Total Posts:339|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A few positive reviews of the NWT

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes, there actually are some, and from people who could be expected to be biased against it in one or two cases.

However it is also very true that there is divided opinion on the NWT as a translation. It largely depends on the sincere beliefs of whoever is reviewing it and whether they allow their beliefs to affect their judgement.

Anyway, here are a few truly independent positive reviews:

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.

Unitarian theologian Charles Francis Potter stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

Thomas Winter, an instructor of Greek at the University of Nebraska and former president of the Unitarian Church of Lincoln, considered the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to be a "highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek," adding that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."

Quotations taken from https://en.wikipedia.org...

The real truth is, however, that the NWT stands up in it's own right as a serous attempt to bring accuracy, and therefore harmony, into what has been a much tampered with book.

The replacement of the most holy name of God into the places where it belongs is just one part of that, and by far the most important part.

However the main aim of the translators has always been to return the Bible to the harmonious text that it should be, from the first line of Genesis to the last in Revelation.

The fact that they remain anonymous has tempted some to claim they have no scholarly qualifications, however that is a claim unfounded on knowledge because most of the translators names have never been revealed, though some have become known.

It is a desperate person who insists on insulting those who cannot defend themselves, and in terms which cannot be substantiated.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 12:08:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Yes, there actually are some, and from people who could be expected to be biased against it in one or two cases.

However it is also very true that there is divided opinion on the NWT as a translation. It largely depends on the sincere beliefs of whoever is reviewing it and whether they allow their beliefs to affect their judgement.

Anyway, here are a few truly independent positive reviews:

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.

Unitarian theologian Charles Francis Potter stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

Thomas Winter, an instructor of Greek at the University of Nebraska and former president of the Unitarian Church of Lincoln, considered the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to be a "highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek," adding that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."

Quotations taken from https://en.wikipedia.org...

The real truth is, however, that the NWT stands up in it's own right as a serous attempt to bring accuracy, and therefore harmony, into what has been a much tampered with book.

The replacement of the most holy name of God into the places where it belongs is just one part of that, and by far the most important part.

However the main aim of the translators has always been to return the Bible to the harmonious text that it should be, from the first line of Genesis to the last in Revelation.

The fact that they remain anonymous has tempted some to claim they have no scholarly qualifications, however that is a claim unfounded on knowledge because most of the translators names have never been revealed, though some have become known.

It is a desperate person who insists on insulting those who cannot defend themselves, and in terms which cannot be substantiated.

I'm going to repeat the point I made elsewhere.

1. You cite a number of bible scholars in support of The New World Translation (NWT).

2. By doing so, you are implicitly admitting to their honesty. You wouldn't invoke these bible scholars if you didn't deem them honest, would you? Calling upon these bible scholars who praise the NWT but thinking they are not honest would be shooting yourself in the foot.

3. Why are these individuals whom you deem honest bible scholars not Jehovah's Witnesses? Why don't these honest bible scholars agree with the Watchtower interpretation of the Bible?

4. Even if you cannot provide an explanation, the fact remains: there are honest people who zealously and diligently study the bible that nonetheless reach fundamentally different conclusions from the Watchtower.

5. The fact that there can be and indeed are honest people who diligently study the bible but nonetheless disagree with Watchtower doctrine undermines your main point on this forum: that it suffices to honestly study the bible to come to agree with Watchtower doctrine.

I knew this day would come sooner or later.

Thanks.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 12:31:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 12:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Yes, there actually are some, and from people who could be expected to be biased against it in one or two cases.

However it is also very true that there is divided opinion on the NWT as a translation. It largely depends on the sincere beliefs of whoever is reviewing it and whether they allow their beliefs to affect their judgement.

Anyway, here are a few truly independent positive reviews:

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.

Unitarian theologian Charles Francis Potter stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

Thomas Winter, an instructor of Greek at the University of Nebraska and former president of the Unitarian Church of Lincoln, considered the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to be a "highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek," adding that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."

Quotations taken from https://en.wikipedia.org...

The real truth is, however, that the NWT stands up in it's own right as a serous attempt to bring accuracy, and therefore harmony, into what has been a much tampered with book.

The replacement of the most holy name of God into the places where it belongs is just one part of that, and by far the most important part.

However the main aim of the translators has always been to return the Bible to the harmonious text that it should be, from the first line of Genesis to the last in Revelation.

The fact that they remain anonymous has tempted some to claim they have no scholarly qualifications, however that is a claim unfounded on knowledge because most of the translators names have never been revealed, though some have become known.

It is a desperate person who insists on insulting those who cannot defend themselves, and in terms which cannot be substantiated.

I'm going to repeat the point I made elsewhere.

1. You cite a number of bible scholars in support of The New World Translation (NWT).

2. By doing so, you are implicitly admitting to their honesty. You wouldn't invoke these bible scholars if you didn't deem them honest, would you? Calling upon these bible scholars who praise the NWT but thinking they are not honest would be shooting yourself in the foot.

I invoke them for the same reason I invoke anything, they are speakign teh truth, popular or not.


3. Why are these individuals whom you deem honest bible scholars not Jehovah's Witnesses? Why don't these honest bible scholars agree with the Watchtower interpretation of the Bible?

I have no idea, nor does it matter to me. That is their choice. They are merely commenting on the quality of the translation not the beliefs that come from it.


4. Even if you cannot provide an explanation, the fact remains: there are honest people who zealously and diligently study the bible that nonetheless reach fundamentally different conclusions from the Watchtower.

People who are sincerely wrong are still wrong.


5. The fact that there can be and indeed are honest people who diligently study the bible but nonetheless disagree with Watchtower doctrine undermines your main point on this forum: that it suffices to honestly study the bible to come to agree with Watchtower doctrine.

It doesn't undermine anything. This topic has nothing to do with the beliefs that came from it.

My "doctrinal" position cannot be undermined because it is based solely on the world of God, the Bible, there is no more solid foundation for anything. That is because the only one whose position on my beliefs matters is Christ, and I know he agrees with what I teach, because he taught it himself.

People can, and do, try to undermine it but I only value one opinion on it enough to listen. Again, that is the Christ.

The fact that some agree with me is to their credit, and has no effect on my beliefs whatever.

The fact that others disagree, also has no effect on my beliefs since I follow Jehovah and his only begotten son, not any man.


I knew this day would come sooner or later.

I am not quite sure what "day" you are referring to.

I am not here to judge the honesty or otherwise of others, I am only here to assess and judge what they believe and if necessary offer then Jehovah's viewpoint on the matter. Whether they accept that or not is their choice and will remain so until Christ calls for a reckoning.

When you are undertaking an examination, as we all are, it is always wisest to answer the questions in a way that the examiner finds acceptable.

The examination is life.

The examiner, whether you believe in him or not, is Christ, who will examine each one of us by his father's standards.

My entire role on this planet is to help others to pass the exam, if they choose to.

I have no other purpose here, or anywhere.

The only day you need to worry about is the day that Christ makes his final judgement.

That day will arrive soon enough. Too son for the majority,


Thanks.

You're welcome
bulproof
Posts: 25,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 1:46:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Apparently Big Ears thought it funny but Noddy said it was crap.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 2:55:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 12:31:38 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

People who are sincerely wrong are still wrong.

Truer words.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 3:17:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 2:55:51 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/31/2015 12:31:38 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

People who are sincerely wrong are still wrong.

