Talk:New World Translation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

"and where such would not conflict with their beliefs"?

I didn't see the reference work cited to back this statement up. If it means what I think it means, it would be easily disproved with one or more scriptural references from the NWT. Jason

What did you think it means? Regarding the example I've cited twice in edit summaries, search Yahoo for "new world translation jesus worship" and read all about it. In short, they translate the Greek word "proskuneo" as "worship" when it's used in reference to pretty much any and every thing else in the Bible besides Jesus, but not when it's applied to Jesus, since worshipping Jesus would go against their beliefs. In fact, even older versions of the New World Translation apparently translated it as "worship" in at least some of these places, while later versions were changed to "obeisance."Tommstein 07:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The point being, it is your point of view, and you can get that point of view informed with actual facts here: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/proskyneo_worship.htm Duffer 06:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And the point of view of the eight non-Witness sources I inserted in the article, with actual non-Witness facts that the entire rest of the world outside of your tiny minority accepts.Tommstein 16:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's seven sources, not eight, technically. And their position(s) are relative to their belief system(s) as well, so it's simply a different set of values. It's not unheard of to translate one Greek word into different similar English words, simply because Greek words contain so much more nuance and flavor than do our bland English words. We (native American-English speakers) understand that "worship" can be understood different ways, but we persist in using the same dumb words over and over, instead of expanding our vocabulary and palatte. More camels through needles' eyes, if you ask me. - CobaltBlueTony 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you know, they translated the NWT into several other languages beside english? The german "anbeten" is completly different to "huldigen" (and they changed it too in heb 1:6 from 1963 to 1971 edition).--Mini 11:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you know that the most current version is the 1984 edition? Regardless, the translation is still literal and accurate. Duffer 09:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You say that like anyone besides Jehovah's Witnesses, who get their information from the translation's publishers, believes it.Tommstein 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Had you read the link I provided you would see clear examples of several other bibles rendering "proskyneo" as "homage", "fell on his knees in front of him" (NIV), "bowed down" (REV), etc.. Besides, one instance of questionable (to you) rendering is most certainly NOT grounds to libel an entire translation as "written to affirm JW beliefs." See also: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/hebrews1.6.htm Duffer 23:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not questioned, that the meaning could equally be "homage" and "worship". The question: why does a "literal" translation uses both and (incidentally?) never "worship" in connection with jesus?--Mini 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about other translations, it is about this one; the specific sentence deals with where this translation uses a word-for-word equivalence. That the Greek context allows "proskuneo" to be translated as "worship" is a fact. This translation can translate it however it wants, but it's not Greek context forcing them to break their supposed word-for-word equivalence, it's their beliefs.Tommstein 06:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Greek ALSO allows for a literal translation to read as "do obeisance". Reasons for the NWT deviation in such instances are nothing more than your own conjecture, sourced or not. Again, this ONE instance of deviation (though it is still accurate, and literal) is NOT grounds to libel an entire translation as "written to affirm JW beliefs." You cannot say: "..and where such would not conflict with their beliefs". You can say, in another section, "the NWT strives to render each Greek word into one english word or phrase, and maintain that one word or phrase throughout the translation. Critics point to instances where they have deviated from this practice as alleged proof of bias; deviations that Witnesses claim are mandated by context. Such deviations include:.." The idea that you can libel an entire translation as "written to affirm JW doctrine" simply because of ONE instance of deviation is preposterous. Especially because that one "deviation" is still ACCURATE AND LITERAL! Duffer 08:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you just wrote an entire paragraph shooting down straw man arguments that you yourself just made up is a concession that the actual arguments are unassailable.Tommstein 04:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Show me how any of that was a "straw man". Duffer 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

1. No one is talking about what "The Greek ALSO allows for a literal translation to read as."
2. "Libel an entire translation as 'written to affirm JW beliefs'" is something you just made up.
3. "The idea that you can libel an entire translation as 'written to affirm JW doctrine'" is again something you made up even when you say it a second time.
4. No one is talking about whether "that one 'deviation' is still ACCURATE AND LITERAL!"Tommstein 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

1. You specifically said: "..the Greek context allows "proskuneo" to be translated as "worship" is a fact." I was directly responding to your comment by showing a legitimate, literal, alternative to the greek proskuneo. You say it can be rendered as worship, I know that; I say it can be rendered as "do obeisance", you know that. Directly responding to your comments is not a "strawman", it's how a discussion properlly works.

