Talk:New World Translation/Archive 7

Translators and Editors Neutrality

I point to paragraph three. Its entire being seems to slander the translation. While perhaps it may belong there, I think it should be re-written to a more neutral point of view or moved to the review section. --Aquahelper (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

mediation successful?

Hi, arbitrator Newyorkbrad has requested clarification on whether mediation has been successful. Is arbitration still required? Could people please update their statements at WP:RFAR with concise (one sentence) updates regarding their level of satisfaction of the resulting article, and whether user conduct issues have abated.

If there are outstanding content issues, please list them here. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is Tony Piper?

There is a relatevely big section about the anonymous Tony Riper and based on an anonymous anti-sectarian web-site.

Of the NWT, author Tony Piper concludes the translators had not realized their stated objective to be a "faithful translation of the Scriptures…" As an example Piper cites Acts Acts 2:42, 46 and 20:7, 11 and objects that “the NWT translates it to read that the church simply shared meals together” rather than using the phrase “breaking of bread.” Piper states, “The reason that the NWT translates the phrase as sharing meals is to disguise the fact that the early church celebrated the Lord's Supper more than once a year, and actually broke and ate the bread in accordance with Jesus' instructions, rather than simply passing it from one to another as do Jehovah's Witnesses at their yearly Memorial meeting (unless they claim to be one of the anointed)

First, I an wandering who is Tony Piper. Second the space given him in the article is too big. Third his lack of knowledge is evident.

"Breaking of bread" refers to a firmly fixed rite at the opening of the Jewish meal. [...]

The Gospels place Jesus in the role of the Jewish head of the household when he breaks bread at the feeding of the crowd (Mark 6:41; 8:6; Matt 14:19; 15:36; Luke 9:16) and at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22; Matt 26:26; Luke 22:19; cf. 1 Cor 11:24). [...]

In Christian usage "breaking of bread" took on the specific sense of "eucharistic" breaking of bread, so hat the expression was able to remain in use after the shift of the action over the bread to the action over the cup at the end of the meal. [...]

According to Acts 20:7 κλάσαι άρτον refers to the purpose for the assembling of the church at Troas. Thus κλάσας τον άρτον in 20:11 probably refers to the twofold eucharistic act. In 2:46 κλώντες κατ' οίκον άρτον, "they broke bread at home" (Haenchen, Acts [Eng. tr., 1971] 192), or "in homes" (L. Goppelt, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times [1970] 45), is distinguished from the full meal (μεταλαμβάνειν τροφήν). Thus κλάσις του άρτου in the summary in 2:42, in accordance with the Lukan intention, refers to this particular aspect of the community meals without the four terms mentioned (teaching,κοινωνία = [table?] fellowship, breaking of bread, prayers) being understood as elements in a service of worship (against Jeremias, Eucharistic Words 118f.; with H. Zimmermann, BZ 5 [1961] 75f.; Haenchen, Acts 191). Luke shows that these meals were associated with eschatological joy (Acts 2:46, avgalli,asij; cf. du Toit;  avgallia,w) and with reciprocal service (2:44f.; 6:1; cf. Reicke). According to Acts 27:35 Paul acted in accordance with Jewish table customs. For Luke, however, an allusion to the nearness of the Lord experienced in the eucharist is not to be excluded (Wanke 25-30).

1 Cor 10:16 provides a reminder of the origin of the Christian term "breaking of bread" in the phrase "the bread that we break," which emphasizes the action itself.

"Breaking of bread" disappeared as a term for the eucharistic celebration (cf. Did. 14:1; Ign. Eph. 20:2; also κλάσμα Did. 9:3f.). Used in its place was ευχαριστία, which is not attested in the NT (cf. Did. 9:5; Ign. Phld. 4:1; Smyrn. 7:1; 8:1; Eph. 13:1; Justin Apol. i.66.1; cf. H. Conzelmann, TDNT IX, 407-15; Betz 26-29).

—Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament.