Truer words.

Yes.
He doesn't realize the significance, the implications of his seemingly trivial admission. To concede that there are honest bible scholars who zealously study the bible but nonetheless come to fundamentally different conclusions than the Watchtower destroys his case which so far has been that if you honestly study the Bible you will come to agree with the Watchtower.

And yet in his exchanges with Peter and Annanicole he constantly asserts that if only both would look at the bible honestly their eyes would open up and both would join the Watchtower organization as the consequence of the realization they're God's channel.

If salvation is dependant upon joining in on board Watchtower why isn't God directing those sincere honest scholars, in fact the millions of sincere bible-devout believers, into said organization?
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 4:56:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Yes, there actually are some, and from people who could be expected to be biased against it in one or two cases.

However it is also very true that there is divided opinion on the NWT as a translation. It largely depends on the sincere beliefs of whoever is reviewing it and whether they allow their beliefs to affect their judgement.

Anyway, here are a few truly independent positive reviews:

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.

Professor Benjamin Kedar: made no comment whatsoever regarding the place where all the mistranslations and perversions occur, the New Testament. Since Dr. Kedar is not a Greek scholar in the first place, one would not expect such comments.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.

Dr. Goodspeed thought so much of the NWT that he refused to even recommend it to the public.

Unitarian theologian Charles Francis Potter stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.

I notice you didn't call him a Greek scholar. He wasn't. He was a humanist who denied the infallibility of the Bible, evolution, the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ and the Second Coming of Christ.

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

Alexander Thomson was not a scholar by any stretch.

Thomas Winter, an instructor of Greek at the University of Nebraska and former president of the Unitarian Church of Lincoln, considered the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to be a "highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek," adding that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."

Dr. Winter was not critiquing the NWT at all. He was discussing an interlinear translation.

Quotations taken from https://en.wikipedia.org...

The real truth is, however, that the NWT stands up in it's own right as a serous attempt to bring accuracy, and therefore harmony, into what has been a much tampered with book.

No, it doesn't. You can't cite a single person with a PhD in Biblical Greek - the real scholars - who both lauded the NWT for its accuracy and recommended it to the public as a translation.

However the main aim of the translators has always been to return the Bible to the harmonious text that it should be, from the first line of Genesis to the last in Revelation.

In other words, alter the text in order to force compliance with what the translators already believed. Heck, we knew that.

The fact that they remain anonymous has tempted some to claim they have no scholarly qualifications, however that is a claim unfounded on knowledge because most of the translators names have never been revealed, though some have become known.

.... and the ones that ARE known were not even close to being scholars. Not a single one. Most had never taken a course in Greek, could not read Greek, and could not speak Greek. Yet they pretend to "translate" Greek?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 7:06:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 4:56:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Yes, there actually are some, and from people who could be expected to be biased against it in one or two cases.

However it is also very true that there is divided opinion on the NWT as a translation. It largely depends on the sincere beliefs of whoever is reviewing it and whether they allow their beliefs to affect their judgement.

Anyway, here are a few truly independent positive reviews:

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.

Professor Benjamin Kedar: made no comment whatsoever regarding the place where all the mistranslations and perversions occur, the New Testament. Since Dr. Kedar is not a Greek scholar in the first place, one would not expect such comments.
He does not need to. He has already stated "I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible." He does not need to comment on the Greek because, as you stated, he is not a Greek scholar.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.

Dr. Goodspeed thought so much of the NWT that he refused to even recommend it to the public.
Sources? There is a physical letter that shows he approved of the NWT. So what is the proof that you have where he stated otherwise?

Unitarian theologian Charles Francis Potter stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.

I notice you didn't call him a Greek scholar. He wasn't. He was a humanist who denied the infallibility of the Bible, evolution, the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ and the Second Coming of Christ.
According to Wikipedia, he got his education from Bucknell University, Brown University and Newton Theological Institution. I have no doubt in my mind that he had to take at least one Biblical Greek course.

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

Alexander Thomson was not a scholar by any stretch.
I disagree. He may not have held a degree, but he was involved with the Concordant Publishing Concern.

Thomas Winter, an instructor of Greek at the University of Nebraska and former president of the Unitarian Church of Lincoln, considered the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to be a "highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek," adding that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."

Dr. Winter was not critiquing the NWT at all. He was discussing an interlinear translation.
Yes, the Kingdom Interlinear.

The real truth is, however, that the NWT stands up in it's own right as a serous attempt to bring accuracy, and therefore harmony, into what has been a much tampered with book.

No, it doesn't. You can't cite a single person with a PhD in Biblical Greek - the real scholars - who both lauded the NWT for its accuracy and recommended it to the public as a translation.
I like how you say "Biblical Greek", because one for Hebrew has been given. However, you rightly state that no Greek scholar holding a PhD has directly made positive statements about the NWT. You can find some indirect defense in these books written by Greek scholars:
An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jesus as God, and Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

You also conveniently ignore the already stated testimony of Edgar J. Goodspeed and the many defenses given by Greg Stafford.

However the main aim of the translators has always been to return the Bible to the harmonious text that it should be, from the first line of Genesis to the last in Revelation.

In other words, alter the text in order to force compliance with what the translators already believed. Heck, we knew that.
*In my words

The fact that they remain anonymous has tempted some to claim they have no scholarly qualifications, however that is a claim unfounded on knowledge because most of the translators names have never been revealed, though some have become known.

.... and the ones that ARE known were not even close to being scholars. Not a single one. Most had never taken a course in Greek, could not read Greek, and could not speak Greek. Yet they pretend to "translate" Greek?
You bring up that same argument every time. Credentials are worthless if the final work is terrible. I could care less if the translators had no education past 3rd grade, their work verifies their knowledge.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 7:06:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The NWT is my favorite translation by and far. Finally got my hands on the Kingdom Interlinear. Absolutely amazing work by the WTBTS.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 7:39:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 7:06:49 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The NWT is my favorite translation by and far. Finally got my hands on the Kingdom Interlinear. Absolutely amazing work by the WTBTS.

Translation of this sort of texts is a complex task involving a high-level of technical expertise. Conversely, the assessment of the quality of a translation would require deep knowledge of the original texts. Would you agree?

How would you describe your technical expertise regarding the translation of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts?
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 7:55:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 7:06:40 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/31/2015 4:56:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Yes, there actually are some, and from people who could be expected to be biased against it in one or two cases.

However it is also very true that there is divided opinion on the NWT as a translation. It largely depends on the sincere beliefs of whoever is reviewing it and whether they allow their beliefs to affect their judgement.

Anyway, here are a few truly independent positive reviews:

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.

Professor Benjamin Kedar: made no comment whatsoever regarding the place where all the mistranslations and perversions occur, the New Testament. Since Dr. Kedar is not a Greek scholar in the first place, one would not expect such comments.
He does not need to. He has already stated "I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible." He does not need to comment on the Greek because, as you stated, he is not a Greek scholar.

Certainly he isn't. Yet almost all of the criticism of the NWT centers around its perversion of certain NT passages.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.

Dr. Goodspeed thought so much of the NWT that he refused to even recommend it to the public.

Sources? There is a physical letter that shows he approved of the NWT. So what is the proof that you have where he stated otherwise?

