James Melton's web page is at https://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/jw.html
James L. Melton: It (the New World Translation) changes Zechariah 12:10 to read, ". . . they will certainly look to the one whom they pierced. . . ."
Reply: The King James Version and the ASV have here: "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced"
The objection is that the word "me" is not used, but many other Bibles and Bible Resources do not use the word "me" here either, such as Moffatt, Smith & Goodspeed, The Bible in Living English, The Revised Standard Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The New American Bible, The Jerusalem Bible & NJB, The Good News Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The Contemporary English Version, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press), F.F. Bruce (see his History of the Bible in English, p. 199, 200), and the editor of the New Interpreters Bible (see vol. 7, p. 828).
Additionally, the Apostle John when quoting Zech. 12:10 at John 19:37 also does NOT use the word "me."
James L. Melton: John 1:1 in the N.W.T. says that "the Word was a god," instead of "the Word was God." The definite article "the" is replaced with "a," and the capital "G" is replaced with a lower case "g."
Reply: I'm scratching my head here. John 1:1c reads in Greek: kai theos en ho logos. "Ho" is the definite article and it is used before logos, hence "THE word). The definite article is NOT used for god (theos). God here is anarthrous (it lacks the article) which can make it indefinite (a god) or qualitative (divine). We have something similar John 4:19, "The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet." This makes the New World Translation a superior translation at John 1:1.
Also, the original Greek does not use capitalization, so capital "G's" and lower case "g's" are left to the translators' whim.
James L. Melton: The last half of 1 John 5:7 is omitted in the N.W.T., because it says that the Father, the Word (which is Christ in John 1:14), and the Holy Ghost "are one."
Reply: As Mr. Melton knows, most Bibles do not have these words. This is the most famous corruption/interpolation of the Biblical text there is. Even before the days of the original King James Bible, Mr. Melton's preferred Bible, people knew these words were inserted. For instance, below we have an image of Miles Coverdale's text of 1 John 5:7,8 published in 1535. You will notice that the words in question are bracketed off from the rest of the text. This is done to show that these words are not part of the original text.
"If there is one thing that is certain in textual criticism, it is that this famous passage is not genuine." Cambridge Bible
"It is generally agreed that 1Jn_5:7 has no real authority, and has been inserted." C.I. Scofield
"But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin." Adam Clarke
James L. Melton: The Virgin Birth is attacked in Isaiah 7:14 of the N.W.T. by translating "maiden," instead of "virgin," even though Matthew 1:23 TOLD THEM that it should read "virgin!"
Reply: The Bible dictionaries that I have consulted list not only VIRGIN as a definition of the Hebrew word ALMAH, but also "young woman," "damsel," and "maid/maiden" as well. This is why other Bibles have translated Isaiah 7:14 similarly:
"For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel." Bible in Basic English
"Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.'" Good News Bible
"The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel." New Jerusalem Bible
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el." Revised Standard Version
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." New Revised Standard Version
"Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel." Revised English Bible
Even your own KJV Bible translates ALMAH as "maid" at Exodus 2:8, Proverbs 30:19 and "damsel" at Psalm 68:25.
James L. Melton: They change "from everlasting" in Micah 5:2 to read, "time indefinite," which is not the same at all.
Reply: My Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says it of OLAM at Micah 5:2 (5769) "long duration, antiquity" It is even used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8).
"And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods." Joshua 24:2
"The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence." Jeremiah 28:8
For this reason many translations render this verse differently than "from everlasting":
"whose origins go back to the distant past, to the days of old." New Jerusalem Bible
"someone whose family goes back to ancient times." Contemporary English Version
"whose family line goes back to ancient times." Good News Bible
"His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago." God's Word
"whose comings forth, have been from of old, from the days of age-past time." Rotherham
"his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity." YLT
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." Revised Standard Version
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" New International Version and English Standard
Version
"one whose origins are from the distant past." New Living Translation
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient times." New American Bible
"whose roots are back in the past, in days gone by." New English Bible
James L. Melton: John 8:58 is where Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I am." This matches God's statement to Moses in Exodus 3:14, meaning that Christ is God. However, the N.W.T. says, "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." This destroys the valuable cross reference to Exodus 3:14.
Reply: What's more important? Conserving a "valuable cross-reference" or translating a passage properly? Did you know that the early church fathers did not make any connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58? The Greek versions they used were akin to Aquila’s and Theodotion’s where it reads “esomai hos esomia.” When translated, this reads “I will be what who I will be.” This is just like the TRUE reading at Exodus 3:14. If you check the footnotes in most mainstream Bibles, like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, NEB etc, you will see that this is the case. But why is this the true reading. Well 2 verses before the same Hebrew word (EHYEH) is used, it is there universally translated “I WILL BE.” Actually, for a translation of the Hebrew to be “I AM THAT I AM” would require the original Hebrew to read “ANI ASHER ANI”, a reading that we do not have at this verse. It should also be noted that, in the Septuagint at Exodus 3:14, God is identified as the “ho on”, THE BEING, not the I AM. Yet, this is not carried forth in John 8:58. Also, to translate John 8:58 at "Before Abraham was born, I am" is simply bad English. Smith & Goodspeed's An American Translation translates it best as "I existed before Abraham was born" and many other Bible versions have followed suit.
James L. Melton: In John 9:38, Matthew 14:33, and Luke 24:52, the [translators] have replaced the word "worshipped" with the words "did obeisance," which is not the same (See Gen. 37:7, 43:28; Exodus 18:7; 2 Sam. 1:2; 2 Chr. 24:17).
Reply: Simply go to http://biblehub.com/greek/4352.htm and you will see that "obeisance" is a definition of PROSKUNEO. In fact, Vine's Expository Edition of Old and New Testament words gives “to make obeisance" as the primary definition.
"and he said, 'I believe, sir,' and bowed before him." John 9:38 Young's Literal Version
"But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God's Son." Matthew 14:33 John Darby Bible
Interestingly, many Bibles (and Greek mss) omit the part about "having done him homage" (Darby) at Luke 24:52
metatron3@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment