotry. Maybe your sermon on the mount should be next? Anyways, about your "first commandment of Bible translation" "do not take out of context"; completely wrong. Do not change the meaning should be first. If it is a complete translation it can not be taken out of context anyways, it is "in situ", it is contextual, it can not be removed from it's context unless you quote it in part somewhere else. Just what kind of translation expert are you? I see your credentials are issued by your religious group as well. Maybe I should get a JW to issue me a PHD too? Is that a valid way to do things? A religion starts its own universities, appoints experts, accredits graduates and then uses them to support the dogma of that religion? Sort of like the Mormons?
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
Anyways, you may know what a "voir dire" is, even though you didn't mention French as one of your alternative languages, but yours is done. I'm quite satisfied with the answers I've recived here to come to a conclusion, and that is; you are not qualified or capable of making any judgement concerning tha acuracy of this translation. If you are then you are simply incapable of debating or defending your position. I am a lowly shake block cutter, salvage work, cleaning up the debris from logging companies to make roofing material, the lowest of a low profession, uneducated and unskilled. Yet I, myself, can poke so many holes in your "expertise" it is ludicrous that you are so vain and arrogant as to post here with nothing more than an argument from authority, with absolutely nothing to support any of your conclusions, besides ad hominems and exaggerations, lies and half-truths. If you want to convince me or anyone else you are going to have to try using logic, reason and fact.
by anonymous on February 16th, 2007
I already posted examples. Genesis 1:2. The translation of "ruakh elohim" as "God's active force" is intentional falsification. Nobody qualified to speak of the Hebrew language would ever agree that that was anything but a falsification of the word of God. In Acts 20:28 I think (sorry, I'm at work and don't have a Bible handy) in a strong Trinitarian passage it speaks of God's own blood. Without any justification whatsoever, the Watchtower corrects the Bible to make it Christ's own blood. Later on I'll be able to look up the place where it speaks of Christ creating all things, and the Watchtower inserts--in brackets--the word "other", reversing the meaning of the passage. These are off the top of my head. There are books such as Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults that have a lot more passages. You probably could get the Watchtower to issue you a PhD; I had to earn my master's in the old fashioned way, with seven years of classroom work in accredited institutions.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 17th, 2007
So you don't have access to a bible right now, and you are a professional, an expert on bible translation? Don't youthink it would be prudent to read this translation BEFORE posting this evaluation of it? Every anti-JW knows these passages you refer to, most of them haven't even finished high-school, yet they can still quote and plagiarize the same stuff you do. Why don't you try using some original thoughts?
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
It is nice that you finally see the need, the absolute necessity, to post factual information here, citing scriptures which are disputed, but you still have a major flaw in your approach. The statement that it is "intentional falsification." You are not an expert on psychiatry, psychology, mind reading or parapsychology, are you? To learn languages did you compare words and phrases, sentences and pragraphs; or, did you develop a mind reading or telepathy device, so you don't even use languages any more? How is it you can determine what is a mistake, a difference of opinion, a difference in understanding or what is intentional falsification? My guess is you compare it to your translations, where you've deliberatley falsified phrases like "the living being that sinneth it tiself shall positively die", and seeing similraties between that and NWT you assume they must be doing it intentionally just like you.
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
Now that you have posted some examples perhaps we could debate each one. Ruakh sometimes means spirit, but does it sometimes refer to something else? If yes, what does it sometimes refer to? If it can refer to multiple things, how does a translator decide which meaning should be used? If two translators decide it has differing meanings, is that always "intentional falsification?
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
Now you've finally added a second example, where they insert "other" to signify it was Jesus, and not Jehovah, who was executed. You say there is absolutely no justification they clarify who was executed. Is that true? Well, was Jehovah killed? Is it possible to kill Jehovah? Does the Bible not say he is the Alpha and Omega, meaning He will be existent from tim indefinite to time indefinite, or there will never be a time when He ceases to exist? If He did die, who resurrected Him, since there is no other true God besides Him? I think it is clear that it was not Jehovah who was killed, but Jesus. Would it not be proper for the translators to make it clear exactly WHO was killed? Is it your contention that Jesus was not sacrificed on our behalf? I think the Bible makes it clear that he was. Evidently the translators of this version of the Bible agree.
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
Another point here, is the word "other" not encapsulated in brackets? Why would they do that? Oh, I know, I know! They want to make it clear that it was not in the original text verbatim, but was added for the purpose of clarification, so that the reader knows it could be translated differently. That means it is not intentional falsification, any accusation that it is is simply ridiculous, someone seeking trouble,stirring up rivalries.It can not be construed to be anything more inappropriate than a footnote or an editors choice. (Acts 5:29) 29 In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said. . .;is the only instance in Acts. There is some contextual information regarding your trinitarian argument, though...(Acts 13:37) 37 On the other hand, he whom God raised up did not see corruption." It seems God raised up Jesus. So evidently God was not killed, but Jesus was.
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/141576 Here is a little answer I made regarding your repeated statements that Ruakh can only be translated one way. It seems the translators of the KJV disagree with you, as well as the NKJV, the Living Bible, NIV, NASB, oh, and every other Bible translation ever made!
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
I didn't say "ruakh" can only be translated one way; I said "ruakh elohim" absolutely cannot be translated "God's active force." I would gladly say that in front of a firing squad. It is a false translation, it is a lie, it is a damnable perversion of what God says about Himself. It is intentional falsification. It is insertion of man's doctrine into Holy Scripture, laying unclean hands on the word of God, polluting the well with human ideas. By the way, when I quoted the pastor who said "Go and do thou likewise," that was rhetoric, not cursing them with a death wish. As any English teacher could tell you. Speaking of Jesus and Jehovah being equal--there are many passages where Jesus and Jehovah do exactly the same thing, such as Psalm 23 and John 10, verses 11 and 16.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 17th, 2007
Well, my argument is developing gradually, you see, now that you have left room for ruakh to be translated differently, the possiblity of a ruakh in conjunction with another word to be translated differently exists. For example, if ruakh elohim could be spirit god, or breath god, wind god, or seat of the mind or any of the other dozens of possiblities, then the assertion that this phrase can only be written one way is based on the earlier transaltions or common ones where the translators chose to do it this particular way, and your dogmatic assertion, and theirs, that it is the only way is nothing more than vanity and pride, thinking because this is the way you CHOSE to do it, it is the only way because you are so much smarter than every living thing. Either that or you imply special knowledge? Like God came to you last night and told you it was the only way?
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
By the way, your last comment is what? Special pleading or begging the question, I can't remember, but basically a deceptive technique or method of countering a point with the threat "if you say that God will hate you." Calling me or anyone else who questions your dogma a heretic does not in any way prove you right, it just shows you have to resort to immoral practices and deception to support your beliefs. Does that make them accurate?
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
On reviewing your last comment I was wrong there, it isn't actually special pleading but a claim of special knowledge, that you know exactly what God intended to say, presumably because you have a special repor or line of communication, so He can tell you exactly what He meant to say, while the rest of us are left with using logic and research to reason from the scriptures. Must be nice. Did He tell you which level of Hell I would be sent to?
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
Ruakh elohim does not, never has, never will, and can not under any circumstances in the known universe mean "God's active force." Anyone who has passed first year Hebrew could tell you that, and if you had as much ambition as you have confidence in the lies your leaders have told you, you would take first year Hebrew from a neutral party and find that out for yourself. There are words in the Hebrew language that could be translated "God's active force." Those words are not "Ruakh elohim." It doesn't require an expert to find this out. Any one of the millions of people who have studied Biblical Hebrew and don't fear getting disfellowshipped from the Witnesses can tell you that, or you could take the trouble to study the divine language and find it out for yourself.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 17th, 2007
The divine language? Deos that mean the Greek scriptures were not inspired, or are less authoritative based on the language? If people speak now in spirit and truth, but in English, or French, or Arabic, is it inferior due to the language? Or when the writers say there is no superiority of the Jew over the Gentile, and people from all nations, tribes and tongues would be saved could that mean the language we speak, the colour of our skin or the nation we live in is not important, but what is is that we worship God in spirit and truth? Regardless of lenguage. You are so in love with yourself and your language expertise you don't evne know the first thing about the BIble, the individual words, that's all. You have lost the context. You think I have to speak Hebrew to debate scripture, you are going directly against the teachings of God, who says all scripture is inspired, not just Hebrew, it also says it would taught to all of the nations, not just in the Hebrew language.