Multiple sources state the same thing:

Bill Cetnar, who worked at Watchtower Headquarters in New York during the period when the New World Translation was being prepared, was sent to interview Dr. Goodspeed in March, 1954 to seek his comments on the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. Cetnar writes:

"During the two-hour long visit with him it was obvious that he knew the volume well, because he could cite the pages where the readings he objected to were found. One reading he pointed out as especially awkward and grammatically poor was in Judges 14:3 where Samson is made to say: `Her get for me....' As I left, Dr. Goodspeed was asked if he would recommend the translation for the general public He answered, `No, I'm afraid I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar. Be sure you have that right" (Cetnar, W.I. & J., Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses Who Love The Truth [Kunkletown, Pennsylvania: W.I. Cetnar, 1983], p. 64).

Dr. Goodspeed was, of course, not speaking here about the Greek (New Testament) Scriptures, but about the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures, while his earlier, favorable comments related to the Greek Scriptures. However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed (to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second, though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts. Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures, either.

http://www.forananswer.org...
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 8:08:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 7:06:40 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/31/2015 4:56:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Unitarian theologian Charles Francis Potter stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.

I notice you didn't call him a Greek scholar. He wasn't. He was a humanist who denied the infallibility of the Bible, evolution, the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ and the Second Coming of Christ.

According to Wikipedia, he got his education from Bucknell University, Brown University and Newton Theological Institution. I have no doubt in my mind that he had to take at least one Biblical Greek course.

Potter was a Unitarian theologian, and that's all he was. Thousands of folks have taken "at least one Biblical Greek source." Heck, I've done that, yet I'm by no means a scholar on the subject. By "scholar" in koine or NT Greek, I mean at least a MEd degree and preferably a PhD. Of course, Potter denied the trinity to begin with. He also denied the virgin birth. He denied an eternal hell. In fact, he supported about 90% of the WatchTower positions before he ever saw a NWT.

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

Alexander Thomson was not a scholar by any stretch.

I disagree. He may not have held a degree, but he was involved with the Concordant Publishing Concern.

It doesn't take a Greek scholar to be involved with the Concordant Publishing Concern. It's amazing that the Russellites will call a man a "scholar" when it suits them, even though the man holds not one degree. It's like calling a man a medical doctor although he's never set foot in a medical school.

Thomas Winter, an instructor of Greek at the University of Nebraska and former president of the Unitarian Church of Lincoln, considered the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to be a "highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek," adding that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."

Dr. Winter was not critiquing the NWT at all. He was discussing an interlinear translation.

Yes, the Kingdom Interlinear.

Well, the Kingdom Interlinear is not the New World Translation at all. Why cite a man as if he endorsed the NWT when nobody can identify a single word he said on the subject?

The real truth is, however, that the NWT stands up in it's own right as a serous attempt to bring accuracy, and therefore harmony, into what has been a much tampered with book.

No, it doesn't. You can't cite a single person with a PhD in Biblical Greek - the real scholars - who both lauded the NWT for its accuracy and recommended it to the public as a translation.

I like how you say "Biblical Greek", because one for Hebrew has been given. However, you rightly state that no Greek scholar holding a PhD has directly made positive statements about the NWT. You can find some indirect defense in these books written by Greek scholars:

Isn't it amazing that not one single scholar of high rank - one who holds a PhD in Biblical Greek - endorses the renderings found in the NWT?

An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jesus as God, and Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

You also conveniently ignore the already stated testimony of Edgar J. Goodspeed and the many defenses given by Greg Stafford.

I didn't ignore it.

However the main aim of the translators has always been to return the Bible to the harmonious text that it should be, from the first line of Genesis to the last in Revelation.

In other words, alter the text in order to force compliance with what the translators already believed. Heck, we knew that.
*In my words

The fact that they remain anonymous has tempted some to claim they have no scholarly qualifications, however that is a claim unfounded on knowledge because most of the translators names have never been revealed, though some have become known.

.... and the ones that ARE known were not even close to being scholars. Not a single one. Most had never taken a course in Greek, could not read Greek, and could not speak Greek. Yet they pretend to "translate" Greek?

You bring up that same argument every time. Credentials are worthless if the final work is terrible. I could care less if the translators had no education past 3rd grade, their work verifies their knowledge.

Who identified their work as "terrible"? Why, nobody other than Russellites! Those clowns place a pseudotranslation which is in many cases indefensible up against the combined Greek-English scholarship of the whole world!

Can you imagine a group of people who can't even speak, for instance, Japanese getting together and "translating" thousands of Japanese words, phrases, and sentences into English? Does that make any sense at all?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 9:44:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 7:06:40 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/31/2015 4:56:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

1. I find it very telling that although the MadClown claims the invoke the words of men who for the most part opposed WatchTower theology, we always discover that these very men in fact held to most of the common doctrines of the WatchTower. I cite the frequency with which they refer to Unitarian "scholars" as an example.

2. It is also of note that MCB (and most other Russellites) get awfully lenient and broad-minded when they dabble with the word "scholar". By their illogical logic, most of these guys who are pronounced "scholars" do not even hold a simply B.S. degree in Biblical Greek. Some have hardly any credentials whatsoever.

3. Atheists and other theists alike are often amazed that folks will defend a "translation" produced by men who could not even read, speak, or write the original language in the first place. MCB solved this problem by claiming that "holy spirit" guided them (which makes up, supposedly, for their illiteracy).

4. Nobody has yet claimed that a person cannot find one single positive thing to say about the NWT. After all, surely they got something right. The claim IS made, however, that the combined scholarship of men who hold real degrees in Biblical languages is decidedly opposed to it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 11:33:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 7:55:03 PM, annanicole wrote:

He does not need to. He has already stated "I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible." He does not need to comment on the Greek because, as you stated, he is not a Greek scholar.

Certainly he isn't. Yet almost all of the criticism of the NWT centers around its perversion of certain NT passages.
Source?

Sources? There is a physical letter that shows he approved of the NWT. So what is the proof that you have where he stated otherwise?

Multiple sources state the same thing:

Bill Cetnar, who worked at Watchtower Headquarters in New York during the period when the New World Translation was being prepared, was sent to interview Dr. Goodspeed in March, 1954 to seek his comments on the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. Cetnar writes:

"During the two-hour long visit with him it was obvious that he knew the volume well, because he could cite the pages where the readings he objected to were found. One reading he pointed out as especially awkward and grammatically poor was in Judges 14:3 where Samson is made to say: `Her get for me....' As I left, Dr. Goodspeed was asked if he would recommend the translation for the general public He answered, `No, I'm afraid I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar. Be sure you have that right" (Cetnar, W.I. & J., Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses Who Love The Truth [Kunkletown, Pennsylvania: W.I. Cetnar, 1983], p. 64).

Dr. Goodspeed was, of course, not speaking here about the Greek (New Testament) Scriptures, but about the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures, while his earlier, favorable comments related to the Greek Scriptures. However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed (to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second, though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts. Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures, either.

http://www.forananswer.org...
Goodspeed was not trained in Biblical Hebrew, only Greek. So, according to your standards, he is not a reputable source of information when it comes to criticisms of the Hebrew scriptures. I might also add, the only criticism to the Hebrew that Goodspeed had was "awkward English".

