Talk:New World Translation/Archive 5

Header

Please use a dictionary before using some words. For instance the word 'cult', refers to a human being in charge of a program, organization, etc. Jehovah's Witness are NOT A CULT. They look to Jehovah and Jesus Christ as their leader and they are not human beings. This is done by using the Bible as their source of information.

The above statements are completely useless in the determination either way whether JWs are a cult or not. Any group can claim that it looks to an entity whose existence is not proven, and such a claim has no bearing at all on whether the group is or is not a "cult".--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They are willing to use any Bible that's available in the language spoken where they live.

The only way one can know what the NWT says in comparison with other Bibles is to sit down read the same scripture in both (or even more Bibles). This should tell you about the accuracy of the NWT versus other Bibles. Also remember that the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION is just that a translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scriptures. The scribes had to be accurate in writing down the words in the Bible, so much so they had to count each letter. Likewise Jehovah's Witnesses also need to be just as accurate, for this is pleasing to God.

In regards to some Bibles that are printed, it states the name of the Bible and calls it a version. Version is a person's point of view. Do we need to have more confusion in our lives? Many people in many lands through out the world prefer the accuracy of TRANSLATION. (Not the unreliable mind/brain to remember which version of the story is true.)

In the preface of some Bibles it states the reason why Jehovah's name was removed...because the Jews felt that name was to sacred to pronounce. This is opposion to part of what his son, Jesus, came to earth for. And that was to make his Father's name manifest to the people of the land. (Zoees 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)) zoees

Zoees, do you intend this section as a discussion point, or a pulpit?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

no need for attacking Zoees..it is a discussion point. ladygreen.

The Cross

THE WORD STAUROS OBVIOUSLY MEANS CROSS. WHAT´S THE GREEK LETTER FOR "T", IT IS THE LETTER "TAU". ANYONE CAN GUESS THAT THE WORD STAUROS COMES FROM THE LETTER "TAU" AND THE SHAPE OF THIS LETTER WHETHER LATIN OR GREEK IS A CROSS. JEHOVA´S WITNESS DO NOT ACCEPT SCIENCE NOR HISTORY, ´CAUSE CRUCIFICATION WAS THE COMMON DEATH PENALTY IN THAT AGE.

I beleive you are mistaken. FWI if your trying to make a point, do it in a tacful way. Not an ALL CAPS RAVE. That just makes you look childish. --Iron Chef 21:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reasoning. It makes as much sense as saying that cats are naturally scathing, because the word 'scathe' contains the word 'cat'.--Jeffro77 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I keep re-reading you statement, trying to make any sense out of it. It sickens me to see people so confused about history. --75.6.215.91 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From Homer down to the New Testament there is not a single case that the word "stauros" was used to denote "T". The "T" meaning was introduced with the influence of Latin, and specifically by the altering of the semantic domain of the word crux.--Vassilis78 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Disfellowshipped"

It is ad hominem to say that things were said by "disfellowshipped" persons. The implication is that JWs shouldn't believe something because it was stated by a 'disfellowshipped' person, which has no bearing whatsoever on whether what they say is true. It is sufficient to say they are former members.--Jeffro77 07:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

citation needed

the lead in states that there was another bible at one time published by the WTBTS. I have not heard of this, please provide more information. what was the Bible called? Ice9Tea 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe they have published the King James Version (which is and has been in the public domain for some time). I believe they also had the copyright to the American Standard Version, which they liked because it uses the name "Jehovah" instead of "LORD" in the Old Testament.71.142.67.206 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD's

Any body interested? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination) SV 19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence, Free Translation, Paraphrase

The designation of formal equivalence in this info box is inconsistent with the info boxes for other translations. Generally, Formal Equivalence applies to translations that italicize implied words. Dynamic Equivalence is generally literal, but does not give a formatting designation to implied words. Free Translation is strongly idiomatic, but still stays somewhat with the text. Paraphrase is not bound to the Greek text. Examples of Formal Equivalence on the Wiki info boxes are ASV, KJV, NKJ, NASB. Examples of Dynamic Equivalence are RSV, ESV, NAB. Examples of Free Translation are REB, NJB. Paraphrases are the Message, the Living Bible, Philips, etc.

I understand that the NWT calls itself Formal Equivalent, in spite of the insertion of the Divine Name in the New Testament. Even granting that, however, is the problem of consistency for all the translations. A Dynamic Equivalent can still be more accurate than a Formal Equivalent, so it is no insult to give that designation. The ESV, for instance, is generally considered more accurate than the King James (because of the textual basis), but it is not as Formal.