2. The word group is used in the NT for the common custom of breaking bread at meals which initiates the sharing of the main course. Jesus follows the practice at the feeding of the multitude (Mar.6:41), the Last Supper (Mar.14:22'), and the Emmaus meeting (Luk.24:30). For Paul cf. (Act.20:11; Act. 27:35). The common church meal is called the κλάσις of bread in Act.2:42 and cf. (Act.20:7). The fragments that remain in Mat.6:42 and Joh.6:12-13 are κλάσματα; according to custom Jesus orders that they be gathered up after the meal.

B. Breaking of Bread as a Term for the Lord's Supper. Breaking of bread is not as such a cultic act, even at the Last Supper; it is part of the initiatory process. Thus the breaking of bread in Act.2:42 is simply a term for ordinary meals in which the believers find table fellowship in recollection of Jesus' own table fellowship with the disciples. Yet within the ordinary meal we also find a special, cultic breaking of bread (1Co.11:20). Thus, as we learn from Ignatius Ephesians 20.2 and Did. 14.1, breaking of bread becomes perhaps the first title for the new liturgical meal, the Lord's Supper. This usage continues, but the title is later replaced by ευχαριστία, and the breaking of bread becomes a special part of the celebration, symbolizing Christ's violent death.

—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged edition).

klao or klazo (2806), “to break, to break off pieces,” is used of “breaking bread,” (a) of the Lord’s act in providing for people, Matt. 14:19; 15:36; Mark 8:6, 19; (b) of the “breaking of bread” in the Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24; (c) of an ordinary meal, Acts 2:46; 20:11; 27:35; (d) of the Lord’s act in giving evidence of His resurrection, Luke 24:30.

—Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words

--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: The material you cite is not a "big section about the anonymous Tony Riper".

What you cite is what author Tony Piper wrote in the way of critical review about the NWT from a theological perspective. Of course the theological perspective he asserts is not in agreement with yours. Otherwise his review would not be contrary to your own theological perspective, or that of NWT translators. Whether any author demonstrates "lack of knowledge" on a theological perspective depends on whose theological conclusions he or she leverages as premise.

From his perspective, Tony Wills has authored several considerably researched articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, including his review of the NWT.

A single example is offered from Piper of why he concludes NWT translators had not realized their stated objective to offer a faithful translation of the Scriptures. Do you find a single example to be too much?

As for his credibility, it is probably on par with Alexander Thomson’s. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If I make an article on Internet, refuting Piper, Pipen and Jordan with the best Biblical lexicons, dictionaries and grammarbooks, would we use it as a source of citations in the article?--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Lexicons, dictionaries and grammar books do not synthesize words and expressions into meaning. Rather, lexicons, dictionaries and grammar books offer historical usage of words. This is all the more true when it comes to theology, which has about as many screwy teachings as there are advocates. And, all these are formed from the same set of words. Are we to let lexicons, dictionaries and grammar books tell NWT translators when and where to render lord and/or god as Jehovah in the NT? Are we to let lexicons, dictionaries and grammar books tell Jehovah’s Witnesses whether only 144,000 are heaven-bound? When it comes to all the theologies invented by men, preferential reading is apparently left to run about as rampant as advocates are willing to let it run. We do not have to agree with any commentator to acknowledge what he or she writes. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about theology but about translation. Every translation has its theology, but as long as the renderings have linguistic basis, they are scientifically accepted as possible renderings.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: I beg your pardon! I am apparently under a misguided notion that the Theological sub-Section was actually for purposes of including what the header actually says, which is of theological perspective among critical reviews of the NWT. Please forgive my gross misreading of the article. Maybe I need to take a closer look at what those dictionaries you have say under the term theological. My guess is that it has something to do with the term theology. Why don't you look it up and educate me. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Piper quote needs better sourcing. The current citation is an illegible grouping of words along with an incorrectly linked website address. The link should be direct to the quote, not forcing people to rummage through a website. I question his notability for quotation and agree with Vassilis that this could be just about the same as one of us going out and making our own web blog then quoting from it. Just because it is a theological interpretation doesn't mean it is worthy of note; otherwise I have some Baha'i and Zoroastrian interpretations to add. Removing quote until it is properly sourced. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Replaced section, removed old citation and added fact tags. Edit: My former stance about notability of quotation seems to violate WP: Notability --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the proper source link. After a brief read through of Tony Piper's article and looking at the purpose of Reachout Trust I don't think it is made at a neutral point of view. It contains false information. It states that the Emphatic Diaglott was printed by what they call "Christadelphians" in some kind of conspiracy with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (it didn't even exist at the time). They claim that just because the WBTS reprinted some versions of the Bible, they were directly responsible for them. They use this point as foundation for their argument: stating that because the NWT was partly based on these other versions, and by their reasoning, were published by the same people, indicates some sort of fallacy. They also include some statements from a Scottish court hearing that, if I recall from the history, you removed as being false. Authoritative quotations of people who are simply former Jehovah's Witnesses. The whole thing is inaccurate POV, in my opinion. In overview, it is not ours to say who is allowed to interpret something so subjective and controversial as theology, but I don't agree with linking to a website with so many false claims. The quote in itself, I think Vassilis had very well debunked Mr. Piper's claim that the meaning of 'breaking bread' was changed in that instance. I'm not sure if the idea of breaking bread always infers the idea of communion among most Christian denominations, or if the Greek word for 'breaking bread' didn't occur differently in the scriptures post Jesus' death. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks: I do not believe you have established any false information. For example, you assert the article errantly refers to Benjamin Wilson as a Christadelphian. This reference to Wilson’s theological perspective is made in today’s terms, not yesterday’s terms. The article referring to Wilson as Christadelphian is the same as Jehovah’s Witnesses of today referring to pre-1931 Bible Students/Russellites as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Do you feel the Watchtower organization is writing falsely when it refers to pre-1931Bible Students/Russellites as Jehovah’s Witnesses?

As for POV, unfortunately when it comes to theological perspectives, there is hardly anything that is free of it. This is why editors have a responsibility to include all significant POVs published by reliable sources without giving undue weight to any. Hence, though unavoidably citing POV sources, editors achieve NPOV presentation. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware if Christadelphians are viewed today as the same thing as Jehovah's Witnesses, and that has nothing to do with my argument. Jehovah's Witnesses also claim to have members from biblical times, this does not mean that material written by Moses should be viewed as the writings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Piper claims that just because the WBTS reprinted the material that it was made by them. And what of the contents about the Scottish trial? I'm not sure why this was previously removed from the Wiki article, though. And still, there are more problems: Does Piper have any scholarly credentials other than being a writer for Reachout Trust? If we could find some kind of profile about him, that would really help. How does Reachout Trust select writers? Is it excepted among theologians that 'breaking bread' always refers to communion? Reachout Trust is also a group that specifically targets groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons with the specific intent of debunking their theological views; and as it seems to me, through means malicious. Does this make them an "Extremist Source"? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks: I have not suggested Christadelphians are viewed as the same as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and do not have the foggiest idea why you think otherwise.

A point of my response above was only to point out the author’s usage. Wilson was a fill-in-the-blank before fill-in-the-blank established a recognizable name.

Please quote Piper where you assert he “claims that just because the WBTS reprinted the material that it was made by them.” Based on your misreading of my comments, I have no confidence that your assertion holds veracity.

What about the contents of the Scottish trial? The trial transcript says what it says. Piper is one of the few authors who have not misrepresented this information. What problem do you have with it?

I do not know Piper’s scholarly credentials. What I do know is that his published articles are very well researched and included bibliographic information for verification of sources and content. What more do you need?

You write, “Is it excepted among theologians that 'breaking bread' always refers to communion?” What kind of question is that? Editors are not here to dicker or assess theology! Theologians have as many notions as there are religions they belong to. Also, and please excuse me for honestly expressing pause, but “excepted”? On what basis are you questioning Piper's credentials.

That Reachout Trust focus on the subjects it does is inconsequential to whether a given author it publishes presents credible and well researched information. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood your statement when you said "Do you feel the Watchtower organization is writing falsely when it refers to pre-1931Bible Students/Russellites as Jehovah’s Witnesses?" and thought you meant Jehovah's Witnesses saw Wilson and "Christadelphians" as the same as them. You claimed I "assert the article errantly refers to Benjamin Wilson as a Christadelphian." I think you drew this conclusion because I put the word "Christadelphian" in quotation marks. This is because I had never heard of the word before, I cannot find a dictionary in which the word appears other than the Compact Oxford; I suggest you read between the lines a little less and note that expressions such as 'I have not the foggiest why you think this way' are inflammatory.

It is for the editors of this article to "dicker and assess theology". Theology is a field of study; the word does not refer to just anyone spouting a religious view. In most cases, if a theory has little to no support in its field, it has no business being featured in an article, when I said "excepted" I meant by anyone other than Piper.

You said: "That Reachout Trust focus on the subjects it does is inconsequential to whether a given author it publishes presents credible and well researched information." You must be kidding me. How can you say an author does not relate to the views of the publisher? We're not talking about Random House, this is a small religious organization that focuses on what is essentially deprogramming.

You said: "Please quote Piper where you assert he “claims that just because the WBTS reprinted the material that it was made by them.”" Piper said, and I will highlight the area in question: "The Emphatic Diaglott (ED) is an interlinear New Testament and is also, like the Rotherham translation above, used to support the Society's rendering of 'presence' instead of 'coming' for the Greek word parousia [Reasoning p. 341; NWT p. 1248 and other verses]. Thus, although cited as a supporting reference, it is not an independent source and therefore its use is open to question." Was Piper not referring to the idea that ED was written by a person who "shared a common theology with the Watchtower Society" and was republished by them when he said it wasn't an independent source?

Let's talk about Piper's paragraph in this article for a second. First he refers to Theologians in the 3rd Person: "It is obvious, from the comments of the scholarly community referred to, that the first objective has not been realised." Then he claims that he personally made the observation about the breaking of bread: "The writer recently noticed that the NIV uses the phrase 'breaking of bread' when the early church celebrate the Lord's Supper but the NWT translates it to read that the church simply shared meals together, which they did on many occasions." But the question is, where do we draw the line for quotation? Should expertise limit quotability? I certainly think it should. We have no way if knowing if this guy even exists, other than his presence on this website. Calling him creditable just because he uses sources is quite fallacious, it says nothing of his knowledge and ability to make assessments like this one. Its ironic to note that credibility is the a major argument of Piper's article on Reachout Trust.

Maybe you can fill me in about the Scottish trial. Why was it removed from the article if it is factual? I'm not familiar with these events, but it seems to show both in the Piper article and the paragraph you removed in this one, that 'Franz' could not translate Hebrew. If it really happened, how can there be any doubt that he could not translate Hebrew? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks:

You wrote, "...when I said "excepted" I meant by anyone other than Piper." Piper said nothing in the way of an exception. That you repeat this is telling, but maybe not for reasons you see.

You wrote, “It is for the editors of this article to ‘dicker and assess theology’”. Wikipedia editors are explicitly forbidden from asserting personal points of view, whether theological or otherwise.

Reading your response offers no reason to consider your views as anything other than your personal and unstudied opinion. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would just listen for a moment you might understand what I'm trying to say. I say something and you come back to me with scarecrows and pettiness over grammatical errors (most of my edits take place early in the morning, if you have not noticed, at which point I can easily confuse similar words. You knew what I meant). How do you see 'assessment' as 'assertion'? Do you just choose what parts of a sentence you wish to hear? A view with limited acceptance breaks Wikipedia rules; I don't see how you can misconstrue this as asserting personal viewpoints. You might have run into a lot of debate and allowance of any random "theological" idea on this end of Wikipedia, but let me assure you that this is not to be tolerated. Theories on Wikipedia require proper sourcing and notability, and this means that the theory has to have been uttered by more than one notable person. Please familiarize yourself with rules that reply to this; Wikipedia:A, Wikipedia:N, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:RS (Note that Reliable Sources refers to Theology as much as anything else "Scholars and Ministers" among whom Piper's personal view does not appear to be existent).

Let me just say that I do not appreciate your attitude. I deal with a lot of Biologists, Physicists, and other Scientists, many with overactive views of self importance, but at least they are willing to sit down and read my sayings, willing to admit that there is a possibility they are wrong. I think you are constantly playing at renderings of my grammar that show vagueness, and pushing this into something you can argue with: for example, according to how you have interpreted me in the past, you might attribute the last "they" in my previous sentence as referring to "my sayings". This is childish behavior. And as I see your arguments becoming shorter, hardheadedly focusing on the same subjects I have already made clear, and becoming filled with personal attacks, it becomes known whose views are 'not anything other than personal and unstudied opinion.' --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Piper section as it did not meet the standards of Wikipedia:RS, if you would actually like to discuss or object to this, please feel free to do so civilly. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks: I have read what you wrote. I have considered what you wrote. What you wrote offered much in the way of assertion but little in the way of persuasion, that is proof.

I do not care about what you say. I care about what you prove. And, no, I do not know what you mean when you repeat the same thing twice on separate occasions, even after having it emphasized for your attention. Please do not expect other editors to read your mind.

Here you assert that the article by Piper does not meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. Yet you have not proven this is the case. Rather, you have only asserted this is the case. Do you know the difference between the two?

You, apparently, assert that Piper’s article presents “a view with limited acceptance”. Yet, you have not proven this to be the case. Rather, you have only asserted this is the case. Do you know the difference?

My attitude? It matters not one iota what either of us thinks of the other person’s attitude. Why should it? Readers are not interested in us. Readers are interested in reliable and verifiable information. Also, and please take this important distinction to mind, a possibility does not a probability make. It is possible that rays from Mars influenced Gandhi, but this is improbable. Honestly, on one hand you complain by alleging views with limited acceptance, and then you turn around and expect me to accept that learned individuals listen to you because of possibilities! Have you considered that maybe your learned readers have another reason or reasons for patiently letting you talk? Please do not expect me to take you seriously simply because of possibilities. Letting someone talk should not be equated with listening, and the latter should not be assumed based on the former. Learned people do not waste time listening to possibilities unless those possibilities can be demonstrated as likely/probable; hence worthy of attention.

The shortness of my responses is because of the shortness of your proof, or in this case the lack. That you read personal attack into my words is laughable. Please refrain from transposing your presumptions onto my words by characterizing them beyond what I have said. If you want to know what I think of you personally all you need to do is ask. I am more than happy to respond to such a question, and to do so straightforwardly and without mincing words. But here is not the place. If you want to ask such a thing you should use my talk page.

Now I am asking that you restore the Piper information until you can prove what you allege. This lengthy reply is a favor. Take it as you will. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume Piper has scholarly credentials. He is commentator on other people's work. His speculation isn't even drawn from the other scholars who he had relied on throughout his article, but he plainly says he plainly says that he himself noticed this "flaw" in translation. This violates Wikipedia:RS's first point of scholarship. You have rarely directly commented on anything I've said about Piper or the article, and you are constantly misreading what I say. I find that you seem to use one single, illegitimate argument for every discussion you are involved in: "unlearned!", "still haven't proved you are learned!" Editorship on Wikipedia is not earned by proving that you are educated in the eyes of Marvin Shilmer, or anyone else for that matter. Please focus on the presented argument. If you are not open to genuine discussion I suggest you refrain from participating in the talk pages. I will now depart from this bastardization of argument with you, as it is becoming detrimental to my health. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks:

I have not assumed anything about Piper’s credentials, so why do you bring this up as though it matters?

When you say “His speculation isn't even drawn from the other scholars who he had relied on throughout his article” you make an assertion. Please note that failure to cite a scholarly source is not evidence that no scholarly source is relied upon. To suggest otherwise is an argument from silence.

Of Acts chapter 2 and 20 cited by Piper, the extensive and thorough commentary of The Expositors Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, does in each case agree with Piper that the texts depict commemoration of the Lord’s death. That Piper notices this himself only explains why he uses this as an example to argue his perspective. It does not mean Piper had no source, or that his statements are original to him.

My statements about the unlearned are not arguments; they are observation. The learned realize this. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Iron asked me to comment. The fundamental problem is theological, and the exact nature of the Last Supper will not be resolved here. If all the theologians in the 1980 or so years since then have not solved it, and Christians remain in almost total disagreement, we will not come to a solution either. The proper understanding and translation of the enigmatic words used is not a factual question--there are multiple opinions, not just two, and excellent authority for almost any position. The criticism of a particular translation, though usually justified on the literary or linguistic grounds, is almost always a matyter of one's religious position: people ttranslate according to what they think the intended meaning is. There is no "correct" translation, and none of the translations ever made have escaped criticism. This translation is authorized by the JWs, & represents their understanding of the tradition. One can argue within that tradition whether the translation got it exactly right; one can argue on a broader scale whether their tradition is theologically sound. The second part of the argument will get us nowhere--those who agree with their theology will approve, and others most likely will not. All that is necessary to do is to set the translation properly, as expressing the view of the group which has adopted it. The opinion of independent scholars is valuable here in elucidating matters, but it necessarily illustrates only their personal view. If there was ever a case for why we use verifiabilty rather than truth, this is one of them. It would help in the section on critical review to make plain the religious belief of the various commentators--it affects their understanding of what is said. As an analogy , we do not say, the politician X said this of candidate Y. We say the Republican politician X said this of the Democratic candidate, or whatever the case may be--quote and opinion must be presented in context.

The arguments above of Vassilis are completely besides the point--this is not the place to prove the accuracy or inaccuracy of a particular translation. The discussion of what the translation properly is irrelevant. So and so, writing from such and such perspective thinks what he thinks. It's fair to quote one representative each of the different views, and any attempt here to come to a conclusion is altogether inappropriate.

the question then is whether Piper is a suitable person to quote. He represents Reachout Trust, an avowedly conservative Protestant organization that regards the JWs as heretics. He of course disagrees with the translation. Tjhe evangelical view deserves its place here among the other views, and if Piper is the leading spokesman for it, he should get a sentence or two. The degree of his scholarship is irrelevant--he is not a neutral observer, but represents a major theological view.

I suppose I've satisfied nobody. That's what I expect in such controversies. Nonetheless it is the NPOV. It amazes me that people should attempt to demonstrate on Wikipedia what is the correct translation of the Bible. We don't try to do that. We report what others think. DGG (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought of it like that, as if he were representing a previously unvoiced group in the article. But this is where my argument comes in. Does Piper's comment represent his group or just his own opinion? Are there other people that share this view? Whatever your opinion of the situation, do what you think is best. Thanks for helping. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

DGG: I could not agree more.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks: What Piper writes is tame in its review of the New World Translation by comparison with a plethora of orthodox and evangelical Christian commentators. What DGG writes above is precisely what I told you in other words. If you want to know "are there other people that share his view" all you have to do is type "New World Translation" into any decent search engine and assess the results. You will find Piper is not a minority, by a long shot. When are you going to restore Piper’s material you deleted?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

POV Editing

This page is becoming a longwinded infomercial for the New World Translation. It is not enough that we present verifiable information. We must maintain some semblance of balance. I will express two instances of the current imbalance in the article:

1. The crux simplex illustration from Lipsius is straight out of the NWT, which conveniently offers a single illustration of many shown by Lipsius in the same original work. Worse, this single illustration is not even the one Lipsius stipulates as the one Jesus supposedly died on. So why is this image shown by itself as is found in the NWT, if not to unduly influence a particular POV?

