Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | ateacher | 77705 | ||
Is the NWT more accurate than the NASB because it is "translated from the original languages?" I am a graduate of a conservative protestant college, and am able to argue the Deity of Christ reasonably well when approached by a Jehovah's Witness. Of course we are all familiar with the New World Translation, and how it dovetails with errant doctrine, but I have a specific question about the accuracy of the NASB with the NWT. The people I just met at my door showed me where the NWT has "rendered from the original languages" on the inside cover, and contrasted that with my Lockman foundation NASB, where it says under the preface that it was translated from the Authorized Version (KJV), and says nothing about being retranslated from the original manuscripts. I know that the NASB is a reliable translation, but help me. Here is my question. Assuming that the Original KJV was somewhat in error on some matters of translation, and acknowledging the help that recently discovered manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls provide, help me to see how the NASB is an accurate translation made from the original manuscripts, including newly discovered ones, and not just a rehashing of the KJV. Any errors of the NWT (I have heard that it includes things not mentioned in any manuscript) would be appreciated. God Bless Josh |
||||||
2 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 77706 | ||
ateacher When dealing with any cult it is wise to stay with a 1611 KJV. To do otherwise opens the door for them to use their translation of the Bible, as you just found out. Then instead of discussing the truth of the Word you waste time arguing which is the most accurate translation. The NASB is very good translation but to say it is more or less accurate than say a KJV version is very arbitrary and difficult to prove. Many of the “later” manuscripts have problems of their own and also many are not readily accessible, access is merely to copies that were made available. Many feel this process puts in question the accuracy of the text. The NWT translation is probably not a translation at all, but rather a rewrite of an existing Bible since no translation team has been identified. Also there is no record of any access to any major manuscript that has not been identified to researchers working on other known works. Remember all access to original manuscripts is closely watched and monitored. Having read, studied and compared the major translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NTL) I found the theme remains the same with the main purpose to glorify God and His Son Jesus Christ. There no significant differences when they are viewed in context. Certainly none as flagrant as that the ones that were made to exist between the NWT and them. Next time you friends come to the door insist on the KJV and study the Word not the process of Bible translation. EdB |
||||||
3 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78043 | ||
I would challange you to prove your claims, especially in the way that the NWT is not a translation but a rewrite. I can certainly substatiate that the NWT is a translation, and, further, I can go so far as to demonstrate it to be superior than the NASB in areas. | ||||||
4 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 78068 | ||
Tsmith The only acceptable way of proving the NWT is in fact a translation is providing a translator list, where those translators are available to be interviewed, and substantial documented proof they had access to a group of original manuscripts. Short of that everything else amounts to merely smoke and mirrors. EdB |
||||||
5 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78073 | ||
Doing such actually provides no evidence of such at all. Anybody can claim to be the translators of something and say they did translation work, etc, etc. Does that mean they actually DID it? No, they could simply be claiming such. Nobody would be any the wiser. To state that it is not a translation from a simple lack of translator names is without basis. It is following a tradition, that others have upheld as well, not to release the names. I am curious, do you know the names of the translators of the KJV? |
||||||
6 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 78078 | ||
Tsmith I said make the list known and the translators themselves available for interview. As for your question about KJV the answer is yes. A list of their names has been posted on this forum. Therefore their scholarship, integrity, and their Christian walk is known and is plainly visible for all to see. Further more many were interviewed and the justification for their choice of words in the more interesting passages given. EdB |
||||||
7 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78079 | ||
Really? So people from 600 years ago are alive today and can testify that what they claimed was honest? No, of course not. As regards to the NWT translators, I do not have a list nor do a I need one. Anyone with a basic understand of either Greek or Hebrew can make a quick examination and determine that it is in fact a translation. I would certainly say that the NWT's use of YOU, where other translations do not do such for plurals, is a nice indication of it being such. -Tony |
||||||
8 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 78086 | ||