2 & 3. My sentence: "..libel an entire translation as written to affirm JW beliefs'" is a summary of the edit itself. It is tantemount to: "..and where such would not conflict with their beliefs". That is libel of an entire translation. I didn't make that up, you're trying to libel an entire translation based on one instance of ACCURATE translation. Which leads to #4:

4. If no one is objecting to accuracy then why is it even an issue that I delete your libel?! Because we don't translate it the same when it refers to Jesus than in other instances of where it doesn't? So? That fact is not enough to prove: "..written to affirm JW beliefs" for the one instance in question let alone an entire bible. You would have to do the opposite for every other bible translation that does render proskuneo as "worship" when refering to Jesus and tell the group that predomitely reads that bible that it was written to affirm their beliefs (now that's a straw man, but still a very legitimate example of your prejudice, you'd say they didn't deviate from prior translations of 'proskuneo', I'd say they deviated from the context). Besides all of this, I have offered a possible way for you to have your criticisms that is actually in line with Wiki NPOV, posted above, but here it is again: "the NWT strives to render each Greek word into one english word or phrase, and maintain that one word or phrase throughout the translation. Critics point to instances where they have deviated from this practice as alleged proof of bias; deviations that Witnesses claim are mandated by context. Such deviations include:..". Duffer 04:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Saying that "the Greek context allows 'proskuneo' to be translated as 'worship'" has nothing to do with what "The Greek ALSO allows for a literal translation to read as." Repetition will not make it matter.
2. A double-quoted 'quote' is not a summary. Presenting relevant, documented facts that some editors wish were buried is not libel.
3. As a famous man once said, repetition is the key to learning: "No one is talking about whether 'that one "deviation" is still ACCURATE AND LITERAL!'." There's nothing "alleged" about the massively documented claim, and neither is it the only example.Tommstein 14:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course there is more than one example of such criticism, that's why it needs to be in a seperate section, with specifics of each criticism laid out. What you and Mini keep reverting to is libel, ambiguous, misleading, and in light of your (and Mini's) repeated reverts with NO attempt to compromise, deceitful. On top of this the edit that you added (Tomm) contains eight outside links to resources that all say the same thing (in clear violation of Wiki editing guidelines). Besides I have also provided documentation in support of my removal of your libel. If you're implying that i'm one of the "some editors" who wish to bury "documented fact", then I take offense as I am the only person in this edit dispute that has offered a compromise. Take my compromise and address specific criticisms, but both you and Mini need to stop your slanderous, innacurate, POV edits. Duffer 11:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Since apparently all you've got is the calling of documented, verifiable fact "libel" and a bunch of other stuff, I see no need to continue wasting my time arguing with you about this here. Maybe you think that if you throw in 40 pejoratives in one sentence they'll become true or something.Tommstein 20:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

All you have documented is a few possible inconsistencies in the NWT. That is NOT tantamount to: "..and where such would not conflict with their beliefs." That is libel of an entire translation which ambiguously infers the entire translation was translated in EVERY passage to affirm Jehovah's Witness theology. Besides, i've provided verifiable facts that support the NWT. Duffer 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, the opinions represented on the links previously inserted are opinions, interpretations of facts, not facts themselves. The statement "and where such would not conflict with their beliefs" cannot be supported with POV's. The facts presented are done so in a way that supports a POV, but not the NPOV Wikipedians should be aiming for. - CobaltBlueTony 16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Whip out an interlinear translation yourself and verify it then. This isn't something where we just have to take someone's word for it. That's the whole point of verifiable facts, that you can verify them.Tommstein 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you discount the facts that I have already presented? Not just the facts regarding the issue of proskuneo but also those that regard the objectivity of the article itself. (as a sidenote, when I said earlier that it was CBT I disagree with, I mispoke, I was refering to DTB (user:Dtbrown). I apologize for the confusion. Duffer 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You have not presented any facts that make the claim false. The aim of the article is not to paint a rosy picture of the subject and make sure that the reader comes away thinking the world of the subject. Presenting the verifiable truth about a feature of translation is not a lack of objectivity, it is a simple statement of verifiable fact, for the reader to decide on their own what importance they want to assign to it; the article doesn't even provide an opinion of said fact (and you can imagine that thoughts regarding the translation's trustworthiness in light of this fact could be inserted if someone really wanted to), it just presents it, along with references to enable the reader who doubts its veracity to verify it.Tommstein 21:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you just need some more examples? How about Acts 20:20 and 2:46 with the term "house-to-house" / "private homes"? According to the footnotes in the NWT both are correct - but for fun read "house-to-house" in acts 2:46. --Mini 08:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

