What do JWs know?

[2ndpillar2]

I just had two JWs come to my house. They said that they do not believe in the Trinity, yet they were quoting from a bible whose canon was produced by Athanasius in 367 A.D., the same guy who was the main proponent of the Trinity doctrine at Constantine's Council of Nicaea. They apparently did not know that Athanasius produced the canon they used, and that he proposed doctrine which is opposite of what they believe. Is this a one off, or is lack of historical context part of the JWs normal routine? They gave their quote of the day, Rev 21:4, without context, and didn't know that Rev 22:15 applied to the same Jerusalem, and that those "who practice lying" would not "enter". As soon as I told them, they turned and walked quickly away. The second time in around so many weeks, that JWs came, and quickly walked away when confronted with their inconsistencies.

[JehovahsWitness]

So, this is online statement is wrong?
Yes, "NWT" (New World Translation) is considered a "word-for-word" translation, meaning it aims to translate each word from the original language as directly as possible into the target language, often preserving the original sentence structure, making it a very literal translation of the Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+nwt+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

The above statement is NOT one made by the Watchtower Translation Committee.

Is it nonetheless accurate ? Possibly; at least regarding how others view our translation. Jehovah's Witnesses have no control over how the NWT is quote "considered " by non-Witness, and some may indeed considered the NWT "word-for-word" translation, whether it is or not.

The 1984 Reference Bible published by JW which is refered to by the publishers as being as literal "as possible" makes the following statement ...

There have been occasional departures from the literal text, for the purpose of conveying in understandable terms the difficult Hebrew or Greek idioms. However, in the reference edition of the New World Translation, these have been called to the reader’s attention by means of footnotes that give the literal rendering.

In the years leading up to the release of The REVISED New World translation of 2013 NWT ( the main version currently used by JWs ) The Watchtower society has recognised the limitations of "word by word" translations. Note the following

• Since no language exactly mirrors the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, a word-for-word translation of the Bible would be unclear or might even convey the wrong meaning. - The Watchtower May 1, 2008 p. 19

The above statement was later to become part of the forward in the current 2013 REVISED NWT which reads in part

As stated in the foreword to the original English edition of the New World Translation: “We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.” Thus, the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought. ...

Source : https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/stu ... anslation/

CONCLUSION : Is the NWT a strictly "word for word" translation ? No. Does it try and stay as close to the original as possible ? Yes. Will it add, omit or rearrange words in the target language in order to maintain clarity and integrity of thought ? Absolutely yes.




RELATED POSTS


RELATED POSTS

Who is "the true God " refered to at 1 John 5:20(b)?
viewtopic.php?p=1164982#p1164982

Why is the Greek houtos not rendered literally as ‘this one’? in the NWT
viewtopic.php?p=1165012#p1165012

Is the NWT a strictly word for word literal translation ?
viewtopic.php?p=1165020#p1165020

[JehovahsWitness]

NOTE :


The 2013 REVISED NWT contains the following information

Other features of this revision:
This Bible edition contains a limited number of footnotes. The footnotes generally fall into the following categories:

“Or” Alternative ways the text could be rendered from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek that would give the same overall idea.—Genesis 1:2, footnote on “active force”; Joshua 1:8, “undertone.”

“Or possibly” Alternative ways the text could be rendered that would convey a valid yet different overall idea.—Genesis 21:6, “laugh with me”; Zechariah 14:21, “Canaanite.”

“Lit.” A word-for-word translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek or the basic meaning of an original-language expression.—Genesis 30:22, “pregnant”; Exodus 32:9, “obstinate.” ...


source: A2 - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070202

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and...BEST TRANSLATION

[Capbook]

NOTE :


The 2013 REVISED NWT contains the following information

Other features of this revision:
This Bible edition contains a limited number of footnotes. The footnotes generally fall into the following categories:

“Or” Alternative ways the text could be rendered from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek that would give the same overall idea.—Genesis 1:2, footnote on “active force”; Joshua 1:8, “undertone.”

