[QUOTE=simster]
You’re really quite the tool aren’t you?
[/QUOTE]
Moderator’s Warning: Simster, personal insults are not allowed in this forum, or in any SDMB forum outside of the BBQ Pit. Don’t do that again.
[QUOTE=dougie_monty]
You know, you might just as easily call translations such as the King James version “biased” in another direction for using “Lord” instead of the divine name…
Moffatt uses “Eternal”…
In a Catholic work from the 13th Century, titled Pugio Fidei (“Dagger of the Faith”) a response to the Talmud, the word *Jehova appears; the text is Hebrew and Latin side-by-side, and this rendering of the divine name appears in the place corresponding to the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text.
The name Jehovah, of course, appears in four place in the KJV (1611), where, according to one authority, “where it would have been embarrassing to omit the name.”
The Douay version (1610) used it in a footnote at Exodus 6.3.
When missionary John Eliot translated the Book of Psalms for the Algonquian Indians, in the 17th Century, his version of the 23rd Psalm used the divine name as “Ehovah.”
The point of the foregoing is that the usage “Jehovah” has historical support.
In a collection of the American Bible Society in New York there are twenty spellings, tfrom thirty-eight languages (other than English or Hebrew; none, in fact, is Indo-European or used in Europe or Western Asia)
[/QUOTE]
Never said that it wasn’t a commonly accepted “version” of the name, nor did I say that other translations were not biased in not using it. (However, the logic behind using “LORD” or “GOD” in place of the Tetragrammaton, in that no one truly knows a correct spelling/pronunciation of the actual divine name eliminates much bias.)
The JW, however, put much emphasis on the divine name, and then “restored it”… “restored it” the words themselves should give one pause… again, they had no special knowledge or access to any manuscripts that would indicate that it needed this restoration.
What I did say, was that the NWT translation was done in a way to support the JW doctrine, this being an example.
Noted…
[QUOTE=the raindog]
- A guy with Google-Fu and an Agenda doesn’t a Genius make.** In the 2nd and 3rd hyperlink—and I’m not kidding or making this up—a guy named Andy Bjorklund posted a few dozen comparisons between the NWT and the NIV and proclaimed the NWT faulty. Does the cite give us a single gram of evidence to support the notion that the NIV is the Gold Standard from which to judge the NWT? I’ll quote Mr.Bjorklund: “In the examples below, the New International Version of the Holy Bible (New York International Bible Society, c. 1978) has been used to depict a correct translation in the first quotation. (The translators’ choice of words is further verified by highly similar renditions in the King James Version, Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible.)” Does the link provide any scholarly reference to support the notion that NIV alone should be used to judge other translations? Nope. Mr. Bjorklund apparently believes the JWs are a cult as evidenced by his post here. His post is actually a link to his website here. Mr. Bjorklund is a welcome guest on this site, and you can find more information about the web sites’s owners background here and the founder’s (Randall Watters) “testimony” here. This web site has much more to say and it’s all for sale here and here. Folks, Google is not your friend. It is not a surrogate for research. The next time someone says, *“…I’m simply going to post a few cites… I haven’t reviewed them all in entirety, but they hit the primary points fairly well… …”*in lieu of a cogent response, you should be looking for the intellectual exits.
[/QUOTE]
It appears my earlier response didn’t post. 2nd try.
I agree that a person with an opinion, an axe to grind, and a web page, does not make an academic cite, however, even an idiot might have a valid point if we bother too look or listen.
You say that JW doctrines are supported by commonly used versions of the bible as well as the NWT. OKay.
The point being made by the comparison between the NIV and the NWT is that words and phrases were added and/or altered from the original text for the sole purpose of supporting JW doctrine. That’s a different question.
Perhaps the NIV is not the gold standard for comparison. Would you like to offer an alternative? I know not all scholars agree on which original text or which translation is best but in general isn’t the NIV considered a quality translation.
I went to the Watchtower website to find some history on the NWT and couldn’t seem to find any although it is posted there to be read. I did find some info on a site opposed to JW teachings that claimed some unflattering things about the origin of the NWT.
Although you commented on the individual who made the comparisons you didn’t say much about the comparisons themselves. My question is does the NWT add, or alter words and phrases from our best original texts for the express purpose of supporting JW doctrine?
I’m not condemning anyone for doing that. According to Bart Ehrman that practice iis fairly obvious in our original texts. I’m only wondering if it has happened again in recent history. Other than say, Joseph Smith’s version.
I’d also be interested in some historical background on where the NWT came from, other than a biased web site.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
At any rate, this narrow focus has strange side effects, like being in agreement with Diogenes on the issues of “Hell” and the “Trinity.” In the end, you, Diogenes, Polycarp and tomndebb have become my favorite posters, even though it is abundantly clear you are all severely misguided. 
[/QUOTE]
At least, though, we’ll make in in the Restoration Era! Right? … Right?
(Btw, the “Restoration” doctrine is one that I most heartily “Amen!” Pastor Russell for.)
This does not match with my experience. Maybe as a group JWs are extremely well versed in the bible but the devout JWs who I have had contact with an engaged in long discussions about their religion were all terribly ignorant as to what the bible actually said. All 5 of these people were older JWs who had been born into the religion or converted >10 years ago so it wasn’t as if they hadn’t been members long enough. I would mention stories outside of their “areas” in their bible and they hadn’t heard of them.
My friend gave me tons of official pamphlets and books by JWs and I read them from cover to cover. Here are the main problems I have with JWs. If they are not conclusive to the group as a whole, please inform me.
-
Shunning. As other posters have noticed, this seems to be widely practiced among JWs. I’ve meet people all across the country who have had this happen to themselves and their loved ones. The JW I was closet to admitted that this had happened to him twice before and that it only caused him to fall deeper into the church when he returned.
-
Bible as inerrant word of truth. If you get the official books and pamphlets and look to what they say they argue that the bible is true. If the scientists say the dates are different than the scientists are wrong. They have many factual inaccuracies present in their works. For samples of their “bible as truth” read: here and here.
Read “The Bible: God’s Word or Man?” For arguments on why the bible is absolutely correct and how historians and scientists are wrong.
- Denial of science. The pamphlets and books also attack science that they disagree with declaring it to be full of holes and unsupported. That would be fine if they just attacked science as a whole, but they pretend to be scientific and use their version of science to discredit what they don’t believe in. They take quotes out of context to make it seem like no one really accepts evolution. “Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?” argues against science using some of the most slippery knowledge I have ever encountered. You can read some other examples of it here and here.
So… are these books (which are official publications) not representative of the beliefs of most JWs? It is possible to be a JW and believe that the bible has inaccuracies and to accept evolution? Is shunning an official practice or does it merely appear to be widely used?