Is the New World Translation Accurate

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Dajo1
Posts: 345
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#41 Post by Dajo1 » 2 years ago

Thanks Amos for that rendering. … before me.
Could it mean ALL the beasts that he saw in the vision? I'm not sure.
Bobcat I looked at the Strong's refs to that word and yes I can see what you are getting at there. The bloke touches on it in his video and it seems to still be unresolved. I agree, it could be a red herring.

Thank you, StoneCrier. It was a great video

I watched the video. Then I dug out WT's "Pay Attention to Daniels Prophecy" 1999 just to refresh my influenced synapses.

The video was quite convincing. very well done and got me thinking about several angles. However, is there some confusion here with what this - well what he, and many others- reference the "The Antichrist" as an actual ruling thing and the King of the North?

It spends considerable effort in explaining with a pie graph how the world will pan out and be divided up into 4 with the 4th beast of Dan 7 being very significant.

The narrator spent some time explaining why traditional views of Dan 2 and 7 were incorrect. and how the 4th beast was a completely different thingy altogether .. and along with the narration and the graphics was convincing to say the least.

When I found and dusted off the WT Daniel book it practically fell open (that was a bit scary!) at page 130 the beginning of Chapter 9 "Who will Rule The World"
Interestingly some (not all) of the beast pictures were similar to the WT book - however that said, I guess there's only so many ways you can illustrate animals that strange.
I read through all of chapter 9 - almost another version of the video but in print BUT also going in quite different direction to the video.
The WT book, to a first time reader would be just as convincing in IT's line of reasoning also. It takes the traditional view and presents (like the video) evidence as to WHY they feel Daniel 7 is in line with Daniel 2 . However . . ..

it lost me and I lost confidence in it when I got to page 141 and the subheading "The Small Horn Opposes God And His Holy Ones" where many pages are devoted to how the events between 1914 - 1919 had there fulfillment with the "little horn" thingy popping up.

All in all a good read and a great watch

Genesis
Posts: 333
Joined: 2 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#42 Post by Genesis » 1 year ago

Bobcat wrote:
2 years ago
I'm slowly transferring some research and comments from another site to here for easier reference (among other reasons also).

These comments fit this thread and are concerning John 10:16 & John 17:3. Here is the comment about John 10:16 -
John 10:16 "other sheep which are not of this fold" - "of" should read "out of" based on normal NWT usage.

This is a sneaky little rendition to support their idea of who the "other sheep" are. They want you to think that the "other sheep" are not in the same "fold" as the sheep mentioned earlier, whom they consider the anointed.

Jesus is saying the "other sheep" did not come "out of" the same "sheep fold" that the earlier sheep were "led out" of. "Of" in Jn 10:16 is the same particle (Greek ek) that prefaces "leads [them] out" in Jn 10:3. But they want you to think "of" in Jn 10:16 means 'belongs to.' It is small but significant.

Also (while I'm at it), they would do justice if they changed "sheepfold" in Jn 10:1 and "fold" in Jn 10:16 to "courtyard." Both are the same word, and both refer to an in-town pen for housing flocks of sheep, as opposed to a wilderness pen described in Jn 10:7-15.

Hi Bobcat,

Not quite understanding that posters objections. Here are other Bibles which translate John 10:16 the same way as the NWT.

ASV  And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.

KJV  And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

NASB  "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

NWT (John 10:16) 16 “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd. . .

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#43 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

That post was from about 10 years ago (on another forum). Now that I look at it along with your comments it looks like over-pickiness against the WT due to the anger that comes with recently waking up.


Bobcat

Genesis
Posts: 333
Joined: 2 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#44 Post by Genesis » 1 year ago

Appreciate the reply, Bobcat.

Waking from the Governing Body is like going through the birth canal again. Bright lights confuse for a time.

John S
Posts: 1159
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#45 Post by John S » 1 year ago

Most certainly beyond any doubt John 10:16 applies to the Samaritans and the Gentiles being brought into the fold along with Jewish Christians.

