Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?
Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jan 4 14:26:22 EST 2000
I use a variety of translations because, indeed, no one is "perfect" or entirely free
of bias, or at least what I might consider, in my own bias, to be biases. Like
Steven, I prefer the NRSV for some readings, the NIV for others, the Wescott & Hort
Greek text for others, and Nestle-Aland for still others. I also like Everett Fox's
translation of the Torah, and "specialty" translations such as those of J. B.
Phillips, Kenneth Wuest, Joseph Rotherham and James Moffatt.
But the "authenticity" question is a tricky one. For example, is a translation that
renders "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" at a passage like Matthew 4:4, where Jesus quotes from
Deuteronomy 8:3 which contains the tetragrammaton, less "authentic" than one that
translates KURIOS/ "The Lord," here? Even some Greek copies of the LXX have been
found with the tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew letters, if it could be assumed that
Jesus were quoting the LXX version of Deuteronomy in his reply to Satan. So, which
rendition is more "authentic"? That does not appear to be an easy question to
answer, and that is just one of many such.
Memra Institute for Biblical Research
Steven Craig Miller wrote:
> To: John Hibberd,
> << Also any thoughts as to the authenticity of the New world translation of
> the holy scriptures? Any thoughts would be appreciated. >>
> Why do you ask?
> After all, no translation can be so bad to be wrong all the time. And no
> translation can be so good as to replace the original text. You of course
> know that the NWT is a sectarian translation, yes? Perhaps the most glaring
> of problems (to put it nicely) is that the term "Jehovah" is used to
> translate the Greek terms KURIOS and QEOS. There are also a handful of
> passages which appear to have been influenced by theological bias. But one
> might ask, are the supposed "problems" of the NWT any worse than the
> "problems" with (for example) the "New Living Translation"? Especially in
> the gospels, one can read page after page of this "New Living Translation"
> and find gratuitous words added seemly only on account of the translators
> conservative Evangelical theological bias (I could cite dozens of examples).
> One thing one learns on this list is that everything can be considered a
> "theological bias." I personally believe that a translation should be
> translated by a committee of scholars from our best educational
> institutions representing a broad range of religious traditions. Because of
> this, I accept the NRSV as our best scholarly translation at this time. I
> don't believe it is perfect, and I feel free to disagree with it anytime I
> see fit, but it seems to me to be a better translation than most others.
> But this undoubtedly merely represents my "theological bias."
> So, why do you ask?
> -Steven Craig Miller
> Alton, Illinois (USA)
> scmiller at www.plantnet.com
> Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),
> what do I know?"
More information about the B-Greek