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
Nobody has told me anything about this, and I can't get disfellowshipped, I don't have anybody telling me what to read, think or listen to, except you. Your prejudism and ignorance is again getting the better of you. Quit with the propaganda and rhetorical accusations. And enough of the argument from authority, what specific rule of translation prevents this translation? What, besides dogma and argument from authority demands a word which can be translated dozens of ways must be done a specific way in just this one circumsatmce? Nothing more than you and a bunch of deceivers like you saying so, with no logical explanation, no facts, no reasoning or attempt to explain why.
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
(Acts 4:13) 13 Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary,. . .(1 Corinthians 1:19-20) . . .: I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside. 20 Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish?" Just how does Jehovah view your credentials? On what authority do you prescribe how the word of God should be interpreted, and lord it over people, telling them that if they don't think the same things as you they are in opposition to God?
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
The divine language is the language used directly by God, whether Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. When it is correctly translated it is also the word of God. The phrase "ruakh elohim" is sometimes translated from Hebrew into Greek, in the New Testament, but is not rendered "God's active force" there, either. But rave on. It's easier than taking the trouble to actually study the language God chose to use in delivering His revelation to the world. And you don't have to be a super-brain to learn it, either. It's taught to children. The Apostles probably knew it, as well as Aramaic and Greek.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 17th, 2007
You don't have to be a super brain to say "this rule of conjunctive nouns" or something either. Why can't you just state a simple reason, other than because you say so, and stop with the argument from authority crap, I don't need to have accreditation to talk about the Bible, neither did Jesus or the apostles or any of the writers of the Bible. By the way, the spostles were given the gift of spewaking in tongues, that is to say they spoke and no matter the language of the listeners, they heard the discours in their own language. The language of God transcends your understanding. Yes it is taught to children, in English, Spanish, Swahili and French; but to those it has deeper meaning than you seem to understand, far greater than the sum of the semantics, syntax or context.
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
It's clear you just have your head in the sand, we've been talking for two days and you haven't stated one piece of evidence, not one logical reason, not one thread of discourse explaining why it must be translated this way. Your entire argument can be summed up as "because I said so, and I'm smart." That is not enough for anyone over the age of consent, and only about 10% below it. I think you do not even know why you believe that, so no wonder you can't defend it. If you had payed attention in calss to the underlying reasons a particualr translation decsion was made you could have understood and made it to the top of the class, and explained it right now. But you didn't. You can't. You won't. Whatever the reason you are unable to make a defense of your beliefs, and I find it hard to believe you are an expert in anything besides deception.
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
xanderman: The burden og proof lies with you. It is widely accepted (Rogers thinking) and therefore it is you who must come up with the contrary proof. A couple of people in a back room do not make a consesus.
by Abbyguy on February 17th, 2007
I've already provided proof. Every single Bible int he entire world uses at a bare minimum 12 different meanings for the word ruakh, so it is possible for the word to be translated differently in this particular phrase. I have also proved that there are experts who say it is accurate, not only by the fact that more than 20 million people use it and agree it is accurate, and at least some of them must be experts, but i have actually named independant reviewers from outside the religion who agree it is accurate. I have also proved RK does not even own a copy of this translation yet, by his failure to verify this by a simple reading of a text form it. I have also proved he is biased in his opinions against JWs, clearly prejudiced and unable to review this translation honestly. I have also proved that every point he has made regarding innaccuracies has not been supported by fact or reson, only deceptive techniques of argument form authority, ad hominems and special pleadings.