“Or possibly” Alternative ways the text could be rendered that would convey a valid yet different overall idea.—Genesis 21:6, “laugh with me”; Zechariah 14:21, “Canaanite.”

“Lit.” A word-for-word translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek or the basic meaning of an original-language expression.—Genesis 30:22, “pregnant”; Exodus 32:9, “obstinate.” ...


source: A2 - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070202

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and...BEST TRANSLATION

As NWT not a word for word translation, I believe it does not have the Strong Numbers of every word, and definition of every Bible words by Bible lexicographers.
And by using lexicons to study the Bible can be helpful because it can help us understand the meaning of words, their history, and how they are used in different contexts.

[onewithhim]

NOTE :


The 2013 REVISED NWT contains the following information

Other features of this revision:
This Bible edition contains a limited number of footnotes. The footnotes generally fall into the following categories:

“Or” Alternative ways the text could be rendered from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek that would give the same overall idea.—Genesis 1:2, footnote on “active force”; Joshua 1:8, “undertone.”

“Or possibly” Alternative ways the text could be rendered that would convey a valid yet different overall idea.—Genesis 21:6, “laugh with me”; Zechariah 14:21, “Canaanite.”

“Lit.” A word-for-word translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek or the basic meaning of an original-language expression.—Genesis 30:22, “pregnant”; Exodus 32:9, “obstinate.” ...


source: A2 - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070202

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and...BEST TRANSLATION

As NWT not a word for word translation, I believe it does not have the Strong Numbers of every word, and definition of every Bible words by Bible lexicographers.
And by using lexicons to study the Bible can be helpful because it can help us understand the meaning of words, their history, and how they are used in different contexts.

And you get all of their theological bias.

The better thing to do is deeply study the Bible itself, comparing various versions and seeing what other Bible instructors, professors, and educators have to say. You have one source---Thayer---and will never get beyond his own personal bias.

[Capbook]

NOTE :


The 2013 REVISED NWT contains the following information

Other features of this revision:
This Bible edition contains a limited number of footnotes. The footnotes generally fall into the following categories:

“Or” Alternative ways the text could be rendered from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek that would give the same overall idea.—Genesis 1:2, footnote on “active force”; Joshua 1:8, “undertone.”

“Or possibly” Alternative ways the text could be rendered that would convey a valid yet different overall idea.—Genesis 21:6, “laugh with me”; Zechariah 14:21, “Canaanite.”

“Lit.” A word-for-word translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek or the basic meaning of an original-language expression.—Genesis 30:22, “pregnant”; Exodus 32:9, “obstinate.” ...


source: A2 - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070202

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and...BEST TRANSLATION

As NWT not a word for word translation, I believe it does not have the Strong Numbers of every word, and definition of every Bible words by Bible lexicographers.
And by using lexicons to study the Bible can be helpful because it can help us understand the meaning of words, their history, and how they are used in different contexts.

And you get all of their theological bias.

The better thing to do is deeply study the Bible itself, comparing various versions and seeing what other Bible instructors, professors, and educators have to say. You have one source---Thayer---and will never get beyond his own personal bias.

I think theological bias translations are just few, who are with NWT in John 1:1?
There are many credentialed Bible lexicographers that could help us understand the meaning of words.
I just won't believe that your teachers when you were in schools studying doesn't teach you to visit Webster Dictionaries.
But I would prefer interpreting Bible text by another Bible text, minimizing man's contribution and with lexicon assistance.

[onewithhim]

NOTE :


The 2013 REVISED NWT contains the following information

Other features of this revision:
This Bible edition contains a limited number of footnotes. The footnotes generally fall into the following categories:

“Or” Alternative ways the text could be rendered from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek that would give the same overall idea.—Genesis 1:2, footnote on “active force”; Joshua 1:8, “undertone.”

