New World Translation

[NonTrinitarian]

Most translations stand or fall on their fidelity ( or lack thereof) to the original text. The NWT seems to be unique in that its proponents argue its merits by finding other translations that agree with it. It's generally acknowledged that those who compiled the NWT were not credentialed translators. Could it be that the NWT was put together by people reading all the translations they could get their hands on, and picking and choosing the readings they most agreed with?

OBP-I've had many discussions with you and I KNOW you are smarter than this idiotic statement. Yes, a translation stands on it fidelity to the Greek text. The problem is people say 'you can't translate it that way' or 'no one would support a translation like that.' So how are we supposed to combat that? Say 'yes you can and yes they do?' Like that would do a lot of good.

No, it's much more fun to let them rant and rave about how a particular translation is no good, then ask them what Bibles they use and then go get those Bibles and show them that they translate it the same way.

Ohh, oohh, and I love those people that say such and such Bible is the best translation and then watch their face when they disagree with a translation of the NWT, call us a bunch of goobers and find out their translation says the same thing. That's the BEST!

So yes, we enjoy showing you and everyone else that there are numerous scholars who agree with various renderings in the NWT. We just like to wait until you rant and rave about how bad a verse is translated before we do it.

[One Bad Pig]

Most translations stand or fall on their fidelity ( or lack thereof) to the original text. The NWT seems to be unique in that its proponents argue its merits by finding other translations that agree with it. It's generally acknowledged that those who compiled the NWT were not credentialed translators. Could it be that the NWT was put together by people reading all the translations they could get their hands on, and picking and choosing the readings they most agreed with?

OBP-I've had many discussions with you and I KNOW you are smarter than this idiotic statement.

What's idiotic about it? Sentence 2 is an observation of mine based on my interactions with JW's. Sentence 4 is a logical conclusion based on sentences 2 and 3.

Yes, a translation stands on it fidelity to the Greek text. The problem is people say 'you can't translate it that way' or 'no one would support a translation like that.' So how are we supposed to combat that? Say 'yes you can and yes they do?' Like that would do a lot of good.

No, it's much more fun to let them rant and rave about how a particular translation is no good, then ask them what Bibles they use and then go get those Bibles and show them that they translate it the same way.

Ohh, oohh, and I love those people that say such and such Bible is the best translation and then watch their face when they disagree with a translation of the NWT, call us a bunch of goobers and find out their translation says the same thing. That's the BEST!

So yes, we enjoy showing you and everyone else that there are numerous scholars who agree with various renderings in the NWT. We just like to wait until you rant and rave about how bad a verse is translated before we do it.

It can be entertaining to argue with uninformed people, yes. However, trouncing them doesn't mean much.

[barryrob]

What's idiotic about it? Sentence 2 is an observation of mine based on my interactions with JW's. Sentence 4 is a logical conclusion based on sentences 2 and 3.

It can be entertaining to argue with uninformed people, yes. However, trouncing them doesn't mean much.

That rather depends upon what you base what it means to be informed, remember this:-

Acts 4:13 Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. . . .

1 Corinthians 1:20-21 Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, . . .

Just a thought.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

That rather depends upon what you base what it means to be informed, remember this:-

Acts 4:13 Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. . . .

1 Corinthians 1:20-21 Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, . . .

Just a thought.

Barryrob

Uninformed and unlettered (unschooled) are two different things. The reason they were impressed with Peter and John were precisely because they WERE informed and yet just ordinary joes and not some Rabbi who had been schooled in scripture. And yet they spoke authoritatively and as informed men of scripture.

[barryrob]

Uninformed and unlettered (unschooled) are two different things. The reason they were impressed with Peter and John were precisely because they WERE informed and yet just ordinary joes and not some Rabbi who had been schooled in scripture. And yet they spoke authoritatively and as informed men of scripture.

Uninformed = Ignorant

Unlettered = Ignorant

[Sparko]

Unlettered is not ignorant. It just means unschooled. There are lots of bright people who never had a formal education. They may have as much knowledge as a college professor, but never have finished high school.

Uninformed does mean ignorant.

So Peter was unschooled (he was just an ordinary fisherman) but he was definately not ignorant. That was why they were impressed with them. How did such an ordinary fisherman come to know so much about scripture? They were impressed.

[barryrob]

Unlettered is not ignorant. It just means unschooled. There are lots of bright people who never had a formal education. They may have as much knowledge as a college professor, but never have finished high school.

Uninformed does mean ignorant.

