These are emails that I've received about the New World Translation from people who for some strange reason just don't like that Bible. Enjoy.
Emerson: It doesn't import me what will say. It matters it is the truth. NWT is a confused translation and full of interpolations.
Reply: No, it is no more full of interpolations than any other Bible, and even less so for Bibles that use the Dynamic Equivalent approach to Bible translating.
S777: It doesn't take long for someone reading the WT Bible to realize that it is very wooden, wordy, graceless, stiff, awkward, unwieldy, dull, unfortunate and odd. Things like the word "grace" being translated as "undeserved kindness" are a bit weighty at first, but it is still being true to the text. The question is, is it a translation that maintains the beauty of the Bible, or is it devoid of the beauty that has been captured and inspired by God?
Starting off in Genesis, we find that the NWT uses the term "bad" as opposed to "evil."
Gen 2:17 "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it."
Bad can mean many things. Someone can have a bad back. In can be meant as ïincorrectÍ. The room you live in could have bad lighting. An untrained puppy is a "bad puppy." Satan rebelling against God and causing death and pain and the fall of 20 or 30 billion souls is none other than "EVIL." Hitler was not bad for killing 10 million people, he was evil. You get the point? You may say this is nit picking, but stick with me for a moment.
Reply: The problem with this is, the fruit was not meant for Satan, and the prohibition put on the tree was not directed towards spirit creatures such as Satan, but mere humans. Yes, the word "bad" can also mean a "bad puppy" or "bad lighting," but it is used in the context of Genesis 2 as the antithesis to "good." Good knowledge as opposed to bad knowledge. Ask anyone what the opposite of good is, and you will get "bad" as an answer, before you get "evil."
Evil might have a better ring to it, but the Hebrew and Greek (LXX) words used indicate that it has "bad" as a meaning before "evil." (See BAGD, BDB, Strong's, Vine's etc)
The word "bad" is also used in the Living Bible, The Holy Bible in the Language of Today by William F. Beck, Tanakh-The New Jewish Publication Society, The New American Bible, Good News Bible, and Byington's Bible in Living English.
SS777: Judges 14:3 is a passage where Samson spots a lovely Philistine woman and says to his parents enthusiastically Her get for me(NWT). ...
The Bible is filled with beautiful literature, even atheists can admire its poise and gracefulness. The Psalms overflow with the exhortations to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. It seems the NWT has taken the beauty out of the Bible, and even the word itself. [Ed. Judges 14:3 in the NWT actually says "Still Samson said to his father: 'Get just her for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes.'"]
Reply: If you want beauty, then read the Revised English Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible, if you want word study, then choose the NWT.
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn *the Hebrew or Greek* languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible Translations
and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, Duthie
For instance, in Judges 14:3, most Bibles will remove the references to "eyes." The Hebrew Interlinear (Jay P. Green) reads, "for she is pleasing in my eyes."
But what do most Bibles say?
"for she pleaseth me well" ASV, KJV
"pleases me very much" LITV
"she is the one that suits me" Smith & Goodspeed
"she looks good to me" NASB
If you are fortunate to have the NASB Study Bible, it gives the literal rendering in the margin...and it reads exactly like it is in the NWT, and THAT is the value of having the NWT.
From a reader in ALL CAPS: IN JOHN 3:15-16 VS 15 TRANSLATES THE BELIEVING TO BELEIVING, BUT IN VS. 16 THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED TO "EXCERISING FAITH" PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS.
Reply: The NWT was making a distinction between PISTEUWN EN in verse 15, and PISTEUWN EIS in verse 16. The expression in verse 16 is continual.
Again: IN ROMANS 5:9 THE GREEK "WE WILL BE SAVED" IS TRANSLATED TO "SHALL WE BE SAVED" IN VS 10 THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED THE SAME ON BOTH SIDE. PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Reply: The translators were probably making a distinction between SWQHSOMEQA DI in verse 9 ("we shall be saved" CB Williams NT) and SWGHSOMEQA EN in ver 10 ("we shall finally be saved" CB Williams NT) as Williams NT has.
Again: 1 JOHN 3:24 WHY WAS THE "WE ARE KNOWING" CHANGED TO "GAIN THE KNOWLEDGE".
Reply: Vine's dictionary gives as the primary definition of GINWSKW as "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know." The NWT translators felt the above was the best option as the Greek word is in the first person present.
Again: LUKE 17:19 THE FAITH OF YOU HAS SAVED YOU, CHANGED TO "HAS MADE YOU WELL. PLEASE EXPLAIN
Reply: This is actually the common rendering of the text (see NASB, NKJV etc).
This falls within the semantic range (see Louw&Nida 23.136) and we have to remember that it is not always the best idea to translate word for word, as we must find the best way to express it so that people can properly understand the meaning behind it.
Again: IN JOHN 14:10 WHY IS THE WORD"IN" (EV) TRANSLATED TO "IN UNION" IN ENGLISH?
Reply: They felt that "in union with" best describes what is trying to be said. The Revised English Bible and CB Williams New Testament does this also at John 14:10.
"Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and that the Father is in union with me? I am not saying these things of my own authority, but the Father who always remains in union with me is doing these things himself." Williams NT
See also Romans 6:23; 8:1; 8:2; 12:5 and many others in the Good News Bible.
From an email: Here are some verses with my translations and understanding that support the Trinity 1Cor. 12:4-6, 2Cor. 13:14, 2Th. 2:13.
Reply: Sir, simply mentioning the three together does not have them share a substance, essence or ousia, or in any way imply an equality shared in one body.
Did you notice that all your scriptures actually apply the word GOD to only one of them. When the three are together, only one is actually God, and that excludes the Son and the Spirit. Interesting. There are a lot more Scriptures that mention God, Jesus and the angels together.
From a Reader Regarding Jesus as Michael:
In Hebrews 1; 5 it reads For example; to which one of the angels did he ever say: "you are my son;I today, I have become your Father". Objection 1) the word (one) is not in many translations only on the NWT. Objection 2) the words (did I ever say) is a question that is being answered at the sametime. It is in the negative as in(no I did not).
Reply: My versions seem to be split as whether "angels" should be rendered in the plural or the singular. Consider:
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time" KJV, Barclay
"For to what angel did God ever say" Williams NT, Montgomery, Smith&Goodspeed
"to any of the messengers" Ferrar Fenton
"an angel" New English Bible, Simple English Bible
As for 2)
An Archangel is no mere angel.
Jesus has always been set apart from one of the angels. For instance, the angels are called "sons of God" (Gen 6; Job 38:7), but yet, Jesus is called the:
"only Son" RSV
"only-begotten Son" KJV, NWT and
"one and only Son" NIV at John 3:16
The same, yet different/unique.
MP asks: Have you thought that the Greek grammar allows for the word WORSHIP at Hebrews 1:6?
Reply: Greek grammar does allow for the word "Worship", but in the sense that it is used in the following:
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV
From a reader: I have to disagree with your chart on Colwell and Bible Versions. Colwell would never have promoted a New Testament that uses the Divine Name.
See http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-new-world-translation-is-best-new.html
Reply: The use of the Divine Name was not part of Colwell's criteria. He chose the Centenary New Testament as one of his picks, and yet it had the Divine Name.
Dby: I have a question that maybe you can answer for me. When Jesus Christ was teaching his followers how to pray, why did he not use the name Jehovah in "The Model Prayer"? In Matt.6:19(The Living Bible)he says,"Our Father in heaven,we honor your holy name".
If it is SO IMPORTANT that we use the name Jehovah in our worship, then why didn't Jesus Christ our Lord specifically use the the name Jehovah when instructing his disciples how to pray to God The Almighty???
Reply: Who says he didn't? I mean, let's face it, when is this prayer ever repeated in the New Testament. It simply teaches us what things to pray for, but it was never repeated in exactly the same way. My MacArthur Study links the Model Prayer to Malachi 1:11 which says in the American Standard Version:
"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts."
I think his disciples caught the tie-in.
Dby: I personally feel more comfortable addressing God as "Heavenly Father" when praying. I feel this way because I want to have a "parent to child" kind of close relationship with God.
Reply: But what is more important? How you FEEL, or what the Bible says?
Father is quite an interchangeable title. Consider John 8. The Jews said Abraham was
their Father (v. 39), then they said God is their Father (v. 41) and then Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44).
Personally, and Biblically, I could never dishonor my Father by NOT using His name.
"A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised the name?" Malachi 1:6 ASV
From Hrh: Just a few questions. First,why are there 2 greek translation books? [I am assuming he is talking about the Kingdom Interlinear] The 1969 and the 1985 version,and why are they different? why are words added in brackets when there are greek words that could have been used? Why have some footnotes have been removed or changed from 1969 to 1985? Why is it not a word for word translation? [like it says in front of both books]
Reply: I own many interlinears in Greek made by different Bible societies and people. You will find that none of them agree together 100% (even the ones made by the same people in multiple editions...like Jay P. Green's Greek Interlinear). We all grow in understanding. Case in point: You will also find that the older New World Translations differ slightly from the newer ones. But you will also find that this is the case with the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, TEV etc. It is common, and does not indicate a devious agenda. The intent of both the KIT and NWT is to be "as literal as possible."
From an Email: The New World Translation used to have the word "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, but in later editions, it changed it to "obeisance." I can show you if you don't believe me. What do you think of that?
Reply: I know that it was changed. We are not alone in this. The Jerusalem Bible had "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, but the New Jerusalem Bible changed it to "homage." No one is going to call these translators biased against the Trinity. So why the change? Many years ago, the word *worship* did not have the same connotation as it does today. For instance, the bible could speak of Daniel and King David as being worshipped:
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV
All Bible versions make a distinction with this word, as it is lexically possible to do so (see Matt 18:26). According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man (Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon (Re. 13:4)...to the Beast (Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast (Rev 14:11)...to demons (Rev 9:20)...to idols (Acts 7:43)."
AOC writes: The NWT (New World Translation) translates EGW EIMI as I AM each time, except at John 8:58. How do you explain that?