“Or possibly” Alternative ways the text could be rendered that would convey a valid yet different overall idea.—Genesis 21:6, “laugh with me”; Zechariah 14:21, “Canaanite.”

“Lit.” A word-for-word translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek or the basic meaning of an original-language expression.—Genesis 30:22, “pregnant”; Exodus 32:9, “obstinate.” ...


source: A2 - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070202

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and...BEST TRANSLATION

As NWT not a word for word translation, I believe it does not have the Strong Numbers of every word, and definition of every Bible words by Bible lexicographers.
And by using lexicons to study the Bible can be helpful because it can help us understand the meaning of words, their history, and how they are used in different contexts.

And you get all of their theological bias.

The better thing to do is deeply study the Bible itself, comparing various versions and seeing what other Bible instructors, professors, and educators have to say. You have one source---Thayer---and will never get beyond his own personal bias.

I think theological bias translations are just few, who are with NWT in John 1:1?
There are many credentialed Bible lexicographers that could help us understand the meaning of words.
I just won't believe that your teachers when you were in schools studying doesn't teach you to visit Webster Dictionaries.
But I would prefer interpreting Bible text by another Bible text, minimizing man's contribution and with lexicon assistance.

The lexicon assistance is ALL man's contribution. Try reasoning yourself. (The NWT is not alone in translating John 1:1 as "the Word was a god." There are many, and they have been listed before.)

[Capbook]

NOTE :


The 2013 REVISED NWT contains the following information

Other features of this revision:
This Bible edition contains a limited number of footnotes. The footnotes generally fall into the following categories:

“Or” Alternative ways the text could be rendered from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek that would give the same overall idea.—Genesis 1:2, footnote on “active force”; Joshua 1:8, “undertone.”

“Or possibly” Alternative ways the text could be rendered that would convey a valid yet different overall idea.—Genesis 21:6, “laugh with me”; Zechariah 14:21, “Canaanite.”

“Lit.” A word-for-word translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek or the basic meaning of an original-language expression.—Genesis 30:22, “pregnant”; Exodus 32:9, “obstinate.” ...


source: A2 - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070202

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and...BEST TRANSLATION

As NWT not a word for word translation, I believe it does not have the Strong Numbers of every word, and definition of every Bible words by Bible lexicographers.
And by using lexicons to study the Bible can be helpful because it can help us understand the meaning of words, their history, and how they are used in different contexts.

And you get all of their theological bias.

The better thing to do is deeply study the Bible itself, comparing various versions and seeing what other Bible instructors, professors, and educators have to say. You have one source---Thayer---and will never get beyond his own personal bias.

I think theological bias translations are just few, who are with NWT in John 1:1?
There are many credentialed Bible lexicographers that could help us understand the meaning of words.
I just won't believe that your teachers when you were in schools studying doesn't teach you to visit Webster Dictionaries.
But I would prefer interpreting Bible text by another Bible text, minimizing man's contribution and with lexicon assistance.

The lexicon assistance is ALL man's contribution. Try reasoning yourself. (The NWT is not alone in translating John 1:1 as "the Word was a god." There are many, and they have been listed before.)

My main process is Bible tex by Bible text, and assistance from lexicon, compare to those mainly from GB, no dictionaries, own man's finite mind study.
Yes, you have NWT and few, KJV who followed Latin Vulgate, Textus Receptus and Complutensian Polyglot translates John 1:1 as "the Word was God".
And some English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+en ... e&ie=UTF-8

[onewithhim]

NOTE :


The 2013 REVISED NWT contains the following information

Other features of this revision:
This Bible edition contains a limited number of footnotes. The footnotes generally fall into the following categories:

“Or” Alternative ways the text could be rendered from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek that would give the same overall idea.—Genesis 1:2, footnote on “active force”; Joshua 1:8, “undertone.”