So Peter was unschooled (he was just an ordinary fisherman) but he was definately not ignorant. That was why they were impressed with them. How did such an ordinary fisherman come to know so much about scripture? They were impressed.

"uninformed adj. not informed; ignorant."-Oxford Dic.

"ignorant adj. 1. lacking in knowledge or education; unenlightened. ..."-Collins Dic.

[One Bad Pig]

"uninformed adj. not informed; ignorant."-Oxford Dic.

"ignorant adj. 1. lacking in knowledge or education; unenlightened. ..."-Collins Dic.

"uninformed - un- + informed; not having or prepared with information or knowledge"- Webster's unabridged
"unlettered" - adj. 1. not educated; uneducated; untutored; ignorant. - Webster's unabridged
"ignorant adj. 1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned. ..." - Webster's unabridged
Note that "uninformed" and "unlettered" are synonyms of "ignorant" but not of each other. It is possible to be very well informed on a subject without having had any formal education (but not probable; hence the Jews' surprise in Acts 4:13).

[Oldmonk]

To be honest the NWT translation would make all JW's Polytheists and NOT monotheists as is the tradition of the Judo-Christian faith. To have "a God" who is NOT "THE God" goes against MANY verses in both testaments.

John 1:1- How is this a mistranslation? Are you saying it's grammatically incorrect or theologically incorrect? Maybe your Bible translates it in a way to give a deity to Christ that God's Word does not.

John 14:14- Hmm. Awful lot of Bibles translate like the NWt at this verse. Are you saying JW's are on their translation committees too?

John 8:58- Same comment as John 14:14

Colossians 1:15-20- Do you mean specifically verses 16 and 18 where the term "other" is inserted? I would have left it out if I was translating the verse. It's not needed as it's implied.

Colossians 2:9- I suppose you would prefer this translation: "For in Christ the Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate." Would you object to the next verse being translated this way? "and by your union with him, you also are filled with it."

Or maybe you prefer this translation: "For in Christ there is all of God in a human body. So you have everything when you have Christ, and you are filled with God through your union with Christ."

Kind of reminds me of Eph 3:19
"That you might be filled with all the fullness of God"-King James
"and so be filled to the full with God himself."-TCNT
"that you may be filled up with the fullness of God."- NASB
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."-NIV
"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself."-The Living Bible

[JAY-PC]

John 1:1 from 85 Translations

(ACV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(AKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ALT) In the beginning was the Word [or, the Expression of [divine] Logic], and the Word was with [or, in communion with] God, and the Word was God [or, was as to His essence God].
(AMP) IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([1]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [2]Himself.(1)
(AUV-NT) The Word [already] existed in the beginning [of time]. [Note: This is a reference to the preexistence of Jesus. See verse 14]. And the Word was with God and the Word was [what] God [was].
(ASV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(BBE) From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
(BB (1568)) In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.
(CEV) In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
(CJB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CLV) In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. "
(CENT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CPV-NT) (1-5) When time began, the Idea already was. The Idea was at home with God, and the Idea and God were one. This same Idea was at home with God when time began. Through him the universe was made, and apart from him not one thing came to be. In him was life, and the life was humanity’s light. And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness never quenched it.
(Coverdale) In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.
(Darby) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(DRB) In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(DRC) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(DRP (Gospels)) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Diaglott-NT) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
(EMTV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Geneva) In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
(GNB) In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GDBY_NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GSNT) In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
(GW) In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HCSB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HNV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(IAV NC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim .
(IGNT) εν 1722[IN "THE"] αρχη 746[BEGINNING] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD,] και 2532[AND] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] προς 4314 τον 3588[WITH] θεον 2316[GOD,] και 2532[AND] θεος 2316[GOD] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD.]
(ISV) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Phillips NT) 1-5 At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.
(JM-NT) Within a beginning there was The Word (The Thought; The Collection of Thoughts; The Idea; The Reason; The Discourse; The Communication; The Verbal Expression). And the Word (the thought; the expression) was (and continued being) facing, directed and moving toward (or: with) God. And the Word (the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. [or: Originally the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being projected toward God. And the Word, It was existing being God (idiomatically: And the Word was just what God was; And the Expression was an extension of Deity).]
(JST) In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
(KJ2000) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJVCNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJV-1611) In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJV21) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Lamsa NT) THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
(LB) ,2 Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.
(LITV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(LONT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Mace) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
(MKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Moffatt NT) THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.
(MNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God.
(MRC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(MSG) The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God,
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(NAB D) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NAS77) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NET.) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
(NIRV) In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NIV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NKJV) 1)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NLT) In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.
(NLV) The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.
(NRS) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NWT) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(Rev. Webster+) In1722 the beginning746 was2258 [5713] the Word3056, and2532 the Word3056 was2258 [5713] with4314 God2316, and2532 the Word3056 was2258 [5713] God2316.
(RKJV-NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(RYLT-NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
(RNT) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Rotherham) Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
(RSV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(tmb) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(TRC) In the beginning was that (the) word, and that (the) word was with god: and god was that word. (and the word was God.)
(TS98) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.
(TCNT) In the Beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(WTNT) In the beginning was the word, and that word was with God: and God was that word.
(Tyndale) In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
(UPDV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(UPDV-2.09) In the beginning was the Speech, and the Speech was with God, and the Speech was God.
(VW-Edition) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WEB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Webster) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WENT) The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.
(Wesley's) In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WmsNT) In the beginning the Word existed; and the Word was face to face with God; yea, the Word was God Himself.
(WNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WORNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WycliffeNT) In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
(YLT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

