>Matthew Johnson <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Re: Your Opinion: Most Accurate Bible Version
>In article <C4B29C50-72B4-E18E-3BA0-322600466460@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Dave
says...
>>
>>On Mar 19, 12:46=A0pm, jterrell1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> On Jan 29, 1:04 pm, stargazing_pilg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Norman Seifert)
wrote:
>>> > I am looking for the most accurate Bible version. What about the NIV
>>> > Hebrew-Greek Key Word Bible or a Parallel Bible or _________?
Thanks.
>>>
>>> the new world translation as it is a translation not a version. it
>>> also does not omit things like gods name like most other bibles. nor
>>> does it add things like the word cross or hell. dead sea scroll and
>>> other exsteamly old text back this up
>>
>>I couldn't call a translation "accurate" if it doesn't get an
>>im****tant verse like John 1:1 correct.
>
>Hear, hear! Not only did the NWT twist John 1:1 beyond recognition, but
the
>scholars of the New Testament Textual Criticism list "TC-list" condemned
it as
>the "most tendentious translation ever".
Hello,
Yet other scholars say otherwise. For example, Notice this comment
from Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at
Northern Arizona University, who compared eight major Bible
translations, including the NWT. He said it was
"remarkably good" and "better by far" and "consistently better".
He also said, "the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal,
conservative translation of the original expressions of the New
Testament writers."
And he concluded that the NWT (NT):
"is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament
currently available" and "the most accurate of the translations
compared". (Truth in Translation:Accuracy and Bias in English
Translations of the New Testament)
[info taken from the Watchtower magazine, 12/1/04, P. 30.]
So it looks like opinions vary about it. (like they do the KJV, etc)
Thus it is up to each individual to determine its accuracy.
I fully stand behind its rendition of John 1:1. Some details are given
in my response to the poster:
"Concerning John 1:1, its accuracy all depends how close the
translators stay within the Greek grammar from the manuscript(s) they
translated it from.
For example, what if I said to you these similar two statements:
He is Michael Jackson.
He is the Michael Jackson.
Does the addition of the definite article "the" change the meaning a
little? It is a similar thing with the Greek grammar found at John
1:1.
In Greek, that passage contains the word "god" [theos] twice. The
first time it has the definite article "the" before it, the second
time it does not. Thus there is a difference between the meaning of
the first "god" [theos] and the second "god" [theos]. And a good
translation should show that difference.
According to the Bible translator William Barclay, he says that when a
Greek noun doesn't have the definite article in front of it, it
becomes a description (like an adjective) rather than an identity
(like a noun). And the second "theos" [god] has no definite article
preceding it.
The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,
"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".
And the apostle John near the end of his book at John 20:31, mentions
the final concluding comment about Jesus' position as to God. He said
that Jesus was the "Son of God", not 'God the Son', nor 'God'.
Thus to ACCURATELY get across what the writer of Joh 1:1 was saying,
is to show that the "Word" [Jesus] was with Almighty God in the
beginning, and that the "Word" was also like a god, or godlike.
Not only the NWT, but other Bible translations rendered it in a
similar way.
That is how the Greek manuscripts read, and that is how an honest and
accurate translators should translate it for their readers. For
instance:
"the Logos was divine." (MO);
"the Word was divine." (AT; SD);
"a god was the Word." (interlinear ED) ;
"the Word was a god" (NTIV).
"The Word was deity." (Simple English)
Thus you need to look at your favorite Bible translation, and see if
they stayed with the Greek grammar found there, or not. "
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
>
>I'd like to give a link reference to prove this quote, but alas, you have
to
>download the ZIP file archive of the early years and search the whole
archive to
>find it.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))
|