All that being said -- it's no compliment to claim to be formal and no insult to be Dynamic. In fact, current translation theories predominantly prefer Dynamic as superior to Formal, because of the better transmission of meaning.

The only "fighting words" for me would be words that unfairly represent or mis-state positions of non Jehovah's Witnesses. I feel that Jehovah's Witnesses should be able to state their position fairly in their own article and to have their positions presented fairly when they are mentioned in OTHER articles on Wikipedia. The same should be true for Jews and Christians. Dynamic vs. Formal equivalence does not fall within that category, obviously. It's inconsistent with the info boxes for other translations, but if you need to give that designation to your translation, you can do as you like. However, I would encourage you to be consistent with articles and categories for other translations, if you can do so.

Thanks. Tim 02:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the NWT does format implied words with brackets. One of the more predominant criticisms surrounding the NWT is their insertion of "other", in brackets, in Colossians 1: 16,17,20 to bring out the implied meaning in the passages that Jesus did not create himself. I would like to point out also that BeDuhn is not a Witness and he puts the NWT in the formal equivalence category. I don't see dynamic equivalence as an insult, I believe that formal is just more accurate. Duffer 02:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read (or even heard of) DeBuhn. I looked him up on Wiki and saw that he rated the NAB highly, which I know from other reading to be correct. As for the other translations mentioned -- they weren't listed. Do you know which ones he compared? I'd like to compare his accuracy designations with other studies I've read. Tim 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The bibles compared along with what type he views each to be, KJV (Formal), RSV & NRSV (Formal but he considers the NRSV "looser, moving in the direction of dynamic equivalence" pg.31), NIV (Formal, "less formal than the NRSV... closer to the NAB", a "theological translation"), NAB (Formal), NASB (Formal but with several "deeply flawed" KJV instances), Amplified Bible ("Interpretive, not a translation at all" pg.35), Living Bible (Paraphrase, "not a bible translation at all"), TEV "Good News Bible" (Dynamic, highly interpretive), NWT (Formal). Duffer 08:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just looked at my copy of the NWT, and the brackets you refer to are not the same thing I was talking about. The brackets you are referring to are theological more than translational, based on the idea that Jesus is a created "thing." Christians have regarded Jesus as "begotten, not made." Whoever is right is beside the point, though. Again, this isn't a fighting issue. My only concern is that non Jehovah's Witness positions be presented accurately. And that would make the article stronger anyway, since accurately stated positions can be more accurately addressed with your own positions. I absolutely do not want to mis-state your positions either, which is why I wrote asking for your help in that regard. Best, Tim 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The brackets have nothing to do with theology. Did Jesus create himself "through himself" or not (16)? Is he before God or not (17)? Does he reconcile himself to himself or not (20)? You'll also notice the other bracketed additions: "God" in 19, "He shed" in 20, "his" in 22, "good news" in 23 etc...Duffer 08:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer -- the first half of these are theological points that you are raising, not translational. Did Jesus create himself through himself? That's theological. Christians will answer that Jesus was "begotten, not made." He wasn't created, and the insertion of "other" is driven only by a thological... motivation. Is he before God? Again, theological. Christians will answer that he is God, and that God isn't a "thing." Does he reconcile himself to himself? Again, theological. Christians will answer that Jesus isn't a thing, and that he reconciles all things to God. God in verse 19 would be the only example to this point. Have you had a chance to find the other versions that BeDuhn reviewed? What was his criteria for accuracy? This section alone couldn't score well on a normal concordance examination. http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj1d.pdf is an example of the kind of examination that BeDuhn would need to do in order to score concordancy -- and that only measures literalness, and not necessarily accuracy to a particular text. The King James scores very high in literalness to the Textus Receptus (and accuracy to the Textus Receptus). But it would score low in accuracy to a more modern Greek text, such as the Nestle-Aland. Tim 12:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- I hadn't seen your other answer to my "which versions did he examine" question. I see now why you were scoring the NWT as "formal". BeDuhn was listing translations as formal that are in the Dynamic Equivalent range in the other Wiki boxes. These are the ones listed so far:

Formal Equivalent: KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRA, NAS, NAS 95 Update

Dynamic Equivalent: MRD, RSV, ESV, TCE, NET, HCS, NRS, NAB

Free Translation: NIV, JNT, NJB, TEV, REB, NLT

Paraphrase: Living

I've put BeDuhn's Formals in Bold, and Dynamics in Italics. The list on the Master's Seminary has the same sequence, but starts "Free Translation" at the NIV level. If you are labeling Formal all the way out to the NIV, then yes, the NWT would be "formal." But that's really stretching the term. The Master's Seminary nearly did the same, but by the NIV they were using the term "Free Translation." I haven't seen a thorough study of the NWT. Just looking at it I would place it in the same range as the Dynamics listed about. But since you are calling those Dynamics "Formal," it makes sense that you would be calling the NWT formal. That is, if the NIV is "formal" then the NWT is formal. But if the RSV is Dynamic, then the NWT is Dynamic. It depends at which point you start the range.