As for the letter, I only see what you speculate might have happened. The only real contradicting statement is a conversation he had that was not recorded or verified.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 11:33:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 8:08:13 PM, annanicole wrote:

According to Wikipedia, he got his education from Bucknell University, Brown University and Newton Theological Institution. I have no doubt in my mind that he had to take at least one Biblical Greek course.

Potter was a Unitarian theologian, and that's all he was. Thousands of folks have taken "at least one Biblical Greek source." Heck, I've done that, yet I'm by no means a scholar on the subject. By "scholar" in koine or NT Greek, I mean at least a MEd degree and preferably a PhD. Of course, Potter denied the trinity to begin with. He also denied the virgin birth. He denied an eternal hell. In fact, he supported about 90% of the WatchTower positions before he ever saw a NWT.
You only named one thing that he would have agreed with prior to looking at the NWT. He was well educated in theology, so naturally he had to have training in Greek and Hebrew. As well, he was, as you stated, a theologian (not to mention a rather prominent one). I would find it reasonable that he had staff that also had training in Greek or Hebrew.

I disagree. He may not have held a degree, but he was involved with the Concordant Publishing Concern.

It doesn't take a Greek scholar to be involved with the Concordant Publishing Concern. It's amazing that the Russellites will call a man a "scholar" when it suits them, even though the man holds not one degree. It's like calling a man a medical doctor although he's never set foot in a medical school.
"Thomson was credited for corrections included in the 1944 revision of the Concordant Version. Commentary by Thomson was published in the Concordant Publishing Concern's bimonthly magazine Unsearchable Riches. Later, from about 1950 until soon before his death, Thomson was an editor and contributor for the periodical The Differentiator, which reviewed and commented upon Bible translation work. The circulation never exceeded 200 subscribers."

He clearly was very well educated on the subject. As for the use of the title 'scholar', let's define it:
a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic.

Someone can be a specialist and distinguished academic without ever attaining a degree or receiving an official education in the subject.

Yes, the Kingdom Interlinear.

Well, the Kingdom Interlinear is not the New World Translation at all. Why cite a man as if he endorsed the NWT when nobody can identify a single word he said on the subject?
How is it not? I have a copy right in front of my face. It is the exact same as the NWT other than the Greek on the other page.

I like how you say "Biblical Greek", because one for Hebrew has been given. However, you rightly state that no Greek scholar holding a PhD has directly made positive statements about the NWT. You can find some indirect defense in these books written by Greek scholars:

Isn't it amazing that not one single scholar of high rank - one who holds a PhD in Biblical Greek - endorses the renderings found in the NWT?
Many have also not commented on it. So I fail to see your point.

An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jesus as God, and Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

You also conveniently ignore the already stated testimony of Edgar J. Goodspeed and the many defenses given by Greg Stafford.

I didn't ignore it.
Well, you also have not mentioned it. Now I have, so what is your response?

You bring up that same argument every time. Credentials are worthless if the final work is terrible. I could care less if the translators had no education past 3rd grade, their work verifies their knowledge.

Who identified their work as "terrible"? Why, nobody other than Russellites! Those clowns place a pseudotranslation which is in many cases indefensible up against the combined Greek-English scholarship of the whole world!
I was not referencing anyone in particular, so who are you talking about?

Can you imagine a group of people who can't even speak, for instance, Japanese getting together and "translating" thousands of Japanese words, phrases, and sentences into English? Does that make any sense at all?
Well, if they do it successfully and have scholars who appreciate the work, then I would have no problem.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 11:33:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 9:44:11 PM, annanicole wrote:

1. I find it very telling that although the MadClown claims the invoke the words of men who for the most part opposed WatchTower theology, we always discover that these very men in fact held to most of the common doctrines of the WatchTower. I cite the frequency with which they refer to Unitarian "scholars" as an example.
By that logic, why would I not ignore any scholars who are trinitarians? As well, you have not proven any of these people were on the same page as the WT. If they were, then they would have been JWs.

2. It is also of note that MCB (and most other Russellites) get awfully lenient and broad-minded when they dabble with the word "scholar". By their illogical logic, most of these guys who are pronounced "scholars" do not even hold a simply B.S. degree in Biblical Greek. Some have hardly any credentials whatsoever.
Once again, a piece of paper that says you went to school for subject x is meaningless.

3. Atheists and other theists alike are often amazed that folks will defend a "translation" produced by men who could not even read, speak, or write the original language in the first place. MCB solved this problem by claiming that "holy spirit" guided them (which makes up, supposedly, for their illiteracy).
By your logic, MCB is right. They produced a great translation with no credentials. So, are you going to concede that they were inspired by the holy ghost?

4. Nobody has yet claimed that a person cannot find one single positive thing to say about the NWT. After all, surely they got something right. The claim IS made, however, that the combined scholarship of men who hold real degrees in Biblical languages is decidedly opposed to it.
Yet the quotes are not pointing out one verse that was correct in the NWT, they are speaking about it in a general sense.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 11:33:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 7:39:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:

Translation of this sort of texts is a complex task involving a high-level of technical expertise. Conversely, the assessment of the quality of a translation would require deep knowledge of the original texts. Would you agree?

How would you describe your technical expertise regarding the translation of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts?
No more than the average Joe. Well, I am taking a Biblical Greek class at a theological seminary.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tdansen
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 11:49:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:43:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Yes, there actually are some, and from people who could be expected to be biased against it in one or two cases.

However it is also very true that there is divided opinion on the NWT as a translation. It largely depends on the sincere beliefs of whoever is reviewing it and whether they allow their beliefs to affect their judgement.

Anyway, here are a few truly independent positive reviews:

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work [the NWT Old Testament] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.

Unitarian theologian Charles Francis Potter stated about the NWT: "Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros, as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ... We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

Thomas Winter, an instructor of Greek at the University of Nebraska and former president of the Unitarian Church of Lincoln, considered the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to be a "highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek," adding that the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate."

Quotations taken from https://en.wikipedia.org...

The real truth is, however, that the NWT stands up in it's own right as a serous attempt to bring accuracy, and therefore harmony, into what has been a much tampered with book.

The replacement of the most holy name of God into the places where it belongs is just one part of that, and by far the most important part.

However the main aim of the translators has always been to return the Bible to the harmonious text that it should be, from the first line of Genesis to the last in Revelation.

The fact that they remain anonymous has tempted some to claim they have no scholarly qualifications, however that is a claim unfounded on knowledge because most of the translators names have never been revealed, though some have become known.

It is a desperate person who insists on insulting those who cannot defend themselves, and in terms which cannot be substantiated. : :

Christians believe in Bibles and their own interpretations of what is written in them so it makes no difference what Bible translation you use.

A few of us were chosen to listen to the voice of God and obey his commandments. This is how we learn the Truth. Once we know the Truth, then we understand all the biblical prophecies.
tdansen
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 11:53:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:33:30 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/31/2015 7:39:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:

Translation of this sort of texts is a complex task involving a high-level of technical expertise. Conversely, the assessment of the quality of a translation would require deep knowledge of the original texts. Would you agree?

How would you describe your technical expertise regarding the translation of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts?
No more than the average Joe. Well, I am taking a Biblical Greek class at a theological seminary. : :

There were many Greek speaking people who didn't believe the gospel so the language of Greek won't help you understand the scriptures at all. It's all about if you were chosen or not by God to listen to his voice and obey his commandments no matter what language his saints preached.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 12:26:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:33:28 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/31/2015 9:44:11 PM, annanicole wrote:

1. I find it very telling that although the MadClown claims the invoke the words of men who for the most part opposed WatchTower theology, we always discover that these very men in fact held to most of the common doctrines of the WatchTower. I cite the frequency with which they refer to Unitarian "scholars" as an example.
By that logic, why would I not ignore any scholars who are trinitarians?

