| The last question was answered in just | 52 | seconds Let our thousands of members help! |
Welcome to Answerbag, a community of people sharing what they know. 
Top Answer out of 133 by borasalama on Jul 9, 2007 at 4:24 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
borasalama Jul, 29 2007 at 06:06 PM
Seems very objective and credible. Thanks kimwally.
borasalama Mar, 13 2009 at 05:29 PM
a -2 DR but nothing wrong found in the answer.
Anonymous Oct, 02 2009 at 04:55 AM
New World Translation
Definition: A translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah. These expressed themselves regarding their work as follows: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.” This translation was originally released in sections, from 1950 to 1960. Editions in other languages have been based on the English translation. On what is the “New World Translation” based? As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited fro Answer 2 out of 133 by Roger Kovaciny on Oct 10, 2005 at 9:11 am Permalink
Comments
show all comments
Roger Kovaciny Nov, 01 2008 at 11:12 PM
An Answerbag bug didn't let me post a comment so please look at "read all answers" to continue this thread. But I'd also like to say that you have to do a LOT of homework before you can call a printed translation an error. I thought I'd caught 19 just in the Ukrainian translation of First Timothy, but then checked three commentaries, two English translations, five Ukrainian translations, a second Greek dictionary and the Latin Vulgate and my objections are now down to five--some of which may be proved wrong in committee.
April Jul, 10 2009 at 12:35 AM
Great answer Roger
Texasescimo Oct, 30 2009 at 02:06 PM
Several good point in this thread. I like the suggestion of a parallel made by RK. According to scholars and older manuscripts like the Vatican MS 1209, Sinaiticus, and the ALexandrian Codex, AntigoneRising's comment is not without basis either. http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7025764
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7133378 Most sincere people can do research as suggested by RK and come to their own conclusions. Answer 3 out of 133 by kimwally on Jun 21, 2007 at 6:03 am Permalink
Comments
show all comments
anotherpaul Jul, 30 2007 at 08:25 PM
I have heard an comments about how all scholars other than a few denigrate the NWT. OK, please provide a list, the quotes and the scholarly objection they have. Opinion doesn't count as even Jesus was denigrated by the "scholars" of his day.
Show you have some idea of the actual translation issues, not just a few quotes that you cling to. Maybe a scripture or two that you actually understand and can explain the Grammar issues, in regard to the verses. Opinions are easy to find, facts are a different story.
therealtruth1914 Aug, 15 2009 at 09:11 AM
They have no Scholars. This is why they are Anonymous.
BUSTER Nov, 14 2009 at 05:43 PM
The proof is in the pudding. A translation is accurate if it agrees with the original text and the context of what is being stated in the original. Honorable titles and what ever credentianls does not make for accurate translation. A translation of bible text stands on its own merits. It is either true to the original or it is not. The New World translation has been credited as being an excellect translation by some very notable scholars. Who ever translated it knew what he or they were doing. Who cares who they were or what scholarly credentials they may not have held, the translation speaks for itself. According to Greek scholar Jason BeDuhn, a professor and doctorate of first century Koine or common Greek, the NWT was rated as best of the eight translation he examined and wrote about in his book, "Truth in Translation". The names of or credintials of the NWT translators does not make the translation, the translation stands on its own merits as translated.
Answer 4 out of 133 by Bea_flores on Jul 13, 2007 at 12:13 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
therealtruth1914 Aug, 15 2009 at 09:08 AM
The NWT was the works of Knorr, Franz, Schroder, Gangas and Henschel. Non of them are Scholars, Franz was the only one who attended College but did not graduate. Their translation is easy to read and they did a great thing in restoring God's name. But they have changed, added and altered the meanings of some Scriptures to support their beliefs. This is not an accurate, faithful translation.
ApstleofJC Sep, 18 2009 at 03:33 PM
Teh Jews (Hebrews) did not say teh name of God (YHWH). So, in teh text, they wrote YHWH and put the vowwels for Adonai under it. The translators didn't know this and they translated the whole thing as Jehovah (go to almost any Jewish (not Christian) source and they will prove it to you).
Anonymous Oct, 02 2009 at 05:08 AM
The New World Translation is a TRANSLATION not a version. It was not changed by Jehovah's Witnesses to fit their beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs are based on the Bible. You know I would like everyone to consider this. The Sovereign Lord of the Universe gave us his word to guide us through this world. Those who try to deceive people by adding their own ideas are fighting against the Sovereign Lord of the universe. Bottom line is that our acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and our obedience to God's word as a whole is what our survival depends on. Most people haven't even read the Bible they just let their minister tell them what God accepts. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.If you genuinely want the truth Jehovah God will make sure you get it IF you are genuine.
Answer 5 out of 133 by madmat on Jul 8, 2007 at 2:29 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
BUSTER Nov, 13 2009 at 04:48 PM
There was nothing improper about Thomas’ referring to Jesus in that way. Thomas was saying that Jesus was “a god” to him, a divine, powerful one. But he was not saying that Jesus was Jehovah, which is why Thomas said, “my” God and not “the” God. How many of us at seeing something remarkable or unbelievable have said, “my god”?
15 Consider that just three verses later, at John 20:31, the Bible states: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” All doubt as to what Thomas may have meant is dispelled here. The Bible writer John clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God, not Almighty God himself, The Most High God, The Supreme God, The God of gods. To further show that Thomas was not referring to Jesus as “my God”, Mary Magdalene had just previously come to the room where the disciples were hiding and told them what the resurrected Jesus had just told her found at John 20:17 (John 20:17-18) . . .Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’” 18 Mary Mag´da•lene came and brought the news to the disciples: “I have seen the Lord!” and that he said these things to her. Apparently Jesus has a God over him. ”my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God”. Because it was eight days later that Jesus appeared before Thomas, do you not think they would have told Thomas what the resurrected Jesus said to Mary that Mary had passed on to them? Thomas knew that the same heavenly Father that he prayed to as God was the God of Jesus whom Jesus prayed to.
BUSTER Nov, 13 2009 at 05:28 PM
“The Word Was God”
AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself. Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” (Italics ours.) Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as the person they are with. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God. Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse: 1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text. 1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. 1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. 1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures . 1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. 1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider. At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the•os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the•os']”). This first the•os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”). On the other hand, there is no article before the second the•os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the•os' (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this? The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context. The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the•os'] cannot be regarded as definite.” So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.
BUSTER Nov, 13 2009 at 05:46 PM
There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.” Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’”
Answer 6 out of 133 by phyllis on Aug 20, 2008 at 4:55 pm Permalink
Comments
bruceytom Oct, 03 2008 at 12:20 PM
Thank you, Phyllis for telling us which translation you like. My question is which you believe is the most accurate. Would you like to share your choice and tell us why?
Thanks. Answer 7 out of 133 by Bibleography on Feb 4, 2008 at 5:17 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
Bibleography Sep, 06 2009 at 08:51 PM
Wow that sounds great that "He and the Father will dwell in us" I suppose that he does not care to dwell in the bodies of starving children though, huh? Or in fatherless/orphans that are starving in third and fourth world countries? He probably feeds you fine though because you pray for your food? Will you say that he helps them after they die from hunger? Will you tell them that soon a better life is in store for them, when they die from hunger? Will you say that he will let them die from hunger and not you because you "believe" but you both get the same goodness at death? Could not a true GOD feed you and the hungry just as well or will you say that it is some sick test? Will you say that man is to blame for their own suffering, but then say that when a hurricane, flood, tsunami, tornado, lightning strike, or wildfire kills many innocent children it is god's wrath? Please am I MISUNDERSTANDING?
ApstleofJC Sep, 18 2009 at 03:53 PM
heavendreamr is right. There are so many verses that support the "Oneness" of God and not the Trininty. God says, "Hear, oh Israel. The Lord thy God is ONE Lord." In another verse, he says he "...stretched out the heavens by HIMSELF." In Zech, God says when he returns, they (those that stood against Him and His people) will look to me; the one they pierced." He did not refer to another being pierced, nor was that a figurative statement. It is actually part of the prophecy of the Messiah being pierced.