If we are just listing Translations then the majority of scholars and translators say "the Word was God." Not "a god."

[Oldmonk]

John 1:1 from 85 Translations

(ACV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(AKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ALT) In the beginning was the Word [or, the Expression of [divine] Logic], and the Word was with [or, in communion with] God, and the Word was God [or, was as to His essence God].
(AMP) IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([1]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [2]Himself.(1)
(AUV-NT) The Word [already] existed in the beginning [of time]. [Note: This is a reference to the preexistence of Jesus. See verse 14]. And the Word was with God and the Word was [what] God [was].
(ASV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(BBE) From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
(BB (1568)) In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.
(CEV) In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
(CJB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CLV) In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. "
(CENT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CPV-NT) (1-5) When time began, the Idea already was. The Idea was at home with God, and the Idea and God were one. This same Idea was at home with God when time began. Through him the universe was made, and apart from him not one thing came to be. In him was life, and the life was humanity’s light. And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness never quenched it.
(Coverdale) In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.
(Darby) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(DRB) In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(DRC) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(DRP (Gospels)) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Diaglott-NT) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
(EMTV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Geneva) In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
(GNB) In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GDBY_NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GSNT) In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
(GW) In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HCSB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HNV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(IAV NC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim .
(IGNT) εν 1722[IN "THE"] αρχη 746[BEGINNING] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD,] και 2532[AND] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] προς 4314 τον 3588[WITH] θεον 2316[GOD,] και 2532[AND] θεος 2316[GOD] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD.]
(ISV) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Phillips NT) 1-5 At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.
(JM-NT) Within a beginning there was The Word (The Thought; The Collection of Thoughts; The Idea; The Reason; The Discourse; The Communication; The Verbal Expression). And the Word (the thought; the expression) was (and continued being) facing, directed and moving toward (or: with) God. And the Word (the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. [or: Originally the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being projected toward God. And the Word, It was existing being God (idiomatically: And the Word was just what God was; And the Expression was an extension of Deity).]
(JST) In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
(KJ2000) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJVCNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJV-1611) In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJV21) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Lamsa NT) THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
(LB) ,2 Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.
(LITV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(LONT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Mace) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
(MKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Moffatt NT) THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.
(MNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God.
(MRC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(MSG) The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God,
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(NAB D) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NAS77) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NET.) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
(NIRV) In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NIV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NKJV) 1)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NLT) In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.
(NLV) The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.
(NRS) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NWT) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(Rev. Webster+) In1722 the beginning746 was2258 [5713] the Word3056, and2532 the Word3056 was2258 [5713] with4314 God2316, and2532 the Word3056 was2258 [5713] God2316.
(RKJV-NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(RYLT-NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
(RNT) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Rotherham) Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
(RSV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(tmb) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(TRC) In the beginning was that (the) word, and that (the) word was with god: and god was that word. (and the word was God.)
(TS98) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.
(TCNT) In the Beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(WTNT) In the beginning was the word, and that word was with God: and God was that word.
(Tyndale) In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
(UPDV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(UPDV-2.09) In the beginning was the Speech, and the Speech was with God, and the Speech was God.
(VW-Edition) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WEB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Webster) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WENT) The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.
(Wesley's) In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WmsNT) In the beginning the Word existed; and the Word was face to face with God; yea, the Word was God Himself.
(WNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WORNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WycliffeNT) In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
(YLT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

If we are just listing Translations then the majority of scholars and translators say "the Word was God." Not "a god."

