"Which Bible" is the "right" one?
kxmode
Supporting Member

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
The objection that *I* have is that you in part are "staking" your claim as to the correctness of your Bible translation on the shape of an execution device. What you're essentially saying is that "we got the stake right, therefore you should only believe our Bible." That's the implication, anyway. The NWT follows Watchtower "theology," not the other way around, and the beginnings of this go WAY back to Watchtower founders who, for one, denied the divinity of Christ. This is evident in your translation of John 1:1. There are also the numerous references to "Jehovah" which aren't even in the original language. The translation I read actually includes several translations of "Yahweh" where the name is used in reference to the Name. Where YHWH was used but a different translation was substituted is clearly marked for anyone who is interested.
What's amusing, though somewhat frightening, is that much of mainstream Christianity avoids getting so bent out of shape over mere words and minuscule details that aren't even relevant to the central message. Only authoritarian cults are so hell-bent on twisting the words of the Bible to suit their apostate agenda, and this focus on minor points and secondary issues is something Watchtower holds in common with Christian Science.
Why do you automatically assume that everything I post is taken verbatim from the WTS? I spent the hour researching the word on my own from multiple sources. I didn't want to post anything from the WTS because I knew your response would likely be the end result. While I will agree that my beliefs play a huge role in what I believe I am also a huge believer in the TRUTH.
That being said, and forgive me if this is wrong, you make the claim that because I have no photographic evidence of what a "stauros" looks like the word can mean any shape. You also conclude that because the apostles didn't use adjectives this clearly indicates an level of ignorance on their part. Keep in mind that while ancient Greek was an amazing language it is also mostly spoken. There was no need to add an adjective to stauros when the word "pale" was a sufficient description. Since most Christians lived under Roman rule they knew exactly what a stauros looked like while reading the scriptures on scrolls. Since we do not know what a stauros then we use evidence to determine it shape. You seem to ignore all the evidence I presented. Like any lawyer if you put to put all of it together what picture would you conclude a stauros (σταυρός) to be?
As far as the New World Translation I never said anything about that translation being the most accurate. I presented my case based on evidence to let the reader draw a fair conclusion. I also said that I would like to say which bible I believe to be the "right" one but deferred the original poster to a book written by non-Witness scholar. His book does an incredible job unbiasedly vetting nine common translations including the NWT. The author has reservations about certain aspects of the NWT which have merit.
The problem here is because I've made it known to you all that I am a Jehovah's Witness you automatically discredit anything I post. I will admit in the past I did post strong doctrinal beliefs but I now see that this is not the way to reach anyone in PPR. Instead I would like to try a new approach. Most of you are learned individuals so I'd like to use research and post my findings on your level. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)
People complain Jehovah's Witnesses are too closed minded to look at educational findings. Then when, as a witness, I back up my words with transliteration screenshots, definitions, illustrations, translations from multiple bibles, and fair conclusions it's still not good enough.
Nothing I post is good enough, which is not fair. I thought PPR was tolerant of views, especially views based on hours of research...
_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."
DevilInPgh
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 186
Location: Washington, DC
This is probably a bad translation. Chabad.org has this one:
And then a commentary by Rashi pointing to this "prince of peace" as Hezekiah:
and… called his name: The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days.
DevilInPgh
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 186
Location: Washington, DC
And on-topic, depends on what you want. I can't speak for poetic language, but if you want what is closest in meaning to the original source texts, you should use the New Revised Standard Version. And if you want to be a true scholar, don't just use the Septuagint but also the Targum (in Aramaic).
The objection that *I* have is that you in part are "staking" your claim as to the correctness of your Bible translation on the shape of an execution device. What you're essentially saying is that "we got the stake right, therefore you should only believe our Bible." That's the implication, anyway. The NWT follows Watchtower "theology," not the other way around, and the beginnings of this go WAY back to Watchtower founders who, for one, denied the divinity of Christ. This is evident in your translation of John 1:1. There are also the numerous references to "Jehovah" which aren't even in the original language. The translation I read actually includes several translations of "Yahweh" where the name is used in reference to the Name. Where YHWH was used but a different translation was substituted is clearly marked for anyone who is interested.
What's amusing, though somewhat frightening, is that much of mainstream Christianity avoids getting so bent out of shape over mere words and minuscule details that aren't even relevant to the central message. Only authoritarian cults are so hell-bent on twisting the words of the Bible to suit their apostate agenda, and this focus on minor points and secondary issues is something Watchtower holds in common with Christian Science.
Why do you automatically assume that everything I post is taken verbatim from the WTS? I spent the hour researching the word on my own from multiple sources. I didn't want to post anything from the WTS because I knew your response would likely be the end result. While I will agree that my beliefs play a huge role in what I believe I am also a huge believer in the TRUTH.
That being said, and forgive me if this is wrong, you make the claim that because I have no photographic evidence of what a "stauros" looks like the word can mean any shape. You also conclude that because the apostles didn't use adjectives this clearly indicates an level of ignorance on their part. Keep in mind that while ancient Greek was an amazing language it is also mostly spoken. There was no need to add an adjective to stauros when the word "pale" was a sufficient description. Since most Christians lived under Roman rule they knew exactly what a stauros looked like while reading the scriptures on scrolls. Since we do not know what a stauros then we use evidence to determine it shape. You seem to ignore all the evidence I presented. Like any lawyer if you put to put all of it together what picture would you conclude a stauros (σταυρός) to be?