On this list, where would you place the NWT in the sequence listed? That is, which translations do you believe are closest in concordancy to the NWT? Tim 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How individual Wikipedia editors would evaluate the literalness of the translation is utterly beside the point, as this does not constitute a reliable source. Since the discussion here shows clearly that it is not possible in this case to produce consistent, reliable, and verifiable scholarly judgment of this matter, I have removed the line from the infobox. Do not add it again without citation of a better source. The version is theologically unacceptable to many people, fine, that can be treated in the article with citations of reliable sources. But the translation is obviously KJV-derived (which can also be treated in the article with citations of reliable sources), so the translation philosophy infobox is simply not a place where these higher-order disputes can be adjudicated. "Compromise" should be avoided, too, as it gives the false impression of positive information or agreement where there is none. Unless someone is ready to link to scholarly journals' favorable book reviews of the alleged authorities mentioned here (BeDuhn, etc.), keeping their conclusions out of the infobox is a no-brainer. If these authors meet the threshold of notability and avoiding undue emphasis, then their arguments can be cited in the article. Wareh 16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Translation has nothing to do with the KJV. I think that the only thing Tim and I can agree on is that the TR is rubish compared to earlier manuscripts. I agree that my opinion does not matter however, Formal Equivalence is sourced by an independent (non-JW) scholar, that is so far, the only scholar I am aware of that makes any claim of formal or dynamic. For those reasons I will restore "Formal Equivalence" to the info-box ("The NW(T) is a formal equivalence translation, with occasional ventures into dynamic equivalence..." Dr. BeDuhn, Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, ISBN 0761825568, pg. 39).

Tim, I'm not labeling anything, BeDuhn is, I agree with him. Also what do you make of the bracketed additions of textually implied meaning that aren't "other" that I pointed out? I really don't want to argue with you about "other" in colossians, but I do want you to understand how the addition is not theology. In verse 16 the passage says "by means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth...". Saying that Jesus is not a noun (a "thing") to be included within the confines of grammar, is philosophy, if Jesus exists then grammatically he is a thing (a noun). Did that thing create itself through itself? Of course not, "other" is implied in the grammar. Duffer 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer, I've ordered BeDuhn's book. The question is how formal and how dynamic it is in relation to other translations. As I said, Wiki already lists RSV as dynamic and NIV as free. Since BeDuhn lists them both as formal, it brings into question what he means by that in sequence to the others. To give a different example -- we've had the same problem with reading levels. Zondervan lists the King James at a 12th grade reading level and the NIV at 7.8. The problem is that it doesn't say which scoring system or sample was used. The KJV only scores at 12 on the SMOG index, and the NIV 7.8 is close to the Flesch Kincaid. So -- one person calling it formal doesn't tell about it's relation to other translations when dynamics and free are ALSO listed as formal. More in a few hours. Tim 11:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The problem is that there just isn't enough neutral review of the NWT. I know there are some very outspoken critics of the NWT but I don't believe any of them have taken the time to review it and say if they think it's a Formal or Dynamic.. I am glad you've ordered the book, it's an easy read that leaves theology at the door, and does not spare any of the reviewed bibles from criticism. Duffer 12:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer, I agree that it's difficult to find neutral POV on the NWT. It's also difficult to find consistency in labeling the Equivalence rate of translations. Most sources I've found agree on the general sequence on the spectrum, but not on the labels. The sequence I gave above is generic enough -- but even there the labels are different depending on who's doing the labeling. For instance, every reviewer I've looked at rates the RSV as more literal than the NIV. But some sources list both as formal (as you say BeDuhn does), some list both as dynamic, some list RSV as formal and NIV as free (Master's Seminary), some list RSV as formal and NIV as dynamic. Another source (Comfort) lists dynamic as closer to paraphrased than thought for thought! At one point I was listing a percentage of Equivalence rate based on a prepub study just because the labels aren't consistent in the different studies out there, but the prepub was dragging it's heels and I had to go back to generic labels. The NWT is normally dismissed from any kind of study. But, whether a person agrees with a translation or not is ultimately irrelevant to the Equivalence rate -- since accuracy and Equivalence rates are two different things entirely. If Metzger were supplying the translation type label it would be in an entirely different category altogether.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that BeDuhn's label is 100% correct. Here's the sequence that seems to come from the descriptions you gave me:

Formal: KJV, RSV

Formal, but with deeply flawed KJV instances: NASB

Formal, but moving toward Dynamic: NRSV

Formal, but less formal than NRSV, closer to NAB: NIV

Formal: NAB????