Yep. Actually the Watchtower Society doesn't have any scholarship behind it but quotes {or on MANY occassions MISQUOTES } our scholars. Of course what they choose in their quotes {misquotes} supports their ideas. They have Quoted from Johannas Greeber on some occassions even though they had already condemned him as a spiritualist!!! Thus they link themselves to Spiritism:)

[Billen]

Interesting thread, though I think the core problem is ignored: Is the New World Translation actually a translation?

Meaning, that since the "translators" behind NWT did not actually have any scholarship (when talking NT. OT was done years before by hired scholars...later edited byt WTS), would they actually have been able to do ANY translation? No, they wouldnt. They had not the knowledge necessary.

Since bethelites often advocate to use "many tranlations" as a mean to validate or get a broad perspective (an argument that is truly flawed), one may suspect that is exactly what the WTS did back then: Read the existing translations, handpicked the usefull sentences and reformulated several critical passages.
To call this a translation is actually a direct fraud.

We can pick out the many passages in NWT that are critically flawed when comparing to the greek texts, but it matters little. What matters is, that the people behind NWT did not know the languages they were "translating" from and therefore could not have done any actually translation or produce proper arguments in defense of the choices they made.

Also, the NWT is translated to different languages all over the world. Translated from what? From the english NWT or the greek andd hebrew texts? To call each a translation of the greek and hebrew scriptures, they should each have been translated from hebrew and greek. Considering the similarity in the wording of the respective countries NWT's, I really doubt they are. Rather they are translated from the english NWT, making each other non-english NWT another fraud.

[apostoli]

Interesting thread, though I think the core problem is ignored: Is the New World Translation actually a translation?

Meaning, that since the "translators" behind NWT did not actually have any scholarship (when talking NT. OT was done years before by hired scholars...later edited byt WTS), would they actually have been able to do ANY translation? No, they wouldnt. They had not the knowledge necessary.

Since bethelites often advocate to use "many tranlations" as a mean to validate or get a broad perspective (an argument that is truly flawed), one may suspect that is exactly what the WTS did back then: Read the existing translations, handpicked the usefull sentences and reformulated several critical passages.
To call this a translation is actually a direct fraud.

We can pick out the many passages in NWT that are critically flawed when comparing to the greek texts, but it matters little. What matters is, that the people behind NWT did not know the languages they were "translating" from and therefore could not have done any actually translation or produce proper arguments in defense of the choices they made.

Also, the NWT is translated to different languages all over the world. Translated from what? From the english NWT or the greek andd hebrew texts? To call each a translation of the greek and hebrew scriptures, they should each have been translated from hebrew and greek. Considering the similarity in the wording of the respective countries NWT's, I really doubt they are. Rather they are translated from the english NWT, making each other non-english NWT another fraud.

The major criticism of the NWT by the "experts" is the translation commitee took the Greek too literally, an accusation that can also be applied at times to the KJV and other versions. John 1:1c is the best example. The WT&TS applies the literal syntax and translates "the Word was a god", the KJV avocates appeal to a thing called the Colwell's rule and translate the contradictive "the Word was God", whereas the Greek Grammarians say that the exact meaning is expressed best by the New English Bible's paraphrase "what God was the Word was". Given John 1:18; 12:45; 14:9 I have the opinion that the better translation would be "the Word was as God".

As for foreign translations:the majority aren't based on the original languages but some other base text, most often a German, Latin or an English rendition - all of which have their defects.

Personally, for readability, I prefer the NKJV...albeit it still retains errors in translation brought forward from the KJV...

[Billen]

There have been put much effort into getting a translation of the passage, that gives a more precise expression of what the koinê-greek passage in John 1:1c. Different scholar have applied different suggestions to get as near as possible to the original meaning of the phrasing in koinê. This religious leaders with no scholarship may use and "misunderstand", as they do not know about or understand the original language and therefore not why the scholars comes with different suggestions. Scholars (in koinê)understand fully the meaning of the phrasing, but disagree how to get the correct meaning expressed in english (or other languages).

What I try to point out is, that the people behind NWT had no idea what they were doing and that one cannot just read different translations and believe he that way get a proper understanding of the greek texts to make a translation. To make a translation, one must know the actual language that are translated from to call it a translation.

As for bibles in other languages I have to disagree. I live in Denmark, and the main translations we use here are made by scholars in greek and hebrew. They may though use different textual traditions as a base for their translation work....

[One Bad Pig]

Wow, this is a blast from the past. Sadly, it seems that NonTrinitarian quietly became an agnostic.