Apparently you do.

As well, you have not proven any of these people were on the same page as the WT. If they were, then they would have been JWs.

It is very possible to believe, say, 75% of what the WatchTower believes on certain disputed positions and never become a Jehovah's Witness. This is EXACTLY the type of so-called "scholar" that the WatchTower generally references.

2. It is also of note that MCB (and most other Russellites) get awfully lenient and broad-minded when they dabble with the word "scholar". By their illogical logic, most of these guys who are pronounced "scholars" do not even hold a simply B.S. degree in Biblical Greek. Some have hardly any credentials whatsoever.

Once again, a piece of paper that says you went to school for subject x is meaningless.

Identify for us a recognized surgeon of the last three or four hundred years, a man at the top of his field, who never graduated from medical school.

After that, identify a great lawyer of the last couple hundred years who never went to law school, yet attained recognition as an expositor of the law.

When you've named those two, identify for us a recognized Greek scholar - a man fluent in koine and classical Greek - who never attained a degree.

3. Atheists and other theists alike are often amazed that folks will defend a "translation" produced by men who could not even read, speak, or write the original language in the first place. MCB solved this problem by claiming that "holy spirit" guided them (which makes up, supposedly, for their illiteracy).

By your logic, MCB is right. They produced a great translation with no credentials. So, are you going to concede that they were inspired by the holy ghost?

They produced a pseudotranslation which is outright rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars of real rank.

4. Nobody has yet claimed that a person cannot find one single positive thing to say about the NWT. After all, surely they got something right. The claim IS made, however, that the combined scholarship of men who hold real degrees in Biblical languages is decidedly opposed to it.

Yet the quotes are not pointing out one verse that was correct in the NWT, they are speaking about it in a general sense.

Repeat: "The claim IS made, however, that the combined scholarship of men who hold real degrees in Biblical languages is decidedly opposed to it."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 12:51:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:33:26 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/31/2015 8:08:13 PM, annanicole wrote:

According to Wikipedia, he got his education from Bucknell University, Brown University and Newton Theological Institution. I have no doubt in my mind that he had to take at least one Biblical Greek course.

Potter was a Unitarian theologian, and that's all he was. Thousands of folks have taken "at least one Biblical Greek source." Heck, I've done that, yet I'm by no means a scholar on the subject. By "scholar" in koine or NT Greek, I mean at least a MEd degree and preferably a PhD. Of course, Potter denied the trinity to begin with. He also denied the virgin birth. He denied an eternal hell. In fact, he supported about 90% of the WatchTower positions before he ever saw a NWT.

You only named one thing that he would have agreed with prior to looking at the NWT.

I said he was a Unitarian. Among their beliefs are:

(1) Lack of belief in the triune nature of God
(2) Though the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, they were humans and therefore subject to human error. MCB has advanced this same claim.
(3) Lack of belief in an eternal hell.
(4) Lack of belief that the Holy Spirit is a person
(5) Jesus Christ was "human only".

Do you call THAT a person who is antagonistic to some of the major distinctive doctrines of the JW's, doctrines which, by the way, are involved in the poor translation of certain passages in the NWT?

I disagree. He may not have held a degree, but he was involved with the Concordant Publishing Concern.

It doesn't take a Greek scholar to be involved with the Concordant Publishing Concern. It's amazing that the Russellites will call a man a "scholar" when it suits them, even though the man holds not one degree. It's like calling a man a medical doctor although he's never set foot in a medical school.

"Thomson was credited for corrections included in the 1944 revision of the Concordant Version. Commentary by Thomson was published in the Concordant Publishing Concern's bimonthly magazine Unsearchable Riches. Later, from about 1950 until soon before his death, Thomson was an editor and contributor for the periodical The Differentiator, which reviewed and commented upon Bible translation work. The circulation never exceeded 200 subscribers."

He clearly was very well educated on the subject. As for the use of the title 'scholar', let's define it:

a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic.

Someone can be a specialist and distinguished academic without ever attaining a degree or receiving an official education in the subject.

Name a "distinguished academic" who was unlettered in the particular field. What college would hire him?

Notice that about all a Russellite can do is claim that the great doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists of the last couple of hundred years are no better, as scholars and academics, than a man who never set foot in a classroom.

Yes, the Kingdom Interlinear.

Well, the Kingdom Interlinear is not the New World Translation at all. Why cite a man as if he endorsed the NWT when nobody can identify a single word he said on the subject?

How is it not? I have a copy right in front of my face. It is the exact same as the NWT other than the Greek on the other page.

The Greek "on the other page" IS the Kingdom Interlinear.

I like how you say "Biblical Greek", because one for Hebrew has been given. However, you rightly state that no Greek scholar holding a PhD has directly made positive statements about the NWT. You can find some indirect defense in these books written by Greek scholars:

Isn't it amazing that not one single scholar of high rank - one who holds a PhD in Biblical Greek - endorses the renderings found in the NWT?

Many have also not commented on it. So I fail to see your point.

The POINT is exactly what I said: not one single scholar of high rank, men with PhD's who usually impart their knowledge in universities, endorses the renderings found in the NWT. However, many, many, MANY have declared it to be a biased, erroneous, garbled pseudotranslation.

An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jesus as God, and Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

You also conveniently ignore the already stated testimony of Edgar J. Goodspeed and the many defenses given by Greg Stafford.

I didn't ignore it.

Well, you also have not mentioned it. Now I have, so what is your response?

Response to what? Apparently, Goodspeed made some favorable remarks concerning the NWT but refused to recommend it for public consumption.

You bring up that same argument every time. Credentials are worthless if the final work is terrible. I could care less if the translators had no education past 3rd grade, their work verifies their knowledge.

Who identified their work as "terrible"? Why, nobody other than Russellites! Those clowns place a pseudotranslation which is in many cases indefensible up against the combined Greek-English scholarship of the whole world!
I was not referencing anyone in particular, so who are you talking about?

Can you imagine a group of people who can't even speak, for instance, Japanese getting together and "translating" thousands of Japanese words, phrases, and sentences into English? Does that make any sense at all?

Well, if they do it successfully and have scholars who appreciate the work, then I would have no problem.

What if the vast majority of scholars rejected their "work" as pure nonsense?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 12:53:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 12:26:44 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/31/2015 11:33:28 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/31/2015 9:44:11 PM, annanicole wrote:

1. I find it very telling that although the MadClown claims the invoke the words of men who for the most part opposed WatchTower theology, we always discover that these very men in fact held to most of the common doctrines of the WatchTower. I cite the frequency with which they refer to Unitarian "scholars" as an example.
By that logic, why would I not ignore any scholars who are trinitarians?

Apparently you do.

As well, you have not proven any of these people were on the same page as the WT. If they were, then they would have been JWs.

It is very possible to believe, say, 75% of what the WatchTower believes on certain disputed positions and never become a Jehovah's Witness. This is EXACTLY the type of so-called "scholar" that the WatchTower generally references.