Formal Equivalence, with some Dynamic Equivalence: NWT

Dynamic: TEV

Interpretive (paraphrase???): Amplified

According to the BeDuhn information you've supplied, the NWT seems to be less formal than the RSV, NRSV, NIV, and NAB -- which are all listed as Dynamic on the Wiki info boxes based on other sources. I've also read that BeDuhn has strong criticism for the use of the anglicized Divine Name in the NWT, but I don't know if this is his only basis for the Dynamic "ventures" you quote him as saying.

As it stands, however, the BeDuhn scale above appears close to the other scales, but (as I mentioned above) the labels are the problem. Almost everything is formal! Additionally, you quote BeDuhn as saying the NASB has "deeply flawed KJV instances." That's an accuracy judgment, not an Equivalence rating. So, do we agree with BeDuhn? Let's say that we both do. You agree with the label "Formal". Let's say I agree with the scale: less formal than all the translations listed as Formal, and less formal than most of the translations listed as Dynamic. What do we do, then? Do we list nearly everything as formal just because BeDuhn calls almost everything under the sun formal? Or do we list it in the same category as the other translations that BeDuhn associates it with? That would mean we would quote his "ventures into Dynamic" because the translations he associates it with are all listed as Dynamic.

If everything is formal, then the usefulness of all the info boxes for every single translation is destroyed. And this is the problem. I personally don't care about the theology involved, or the accusations of bias either way. I'm simply trying to preserve the integrity of the info boxes and keep them from being robbed of all meaning.

Another subject: you ask "Did that thing create itself through itself? Of course not, "other" is implied in the grammar." Christians believe that Jesus is Jehovah -- or at least one Person of Jehovah. I have no vested interest here. It's simply an observation of what they believe; not a statement of ultimate truth. So, when Christians read that passage they read: "Jehovah created all things." When Jehovah's Witnesses read that passage they read: "a being created by Jehovah created all other things." Who's right? Again, I personally don't care. However, "other" is supplied by the NWT for theological reasons, not grammatical ones. Are those theological reasons correct? That's a different subject entirely. Tim 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly make matters easier if there was a uniform procedure for rating a bible's accuracy. I think it's fine to say that the NWT is Formal with Dynamic tendencies. Also I apologize for the bias accusation. Duffer 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer, I agree. It would be fantastic for there to be a uniform procedure. There have been attempts, but the sample sizes and interpretive nature of the work require that translations be listed in relation to each other, rather than in absolutes. One person may rate translations very stringintly, and another less so. As long as they each do so consistently then the translations in their own study fall in a pretty fair sequence. But you couldn't take the readings from one person's study for one translation against the readings for another person's study for a different translation, because their methods may be different from each other. It's like using the Gunning Fog readability index for the NIV against the Flesch Kincaid index for the KJV. If you did that, the KJV would appear easier to read! Anyhow, I'm looking forward to reading BeDuhn's book, and I'm glad to have found out about it. And thanks very much for pulling back the bias accusation! I don't remember it, but I appreciate it :-). Be well. Tim 20:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Superstition 'reference'

I have removed the reference to Exodus 20:7 because it is not actually 'supportive' of the statement it follows. Though it does not contradict the statement, it also does not explain it. The 'Jewish superstition' to not use 'god's' name at all was a later theological development.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff -- the ten commandments is the only source for the practice. Even the Talmud is derivative here, and points to Exodus 20:17. Tim (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments do not explain not using the name at all. Exodus only provides the background for why the name came not to be used at all, and is not the reason. The verse mentions nothing about superstition, nor about never using the name, and is therefore invalid as a reference. It would be suitable as part of a parenthetical statement at best.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, if the statement being referenced was "don't take up the lord's name in vain", then the Exodus reference would be appropriate. However, it does not explain never using the name at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff -- there is not other source for the "Jewish superstition." If you don't accept that, then I invite you to FIND a Jewish source that gives any other reason for the practice. Once you'll look, you'll put the Exodus citation back in yourself -- because there is no other origin for the practice. But don't just delete a source and leave NOTHING in its place. That's disrespectful to Wikipedia readers. They aren't stupid. They know the practice had to come from SOMEWHERE.Tim (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)