..I'm adding this to mediation request. Duffer 08:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeremiah 29:10 is another scripture that has been selectively translated to support JW doctrines. Whereas most bible translations refer to 70 years "for Babylon" (consistent with Jeremiah 25:11,12), the NWT says "at Babylon". The Society here prefers the rendering of the King James Version over the renderings of almost all other translations that are consistent with Jeremiah 25, despite the Society's general view "that the King James Version has been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors" (The Watchtower 15 November, 1950)--Jeffro77 13:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Which doctrine do you feel this is attempting to affirm or deny? I do not see. Besides that, how does it relate to the fact that "and where such would no conflict with their beliefs" is libel that demands a look at each criticism? As for "prefer(ing) the rendering of the KJV": Douay-Rhiems, has "in"; Geneva, Bishops, Webster, KJV have "at"; Good News and God's Word has comperable: "When Babylon's 70 years are over"; and Young's Literal with "of". Duffer 18:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The doctrine in question is that the 70 years applied to a period "at" Babylon starting in 607 BC (by the Jewish exiles after the destruction of Jerusalem supposedly) instead of "for" Babylon to exercise domination as a world power (generally held to have started in 609 BC with the fall of Harran and lasting until Babylon's fall in 539). By the way, the last three translations you provided seem to be on the "for" side as opposed to the "at" side.Tommstein 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Tommstein beat me to replying to this one, but yeah, what he said. Additionally, Duffer should exercise a little discretion before accusing people of libelous comments. Further, 18 out of 25 translations that I have personally examined support wording in favour of "for" Babylon, in harmony with Jeremiah chapter 25 which clearly indicates the context of the 70 years as being of "all the families of the north", "all these nations round about" having to "serve the king of Babylon seventy years" (after which the king of Babylon would be "called to account" (Jeremiah 25:12; Daniel 5:25-31)). The other translations were mostly derived from the ("convicted of containing over 20,000 errors") King James Version.--Jeffro77 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello I noticed this dispute from the Cabal page. Although I am not a member of the Cabal, maybe I can give a suggestion. BTW, the form on the Cabal page still needs to be filled in.

Apparently some of you want to "make a point" to which however is objected by others; but it is the question if it is fair to formulate such a general problem (it occurs in all bible translations) as if it applies in particular to this translation. My first impression is that it's not fair, except if no less agressive phrasing can be found; but I already have a suggestion. In all translations that I know, words are chosen in harmony with the opinions of the translators, as they see fit for the context. That is precisely overlooked in the phrase "context allowing, and where such would not conflict with their beliefs"; it gives (at least, to me) the suggestion that "context allowing" would be an objective process, from which one next might take exception for dogmatic reasons. Of course, the reality is generally not so clear-cut. "As far as the context allows it according to their beliefs" or "as far as, in their opinion, the context allows" would be a far more neutral and accurate way to describe it, IMO. Next one or two examples would be informative.

And, for the record, it may also be added that there are more exceptions to the rule: some words that simply have two rather distinct meanings in English have been translated with those two words all-over (such as Earth and land, if I remember well), and in some cases a literal translation has been replaced by paraphrase in an attempt to reduce misunderstanding (one example that I particularly dislike: Math.5:3). My best wishes, Harald88 19:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I liked your suggestion: "as far as, in their opinion, the context allows", and am happy to see more editors take an interest in our little corner of Wikipedia. But I'm also curious; what are your thoughts on the EIGHT links that directly follow the disputed phrase? Duffer 19:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks like an overdose to me; but perhaps it happened as a reaction to this dispute? And IMO it would be fair to write at least one example out, as part of a critical note -- I suppose that you don't intend to suppress or obscure information but simply disagree with vague, suggestive statements. Anyway, I notice that the more official Cabal has arrived, and leave it to them. Harald88 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct as to how they came to be in the article, but incorrect as to Duffer1's intentions, unless he's just been hiding them real well for weeks now. I originally made the insertion without providing references in this edit: [1]. After Duffer1 deleted it twice, calling it "an absurd POV accusation" both times, I reinserted it in this edit with the documentation: [2]. [unsigned; Tommstein 8 January 2006]

"..you don't intend to suppress or obscure information but simply disagree with vague, suggestive statements". EXACTLY! If you read the above discussion between Tommstein and myself you'll see that's what I have been trying to get across to him for quite some time now. Duffer 17:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your way of saying that is interesting, to say the least.Tommstein 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No no no! Feel free to solve the problem without our assistance. :) I'm still waiting for the other parties to respond anyway... - FrancisTyers 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:New World Translation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== KJV/TR issues == The references to the passages such as the woman caught in adultery could link to more comprehensive pages that discuss these passages and have technical names for them, e.g. 'johannine comma'... I'm afraid I'm no expert in such things. The article states that such passages are 'spurious', whereas it might be more accurate to refer to them as considered spurious by some/most commentators. (Of course, they are also considered spurious by the JWs.) --Poglad 12:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)