Bible Translations

Post Reply New Topic

Similar ideas are stated elsewhere. It just seems like overkill/bad writing to me.

But we all like different things.

Blood fractions are considered a matter of conscience. JWs who are really strict, like my grandmother, won't even take those. Blood transfusions still aren't allowed. If a person gets a blood transfusion and it is known, they will be excommunicated and shunned.



The probably wouldn't get it.

Just to lay my cards on the table and all, I’m an atheist, too.

I got interested in the Jehovah Witnesses from a couple of conversations. And curiously, I understand they do allow major transplants such as a kidney transplant. But with blood, they rely on a few verses which say, don’t eat blood.

Okay, a blood transfusion is much more akin to an organ transplant. But . . .

Whoever said the human race was logical anyway! ? ! Especially regarding entrenched religious practices.

Makes you wonder how we ever make progress on anything. But in some areas we do, almost unexpectedly at times!

Should I assume JW's won't / can't donate blood either?
Are they allowed to save non-believers?

If they are caught donating blood, they will be shunned.

They aren’t allowed to save anyone this way.

Their stance on blood transfusions is utterly absurd.

I could understand Jews or Christians being against eating blood sausage for religious reasons, I guess, but to make something a disfellowshipping offense that isn’t mentioned in the Bible is beyond absurd. (Disfellowshipping IS absurd, but I digress.)

There’s a lot of concerning behavior over this issue. JWs have committees that oversee this stuff. If a JW is in the hospital and is at risk of needing a blood transfusion, one or two members of the local committee will visit the person, claiming to be providing “pastoral care” for the patient to the hospital staff, when their sole goal is to make sure that the person “stands firm” about refusing a blood transfusion. It’s disgusting behavior that needs to stop.

The JW Bible is…sad, really, in that it is selectively translated to support a specific theology. The Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek doesn’t need any help. Theology should support the Bible, not the other way around, at least when it comes to translation.

I’m partial to the HCSB because it renders YHWH as Yahweh, which is nice to know since most of us aren’t aware of God’s name being used in the original text. It is NOT known exactly how YHWH was intended to be pronounced, so the CSB backtracked by using more traditional references to “the Lord” or “the Name of the Lord.” I like that the translators sought to strike a balance between literal word-for-word translation and the intended meaning of various words and phrases, but I find some of the motivations for walking back certain things in the CSB to be kinda sketch. Idk if I really want to trust it, and overall I’m suspicious of anything that comes out of LifeWay.

The ESV is kinda cool, though. I got one as a gift a few years ago. I should probably read through it sometime.

Occasionally, the New World Translations makes the Bible, especially the Old Testament, slightly more palatable (although less accurate). For example, Moses gives orders concerning the Midianites in Numbers 31:17, 18. The New World Translation says:

The NRSV which is very similar to other translations says:

Absolutely horrendous.

The Bible [Old Testament] is telling us to invade, murder family members, but keep underage girls for sex abuse.

But I’m sure you also know that a fundamentalist Christian will twist themselves into a pretzel to justify this— Oh, it was only for that particular time. Or, sometimes you have to be tough. Or, it didn’t say sex abuse, it was probably for eventual marriage. And they’ve have a few more justifications. And then basically, they’ll just rotate between the justifications.

The Bible is written by human beings.

And is a very flawed document. It often seems like it’s the viewpoint of the powerful. Or perhaps more accurately, scribes who are trying to curry favor with warrior chiefs [and justify anything the damn warrior chief does].

Okay, if we really want to get in the wheelhouse of fundamentalists, generally we’ve got to get into the contradictions involving numbers: such as the number of horses King Solomon had in his stables. Two different verses says two different things. Now, we know it’s just a scribal error. But that one is really hard for a fundamentalist to explain away.

And same for two different verses which give different ages for when a particular king came to the throne.

The Bible doesn’t deserve any more respect than the epic poem Beowulf.

[and sometimes it deserves less!]

https://reformedwiki.com/solomon-stalls-horse

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV


Yes, this part with the number of horses is a problem for those who want to take a literal, word-for-word view of the Bible.

Okay, we have no tangible evidence for the existence of God, but even if we did . . . I think He or She would still want us to use own our common sense.

https://vedika-khatwani.medium.com/vasu ... a0afdd29e8



Yes, I’d say most religions have a version of the Golden Rule.

But sometimes this seems too high a standard. For example, in Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” Just too high a standard. Especially trying to feel that way, which we’re probably not going to be able to do even 50% of the time. I’m sorry, but jealousy is a big part of the human condition.

Even in terms of action, this is kind of telling us that we should spend most of our free hours working for the welfare of others — when others are probably not reciprocating back to us.

Yeah I've spent time volunteering and time working, working was much better due to the money I would've thought that if volunteering was pleasing to God that something good would've come out of volunteering but it didn't... Except meeting a few nice people... But I don't see them outside of the volunteering so.....

New Testament reciprocity is distinctly anti-altruistic. It carries the expectation that good things will happen, that when you do good things for others you receive ROI. If there’s no point to doing good things for others, why do it?

I’m an atheist and follow my version of the Golden Rule because it feels like the right thing to do. I’m not interested in pleasing a deity, and I don’t always expect to get something in return.

I think that the desire to help other people is in our genes because it is a beneficial trait from an evolutionary perspective. Maybe this explains why religions are all on the same page here.

The point to doing good deeds….is that it benefits the recipient; and, therefore, it benefits you.

Why deny yourself the opportunity to do good deeds just because it “selfishly benefits you?”

I don’t see the point in NOT doing good deeds.