Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 78131 | ||
Tony Your right I mistakenly referred to Charles T Russell however he did claim to speak and read and write Greek and Hebrew that is why he was tested in court. The translators of the NASB are in fact identified and if you do a search in the forum you will also find a list containing their names. The burden of proof is not on me, KJV or NASB the burden of proof is on NWT. It is the NWT that is redefining Jesus and His deity. Let me just quote a brief excerpt from the book Kingdom of the Cults. While the members of the committee have never been identified officially by the Watchtower, many Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were. They included Nathan H. Knorr (president of the Society at that time), Frederick W. Franz (who later succeeded Knorr as president), Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton G. Henschel (currently the president). None of these men had any university education except Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree. In fact, Frederick W. Franz, then representing the translation committee and later serving as the Watchtower Society’s fourth president, admitted under oath that he could not translate Genesis 2:4 from the Hebrew. From the Pursur’s Proof of the cross-examination held on Wednesday, November 24, 1954 (p. 7, paragraphs A-B), examining Frederick W. Franz, vice-president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and sent as representative of the Society and the Translation Communications: Q:Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew? A:(Franz) Yes. Q:So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command? A:Yes, for use in my biblical work. Q:I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French? A:Yes. Later, during the same cross-examination: Q:You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you? A:I do not speak Hebrew. Q:You do not? A:No. Q:Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew? A:Which? Q:That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis? A:You mean here? Q:Yes. A:No. We asked a Hebrew teacher at Biola University/Talbot Theological Seminary if the fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis was a particularly difficult verse to translate. After all, the pursur’s question would hardly have been fair if it were the hardest verse in the Old Testament to translate. The professor said that he would never pass a first-year Hebrew student who could not translate that verse. This is an example of the “scholarship” backing the NWT. However, the Watchtower “translation” speaks for itself and shows more clearly than pen can, the scholastic dishonesty and lack of scholarship so rampant within its covers. In order to point out these glaring inconsistencies, the author has listed five prime examples of the Watchtower’s inaccuracies in translating the New Testament. The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) Copyright © 1965, 1977, 1985, 1997 The Estate of Walter Martin. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1997, Parsons Technology, Inc., PO Box 100, Hiawatha, Iowa. All rights reserved. You can read the five problems areas for yourself in the Book. I don't think there is anything else to say. EdB |
||||||
3 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78135 | ||
First, you are incorrect in stating Russell ever claimed to know Greek or Hebrew. You need to make a closer investigation of such. Again, as I corrected myself twice already regarding, it is the NAB, not the NASB. Please do not quote me such poor scholarship as that of the late Walter Martin. You can note his poor scholarship by simply making a careful read of what he states: Martin: "he could not translate Genesis 2:4 from the Hebrew." However, this is quite the opposite of what was requested of Franz. "Q:Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?" He was not asked to translate something from Hebrew, but into Hebrew. Something that one Hebrew professor has gone so far as to claim that few who teach Hebrew could even do. So the Hebrew teacher at Biola was asked to do the opposite of Franz, so of course it was of no difficulty. Finally, I will again state this: I am here to discuss translation. However, I do not want to be quoted websites if you personally have no idea whether or not the information is even remotely accurate. For example, again, the site that mentioned the translations of ginwskw at John 17:3 The authory clearly did not even have a basic handle on the Greek language, and therefore had no business stating what he did. If somebody cares to discuss something however, I will be more than happy to. |
||||||
4 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 78150 | ||
Tsmith I would then say you probably have no place here. We stand on scholarship of men and women that are respected and not ashamed to be quoted. To suggest on NASB forum that NWT is even a creditable work is startling. To ask us to discuss the work of men that refused to be identified is ridiculous. The NWT has no credence and to carry any form of further discussion is only an attempt to lend it an air of credence. In other words the NWT is so lacking creditable scholarship it is pointless to discuss it. My last response on this ridiculous subject. EdB |
||||||
5 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78152 | ||
Well, there is considerable opinion within that post, but no fact to support it. The reason I am aware of this forum is because somebody suggested I should check it out. I was hoping there would be some how might like to take a scholarly examination of the facts. I seem to have found at least one such person. If you are unwilling or unable to participate in such, that is your choice. |
||||||