Which of the following Bible translation is the most accurate relative to the oldest, and best manuscripts? Why?

LOL. Dude your whole answer was based around how closely the translations adhere to Jehovah's Witness dogma - pretty funny.

Hey that's cool I was fully expecting the Catholics to choose the NJB, the Mormons the JST or the KJV, and the Evangelicals to pick the ESV.

It just goes to show that none of us are immune to presuppositions.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 15th, 2009

Translating Exodus 3:14 as "I am" is an incorrect translation. Not JW dogma.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961&t=NASB
At Exodus 3:14, the verb Hayab, which means "to be" was used. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex3:14-15;&version=NASB;NLT;ESV;TNIV;HCSB; Many translators still translate it as "I AM" and refer to “I AM” as God’s name to be remembered and go to John 8:58 in support of the trinity. If all Bible translators translated Exodus 3:14 as something like: "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE" (which is what it really means), rather than just putting it as a footnote, that might take away from the confusion. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus3:14;&version=AMP;ESV;NIV;NASB;NLT;

http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo3.pdf
אֶהְיֶה
aeie
I-shall-become
Taking out God's name and replacing it with LORD as the ESV does is quite an injustice that takes away from the Father being the only true God. Most people that I have talked to that are not JW's have no idea why Psalms 110:1 says "The LORD says to my Lord.." like the ESV does. Why remove God's name if he saw fit to have it in the Hebrew scriptures almost 7000 times? Nothing to do with JW dogma, just keeping it real.

• Report

by Texasescimo on December 15th, 2009

William Tyndale understood Exodus 3:14 coming from the verb meaning "to be".
Exodus 3:14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/

• Report

by Texasescimo on December 15th, 2009

Joseph Smith was challenged to read Greek, which the NT was written in, and he could not. How could a Bible transliterator properly write an English version of the Bible and not understand Greek? Smith was found to be false and an inaccurate translator himself. Sorry.

• Report

by PhileoTruth on December 15th, 2009

I don't think that I gave any links to Joseph Smith. You might copy and paste the referred links into your browser to get the context of what I am saying.

• Report

by Texasescimo on December 15th, 2009

Quote: "God revealed Himself in three persons-- Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit)." What acripture says that?
If the Father was not the only true God, why did Jesus say that he was? Was John 17:3 some kind of parable?


(John 17:1-3) Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you, 2 according as you have given him authority over all flesh, that, as regards the whole [number] whom you have given him, he may give them everlasting life. 3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

• Report

by Texasescimo on December 15th, 2009

PhileoTruth: Thank you for your articulate answer.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 15th, 2009

There are several false statements and 1/2 truths in your answer. Don't believe everythng paid preachers tell you. (Acts 28:22) But we think it proper to hear from you what your thoughts are, for truly as regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.”

• Report

by Texasescimo on December 15th, 2009

1)"Most scholars acknowledge the ESV as the closest English version to the manuscripts. This is well documented." --- I consider it to be good like the NASB and Youngs Literal.
---

2)"The NWT and Joseph Smith translations have long been historically proven to be false." --- The NWT having been historically proven to be false is subjective at best.
3)"The Jehovah's Witness' translations have changed the text to make Jesus "a" god instead of God" --- When there is not a definite article, sometimes it is appropriate to add “a” since 2000 years ago koine Greek did not have indefinite articles. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2012:22;acts%2028:6&version=NIV;YLT;KJV;DARBY;ESV
4)"The JW religion has minimized the importance and centrality of Jesus to salvation so that its adherents can find another way to salvation: works! Their evangelistic works is what they hope in to find salvation." -- Totally false. Preachers preach for money and consider it their duty yet when JW’s do it, paid preachers cry foul and tell their adherents that JW’s are trying to earn their salvation. JW’s believe that salvation only comes through faith in Jesus but we still have to do what he says and not just believe.
5)"This largely because Jesus is not, to them, the Way Truth and the Life, but merely a god." –JW's believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life to us, but we do believe what he said about the Father being the only true God. John 17:3
6)"Moreover, they deny the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus Himself declared that He would send." –We do not deny the Holy Spirit. It is God’s Holy Spirit that helps us to preach. Acts 1:8
7)"It would require some clever dissection of Holy Scripture to omit that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God( i.e., God revealed Himself in three persons"-- Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit). --- A Catholic priest revealed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. 1John 5:7 King James Version / Textus Receptus