As far as the New World Translation I never said anything about that translation being the most accurate. I presented my case based on evidence to let the reader draw a fair conclusion. I also said that I would like to say which bible I believe to be the "right" one but deferred the original poster to a book written by non-Witness scholar. His book does an incredible job unbiasedly vetting nine common translations including the NWT. The author has reservations about certain aspects of the NWT which have merit.
The problem here is because I've made it known to you all that I am a Jehovah's Witness you automatically discredit anything I post. I will admit in the past I did post strong doctrinal beliefs but I now see that this is not the way to reach anyone in PPR. Instead I would like to try a new approach. Most of you are learned individuals so I'd like to use research and post my findings on your level. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)
People complain Jehovah's Witnesses are too closed minded to look at educational findings. Then when, as a witness, I back up my words with transliteration screenshots, definitions, illustrations, translations from multiple bibles, and fair conclusions it's still not good enough.
Nothing I post is good enough, which is not fair. I thought PPR was tolerant of views, especially views based on hours of research...
_________________
Learn the patterns of the past; consider what is not now; help what is not the past; plan for the future.
-Myself
AngelRho
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
I'll give a more thorough response if I have time, but for the moment, let's address this:
You may not be aware of the passive-aggressive tactics you're using here, which is often a problem of theists posting in PPR. Nobody likes a martyr.
The other thing is that while PPR is tolerant of all views, that doesn't mean all people accept all views as true. You have to understand that what you're posting is for an audience of skeptics. I may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean I get to turn my mind off and just go with one crowd or another. It's ok to say what you have to say--but don't be surprised if you get critics from both mainline Christianity as well as the atheists.
kxmode
Supporting Member

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
I'll give a more thorough response if I have time, but for the moment, let's address this:
You may not be aware of the passive-aggressive tactics you're using here, which is often a problem of theists posting in PPR. Nobody likes a martyr.
The other thing is that while PPR is tolerant of all views, that doesn't mean all people accept all views as true. You have to understand that what you're posting is for an audience of skeptics. I may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean I get to turn my mind off and just go with one crowd or another. It's ok to say what you have to say--but don't be surprised if you get critics from both mainline Christianity as well as the atheists.
Isn't a martyr somebody who wants to die for their beliefs? I don't know how you can, in a single sentence, group me in with people who WANT to die for their religion. Of course there are beliefs I have that may cause me to lose my life someday but I can assure you that I don't want to die. I very much want to live! I don't think it's fair to place the "martyr" label on me, because you're now grouping me and other Witnesses in with violent people who blow people up in the name of their religion. I don't know if you know this but Jehovah's Witnesses are extremely peaceful people. If you do the historical research you'll see our history is full of peace and neutrality.
As regards a forum of critics. I absolutely agree. That's why I've changed gears to try the research approach. I'm reminded of Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 where he writes, "And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law. To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, that I might gain those without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, that I might by all means save some. But I do all things for the sake of the good news, that I may become a sharer of it with [others]."
Going forward I will try and post scriptures based on research and information I find. This will include the OT and NT in interlinear format, cross reference scriptures, illustrations, charts, and any other resource at my disposal. I may also use information from the WTS to help augment the point. Hopefully the combined information posted is sufficiently researched to reinforce the point I wish to make without suffering epic backlashes.
I was curious to ask if you are an atheist? If you are, why do you not believe in God? Is it because you dislike the lies established religion preaches or is it because of something else? Thank you. :)
_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."
Who says that a "most accurate" translation exists? Wouldn't such a thing require that all concepts be equally translatable? Given that metaphors, side-references, innuendo, alliteration, and everything else has meaning but heavily context-dependent meaning, couldn't this mean that a "most accurate translation" may not really exist for a number of texts? (Note: To be even clearer, the effects don't have to be as blunt as stated, but they would still have some meaning to them)
For instance, the choice of "cross" may actually be a sacrifice of literal truth for something more easily interpreted and digested.(and that's just a speculation) "Torture stake" is harder to get our minds around without a background of other torture stakes, but the cross has to already be explained. For instance, certain translations for countries without bread as a staple food use other words for "bread" that would reflect the staple of that culture to convey the underlying message at the cost of literalism.
Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 29 Nov 2011, 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kxmode
Supporting Member

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
Who says that a "most accurate" translation exists? Wouldn't such a thing require that all concepts be equally translatable? Given that metaphors, side-references, innuendo, alliteration, and everything else has meaning but heavily context-dependent meaning, couldn't this mean that a "most accurate translation" may not really exist for a number of texts? (Note: To be even clearer, the effects don't have to be as blunt as stated, but they would still have some meaning to them)
Yes, but as noted earlier since most of use don't read ancient Hebrew Aramaic and Greek we rely on translations. The bible that translates the words most accurately with little or no bias is the best translation possible. Am I not correct in offering that conclusion?