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
The translators of TNWT admit that they don't even read a single letter of the Greek alphabet. Doesn't that bother you at all?
by unknown on February 17th, 2007
If it were true that would definitely bother me. It is not true, though. In fact, I've read many of the accusations against the NWT translators, and none of the ones I've seen even go so far as to make such an outlandish accusation. Even the most prejudiced opponents hold back from making such claims because it can be so easily refuted and damage their own credibility to be caught openly lying.
by anonymous on February 17th, 2007
I still have one, I use it for reference. I used to have the whole library but gave it away. I understand you defending it so vehemently but I can't take the translation seriously because of all the changes. I used to believe it all but after much research and prayer I found it lacking. I did one very simple thing, I prayed - that whatever the truth was be it J.W. Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian or what ever, just show it to me and I will accept it. Within days I had my answer, I was overwhelmed with evidence that I had to become a born-again Christian to have eternal life. I am not telling you to change, only what is my experience and what I came up with, do with the info as you wish. Blessings.
by Abbyguy on February 17th, 2007
Well it's nice you're straight forward and truthful about it. I couldn't change for those same reasons, I require proof and evidence, sound reasoning and logic, and wouldn't change beliefs on something so untrustworthy as gut instincts. The Bible does say the heart is treacherous, that is, every bible translation says The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) One thing about prayer, in order for it to be answered it must be in harmony with Gods will. If you were to pray for the death of Jehovah, I'm pretty sure He would not acquiesce.It's likely that someone looking for confirmation on a matter has already decided, and will interpret anything they see as a sign, at least in my experience. I think the Bible also mentions something about looking for signs, like, a wicked generation keeps seeking them, but none will be given. I would really appreciate it if you could maybe send a copy to Roger, seems he doesn't have one yet.
by anonymous on February 18th, 2007
I'm waiting and waiting, prety soon he's going to get one and post the requested synopsis, then say "I had it all along, but I didn't want to cave in to your bullying" or "it was under a stack of ten thousand research papers I wrote on this translation." But, alas, it's too late. The chance to prove his familiarity with this version is gone, like the wind from God. Hey, just how would you say that in Hebrew? The wind from God, of God or by Him? ruakh ha-elohim? Could I drop the ha as understood and say ruakh elohim, oh did you see that? Gone like the wind from God! That is to say, "the wind [given to us or born of]God." Well, am I going to hell now Roger? I used two Hebrew words together, and accidentally uttered some kind of curse or spell on myself, because it is unnatural for those words to be together in such a way, to have a meaning other than the one you set out at the beginning of time?
by anonymous on February 18th, 2007
Jack asp
by anonymous on February 18th, 2007
The bible also says that those who seek with an open heart WILL find the truth. I do not believe that God would lead me to a "false" religion if I was seeking Him with all my heart and the right motives, do you? That is what it's all about, accepting his "gift" of grace, not having to study and look and wonder making sure you have accurate knowledge first. Jesus never once told anyone to go study and make sure first, he said follow me, I am the way the "truth" and the light. I sought with and open heart and an open mind and He delivered as I found out later, just as He said He would.
by Abbyguy on February 18th, 2007
Yes following Jesus continually is the important thing, taking in knowledge of him. Would God lead you to a wrong religion? No. There are other influences in the world other than God, though, and many hundreds of millions of people are drawn to false religions while earnestly seeking the truth. I am very glad you chose Christianity and follow God. I would only urge you to keep on seeking accurate knowledge with the same zeal and open mindedness you showed at the start. It sounds like you have a firm grasp on the important principles so you should do well I hope.
by anonymous on February 18th, 2007
The fact of the matter is it is NOT impossible to translate ruakh elohim to "God's active force." Breath is an 'active force.' Wind is an 'active force.' Spirit is an 'active force.' Therefore, instead of choosing just one of the three, 'active force' was chosen to describe all three. It's not wrong, it's not illogical.
by Max Power on February 18th, 2007
Here is an interesting monologue on the subject of the translation of "Ruakh Elohim", reasons for the methodology and possible alternatives.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/142418
by anonymous on February 18th, 2007
Funny. Of all the thousands of translations into hundreds of languages that the Bible has been translated into, not one of all those diverse scholars has chosen such a translation. Wonder why the Witnesses are right and the whole world is wrong? Wonbder why the people who flaunt their lack of education are right, and those who have actually dedicated years of their lives to learning the Biblical languages are wrong? The same goes for those passages where the Witnesses (only) have to put words in brackets to "explain" (or rather reverse) the meaning, when all the people who actually know what they're talking about don't agree? Foreign languages aren't rocket science. You just have to take courses. You don't even have to pass them, if you don't like the teacher, just master the material. You can even study it on your own. How odd that these experts in Bible translation so rarely do so, especially when they are right and everyone else in history has been wrong.
by Roger Kovaciny on February 18th, 2007
All the thousands of translations, after 400CE, you mean? The ones prior to this never changed it to suit the trinity doctrine. Also a very few men controlled what was taught after this, banning the publication or dispersal of literature to the common man, killing or imprisoning anyone you thought believed differently. You still haven't come up with one piece of proof or even a valid reason for this translation practice...why is "holy spirit" the only way to translate it? You all had a vote? Christianity is now a democracy? Did you not read if you are a friend to the world and it's teachings, you are at enmity with God?
by anonymous on February 18th, 2007
By the way, nobody here is claiming to be an expert on Bible translation, except you, yet you are the only one who lacks the ability to pose sound reasoning and logic, to explain their position in other ways than "because I said so", or other deceptive techniques. The only expert around is a liar and a fraud, so what choice do we have but to debate this.
by anonymous on February 18th, 2007
Xanderman: There is more ti it than evil powers. those same evil powers would not draw me to a religion that is giving praise to God and Jesus Christ, it just doesn't happen. He, Satan does not want any glory and praise going to them at all. If he does draw anyone away it is always to discredit and discouragement toward God, not to give Him His due.
by Abbyguy on February 18th, 2007
I am not saying you are following the wrong course, just asking you to keep in mind Bible teachings to keep you on the narrow paththat leads to life. The bible does warn us that there will be false prophets(2 Corinthians 11:13-15) . . .For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. . . ." Of course a good deciever would want to make it look like he was teaching you how to please God, while gradually introducing false teachings, contradictions which will lead to doubt, divisions. We see the end result after thousands of years, where churches are divided by gay marriage, abortion, gay priests, wars, politics and nationalism. None of these things were brought in abruptly, but after decades and centuries of deception.
by anonymous on February 18th, 2007
I agree, there are lots of issues that are not even close to being biblicaly sound that are given the OK from mislead pastord, elders, and other church leaders. I've found a very good bible teaching church, great ethics and strong leadership, so I feel blessed, but there are a lot of people not so fortunate. All one has to do is watch the so-called wisemen on TV, it makes you want to vomit they way they bastardize the word of God. I'm glad He will be making the final judgement and not me.
by Abbyguy on February 18th, 2007
I'm glad that the time for that judgement is close.
by anonymous on February 19th, 2007
I just had allok at one of the newest translations endorsed by the Vatican, the Catholic Study Bible.
In Genesis 1:2 it says "a mighty wind swept over the waters". This translation inspired by Holy Spirit and the infallible Pope indicates that it was an active force, not a person, which was at work.
Note also that if you hold yourself to the same standards as you hold others, you refer to "Ruakh Elohim" as "Holy Spirit", whereas a truthful translation is "the spirit of the God", and your own translation is not actually a translation, but editorialising.
by anonymous on February 8th, 2008
I think he meant Gen 1:2.
Should Psalms 104:30 say spirit or breath? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms104:30;&version=49;77;51;47;78;
Should Job 26:13 say breath, wind, or spirit?
by Texasescimo on March 5th, 2009
http://bible.cc/job/26-13.htm
by Texasescimo on March 5th, 2009
..and, speaking of Ukrainian:
http://watchtower.org/k/index.html
by Perryman on March 6th, 2009
(Roger Kovaciny Dec, 22 2006 at 10:10 PM
It calls itself a translation, not a Bible commentary. Since I actually know what I'm talking about--I'm a full-time Bible translator and got paid hard cash for teaching Hebrew--I qualify as an expert, and it qualifies as "an inaccurate translation.")
Didn't most of the other translators get paid for their translations too? Some of them use breath, wind, or spirit. Look at the way different ones have translated Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna. It seems getting paid for translating does not guarantee accuracy.
by Texasescimo on March 6th, 2009
A little research into translations, concordances, and manuscripts, without preconceived ideas and bias can help to discern what is true. I believe that the ones that handle snakes to prove they believe are misled. Others might disagree though. http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7025764 /././ http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7133378
by Texasescimo on October 6th, 2009
Well this is an interesting thread! How are ya Tex?
by no_one_special on October 7th, 2009
I am okay. How are you? I really liked the way you and Abbyguy made peace on that other thread. When I first joined AB, I had a disagreement with him. Bruceytom set straight though, as I got overly defensive.
by Texasescimo on October 8th, 2009
You know, he seems like a OK guy. Its just he jumps to conclusions about me. Granted I am not as tactful as Bruce. But Abby assumes I am passionately responding to him. To be clear I am passionate about God, but when i respond its just automatic. Its not like I am angry or anything. I just look, and say, "I can counter that" and then proceed to do it.
In any event I do see what Ponder was saying about the pausing. Perhaps that is what I need to work on.
by no_one_special on October 9th, 2009
Just found this thread again. Kinda funny how every one attacks the NWT while other translations do the same thing.
Gen 1:2 (NRS)the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:2 (NAB) the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.
Gen 1:2 (NJB) Thomson(i) 2 And the earth was invisible and unfurnished and there was darkness over this abyss; and a breath of God was brought on above the water.
Gen 1:2 (NJB) Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
Is 40:7 (KJV) The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people [is] grass.
Is 40:7 (NKJV) The grass withers, the flower fades, Because the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass.
2Thess 2:8 (KJV) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Thess 2:8 (NKJV) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
A few quotes and links from above that I want to do more research on are when I have time are:
“Ruach is a Hebrew word meaning breath, wind, or spirit. Since breath, wind and spirit ARE invisible active forces ruach may be translated as such. The NWT translates ruach as 'breezy part' in Genesis 3:8; makes more sense than traslating it as 'cool' as these versions do: NIV, NASB, KJV, KJ21. The NWT translates ruach as wind in Genesis 8:1. The NWT does not hide how it was translated as the footnote for Genesis 1:2 shows that ruach can mean spirit. Since ruach can mean breath, wind or spirit, 'ruach elohim' can be translated 'breath of God,' 'wind of God,' or 'spirit of God.' Using 'active force' combines the general description of all three. More like a genius interpretation than incompetence.”
“http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/141576 Here is a little answer I made regarding your repeated statements that Ruakh can only be translated one way. It seems the translators of the KJV disagree with you, as well as the NKJV, the Living Bible, NIV, NASB, oh, and every other Bible translation ever made!”
” The fact of the matter is it is NOT impossible to translate ruakh elohim to "God's active force." Breath is an 'active force.' Wind is an 'active force.' Spirit is an 'active force.' Therefore, instead of choosing just one of the three, 'active force' was chosen to describe all three. It's not wrong, it's not illogical.”
by Max Power on February 18th, 2007
” Here is an interesting monologue on the subject of the translation of "Ruakh Elohim", reasons for the methodology and possible alternatives.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/142418”
“Should Psalms 104:30 say spirit or breath? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms104:30;&version=49;77;51;47;78;
Should Job 26:13 say breath, wind, or spirit?
http://bible.cc/job/26-13.htm”
by Texasescimo on May 21st, 2011