“Or possibly” Alternative ways the text could be rendered that would convey a valid yet different overall idea.—Genesis 21:6, “laugh with me”; Zechariah 14:21, “Canaanite.”

“Lit.” A word-for-word translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek or the basic meaning of an original-language expression.—Genesis 30:22, “pregnant”; Exodus 32:9, “obstinate.” ...


source: A2 - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070202

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and...BEST TRANSLATION

As NWT not a word for word translation, I believe it does not have the Strong Numbers of every word, and definition of every Bible words by Bible lexicographers.
And by using lexicons to study the Bible can be helpful because it can help us understand the meaning of words, their history, and how they are used in different contexts.

And you get all of their theological bias.

The better thing to do is deeply study the Bible itself, comparing various versions and seeing what other Bible instructors, professors, and educators have to say. You have one source---Thayer---and will never get beyond his own personal bias.

I think theological bias translations are just few, who are with NWT in John 1:1?
There are many credentialed Bible lexicographers that could help us understand the meaning of words.
I just won't believe that your teachers when you were in schools studying doesn't teach you to visit Webster Dictionaries.
But I would prefer interpreting Bible text by another Bible text, minimizing man's contribution and with lexicon assistance.

The lexicon assistance is ALL man's contribution. Try reasoning yourself. (The NWT is not alone in translating John 1:1 as "the Word was a god." There are many, and they have been listed before.)

My main process is Bible tex by Bible text, and assistance from lexicon, compare to those mainly from GB, no dictionaries, own man's finite mind study.
Yes, you have NWT and few, KJV who followed Latin Vulgate, Textus Receptus and Complutensian Polyglot translates John 1:1 as "the Word was God".
And some English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+en ... e&ie=UTF-8

I use dictionaries all the time. It's odd that you should make the claim that I don't use any other material besides JW literature. The Bible encourages us to do our "finite mind study." We are like the Beroeans at Acts 17:11 who "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (KJV) It looks to me like they used only the Scriptures to figure out what was true.

[servant1]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #1]


God made his bible. Only the mislead believe otherwise and claim otherwise.

[onewithhim]

So, this is online statement is wrong?
Yes, "NWT" (New World Translation) is considered a "word-for-word" translation, meaning it aims to translate each word from the original language as directly as possible into the target language, often preserving the original sentence structure, making it a very literal translation of the Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+nwt+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

The above statement is NOT one made by the Watchtower Translation Committee.

Is it nonetheless accurate ? Possibly; at least regarding how others view our translation. Jehovah's Witnesses have no control over how the NWT is quote "considered " by non-Witness, and some may indeed considered the NWT "word-for-word" translation, whether it is or not.

The 1984 Reference Bible published by JW which is refered to by the publishers as being as literal "as possible" makes the following statement ...

There have been occasional departures from the literal text, for the purpose of conveying in understandable terms the difficult Hebrew or Greek idioms. However, in the reference edition of the New World Translation, these have been called to the reader’s attention by means of footnotes that give the literal rendering.

In the years leading up to the release of The REVISED New World translation of 2013 NWT ( the main version currently used by JWs ) The Watchtower society has recognised the limitations of "word by word" translations. Note the following

• Since no language exactly mirrors the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, a word-for-word translation of the Bible would be unclear or might even convey the wrong meaning. - The Watchtower May 1, 2008 p. 19

The above statement was later to become part of the forward in the current 2013 REVISED NWT which reads in part

As stated in the foreword to the original English edition of the New World Translation: “We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.” Thus, the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought. ...

Source : https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/stu ... anslation/

CONCLUSION : Is the NWT a strictly "word for word" translation ? No. Does it try and stay as close to the original as possible ? Yes. Will it add, omit or rearrange words in the target language in order to maintain clarity and integrity of thought ? Absolutely yes.

Your conclusion couldn't be any better. You know, I don't think there are actually ANY versions that translate word-for-word. Most do what you said above. Perhaps the only word-for-word version that I have seen is the Interlinear Bible.