2. It is also of note that MCB (and most other Russellites) get awfully lenient and broad-minded when they dabble with the word "scholar". By their illogical logic, most of these guys who are pronounced "scholars" do not even hold a simply B.S. degree in Biblical Greek. Some have hardly any credentials whatsoever.

Once again, a piece of paper that says you went to school for subject x is meaningless.

Identify for us a recognized surgeon of the last three or four hundred years, a man at the top of his field, who never graduated from medical school.

After that, identify a great lawyer of the last couple hundred years who never went to law school, yet attained recognition as an expositor of the law.

When you've named those two, identify for us a recognized Greek scholar - a man fluent in koine and classical Greek - who never attained a degree.

3. Atheists and other theists alike are often amazed that folks will defend a "translation" produced by men who could not even read, speak, or write the original language in the first place. MCB solved this problem by claiming that "holy spirit" guided them (which makes up, supposedly, for their illiteracy).

By your logic, MCB is right. They produced a great translation with no credentials. So, are you going to concede that they were inspired by the holy ghost?

They produced a pseudotranslation which is outright rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars of real rank.

4. Nobody has yet claimed that a person cannot find one single positive thing to say about the NWT. After all, surely they got something right. The claim IS made, however, that the combined scholarship of men who hold real degrees in Biblical languages is decidedly opposed to it.

Yet the quotes are not pointing out one verse that was correct in the NWT, they are speaking about it in a general sense.

Repeat: "The claim IS made, however, that the combined scholarship of men who hold real degrees in Biblical languages is decidedly opposed to it."

The scholars of Jesus' day rejected their own Messiah and truth he had. so your points are valueless. Jesus' truths prove it all. Listening to Jesus seems to be too much to ask of you. Why?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 1:35:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 12:26:44 AM, annanicole wrote:

By that logic, why would I not ignore any scholars who are trinitarians?

Apparently you do.
I have no reason to, so I do not.

As well, you have not proven any of these people were on the same page as the WT. If they were, then they would have been JWs.

It is very possible to believe, say, 75% of what the WatchTower believes on certain disputed positions and never become a Jehovah's Witness. This is EXACTLY the type of so-called "scholar" that the WatchTower generally references.
Prove it.

Once again, a piece of paper that says you went to school for subject x is meaningless.

Identify for us a recognized surgeon of the last three or four hundred years, a man at the top of his field, who never graduated from medical school.
Apples to oranges. People cannot become a surgeon without a degree. That does not mean someone could not somehow study dead bodies and textbooks to find out how to perform surgery properly.

After that, identify a great lawyer of the last couple hundred years who never went to law school, yet attained recognition as an expositor of the law.
Once again, apples to oranges. You cannot be a lawyer in modern times without a degree, it is the law. However, there are plenty of people who are well versed on laws without getting a degree.

When you've named those two, identify for us a recognized Greek scholar - a man fluent in koine and classical Greek - who never attained a degree.
I do not know any personally, so I can only make assumptions. I assume that people who have shown through work that they understand Biblical Greek and Hebrew that, well, they understand Biblical Greek and Hebrew.

By your logic, MCB is right. They produced a great translation with no credentials. So, are you going to concede that they were inspired by the holy ghost?

They produced a pseudotranslation which is outright rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars of real rank.
You can make up whatever words you want. Putting "pseudo" in front of something is not a refutation. MCB has already provided you with scholars who support the NWT. You can ignore them all you want, but they will not go away.

Yet the quotes are not pointing out one verse that was correct in the NWT, they are speaking about it in a general sense.

Repeat: "The claim IS made, however, that the combined scholarship of men who hold real degrees in Biblical languages is decidedly opposed to it."
There are also plenty who have not even commented on the NWT. There are also plenty that have both directly and indirectly supported the NWT. Your argument is weak when there are two equally real sides of the coin.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 1:35:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 12:51:07 AM, annanicole wrote:

I said he was a Unitarian. Among their beliefs are:

(1) Lack of belief in the triune nature of God
I accept that is a shared position.

(2) Though the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, they were humans and therefore subject to human error. MCB has advanced this same claim.
Do not confuse what MCB says as official WT teachings. I do not care what MCB says, we are talking about the WT.

(3) Lack of belief in an eternal hell.
JWs believe in an eternal hell. However, they do not believe in an eternal tormenting hell.

(4) Lack of belief that the Holy Spirit is a person
Kind of a weak comparison, but alright.

(5) Jesus Christ was "human only".
Not the WT position.

Do you call THAT a person who is antagonistic to some of the major distinctive doctrines of the JW's, doctrines which, by the way, are involved in the poor translation of certain passages in the NWT?
Well, half of the points you made are not at all commonalities. Judging by your poor criteria, he could have also been a Catholic.

"Thomson was credited for corrections included in the 1944 revision of the Concordant Version. Commentary by Thomson was published in the Concordant Publishing Concern's bimonthly magazine Unsearchable Riches. Later, from about 1950 until soon before his death, Thomson was an editor and contributor for the periodical The Differentiator, which reviewed and commented upon Bible translation work. The circulation never exceeded 200 subscribers."

He clearly was very well educated on the subject. As for the use of the title 'scholar', let's define it:

a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic.

Someone can be a specialist and distinguished academic without ever attaining a degree or receiving an official education in the subject.

Name a "distinguished academic" who was unlettered in the particular field. What college would hire him?
Why would you need a college to hire him? Just for laughs, I will use Charles Taze Russell as my example.

Notice that about all a Russellite can do is claim that the great doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists of the last couple of hundred years are no better, as scholars and academics, than a man who never set foot in a classroom.
I am sorry you feel that way. However, your argument is not really that great. You consistently compare apples to oranges. A more appropriate example would be a great author who did not go to college for something like English. Consider Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, or even the well known playwright, William Shakespeare.

How is it not? I have a copy right in front of my face. It is the exact same as the NWT other than the Greek on the other page.

The Greek "on the other page" IS the Kingdom Interlinear.
Yeah, but the translation into English is exactly the same as the NWT.

Many have also not commented on it. So I fail to see your point.

The POINT is exactly what I said: not one single scholar of high rank, men with PhD's who usually impart their knowledge in universities, endorses the renderings found in the NWT. However, many, many, MANY have declared it to be a biased, erroneous, garbled pseudotranslation.
You have already been proven wrong because Benjamin Kedar endorses the Hebrew translations.

Well, you also have not mentioned it. Now I have, so what is your response?

Response to what? Apparently, Goodspeed made some favorable remarks concerning the NWT but refused to recommend it for public consumption.
Yeah, he refused it for the Hebrew, which is outside of his credentialed area (which is of great importance to you). You know what his complaint about the Hebrew translation was? "Awkward English".

Well, if they do it successfully and have scholars who appreciate the work, then I would have no problem.

What if the vast majority of scholars rejected their "work" as pure nonsense?
Then no. Good thing that is not the case with the NWT.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 2:16:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 1:35:08 AM, tstor wrote:
At 11/1/2015 12:26:44 AM, annanicole wrote:

By that logic, why would I not ignore any scholars who are trinitarians?

Apparently you do.
I have no reason to, so I do not.

As well, you have not proven any of these people were on the same page as the WT. If they were, then they would have been JWs.

It is very possible to believe, say, 75% of what the WatchTower believes on certain disputed positions and never become a Jehovah's Witness. This is EXACTLY the type of so-called "scholar" that the WatchTower generally references.
Prove it.

