Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
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 | Morant61 | 78139 | ||
Greetings Tsmith! Your example from 2 Pet. 3:10 is not stated accurately my friend. The NASB does not translate the future, passive, indicative form of 'heurisko' as 'shall be burned up'. Rather, the NASB accepts one of the many variant readings of this passage - the future, passive, indicative form of 'katakaio'. 'Katakaio' does mean 'to burn up'. The reading of 'heurisko' is probably the original reading, but there is wide support for the 'katakai' reading as well. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78141 | ||
I do stand corrected. I should have paid slightly more attention. Guess thats what I get for being caught late at night, after a long day (presently out of the country for work). The fact remains that the NASB, really, should not read such a way. While the MT does read katakahsetai, we know that the earliest texts do read eureqhsetai. Based on the reading of other comparable scriptures (based on textural critism) we would expect the NASB to follow suit in the correct reading, but it does not. So I was incorrect on my point of translation, but I will continue to argue the point on the grounds of textural critism. |
||||||
3 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 78143 | ||
Greetings Tsmith! I would agree with you that 'heurisko' is probably the better reading overall. However, there are so many variant readings, it is hard to find fault with the NASB since their choice is well attested as well (no pun intended). And, they are not alone in this choice. Only the NIV and NRSV accept the reading of 'heurisko' from the modern versions which I checked. It terms of pure age, the oldest reading is probably: 'heurethasetai luomena' or 'found dissolved', which is only attested by p72, but probably dates from the third century. But, back to point, this doesn't prove that the NWT is a superior translation, nor a translation at all! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78145 | ||
You are correct on p72. As for proving whether or not the NWT is a translation; I do not particularly care about persons opinions on this. Today is the first time I have ever heard of such of thing, and really, I have no motivation to try and prove such. -Tony |
||||||
5 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 78148 | ||
Greetings Tony! I was wondering if your first name was Tim! The youth pastor at our church is named Tim Smith. :-) The reason I asked the question to begin with is because you claimed that you could substantiate that the NWT is actually a translation. I was just curious as to how you could accomplish that feat. :-) To me, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. I do know Greek, and I know that many of the translational choices which I have seen are not possible in the Greek. But, as I said, if you would like to discuss some of these choices, I would be more than happy to do so! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78151 | ||
Actually.. its just an alias I go buy. ;) Hehe. For substantiating the NWT as a translation, it COULD be done. But to dedicate that much time and energy to something is simply not something I desire to do, frankly. One might say many of the translation choices are not possible in nearly any translation. I am certainly not claiming the NWT is a perfect translation, as there is no such thing. My only argument is that the NWT is not this terrible translation that people make it out to be. There are plenty of things in the NWT that I do not agree with, but most of the issues people take up with it are not really issues at all. |
||||||
7 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 78155 | ||
Greetings Tony! I agree that no translation is perfect. However, the NWT seems to translate passages in way which are impossible, simply to support their 'unique' doctrines. For instance, you mentioned Col. 1:16 earlier. There is no textual basis whatsoever to add the word 'other', even in brackets. The word is not in the text, nor is there any textual variant which would support this addition. This is just one example, but there are many more where translational choices are based upon doctrine, not text. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78158 | ||
Well that is irritating. I made a post, forgot to click note, went back and it was gone. So I will make this very brief now. It actually is not grammatically incorrect and here is why. Colossians 1:15 contains the following: prwtotokoV pashV ktisewV pashV ktisewV are both gentive, showing that prototokos is thus possessed by this group of creation. In grammar, this is a parative genitive. He he belonging to the group possessing him. So let us consider, what do other translations (including the NASB) do when a person belongs to group but then the group is then referenced as a whole with PAS/PANTA? They add the word "other"! Luke 3:12 (NIV) Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? (NASB) And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? (AMP) And He replied by saying to them, Do you think that these Galileans were greater sinners than all the other Galileans because they have suffered in this way? (NLT) "Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than other people from Galilee?" he asked. "Is that why they suffered? (ESV) And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? (NKJV) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? (KJ21) And Jesus answering said unto them, "Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the other Galileans, because they suffered such things? Matthew 26:35 (NIV) But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same. (NLT) "No!" Peter insisted. "Not even if I have to die with you! I will never deny you!" And all the other disciples vowed the same. (CEV) But Peter said, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never say I don't know you." All the others said the same thing. -Tony |
||||||
9 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78159 | ||
Well I should check my spelling... It should read a "partitive gentive". |
||||||