Reply: Is this really exceptional? Let us look at the use of EGW EIMI in context:
| Version | John 8:12 | John 8:18 | John 8:24 | John 8:28 | John 8:58 | John 9:9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NWT | I am | I am | I am [he] | I am [he] | I have been | I am [he] |
| AT | I am | I am | I am | I am | I existed | I am |
| New Living Trans | I am | I am | I am | I am [he] | I existed | I am |
| Williams | I am | N/A | I am | I am | I existed | I am |
| Beck | I am | N/A | I'm | I am | I was | I'm |
| Lamsa | I am | N/A | I am | I am he | I was | I am he |
| Simple English | I am | I am | I am | I am | I was alive | I'm |
| Moffatt | I am | N/A | I am | I am | I have existed | I am |
| NASB Reference
Edition 1960-73 |
I am | I am | I am He | I am He | I am...
ftn: I have been |
I am |
| Five Gospels | I am | N/A | I am | I am | I existed | It's me |
| Living Bible | I am | I am | I am | I am | I was in existence | I am |
| Kleist&Lilly NT | I am | I am | I am he | I am he | I am here and I was | I am |
| 20th Century NT | I am | N/A | I am | I am | I was | I am he |
| 21st Century NT | I am | I am | I am | I am | came into being | I am |
As you can see, the NWT is not alone in this. If we simply look up the words in Strong's, we get "I" for ego [1473], and "I exist...am, have been." Notice too that the chart points to John 9:9 where a blind beggar says the same words, egw eimi, as Jesus did in John 8:58. Does this also make him YHWH?
AOC on John 14:28: [He is] Greater in terms of position only...Is the president greater then I am? Yes, but only in position (such as his rank), but on a substance and essence level, he is not. We are equal, in terms of form, and substance, and essence, just as Christ and God are.
Reply: Think about the Creed:
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father"
Are you ONE BEING with the president? Are you president from president? Are you son of the president?
You do not share a substance/essence with the president according to Trinitarian theology. You are not homoousian with him, and therefore you are comparing apples to oranges.
The president is greater than you because you are TWO different people, seperate and subordinate. TWO, not ONE in TWO.
Cs: Micah 5:2 says that Jesus always existed.
Reply: The New Jerusalem Bible has "whose origins are back to the distant past, to the days of old." My Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says it of OLAM (5769) "long duration, antiquity" The word is even used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8).
Cs: Taken together (qedem AND yown owlam) these communicate, as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say, "the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable" Renowned Old Testament scholar Merrill F. Unger, commenting on Micah 5:2 in Unger's Bible Handbook says, "He [Jesus] is the Bethlehem-born pre-existent, eternal One"
Reply: Obviously, many other Bible versions do not agree with this. The fact that the Bible says he is the first being created would obviously indicate that he is older than anything else, thus necessitating the stress at Mic 5:2. In Prov 8:23, the 2 words are used again of Jesus/Wisdom, right after the scripture says he was created. The same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist could remember qedem AND olam (ps 77:5).
To Jehovah, OLAM and QEDEM are consistent with the time of Rahab and Creation, "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Jehovah; awake, as in the days of old [QEDEM], the generations of ancient times [OLAM]. Is it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the monster? Is it not thou that driedst up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that madest the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? Is 51:9, 10 ASV
It does not have to mean eternity.
MTP writes: It seems to me that you twist the words in some of the quotes that you use in your website. You are correct in saying that the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible. However, neither does the word Bible and, yet, no one ever seems to attack its name.
Reply: Actually, that's not true. The equivalent word "scriptures" is in the Bible, and has been translated as *Bible* by various translators such as Beck (Matt 21:42) and the Living Bible (2Tim 3:16). We have no equivalent for the word or concept of the Trinity. It is simply not in the Bible, period.
GCM on Monogenes Theos: This gets very confusing to me when we are told that "begetting" someone denotes a physical act. This makes it sound as if God came around a got a young teenaged girl pregnant. Certainly, this would be a corrupt interpretation of the scripture.
Reply: Biblically, begetting does not denote a physical act, and I don't know anyone besides you who thinks that.
Matt 1:2: "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram etc etc etc" ASV. None of these men gave birth to their sons.
Begetting denotes a filial relationship, like the one between Father and Son.
GCM with his spelling errors: I appreciate your response. Using this reference in your reply, a man cannot beget a child without the agency of a woman. Yes, Abraham did beget Isaac. He needed Sarah to do that. Your response substaniate the fact that begetting is physical. These were physical people, made by sperm and ovum. My purpose was to only point out why I thought the word Unique is a better translation. The superimposing of our beliefs, fears, and predjudices on the word of God is the evil that seperates.
Reply: If we look at the parallel genealogy in Luke 3, we see something interesting in verse 38:
"the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
Again, the Bible does not look upon "begetting" or the parallel "the son of" as having to include a woman, as God did not need a woman to produce his son, Adam. Adam's birth then, is also *unique.* By robbing the text of "begotten" in place of unique, though, removes the filial father/son relationship that is important to the theology of the Greek scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment