Weakness in Translation - How Bad Is It?

[Kev45]

What do biblical scholars, theologians, and academics, the actual experts, believe?

Watchtower's The New World Translation of the Holy Scripture.


The well regarded English academic H.H. Rowley, an Old Testament scholar, described the translation as "an insult to the word of God" and "a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated".

Professor Charles Feinberg, a dean at Talbot School of Theology, and a world renowned biblical expert specializing in Jewish history and the Old Testament said "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

The respected Professor James A. Beverley, a Research Professor at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto, specializing in American religion and who advices his government about religious groups, accuses Jehovah Witnesses of "false prophesy" and described the faith as "fitting the model of a cult".

Professor Bruce Metzger, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, another biblical scholar, a Bible translator and textual critic, alongside serving on various religious boards, described the translation as "frightful".

James White, a Reformed theologian and author, professor with Grace Bible Theological Seminary, and a pastor at Apologia Church. White has critiqued the NWT for its theological biases, particularly in translating key terms related to the deity of Christ.

Daniel B Wallace, American professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, very well respected. A New Testament scholar known for his work in Greek grammar and textual criticism, Wallace has expressed major concerns regarding the translation choices made in the NWT, especially in relation to verses that speak to the nature of Christ and the Trinity.

Walter Martin, Ph.D., a theologian and Christian apologist, who founded the Christian Research Institute in 1960. Martin dedicated much of his work to critiquing cults, including Jehovah's Witnesses, and he highlighted major issues with the NWT's translations in his writings.

David A Dorsey, professor of Old Testament at the Hannibal-Lagrange University in Missouri. A Missourian Old Testament scholar, Dorsey has commented on the dubious translation practices of the NWT and its approach to key biblical texts.

And many many many more.

 

[Kev45]

Continued.


Dr. Bruce Metzger (in more detail), Professor of New Testament at Princeton University:

“Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering… ‘And the Word was a god’ … It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” (For the Record – John 1:1)

Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, University of Glasgow, Scotland:

“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations, John 1:1 is translated: ‘the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect that can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament:

“A grossly misleading translation”; “obsolete and incorrect“; “shocking mistranslation“

“It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘the Word was a god.’ But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.” [Click here to read what the Watchtower has had to say over the years about the only “bible” known to us.

I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as the Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures…. It is a distortion–not a translation. The translators of the New World Translation are ‘diabolical deceivers.'".

 

[Smew]

Continued.


Dr. Bruce Metzger (in more detail), Professor of New Testament at Princeton University:

“Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering… ‘And the Word was a god’ … It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” (For the Record – John 1:1)

Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, University of Glasgow, Scotland:

“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations, John 1:1 is translated: ‘the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect that can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament:

“A grossly misleading translation”; “obsolete and incorrect“; “shocking mistranslation“

“It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘the Word was a god.’ But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.” [Click here to read what the Watchtower has had to say over the years about the only “bible” known to us.

I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as the Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures…. It is a distortion–not a translation. The translators of the New World Translation are ‘diabolical deceivers.'".

Hi Kev......I hope you had a very pleasant Christmas. I stayed in with my wife and we watched telly most of the time...

Theologians, professors, scholars etc....... The very first thing I do is to try and discover what they believe or belong to. Next thing is to range amongst their reports to see who agrees or disagrees with whom. I usually find that they are so at odds with each other that they are in a permanent state of academic war!

Some debaters have a favourite scholar to quote, but others have their favourites as well, and so you can get wonderful situations where one person chucks a name to gain ground, so another debater chucks another name with an opposing opinion. I call this scholar-waving.

I know a JW couple that have been visiting our home for about 30 years now, we have discussed and debated over so much, so many times, but we've never fallen out and the main reason for that is that there's always a point where we acknowledge that our beliefs differ....that's it.

And so....for me, every complaint from every scholar that you've shown above, simply means that they don't believe in the JW interpretation. The same goes for the interpretations and translations of every other denomination, church, group or Christian culture out there.

 

[Kev45]

Hi Smew,

We gave up on Christmas after the 129th pair of Dennis the Menace socks years ago, but I am glad that you and your partner enjoyed yours.

To be frank this isn't my subject, and I am viewing it from a totally different angle than you, but even so we will still have to agree to disagree, and although I do bow down to your far superior knowledge of actual scripture and as I said on the other thread.

