Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear David,

I have written a book (1999) dealing with the influence of theology and bias
in Bible translation, where I compare the very literal NWT with the very
idiomatic (paraphrasal) TEV.  I not only view the NWT as a serious work, but 
also as a
work which has several advantages that are lacking in many other Bible
translations.

The nature of a Bible translation depends of its target group. For most
groups of modern people idiomatic translations are fine. Translation is
interpretation, and the basic problem with idiomatic translations is that
the views of the translators (exegesis, theology, bias) are read into the
text *without the knowledge of the readers*. The views of the translators 
are
read into literal translations as well. But because these translations are
more consistent in their renderings (one English word for each Hebrew word
whenever possible), and because some of them, such as the NWT, have
footnotes, it is easier for the readers to get a flavor of the original
text. In idiomatic translations much of the interpretation is made by the
translators, but in literal ones the readers to a much greater extent can
make the interpretation themselves.  The target group of the NWT consists of 
those who
want to come as close to the original text as possible by help of their
mother tongue, i.e., it consists of those who want to make a deep study of
the biblcal text.

The price to pay for a literal translation is a style that sometimes (or
often) is wooden. The advantage for serious Bible students is accuracy.
Using Daniel 6:27 as a point of departure, I will illustrate the point about
accuracy. Many Bible translations render the Hebrew noun (WLM and the
Aramaic noun (LM as "eternity; forever" etc.). This may create problems,
because things that clearly are not eternal are said to be so. The
basic idea of the words is not "unending time," but time whose length is
concealed (unknown).  The NWT, therefore, translates the words as "time
indefinite," and the reader must make the interpretation as to when this
indefinite time is eternal and when it is not. This is a much better 
solution than the one mentioned. The NWT accurately translates the clause in 
Dan 6:26 with the word (LM thus: "For he is the living God and One enduring 
to times indefinite" (the plurality of (LM is also accounted for).

Any Bible translation has its strengths and weaknesses, and that is true 
with the NWT as well. But because it is so different from other modern 
translations (e.g. its ability to convey the force of Greek, Hebrew and 
Aramaic verbs is not matched by any other version I know of), it should not 
be lacking in the libraries of Bible translators, Bible students, and 
pastors.


Best regards


Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Humpal" <ebedyah AT elite.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:38 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27


> Solomon quotes from the NWT.  Does anyone on this list really regard the
> New
> World "Translation" as a serious work?
>
> Rev. David Humpal