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#46 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

Agreed John. In fact, that post was right on the heels of a w10 3/15 study articles about Jn 10. I remember the frustration of their twisted reasoning.

I don't think it would bother me so much now. I've studied the passage and reached my own conclusions (much the same as your conclusions). So having reached what I view as a sound conclusion to the passage, WT's views are little more than their own opinions now. But back then, just coming awake, it was a bit different reaction.


Bobcat

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#47 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

Comments someone made on another forum regarding the older 1984 NWT and the revised 2013 NWT that I found interesting:
I never did like the new 2013 bible. Yeah, it has a few textual fixes, like mt 7:13. But otherwise, i think it's not an improvement. It really backs off the literalness of nwt1984. Nwt1984 was rare among bibles in trying to preserve the hebrew verb tense expressing ongoing action. This made it wordy, perhaps cumbersome, with all the "proceeded to", but it was more accurate. Also, they removed brackets around added words, which is less accurate and less honest. And i didn't like them selectively changing soul to life, or fornication to sexual immorality. They had preached a specific definition of fornication, and "sexual immorality" sounds vaguer and much broader. And i concur with you: the new bible sounds much less poetic in the psalms, etc.

That having been said, the 1984 bible has its flaws. It inserts "sovereign" into "lord jehovah". It inserts "true" into "the god". It adds "torture" before "stake". It selectively adds "to destruction" after "devoted". It changes "crucify"/"crucified" to "impale"/"impaled". (Even with a crux simplex, the word is still crucified.) It selectively changes "spirit"/"breath" to "active force". All the "proceeded to"s are a bit cumbersome. Perhaps a briefer, simpler way of conveying the ongoing tense could have been used, like "was doing".

Some degree of interpretation is used, since "fornication" and "prostitution" are the same word. Likewise "wife" and "woman". I think also "spirit" and "breath".

The comments about the change in Mt 7:13 I had missed. See if you see the difference. It is easy to read over it:
“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it - 2013 NWT

“Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it - 1984 NWT



On another note, there are an interesting couple of footnotes in the NET at Mt 7:13-14 that comment on the word "enter" ("go in through" in the NWT), and on a difference between Matthew and John (the 4th gospel) in their expressed viewpoint regarding "eternal life" (or Matthew's 'entering into life'):
20 sn The same verb [for "enter" or "go in through"] is used in Matt 5:20, suggesting that the kingdom of heaven is to be understood here as the object. [See also the second chiasm in this post and how "B" and "B^" match up - Bobcat


22 sn Here the destination is specified as life. In several places Matthew uses “life” or “eternal life” in proximity with “the kingdom of heaven,” suggesting a close relationship between the two concepts (compare Mt 25:34 with Mt 25:46; Mt 19:16, 17, 29 with Mt 19:23, 24). Matthew consistently portrays “eternal life” as something a person enters in the world to come, whereas the Gospel of John sees “eternal life” as beginning in the present and continuing into the future (cf. Jn 5:24).



Bobcat

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#48 Post by Bobcat » 10 months ago

Linking another thread on Sopherim changes to the Hebrew text to this thread. They are topically related.


Bobcat

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Is the New World Translation Accurate

#49 Post by Bobcat » 8 months ago

"Governing Body" in the outline to Acts in the rNWT. This is a graphic of it. The topic comes up sometimes so just linking to a visible reference of it: Here.

Also for cross reference purposes, this post has the topic of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. The NWT consistently adds "allows" to all the verses mentioning this. (This includes Rom 9:18 where the NWT adds "lets become" to "obstinate", as opposed to "hardens" or similar) So far as I can tell this amounts to an interpretation of the text. It wouldn't be the first time a translation did such a thing. But it is worth having it cataloged. (In Rom 9:18 what God does to Pharaoh is described with an active verb, not a passive one. "Makes hard" is active. "Lets become obstinate" is passive.)


Bobcat

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests