Move onto the Quran maybe ?
The Bible Banned!
- Thread starter albert
- Start date
Move onto the Quran maybe ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures#Critical_review
Seems to be a vast difference in opinion, depending on who you ask.
Yeah. I have a King James Edition of the Bible too but It wasn't at hand when I wanted to take a pic. I actually use the King James edition always when I can because it's so well written.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Good.
I actually quite like the presence of the bible in uk hotel rooms. And that's despite generally being strongly against the overt influence of Christianity here (such as 13 of my14 nearest primary schools being Christian).
I see it as a cute idiosyncracy of staying in a hotel here. A bit like singing the anthem before a cinema screening in Thailand.
But, to be honest, I barely care.
I see it as a cute idiosyncracy of staying in a hotel here. A bit like singing the anthem before a cinema screening in Thailand.
But, to be honest, I barely care.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
This is good news. They should make it 18 restricted.
Academically and objectively speaking the NWT is not considered to be an accepted translation of the Christian Scripture. There is no way to authenticate the Translators themselves unlike all other versions of the Bible which have a traceable provenance...the evidence that is available shows that the NWT is both translated with doctrinal bias and disregard to the Hebrew portions of the texts. This is unsurprising given what we do know about the translators themselves, none of whom had the required formal qualification or experience in this regard. You will find it very hard to find a reputable, objective scholar who would support the NWT as being anywhere near the quality or provenance of other translations, such as the one I mentioned (NRSV).
Again there are far superior translations now available. More modern translations of the KJV such as the NRSV and NIV had access to sources and knowledge not available to the translators of the KJV. If you are seriously studying scripture as you have claimed in the past, you should use various comparisons as language changes so does the validity of the translation, particularly in context and literalism. I would advise getting a copy of the NRSV and the ESV to begin with and use the KJV to compare when trying to address any exegesis or study you wish to do.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,035
- Location
- Blyth, Northumberland
I'm pleased, yet at the same time disinterested.
No need m8y, read already and refer to it constantly.
your a Jehovah's witness?
oh good lord no.
I'm always a sucker for a religious thread. I know I'll be trolled by the usual suspects but it's worth it for the lols. The OP has advanced to the next level, I just hope he uses his XP points wisely.
lol. A few years ago one came to my door proselytizing. As an atheist I decided to proselytize him back. After about an hour of engaging debate, he gave up but offered me a free bible. Never one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I accepted his generous offer.
Castiel, apart from the use of the name Jehovah in the New Testament, can you tell me where else the NWT is mis-translated? I'm genuinely interested.
It's not mis-translated in any real sense, If you listen to Castiel you'll end up as daft as he is.
Every verse in the NWT can be found in any other version of the bible but just worded slightly differently. Essentially they are all saying the same thing but the problem comes when people interpret them. That's when the fun starts.
I mostly read the ESV, I've been wondering about getting a new Bible, maybe I'll look into the NRSV.
Personally, I take a Bible with me when I travel, failing that I have the ESV on my phone.
I still like seeing the copy in the Hotel drawer, though it's a shame that so many posters in this thread feel offended by its mere presence in a hotel.
Last edited:
That sounds like two sides of the same coin to me. Both parties not really understanding what they're talking about, but just reeling off info they've been fed whilst pretending to understand.
You really are just utterly blind to the way you are aren't you?
One of the obvious and most used ones is the translation of John 1:1 where the NWT alters the context for the use of theos to imply that Christ has no direct divinity and to state that The Word is a God rather than The God..it renders the passage as The Word was a god, rather than The Word was God. In Colossians 1:16 they have inserted the word "other" which is not in the original scripture, this again goes to the Doctrine that Christ is not (part) of The God, but is a God (as a separate entity) and therefore is a Created Being. There are other examples also, but I think I have illustrated the point that the NWT is an revised version of the Bible designed to agree with the Jehovah Witness Doctrine, rather than the JW Doctrine being taken from the Scripture. Scripture translation is rarely, if ever perfect..but the difference is that while there are minor errors in most translations due to the difficulty of rendering Hebrew and Greek into English, the NWT does this intentionally to alter the context and scripture so it conforms with JW Theology.
This is fine if you are a Jehovah's Witness..but not if you are claiming to be a scholar of scripture and are using it to advocate a particular understanding as perceived by mainstream Christianity or any other form of Christianity which doesn't adhere to the NWT doctrines.
It is up to you, you can listen to Sliver if you wish and accept his stated opinion that the NWT is no different than the NASB, NIV, KJV, ASV, ESV and so on...My understanding differs from his however.
Last edited:
The NRSV is a good companion for the more conservative ESV.