The question was "weak in translation, how bad is it?"

The OP then presented all his evidence from a single source, and deceitfully passed it off as something else, in my opinion because he wanted to give the impression it was part of a broader question.

A common Jehovah Witness tactic and of course, a JW is going to preach with what the Watchtower publication instructs, and I do understand that.

But unfortunately, parts of the actual Watchtower NWT translation are simply grammatically impossible. It isn't open to theological or even academic debate. Scholars and translators etc, all with differing views, all agree that it is grammatically impossible. Therefore, it casts reasonable doubt on the actual translation itself and suggests that the NWT has an ulterior motive (and which it does).

Now, we can't question the actual NWT translators because the Watchtower refuses to reveal their identity, so we can't question why they translated in that manner.

The NWT also denies essential religious doctrine the Trinity etc, and which is why it is considered a cult by sizeable numbers of experts.

You would have to show me where the OP was sincerely debating, because all I see is a flood of black font preaching JW doctrine on a secular, liberal site and getting angry when people disagree.

Edited later today: 'grammatically impossible' means that the translation is incorrect, it is wrong, supported by numerous sources and not one single source. If I type "I love you Sally47Wigan" and it is later slyly translated to "I think I am falling in love with Judith38Bury" then it is, frankly, just taking the piss.

Hi Sally if you are reading XxX

I hope that you and your wife have a great New Year.

 

[Smew]

Hi Smew,

We gave up on Christmas after the 129th pair of Dennis the Menace socks years ago, but I am glad that you and your partner enjoyed yours.

To be frank this isn't my subject, and I am viewing it from a totally different angle than you, but even so we will still have to agree to disagree, and although I do bow down to your far superior knowledge of actual scripture and as I said on the other thread.

My wife enjoys Christmas, and I enjoy her enjoyment, so that's what Christmas is for me.
I don't think we disagree so much, you know.

The question was "weak in translation, how bad is it?"

The OP then presented all his evidence from a single source, and deceitfully passed it off as something else, in my opinion because he wanted to give the impression it was part of a broader question.

I don't think the OP is a true or proper JW. I have known JWs all my life and they just don't say the ignorant crude insulting stuff that he says. So, no, I think he's an impost.

A common Jehovah Witness tactic and of course, a JW is going to preach with what the Watchtower publication instructs, and I do understand that.

But unfortunately, parts of the actual Watchtower NWT translation are simply grammatically impossible. It isn't open to theological or even academic debate. Scholars and translators etc, all with differing views, all agree that it is grammatically impossible. Therefore, it casts reasonable doubt on the actual translation itself and suggests that the NWT has an ulterior motive (and which it does).

Yes, I know that the Watchtower, Kingdom Hall and JWs separate themselves from others, do not celebrate events like most congregations do, don't recognise Christmas etc..... But the truth is that the early Church reversed itself in to so many pagan feasts, cultures and beliefs that this has never been recognised by many, and the reason why JWs stay clear of feasts like Christmas is because it is a fabricated date..... pagans celebrated the return of the rising sun, and great feasts were held to consume all the stocks that could not be stored through the rest of the winter, they probably enjoyed drinking and orgies etc etc. My favourite Christmas Carols remember such times.

Now, we can't question the actual NWT translators because the Watchtower refuses to reveal their identity, so we can't question why they translated in that manner.

The NWT also denies essential religious doctrine the Trinity etc, and which is why it is considered a cult by sizeable numbers of experts.

Ah...... well I've always thought that the Trinity was nonsense, but then I am not a Christian but a researcher of the life and times of Jesus. The Trinity, Mary and child, so many of the pictures of Christianity fulfilled the needs of the people to fit with their earlier belief systems.

You would have to show me where the OP was sincerely debating, because all I see is a flood of black font preaching JW doctrine on a secular, liberal site and getting angry when people disagree.

Oh...I can't show you where the OP is worth reading... a waste of time.

I hope that you and your wife have a great New Year.

Thank you.
Do you have a partner? Or are you alone?

 

[Kev45]

Hello again Smew,

Absolutely, we are not that far apart, I agree pagan festivals etc, but which are of course also valid.

Again, I bow down to your superior knowledge of JW's in person because I have never had a real conversation with a JW other than door knockers who I enjoy irritating simply because I like to see how well they control their reaction.

I usually ask along the lines, "how would you like it if I hammered on your door after you have just worked a 12-hour night shift to discuss my religious beliefs"?

Or, "I am not very well, and you have just woken me up, so how about you fvck off".

I do however have more knowledge now than previously, specifically due to the OP and then Mrs Google, and so he can take credit for that because any knowledge learned, even if it is online, is better than none at all.

My point is this, Jehovah Witnesses believe all other religion is part of "Babylon the Great", a "world empire of false religion" under the control of Satan and as a consequence they refuse all ecumenical relations with other religious denominations.

I simply don't see that there is to debate with a JW, and it could well be my ignorance. I understand the enjoyment of debating scripture and what it means or what it doesn't etc, but a JW will not budge a single inch and have no respect for other religions whatsoever, and so why on earth do they expect respect in return?

Slyly adding or removing a word/sentence etc in their Watchtower, NWT has butchered what ancient Holy Scripture actually said.

Everything else is just a pissing contest.

I also agree that the OP is an impost.

Have a great day

 

[transit]

There are some who view translation as being a weakness; that a point can get lost in translation, and therefore we can never really know the true meaning of something. Is this fair to say?

Of course it can be. It is fair to say when there is one sentence, or one paragraph, or an ill-defined explanation of things. But this is often stated about God's Word - The Bible. So, does having a different translation actually weaken the meaning of what is written?

Yes.

Let's consider it under the term of a so-called "contradiction".

Contradiction
Although the answer is yes, there are other points to consider here. Other factors. See, most people don't realise that The Bible is NOT a book, as such. It is a library of books. It is a series of 66 books and letters inspired by God, and written by his secretaries. Because it is a collection of books, it is often easy to determine a meaning, even if there appears to be some contradiction, by considering such things as context.

For instance, a common misunderstanding is that Elijah was taken up to heaven in a windstorm (2Kings 2:1-18). Why is this a problem? Because Jesus states that nobody has been to heaven, except for himself (John 3:10-15).

So which is it???

The issue is in the simplicity of calling things a contradiction. Also, specifying what "heaven" is. If you look carefully at 2Kings, you'll see that it nowhere says he was taken away from the earth. Yes, men asked to go looking for him, and they didn't find him. But Elisha never said he was taken to the heavens in the sense that he was no longer on earth. In fact, if you want to study it deeply, you'll find that Elijah is found writing a letter later on, from another location. So, Jesus was right when he said that nobody had been to heaven in the sense of being a spirit creature and being a true human...except himself.

Badly Translated Passages
There is another area that shows how a bad translation can hide a true meaning. I'll highlight one here.
Philippians 2:5-6 in the King James Version reads:

So, if we read that scripture in our modern English, we'd see a problem. Here it states that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal to God. But the problem happens before then, as it says, "Let this mind be in you..." first. So, are we to conclude that we should be fine with considering we can be equal to God?

This is the results of a bad translation. But the thing it, we can always find what was meant by considering the context first. Look at this:
All we need to do is read the next verses - 7-12.

Verse seven says, "But", firstly. It shows that instead, Jesus took a slaves form. One of no account or value.

Then it shows that he became obedient. Obedient to who? Surely, he wasn't having issues with being obedient to himself, was he? No, but his Father.

Then it shows God giving Jesus a name above every other name. So if Jesus was God, or EQUAL to God, did God now make Jesus' name higher than that of God or not? Regardless of how one wants to look at this situation, you can see there is no equality of Jesus with God. Because IF...
IF...Jesus was already God, he would now be viewed as HIGHER than God. Yet, that is out of harmony with the Scriptures.

And as much as "every knee should bow" in heaven and on earth, it states that "...Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

The reason for the mistranslation is because the expression "thought it not" is not used in modern English any longer. So this can show how a bad translation can attempt to hide a clear meaning, but the point here is that the surrounding scriptures, as well as other ones in the Bible can be used to match what the Bible calls, "the pattern of healthful words". Just as a forensic scientist can analyse things, words can be analysed too, and their meanings determined from context and supporting verses.

Conclusion
I hope this article can help some of you to see that the weakness of translation does not remove the clarity of the Bible's message, if a little research is done. The rewards are great - one alone being knowing true from false as to what is written, but more so the hope of a great future for you and me. The Bible was written for translation, as the hope is offered to "every...language" (Revelation 5:9, 14:6)

Oh my stars your message is so so long that i didnt read 1 bit of it - sorry lol