Tony Of course they are not alive. But they once were and their names were known and they were able to establish they did in fact translate the KJV. To date no translator of the NWT has ever been revealed. To me that says someone is hiding something. You say anyone with a basic understanding of Greek or Hebrew can determine that fact it is a translation. How? How would the knowledge of one of these languages confirm it simply isn't merely a copy of existing work with a few ideas added or changed? It has long been suspected that NWT was nothing more than the work of William Russell. Who was proven in open court not to be able to translate Greek or Hebrew. (that is a fact established by court record). All the words in the world can not prove NWT is a genuine translation. I listed what is needed. By the way I suspect the JW will be producing a list in the near future listing men that are dead. All that will be is a list of dead men. Without the ability of interviewing them nothing will be proven. EdB |
||||||
9 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78094 | ||
Can you prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the information you have on these is completely and 100 percent accurate? With out such, it is impossible to make a solid case. As I had previously mentioned, the NWT is not the only translation to not reveal the translators names. It is actually something of a tradition. For example, the New American Standard Bible states: "We have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits." Should we assume that it is not a translation simply because we do not know who translated it? Of course not. Such logic is silly at best. How can a person determine if it is a copy of existing work? By comparing it to such, checking the renderings. For example, the NWT has a vastly superior renderin of 2 Peter 3:10, than say, the NASB, KJV, LITV, etc. As for this Mr. William Russell you mention, I am not even framiliar with whom he is. Perhaps you mean Charlse Russell. First, and foremost, he never claimed to be capable of reading Greek and Hebrew if you reference the court records. Additionally, he was dead nearly 30 years before there was any concept of the NWT. The translation speaks for itself. If you are not able to go back into the original language and see this for yourself, I am slightly more inclined to understand your concern, but it is misplaced. -Tony |
||||||
10 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 78107 | ||
Dear tsmith, Your statement regarding the NASB that "We have not used any scholars name for reverence or recommendations because it is our belief Gods' Word should stand on its merits" falls short of being completely truthful! While the printed copy of the NASB may state such, there is IN FACT a publically available list of the original translators: Original NASB translators Dr. Peter Ahn Dr. Warren Allen Dr. Gleason Archer Dr. Herman Austel Dr. Kenneth Lee Barker Dr. Fred Bush Dr. David L. Cooper Dr. Richard W. Cramer Dr. Edward R. Dalglish Dr. Charles Lee Feinberg Dr. Harvey Finley Dr. Paul Gray Dr. Edward F. Harrison Dr. John Hartley Dr. F. B Huey, Jr. Dr. Charles Isbell Dr. David W. Kerr Dr. William L. Lane Dr. Timothy Lin Dr. Oscar Lowry Dr. Elmer Martens Dr. Henry R. Moeller Dr. Reuben A. Olson Dr. J. Barton Payne Dr. Walter Penner Dr. John Rea Dr. W.L. Reed Dr. Robert N. Schaper Dr. Moisés Silva Dr. Ralph L. Smith Dr. Merrill C. Tenney Dr. Robert L. Thomas Dr. George Townsend Dr. Bruce Waltke Dr. Lowell C. Wendt Dr. William C. Williams Dr. Herbert M. Wolf Dr. Kenneth Wuest Dr. Fred Young As to your contention the the NWT has a vastly superior rendering of 2 Peter 3:10, I would ask superior in comparison to what standard? I think you comment falls more under the realm of personal opinion:-) The NWT translation is simply not recognized by any consensus of reputable Hebrew or Greek scholars as a valid translation. Would you care to provide a similar list of the NWT committee so that we may continue this discussion in all fairness? Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
11 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78111 | ||
I did not say the NASB, I said the NAB. There is a difference. As for the NWT being vastly superior at 2 Peter 3:10, this is based on the translation of euJreqhvsetai. The NASB, for example, renders it "shall be burned up", while the NWT does "will be discovered." The literal meaning of such as been said to be something close to "will be disclosed" or "will be found." To say that the NWT is not recognized by any reputable Hebrew or Greek scholar is an ill-informed and unresearched statement. It is more accurate to state that the arguements raised by even the most reputable scholars (i.e. Mantey, Metzger, etc) are terribly weak and based on a false understanding of Colwell's Rule and simple theological bias (hence, all easily answer). |
||||||
12 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78116 | ||
Yes, you did say the NASB. No, you did not say NAB in any other post except this one. The post to which I am replying, ID# 78111, is the only one you have made today that contains "NAB". - - - - - - - - - - Further searching has revealed that you NEVER used the word "NAB" in anything you have posted, except for ID# 78111. |
||||||
13 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78118 | ||
You are correct, I did state New American Standard Bible. My appologies. I did mean the NAB. |
||||||