That was the point I was trying to make, in case the point was lost.
_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."
That was the point I was trying to make, in case the point was lost.
But the decision on a proper rendering(and I did elaborate with an edit) is partly going to be theological. So, because I cannot give the literal words, it may be the case that I have to interpret the proper understanding Paul was aiming for in the act of translating it. In fact, most translations do this to some extent because other languages have different structures that make more direct renderings less comprehensible. So, for that reason, the translator basically does this to some degree: foreign words -> concepts meant that I translate from those words -> English expression matching the concept. So, for instance, we have issues in Biblical translation that are heavily BOUND in the actual meaning of Greek, such as the word "agape". Does the word agape mean "divine love" as in proper Greek? Is "agape" a more generic love as found in some of the cruder Greek used? Should a translation make distinctions so that people don't interpret divine love as simply being friendship or romantic love? (People read their English Bibles on 1 Cor 13, and see it as often being romantic love, but the word is agape) Decisions like this really require theological decisions to be made. If we qualify every word, the text is unreadable as a narrative(and the meaning is in the narrative). If we fail to, we gloss over meaningful distinctions in the text. Either way, how do we objectively determine what faithfulness to the text means?
and Catholics who are...well I can't say the rest.
We read passages from Peter 1 and Romans 10.
Everyone had a Bible, except me.
I am considering taking an English class for Winter Term that focuses
on the Good Book as literature.
So, "which Bible" is the "right" one, if I take this class?
Won't the instructor state a specific edition to use for the class beforehand?
As I said before, I think it would make the most sense to make a pasigraphic logogrammic constructed language with a vocabulary that is a fusion of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek's vocabularies: If a stem of essentially the same meaning exists in more than 1 language, like Greek Hydro- and Aramaic m-y for "Water", then the same logogram is used for the stem in the constructed language. There is to be a single, novel and perfectly regular grammar for this Bible's constructed language so as to ease learning for the world's Christians.
This plan would save the issue of translation into every living language, among other benefits. Of course, Biblical scholars would still read the Bible in the original but for most people, a single, easy to learn Biblical Language would involve less difficulty.
So, what does everyone think of my idea for a Universal Pasigraphic Biblical Language (UPBL?)
_________________
Learn the patterns of the past; consider what is not now; help what is not the past; plan for the future.
-Myself
UPBL is too complicated and costly to implement and will fail. If a person wants to be a Biblical scholar, they will study the original languages. If a person just wants to read the Bible, they won't dedicate themselves to the UPBL study code, and will just pick up a Bible in their language. The idea of a happy middle is unlikely to work.
AngelRho
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Agreed 100%. But don't forget that for even the casual Bible scholar there are interlinears. Not only that, but "Strong's Concordance" is STRONG.
If you don't mind the dispensationalist perspective, I highly recommend the Scofield study Bible, also, as a jumping-off point for future study. Mostly evangelical Protestants would be most interested in that, but agree with it or no it's not a horrible way to get started--at least not from what little I've read of the notes so far, and those are also available off the internet somewhere for free if you don't want to buy a translation with Scofield. I'm already a big fan of the Holman, and even though I've never read the Holman Study Bible I've heard good things about it. I do use a study Bible myself but am somewhat bored with it at the moment having read it twice through. That's why I'm thinking about going through all of the Scofield notes in the next year or so before switching to something else more current.
Agreed 100%. But don't forget that for even the casual Bible scholar there are interlinears. Not only that, but "Strong's Concordance" is STRONG.
Also true. The middle ground is filled with efforts like that for the person who wants to do theology/Biblical studies better, but who doesn't have the time to learn a new language.
kxmode
Supporting Member

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
That was the point I was trying to make, in case the point was lost.
But the decision on a proper rendering(and I did elaborate with an edit) is partly going to be theological. So, because I cannot give the literal words, it may be the case that I have to interpret the proper understanding Paul was aiming for in the act of translating it. In fact, most translations do this to some extent because other languages have different structures that make more direct renderings less comprehensible. So, for that reason, the translator basically does this to some degree: foreign words -> concepts meant that I translate from those words -> English expression matching the concept. So, for instance, we have issues in Biblical translation that are heavily BOUND in the actual meaning of Greek, such as the word "agape". Does the word agape mean "divine love" as in proper Greek? Is "agape" a more generic love as found in some of the cruder Greek used? Should a translation make distinctions so that people don't interpret divine love as simply being friendship or romantic love? (People read their English Bibles on 1 Cor 13, and see it as often being romantic love, but the word is agape) Decisions like this really require theological decisions to be made. If we qualify every word, the text is unreadable as a narrative(and the meaning is in the narrative). If we fail to, we gloss over meaningful distinctions in the text. Either way, how do we objectively determine what faithfulness to the text means?
Exactly! :)
This is why it is very important for a translation to be as accurate as possible to convey the meaning in the original Hebrew and Greek. I would recommend Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. Dr. Jason David BeDuhn combs through several doctrinally charged scriptures and breaks them down in much the same way you just did. He uses his knowledge of ancient Greek and its associated customs to arrive at a truth in the translation.
_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."