Phillipians 2 show us that Jesus humbled Himself, being fashioned as man.
ApstleofJC Sep, 18 2009 at 03:56 PM
Psalms 113 is a good one. God humbleth Himself to observe the things of heaven and earth.
Also, God said He will pour out His Spirit of Grace and supplication. The Holy Spirit is God's spirit and not a "force". This is why we can grieve Him. The Spirit of Christ testified to the sufferings of Christ through David and the prophets. He isn't a "force". God is Spirit. Answer 8 out of 133 by pugwashjw65 on Jan 6, 2006 at 6:36 am Permalink
Comments
show all comments
Texasescimo Oct, 30 2009 at 01:38 PM
Singwell might not have considered all relevent information.
There are different uses of firstborn, but firstborn "of" creation implies that he is part of creation. Although some translations are using "over" to support the trinitarian view, some such as the NLT tell you in a footnote that it is "of all creation". http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm
Texasescimo Oct, 30 2009 at 01:52 PM
I know that Singwell is a fan of the ESV and the NASB. It appears that those translators were aware of a principle mentioned at 1Cor 15:27 about exceptions to all when they translated 1Cor 6:18 and Luke 13:2. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/
You may also notice that God created everything through Jesus. (John 1:10; 1Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/
Texasescimo Oct, 30 2009 at 01:54 PM
(Revelation 3:14) "And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,"
(Colossians 1:15) "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" (Proverbs 8:22) "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago." (Prov 8:30) "then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time" (John 1:10) "He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him." (Hebrews 1:2) "has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things" (Prov 8:22-31) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ (Col 1:15-17) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ Answer 9 out of 133 by oscar lover on Oct 3, 2008 at 12:50 am Permalink
Comments
show all comments
bruceytom Dec, 16 2008 at 07:31 AM
Thanks for the opinion. Will you be kind enough to share your reasoning and evidence? Thanks
Texasescimo Jul, 16 2009 at 07:15 PM
I guess someones paid preacher told them that.
bruceytom Jul, 17 2009 at 09:48 AM
It seems so, Tex. It's easy to make a vague statement, backing it is a little more work. I feel a little sad at the bigotry that still exists. 'Love' may think that a 7-word platitude has power. To the uninformed and unsteady it might. True truth seekers are smarter than that.
I'm tempted to say the statement smacks of a lie, but i won't go quite that far. Answer 10 out of 133 by Anonymous on Jun 16, 2007 at 6:41 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
therealtruth1914 Aug, 15 2009 at 09:14 AM
The Jeopardy question was taken from a quote. It was not a fact.
Jason BeDuhn is not a Translating Scholar but a Historian.
BibleReader Sep, 02 2009 at 09:12 AM
Wow this answer was by far the most informative and helpful. The question does not have a simple answer. "therealthruth1914" obviously has a personal motive for critisizing anyone who suggests The New World translation as an accurate translation. Very similar mentality to the people who actually found fault with the greatest man who ever lived, Jesus Christ. Obviously, they eventually put him to death because they could not silence the truth that he was speaking that did not fit in with their false doctrines. People like that and "therealtruth1914" prove that no matter how obvious the proof and truth is staring some people in the face, they will still deny it. 2 Cor. 4:1-6 "...If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through..."
Texasescimo Sep, 08 2009 at 10:08 AM
BibleReader, I believe he is right about the the Jeopardy thingy. Jason BeDuhn is not a JW and likely would not have his credentials questioned had he not supported the NWT. I am prety sure that is why he gets the attacks such as being accused of being "self-proclaimed devil worshiper" with no links.
Add an Answer Which Bible is the most accurate translation of the original text? How to write a good answerYour answer:
Important: Answerbag cannot guarantee the accuracy of answers submitted by members, and we recommend that you use common sense when following any advice found here. Read full disclaimer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