2. Alexander Thomson’s commendation of the NWT in its current form was added by me to give some semblance of balance to an otherwise overwhelming negative review of the NWT found in the literature. Now his remarks stand alongside Dr. Winter and Dr. BeDuhn’s remarks as though his opinion is in the same league. Thomson was no scholar of translating biblical languages. He was a reporter with a lot of freedom to express his opinions in the paper that published his views. As things stand, the article leads readers to think Thomson was something of an expert on the subject, which he was not. This is an abuse of information that was originally included to balance the article. What explains this current presentation of Thomson if not an attempt to unduly influence a particular POV? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your 1st question, the illustration does appear in the NWT but it was not produced by JW's, it was taken to prove that as late as the 2nd & 3rd centuries A.D., this type of impalement was used by the Romans without a cross beam. Therefore, I was clarifying the previous comment concerning the NWT the word "stauros" as stake and not as cross. I redirected the reader to the "Torture Stake" section of Wikipedia. Is it not permissable to counter an observation with another one so the reader can decide what he or she believes? In answer to the 2nd question, if you use Thomson as a reference why can't I?--JCL3CLL (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

JCL3CLL: Because information is valid does not make its presentation valid.

When I cited Thomson it was to inform readers that despite extensive discontent with the NWT there were readers who appreciated the translation. Hence the use of Thomson was to add some balance to the article. The current usage misleads readers to believe Thomson is offering a more powerful opinion than it really is because of how his opinion is presented. It is never acceptable to mislead readers.

Regarding the crux simplex illustration, you miss the point entirely. Your usage is to assert the same exact POV as presented in the NWT, which makes it an infomercial for the translation rather than an objective presentation of information. An objective presentation of the Lipsius crux illustrations would have to express there were many different torture implements used in the subject era. If the presentation was in relation to the biblical depiction of Jesus’ death then the same presentation, to be honest, would also have to express the illustration that Lipsius identifies as the method employed in that death, and the one shown in the NWT is not it. I doubt you have even read Lipsius. Surely you do not know what Lipsius depicted as a stake of impalement, based on your remarks here.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Quoted verses in infobox

User:Fram has removed the quoted verses from the infobox, claiming that it is a copyright violation. The purpose of the infobox makes it perfectly clear that the verses are being quoted from the translation in question. Note that the user has made similar changes on articles for all bible translation whose copyright has not expired.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone remove from the box this "concordant translation"?--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'concordant translation' was added (by me) as a result of a copyright-related discussion now at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Archive_12#Copyrighted_quotes_in_infoboxes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro, can you use the 'concordant translation' and replace Genesis 1:1-3 with Isaiah 65:13a, 17? At the bottom of the NWT title page, it appears as follows (though NWT uses large and small capitals):

"This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah [יהוה, YHWH] has said: '... Here I am creating new heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart.'"

Note: I have two interlinear translations that consistently translate יהוה as either "Yahweh" (New International Version Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament (abbreviated NIVIHEOT), 1985, Zondervan) or "Jehovah" (The Interlinear Bible, 1986, Jay P. Green, Sr.). In NIVIHEOT, "Yahweh" appears only underneath יהוה, with "[the] LORD" in the NIV translation. In Green's, "Jehovah" appears both underneath יהוה and in the main translation.

Glenn L (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The bible translation infobox is used universally on articles about different translations. For this reason, it is not straightforward to substitute a different verse especially for the JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel J Merritt

Regarding mr Merritt's vandalism of the article space, I had already explained why his previous edit was inappropriate at his talk page prior to his blatantly inappropriate use of the article space. Specifically:

While your statement in the article might be correct, it is not relevant under 'Features of the translation' (which deals with presentation, not the quality of the translated text). Even if moved to the correct section, the notability of this specific (mis)translation (in comparison to other disputed renderings in the NWT) needs to be established to warrant inclusion in the article. There is no need to add an entire paragraph for each word that the NWT translates in a non-standard manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

He has now been further advised:

I have already explained this to you, but I will clarify, since it appears you do not understand. You need a source to establish the notability of this particular (mis)translation. And DO NOT place unencyclopedic comments in the text of articles! Such comments belong in Talk or User Talk pages. If you do so again, you will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well intended edits are not vandalism; it doesnt help to call them that, especially when it is a new user. You are right though; we definitely need some sources! Are there any journal articles which provide a good analysis of this translation?

I did not refer to any well intended edit as vandalism. I was referring to the inclusion of statements in the article namespace that included my username and claims of 'accusations'. Such misuse of the article constitutes vandalism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have directed him to this talk page to discuss this further. HTH, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)