Once again, a piece of paper that says you went to school for subject x is meaningless.

Identify for us a recognized surgeon of the last three or four hundred years, a man at the top of his field, who never graduated from medical school.
Apples to oranges. People cannot become a surgeon without a degree. That does not mean someone could not somehow study dead bodies and textbooks to find out how to perform surgery properly.

After that, identify a great lawyer of the last couple hundred years who never went to law school, yet attained recognition as an expositor of the law.
Once again, apples to oranges. You cannot be a lawyer in modern times without a degree, it is the law. However, there are plenty of people who are well versed on laws without getting a degree.

Nope, at one time a man who felt he had ample knowledge of the law could take the bar exam. If he passed, he was a lawyer. I've known a couple who actually did that. Most, of course, who identified themselves as self-taught legal experts couldn't pass the bar. A few could. Could you name for ONE of these guys who excelled to the point that he was known as a legal scholar?

When you've named those two, identify for us a recognized Greek scholar - a man fluent in koine and classical Greek - who never attained a degree.
I do not know any personally, so I can only make assumptions. I assume that people who have shown through work that they understand Biblical Greek and Hebrew that, well, they understand Biblical Greek and Hebrew.

By your logic, MCB is right. They produced a great translation with no credentials. So, are you going to concede that they were inspired by the holy ghost?

They produced a pseudotranslation which is outright rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars of real rank.

You can make up whatever words you want. Putting "pseudo" in front of something is not a refutation. MCB has already provided you with scholars who support the NWT. You can ignore them all you want, but they will not go away.

The MadClown supplied the name of ONE reputable scholar of high rank: Dr. Edgar Goodspeed. The rest do not fall within the definition of "scholar".

Yet the quotes are not pointing out one verse that was correct in the NWT, they are speaking about it in a general sense.

Repeat: "The claim IS made, however, that the combined scholarship of men who hold real degrees in Biblical languages is decidedly opposed to it."

There are also plenty who have not even commented on the NWT.

I am not counting the ones who did not comment. Plenty have. Could you cite for us ONE GREEK SCHOLAR (1) with a Masters or PhD and is (2) respected enough by his peers that he instructs others in Greek at the university level who (3) has a favorable opinion of the NWT? There are literally hundreds of such men in the United States alone, but I can't name a one who would risk his entire reputation as a Greek scholar and educator by taking such a position.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 2:28:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 1:35:17 AM, tstor wrote:
At 11/1/2015 12:51:07 AM, annanicole wrote:

I said he was a Unitarian. Among their beliefs are:

(1) Lack of belief in the triune nature of God
I accept that is a shared position.

(2) Though the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, they were humans and therefore subject to human error. MCB has advanced this same claim.
Do not confuse what MCB says as official WT teachings. I do not care what MCB says, we are talking about the WT.

(3) Lack of belief in an eternal hell.
JWs believe in an eternal hell. However, they do not believe in an eternal tormenting hell.

(4) Lack of belief that the Holy Spirit is a person
Kind of a weak comparison, but alright.

(5) Jesus Christ was "human only".
Not the WT position.

Do you call THAT a person who is antagonistic to some of the major distinctive doctrines of the JW's, doctrines which, by the way, are involved in the poor translation of certain passages in the NWT?
Well, half of the points you made are not at all commonalities. Judging by your poor criteria, he could have also been a Catholic.

"Thomson was credited for corrections included in the 1944 revision of the Concordant Version. Commentary by Thomson was published in the Concordant Publishing Concern's bimonthly magazine Unsearchable Riches. Later, from about 1950 until soon before his death, Thomson was an editor and contributor for the periodical The Differentiator, which reviewed and commented upon Bible translation work. The circulation never exceeded 200 subscribers."

He clearly was very well educated on the subject. As for the use of the title 'scholar', let's define it:

a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic.

Someone can be a specialist and distinguished academic without ever attaining a degree or receiving an official education in the subject.

Name a "distinguished academic" who was unlettered in the particular field. What college would hire him?

Why would you need a college to hire him?

Because that's what an "academic" is: a person employed by a college or university as a professor.

Just for laughs, I will use Charles Taze Russell as my example.

I would hardly identify C. T. Russell as a scholar. No college would have hired a man who himself stated that he had no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.

Notice that about all a Russellite can do is claim that the great doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists of the last couple of hundred years are no better, as scholars and academics, than a man who never set foot in a classroom.

I am sorry you feel that way. However, your argument is not really that great. You consistently compare apples to oranges. A more appropriate example would be a great author who did not go to college for something like English. Consider Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, or even the well known playwright, William Shakespeare.

You compare the translation from one language into another with penning a play or novel in one's native tongue? And you talk about apples to oranges!

How is it not? I have a copy right in front of my face. It is the exact same as the NWT other than the Greek on the other page.

The Greek "on the other page" IS the Kingdom Interlinear.
Yeah, but the translation into English is exactly the same as the NWT.

It IS the NWT, silly.

Many have also not commented on it. So I fail to see your point.

The POINT is exactly what I said: not one single scholar of high rank, men with PhD's who usually impart their knowledge in universities, endorses the renderings found in the NWT. However, many, many, MANY have declared it to be a biased, erroneous, garbled pseudotranslation.

You have already been proven wrong because Benjamin Kedar endorses the Hebrew translations.

I couldn't care less about the "Hebrew translations." They are not the point of contention. The point is that not a one supports the GREEK translation - and THAT is the "translation" that is so erroneous in the NWT.

Well, if they do it successfully and have scholars who appreciate the work, then I would have no problem.

What if the vast majority of scholars rejected their "work" as pure nonsense?

Then no. Good thing that is not the case with the NWT.

So you honestly believe that, of the scholars of high rank - men with MEd's and PhD's who typically engage in translation and education on the college level - who have given an opinion on the subject .... the majority actually support the NWT renderings?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 3:31:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 2:16:16 AM, annanicole wrote:

Once again, apples to oranges. You cannot be a lawyer in modern times without a degree, it is the law. However, there are plenty of people who are well versed on laws without getting a degree.

Nope, at one time a man who felt he had ample knowledge of the law could take the bar exam. If he passed, he was a lawyer. I've known a couple who actually did that. Most, of course, who identified themselves as self-taught legal experts couldn't pass the bar. A few could. Could you name for ONE of these guys who excelled to the point that he was known as a legal scholar?
I do not know any personally, but you have openly admitted that "most" could not, therefore some could.

You can make up whatever words you want. Putting "pseudo" in front of something is not a refutation. MCB has already provided you with scholars who support the NWT. You can ignore them all you want, but they will not go away.

The MadClown supplied the name of ONE reputable scholar of high rank: Dr. Edgar Goodspeed. The rest do not fall within the definition of "scholar".
A professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is not a "scholar"? These men do not have to fit your definition of a '"scholar". Sorry to burst your bubble.

There are also plenty who have not even commented on the NWT.