• Report

by Texasescimo on December 15th, 2009

>Is there a reason you left out the NIV that is my current choice but other choices include the New King James and the New American Standard and many more<

Yes, you can only have 5-choices in AB polls I wanted to have all the major AB groups represented. Since the ESV is currently considered the best, most accurate modern translation in Evangelical circles I choose that.

The NIV also suffers from a bad reputation due it's decision to market a gender neutral version that has been soundly criticized by Bible Scholars both inside and outside the Christian Church.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 15th, 2009

I don't like the gender neutral idea either but then again I am a bit old school

• Report

by rabid on December 15th, 2009

Thank you for your vote and your answer.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 24th, 2010

First, thank you for your answer.

Second, I'm thinking that you're a Jehovah's Witness - am I right?

I say this because, your answer seemed to be rather agenda based, one sided, biased, and frankly, misleading.

Specifically, because his work was being used as a Jehovah's Witness apologetic E.C. Colwell (as in Ernest C. Colwell) later said THIS about the NWT translation of John 1:1:

"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28"
-- Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago)

And here's what other Greek Scholars have said about the NWT translation of this passage:

Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."

Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."

And Colwell wasn't the only Greek Scholar who has been misrepresented by the Watchtower Society in this way:

"Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God."
(http://www.letusreason.org/JW38.htm)

In fact, Greek Scholars are largely united over the fact that the NWT rendering of John 1:1 is not defensible given what the text says in the manuscripts.

So your entitled to your opinion but please don't think that what you're getting from the Watchtower Society is the whole story - it's not.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 27th, 2010

Didn't you notice the words, "And please explain your answer citing validating sources other than yourself." that's an equalizer for subjectivity - though it can't cure it.

And I have NO problem with people honestly sharing as long as they're open to discussion.

So when are you going to casting your vote for NWT mate? I was, frankly, surprised you hadn't done so already! I'm going to have to have Tex and View57 scold you after I'm done.

;-)

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 15th, 2009

So can I assume - based on your answers over the last couple of days, let alone since I've been on AB - that you view your role here is to be as hate-filled and disrespectful of religion and Theists as possible?

It sure seems that way.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 15th, 2009

That's not very Christian of you. You might want to check your own heart.

• Report

by Don Gorgeous George on December 15th, 2009

So you believe Jesus is Michael and Joseph Smith is both? And
where is Joseph now?

• Report

by Doc on April 24th, 2010

So you believe Jesus is Michael and Joseph Smith is both? And
where is Joseph now?

• Report

by Doc on April 24th, 2010

>You might want to check your own heart<

Actually my heart isn't the issue here - yours is.

So your disingenuous and hypocritical attempt at deflection is irrelevant. I'm not the atheist who snarked up a Theist section of AB with prejudiced, bigoted, hatred answer and then followed it up with yet more prejudice, bigotry and hatred.

YOU did that (as you routinely do, BTW)

So if there's anyone in this thread who seriously and soberly needs to do a "heart check" it's you George.

>That's not very Christian of you<

Another disingenuous and hypocritical deflection attempt . . . yawn!

Actually since the Bible defines what's Christian and what isn't your baseless assertion is exposed for what it is - ignorant folly:

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly CONTEND for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
-- Jude 1:3 (KJV)

"...we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God WITH MUCH CONTENTION.

For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:

But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts."
-- I Thessalonians 2:2-4 (KJV)

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 24th, 2010