Subject: how to start reading the bible? |
Bible Note: Dear CurtMan, I appreciate your remarks. Whether your upset with me or not is of no consequence to me, as I love you regardless of your mislead beliefs. I appreciate that you're sadden by my beliefs, I appreciate your loving concern for me. I look at you as a cherish brother in the Lord, one with whom I may become 'friends' as it were, if you wish, but I will not force myself upon you. Here something for you to think about:"The New World Translation is an incredibly biased translation" Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes "It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation" Bible Translations and how to choose between them by Alan S. Duthie In the verse preceding his statement, Ron Rhodes says that the NWT rendering of Hebrews 1:8 is unacceptable. Mr. Rhodes likes the New International Version(NIV) and the New American Standard Version(NASB). Hebrews 1:8 says in the NWT: "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." The NASB says: "But of the Son he says, THY THRONE O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM." The NIV reads similarly. So which one is right? The NASB's translation reads like the Son is God, the NWT's does not. This scripture is quoting Psalms 45:6,7. What Mr Rhodes fails to mention in this regard is that Psalms here is referring to a human king, probably King Solomon. Was King Solomon "God"? NO! That is why the Revised Standard Version translates Psalms 45:6,7 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever" which is different from the way it translated it for Hebrews 1:8. Who is biased now? Hebrews 1:8 equates Jesus(the Son) with King Solomon in Psalms. Both are subordinate to God, both are Kings. The Tanakh Holy Scriptures(the New Jewish Publication Society Translation translates Ps 45:7 as "Your -divine throne- is everlasting. and then it encourages the reader to read 1 Chronicles 29:23 which says: "Solomon successfully took over the throne of the LORD as king instead of his father." Solomon, like Jesus sits/sat on Jehovah's throne. So a little investigation will go a long way to uncover the truth behind attacks on the NWT. Ron Rhodes states that the NWT gets a "thumbs down" from legitimate bible scholars...What about John 1:1 in the NWT? Well, I will let Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University answer this one: "The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word." Still Prefer the New International Version's Rendering of John 1:1? In 1976 "A Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament" was released by Fritz Rienecker, "Translated with additions and revisions, from the German SPRACHLICHER SCHLUESSEL ZUM GRIECHISCHEN NEUEN TESTAMENT edited by Cleon L. Rogers Jr." ISBN 0-310-32050-X What do they say of John 1:1? "The word is without the article and is the predicate emphasizing quality, 'the word had the same nature as God'." Who published this? It was Zondervan Publishing House. The same people who bring you the New International Version. So let's put this canard to rest. What about the NWT Old Testament? Isreali Professor Benjamin Kedar: "Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in articles that deal with purely philological questions (such as the rendition of the causitive hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew as well as of an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target language. A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such its details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding the the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find its explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the Watchtower-Bible who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed scrutiny. This either was not done or else the verses submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13; 6:3; 10:9; 15:5; 18:20; etc.) did not prove the point, namely, a tendentious translation." It should be pointed out that that Professor Kedar does not "feel sympathy for any sect and this includes Jehovah's Witnesses." [to be continued...] |