On another thread someone made a reference to their belief that the New World Translation "added words" at Colossians 1:15-20. They did not substantiate that claim. According to the rules of this forum when one makes negative comments they should be substantiated. Here is your opportunity to do just that. I will start the ball rolling by sharing what a scholar has to say on the subject. I quote him not because of who he is or his Seminary degrees but because of the reasons behind what he says. I have read the book. Here are the credentials of the author.

TRUTH IN TRANSLATION - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jason David BeDuhn is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles n die areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the "Best First Book" prize from the American Academy of Religion.

For orders and information please contact the publisher - UNIVERSITY PRESS of AMERICA, INC.
4501 Forbes Blvd. Suite 200 - Lanham, Maryland 20706 - 1-800-462-5220 www.univpress.com

Here are some snippets from the Chapter "Probing the Implicit Meaning." He has a whole chapter on just this one passage and gives examples where the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB add words that are not justitified in this passage. He defends the NWT.

Conclusion of The English Versions and "adding words."

But once the issue of "adding words" is raised, and all of the versions are put side by side and compared to the Greek, we discover a shocking willingness of translators to freely add words and ideas not supported or in any way implied in the Greek...

It is ironic that the translation of Colossians 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism (the NWT) is the one where the "added words" are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek. And if we, under other conditions, might have said that making the implied "other" explicit is not altogether necessary, we now recognize by the gross distortion of the passage in other translations that what the NW translators have done is certainly necessary after all. If the NIV, NRSV, TEV, and LB translators are willing to "add words" in order to shift the meaning of the passage away from Christ’s connection with creation and "all things," then it is clearly justifiable for the NW to cement that connection, explicitly expressed in the passage, by bringing to the foreground of translation those implied nuances which go along with the meaning of the passage as a whole. ...



"Other" is implicit in "all" in Colossians 1:15-20
So what exactly are objectors to "other" arguing for as the meaning of the phrase "all things"? ‘That Christ created himself (v. I6)? That Christ is before God and that God was made to exist by means of Christ (v.17)? That Christ, too, needs to be reconciled to God (v.20)? When we spell out what is denied by the use of "other" we can see clearly how absurd the objection is. "Other" is implied in ‘all,’’ and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit.

Today @ 09:46 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

On another thread someone made a reference to their belief that the New World Translation "added words" at Colossians 1:15-20. They did not substantiate that claim. According to the rules of this forum when one makes negative comments they should be substantiated. Here is your opportunity to do just that. I will start the ball rolling by sharing what a scholar has to say on the subject. I quote him not because of who he is or his Seminary degrees but because of the reasons behind what he says. I have read the book. Here are the credentials of the author.



Here are some snippets from the Chapter "Probing the Implicit Meaning." He has a whole chapter on just this one passage and gives examples where the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB add words that are not justitified in this passage. He defends the NWT.
Conclusion of The English Versions and "adding words."

But once the issue of "adding words" is raised, and all of the versions are put side by side and compared to the Greek, we discover a shocking willingness of translators to freely add words and ideas not supported or in any way implied in the Greek...

It is ironic that the translation of Colossians 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism (the NWT) is the one where the "added words" are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek. And if we, under other conditions, might have said that making the implied "other" explicit is not altogether necessary, we now recognize by the gross distortion of the passage in other translations that what the NW translators have done is certainly necessary after all. If the NIV, NRSV, TEV, and LB translators are willing to "add words" in order to shift the meaning of the passage away from Christ’s connection with creation and "all things," then it is clearly justifiable for the NW to cement that connection, explicitly expressed in the passage, by bringing to the foreground of translation those implied nuances which go along with the meaning of the passage as a whole. ...

"Other" is implicit in "all" in Colossians 1:15-20
So what exactly are objectors to "other" arguing for as the meaning of the phrase "all things"? ‘That Christ created himself (v. I6)? That Christ is before God and that God was made to exist by means of Christ (v.17)? That Christ, too, needs to be reconciled to God (v.20)? When we spell out what is denied by the use of "other" we can see clearly how absurd the objection is. "Other" is implied in ‘all,’’ and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit.

I would hope, since I certainly don't see any, that Mssr. DeBuhn has presented lexical and/or historical evidence for his assertions about the insertion of the word "other" in this passage. Also the alleged insertion of words by other translations, "in order to shift the meaning of the passage"

Today @ 08:32 PM post located here
OldShepherd:

I would hope, since I certainly don't see any, that Mssr. DeBuhn has presented lexical and/or historical evidence for his assertions about the insertion of the word "other" in this passage. Also the alleged insertion of words by other translations, "in order to shift the meaning of the passage" [/quote]

Yes, I have only quoted a small part of an entire chapter.
Regards,
Cal

Today @ 04:32 AM post located here
OldShepherd:

I would hope, since I certainly don't see any, that Mssr. DeBuhn has presented lexical and/or historical evidence for his assertions about the insertion of the word "other" in this passage. Also the alleged insertion of words by other translations, "in order to shift the meaning of the passage" [/quote]

Actually, I provided the evidence of this in my Col 1:15 thread if you case to reference back. It is in my PAS/PANTA discussion.

-Tony

Today @ 01:41 PM post located here
Tsmith:

I would hope, since I certainly don't see any, that Mssr. DeBuhn has presented lexical and/or historical evidence for his assertions about the insertion of the word "other" in this passage. Also the alleged insertion of words by other translations, "in order to shift the meaning of the passage"

Actually, I provided the evidence of this in my Col 1:15 thread if you case to reference back. It is in my PAS/PANTA discussion.

-Tony

I did a search of that thread I found two posts where you discussed PAS/PANTA, here and here and neither post provides any of the evidence I asked for.

Yesterday @ 11:09 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



Actually, I provided the evidence of this in my Col 1:15 thread if you case to reference back. It is in my PAS/PANTA discussion.

-Tony
I did a search of that thread I found two posts where you discussed PAS/PANTA, here and here and neither post provides any of the evidence I asked for.

Dear OldShepherd,
If you mean by "historic" the Fathers, no. BeDuhn wrote about translation of Greek to English.

Regards,
Cal

Today @ 07:09 AM post located here
OldShepherd:



I did a search of that thread I found two posts where you discussed PAS/PANTA, here and here and neither post provides any of the evidence I asked for.

Well, my internet connection (from being out of town) is too slow, so I'm not going to load up those threads. But basically, it comes down to this.

When a subject is in view and it is place in relation to a group where PAS is used of the group, the subject is not issolated from the group and often belongs to the group. A couple of examples of this are Mark 4:31 and Luke 21:29.

-Tony

06-27-2003 @ 02:16 PM post located here
Tsmith:



Well, my internet connection (from being out of town) is too slow, so I'm not going to load up those threads. But basically, it comes down to this.

When a subject is in view and it is place in relation to a group where PAS is used of the group, the subject is not issolated from the group and often belongs to the group. A couple of examples of this are Mark 4:31 and Luke 21:29.

-Tony

Dear Tony,
There are numerous passages with PAS which are interpreted by Trinitarians and Calvinists in exactly that way because of their own doctrine.

Therefore they cannot state dogmatically that what you have posted on this in impossible.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Today @ 09:17 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear Tony,
There are numerous passages with PAS which are interpreted by Trinitarians and Calvinists in exactly that way because of their own doctrine.

Therefore they cannot state dogmatically that what you have posted on this in impossible.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Oh yes here is the old "everybody knows" gambit. We don't have to explain anything because "everybody knows" that Trinitarians do this.

06-28-2003 @ 04:29 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

I would hope, since I certainly don't see any, that Mssr. DeBuhn has presented lexical and/or historical evidence for his assertions about the insertion of the word "other" in this passage. Also the alleged insertion of words by other translations, "in order to shift the meaning of the passage"

Dear OldShepherd,
If you mean by "historic" the Fathers, no. BeDuhn wrote about translation of Greek to English.

Regards,
Cal

Read my question again. Does DeBuhn present any "lexical and/or historical evidence for his assertions about the insertion of the word "other" in this passage." Anybody, even those with no qualifications, can claim that the insertion of a word or words in a translation is justified but I was asking for evidence, documentation. So I will have to take your song and dance as a "no"

Today @ 12:48 AM post located here
OldShepherd:



Dear OldShepherd,
If you mean by "historic" the Fathers, no. BeDuhn wrote about translation of Greek to English.

Regards,
Cal

Read my question again. Does DeBuhn present any "lexical and/or historical evidence for his assertions about the insertion of the word "other" in this passage." Anybody, even those with no qualifications, can claim that the insertion of a word or words in a translation is justified but I was asking for evidence, documentation. So I will have to take your song and dance as a "no"

Dear OldShepherd,
Of course he deals with lexical information. This is, after all, a book on translation from Greek to English.

Do you deny that when a clause with the Greek word PAS is translated into English that the English word "other" is sometimes needed to makae what is implicit, explicit?

Regards,
Cal

Yesterday @ 06:45 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
Of course he deals with lexical information. This is, after all, a book on translation from Greek to English.

Do you deny that when a clause with the Greek word PAS is translated into English that the English word "other" is sometimes needed to makae what is implicit, explicit?

Regards,
Cal

Give me some examples, then show how those examples would require the insertion of "other" in the verse in question.

It comes down to this: tsmith in that other thread never resolved the logical problem of including Christ in "all things" when it says "all things" were made by him. It is not a linguistic issue but a logical one. The insertion of the word "other" is a necessary logical implication

One may as well speak of God (or anyone) creating Himself out of nothing.

In the meantime it would be aided greatly if CM would quote the NWT version of Col. 1:15-20 for me so that I can see where "other" is put into it.

Today @ 10:26 AM post located here
jpholding:

It comes down to this: tsmith in that other thread never resolved the logical problem of including Christ in "all things" when it says "all things" were made by him. It is not a linguistic issue but a logical one. The insertion of the word "other" is a necessary logical implication

One may as well speak of God (or anyone) creating Himself out of nothing.

In the meantime it would be aided greatly if CM would quote the NWT version of Col. 1:15-20 for me so that I can see where "other" is put into it.

Dear jp,
I posted on that subject both directly to you and also started a new thread with a copy of it at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...579#post141579 which proves the logic of Paul in Col 1:15-22 has both pre-eminence and temporal priority in view.

I am very interested in your reply since I posted this especially for you. (also because no one has come up with any decent rebuttals)

Kind Regards,
Cal

Gone over.