I am not counting the ones who did not comment. Plenty have. Could you cite for us ONE GREEK SCHOLAR (1) with a Masters or PhD and is (2) respected enough by his peers that he instructs others in Greek at the university level who (3) has a favorable opinion of the NWT? There are literally hundreds of such men in the United States alone, but I can't name a one who would risk his entire reputation as a Greek scholar and educator by taking such a position.
Your bias alone prevents you from seeing the very clear picture. "I can't name a one who would risk his entire reputation as a Greek scholar and educator by taking such a position." You have already come to the conclusion that the NWT is wrong, so you will not listen to me even if I gave you the names of 1000 scholars who agreed with it. MCB has listed scholars that you cannot refute. Until you refute those scholars, then I see no reason to give you more.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 3:31:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 2:28:11 AM, annanicole wrote:

Why would you need a college to hire him?

Because that's what an "academic" is: a person employed by a college or university as a professor.
I agree, but that is not a requirement for a "scholar". The definition:
a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic

The semicolon (;) indicates a different connotation. Therefore, it is not a requirement. As well, the other definition listed on the same page is:
a person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study

Just for laughs, I will use Charles Taze Russell as my example.

I would hardly identify C. T. Russell as a scholar. No college would have hired a man who himself stated that he had no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.
Not for Hebrew or Greek, sure. He quite obviously had a great understanding of the Bible itself.

I am sorry you feel that way. However, your argument is not really that great. You consistently compare apples to oranges. A more appropriate example would be a great author who did not go to college for something like English. Consider Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, or even the well known playwright, William Shakespeare.

You compare the translation from one language into another with penning a play or novel in one's native tongue? And you talk about apples to oranges!
Have you gotten enough sleep? I find it 1000x more reasonable to compare an author to a translator than a translator to a surgeon. Nonetheless, you missed the entire point. The point was to compare scenarios, not professions.

Yeah, but the translation into English is exactly the same as the NWT.

It IS the NWT, silly.
So you retract your original statement? If someone praises the Kingdom Interlinear, then they are also praising the NWT, as they are the same translations.

You have already been proven wrong because Benjamin Kedar endorses the Hebrew translations.

I couldn't care less about the "Hebrew translations." They are not the point of contention. The point is that not a one supports the GREEK translation - and THAT is the "translation" that is so erroneous in the NWT.
So now that you cannot refute the Hebrew scriptures, you just attack the Greek? So you do not have a problem with more than half of the NWT? That does not change anything, as MCB has still listed scholars who supported the NWT of the Greek scriptures.

Then no. Good thing that is not the case with the NWT.

So you honestly believe that, of the scholars of high rank - men with MEd's and PhD's who typically engage in translation and education on the college level - who have given an opinion on the subject .... the majority actually support the NWT renderings?
I am not necessarily suggesting that at all. I would suggest the vast majority have not commented on the translation at all.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 5:34:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 3:31:41 AM, tstor wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:16:16 AM, annanicole wrote:

Once again, apples to oranges. You cannot be a lawyer in modern times without a degree, it is the law. However, there are plenty of people who are well versed on laws without getting a degree.

Nope, at one time a man who felt he had ample knowledge of the law could take the bar exam. If he passed, he was a lawyer. I've known a couple who actually did that. Most, of course, who identified themselves as self-taught legal experts couldn't pass the bar. A few could. Could you name for ONE of these guys who excelled to the point that he was known as a legal scholar?
I do not know any personally, but you have openly admitted that "most" could not, therefore some could.

You can make up whatever words you want. Putting "pseudo" in front of something is not a refutation. MCB has already provided you with scholars who support the NWT. You can ignore them all you want, but they will not go away.

The MadClown supplied the name of ONE reputable scholar of high rank: Dr. Edgar Goodspeed. The rest do not fall within the definition of "scholar".

A professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is not a "scholar"? These men do not have to fit your definition of a '"scholar". Sorry to burst your bubble.

Certainly not, when the major theological disputes concern the New Testament. And if you read carefully this professor of Hebrew never out-and-out said that the NWT was a good translation of Hebrew.

There are also plenty who have not even commented on the NWT.

I am not counting the ones who did not comment. Plenty have. Could you cite for us ONE GREEK SCHOLAR (1) with a Masters or PhD and is (2) respected enough by his peers that he instructs others in Greek at the university level who (3) has a favorable opinion of the NWT? There are literally hundreds of such men in the United States alone, but I can't name a one who would risk his entire reputation as a Greek scholar and educator by taking such a position.

Your bias alone prevents you from seeing the very clear picture. "I can't name a one who would risk his entire reputation as a Greek scholar and educator by taking such a position." You have already come to the conclusion that the NWT is wrong, so you will not listen to me even if I gave you the names of 1000 scholars who agreed with it. MCB has listed scholars that you cannot refute. Until you refute those scholars, then I see no reason to give you more.

The reason is pretty clear: there are none. There never have been. If there were, we wouldn't have to depend on YOU to name him. The WatchTower would blast it all over its pages.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 5:43:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 3:31:43 AM, tstor wrote:
At 11/1/2015 2:28:11 AM, annanicole wrote:

Why would you need a college to hire him?

Because that's what an "academic" is: a person employed by a college or university as a professor.
I agree, but that is not a requirement for a "scholar". The definition:
a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic

The semicolon (;) indicates a different connotation. Therefore, it is not a requirement. As well, the other definition listed on the same page is:

Different connotations are not separated by a semi-colon. They are given an entire separate number and entry. The statement after the semi-colon is merely for clarification of exactly what "specialists in a particular branch of study" means.

a person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study

Just for laughs, I will use Charles Taze Russell as my example.

I would hardly identify C. T. Russell as a scholar. No college would have hired a man who himself stated that he had no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.

Not for Hebrew or Greek, sure. He quite obviously had a great understanding of the Bible itself.

Then he was a theologian. He does not qualify as a Greek or Hebrew scholar, nor a translator, nor a lexicographer. In that respect, he parallels the NWT translators.



Yeah, but the translation into English is exactly the same as the NWT.

It IS the NWT, silly.

So you retract your original statement? If someone praises the Kingdom Interlinear, then they are also praising the NWT, as they are the same translations.

Not the interlinear portion. What the WatchTower has done is supplied the Kingdom Interlinear on one side, and the NWT on the other. I bet you a thousand bucks that the Kingdom Interlinear reads decidedly differently than the NWT in many instances.

You have already been proven wrong because Benjamin Kedar endorses the Hebrew translations.

I couldn't care less about the "Hebrew translations." They are not the point of contention. The point is that not a one supports the GREEK translation - and THAT is the "translation" that is so erroneous in the NWT.

So now that you cannot refute the Hebrew scriptures, you just attack the Greek? So you do not have a problem with more than half of the NWT? That does not change anything, as MCB has still listed scholars who supported the NWT of the Greek scriptures.

I've scarcely studied the Hebrew portion of the NWT. Jehovah's Witnesses do not rely on it, by and large, for their distinctive doctrines. The NT is what they altered.

Then no. Good thing that is not the case with the NWT.

So you honestly believe that, of the scholars of high rank - men with MEd's and PhD's who typically engage in translation and education on the college level - who have given an opinion on the subject .... the majority actually support the NWT renderings?

I am not necessarily suggesting that at all. I would suggest the vast majority have not commented on the translation at all.

Well, then we won't bother with those, unless you'd like to write 'em a letter. We'll just consider those who HAVE made some sort of statement (which is a lot). The fact is that, of those, nearly 100% have come down on the side of NOT recommending the NWT.

And the WatchTower is notoriously dishonest in not providing full quotes. I could say, "The NWT is an excellent study guide". And thus it is, depending on the use one wishes to make of it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."