The other day I saw someone post a page from Got Questions Ministries entitled Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible? See https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
What made me post about this page was the glaring mistakes made within it.
For instance, they state "Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as 'a god.'"
Reply: That's not true. John 10:33 in the Greek is APEKRIQHSAN AUTW OI IOUDAIOI PERI KALOU ERGOU OU LIQAZOMEN SE ALLA PERI BLASFHMIAS KAI OTI SU ANQRWPOS WN POIEIS SEAUTON QEON/theon which the New World Translation renders as "The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god."
After this, Got Questions Ministries writes: "Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as 'God.'"
See also Jason BeDuhn on John 1:1 in the New World Translation
Besides this the page makes an underwhelming case against the NWT at John 1:1. It glosses over the fact that the New World Translation renders the Greek term word staurós as "torture stake," even though lexically "stake or pole" is the primary definition of stauros. See Strong's 4716 and Thayer's Lexicon. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words adds:
"The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ."
Got Questions Ministries objects that "The New World Translation does not translate the words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as 'hell.'"
Reply: Why in the hell would you translate four different words with the same one word (pun intended)? Sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus are place names, they are not all the same place. That's like me saying that Edmonton, New York and Manchester are all Disneyland.
Got Questions Ministries adds that The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word parousia.
Reply: Again, my Thayer's Lexicon, Vine's and Strong's dictonaries give "presence" as a definition for Parousia.
Got Questions Ministries tells us that "In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word 'other' despite its being completely absent from the original Greek text."
Reply: This is true. "A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".
For instance:
Luke 21:29
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV)
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)
“Notice the fig tree, or any other tree." New Living Translation (NLT)
Luke 11:42
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT
"and all the other herbs." TEV
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version
In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but translators felt a need to put it in there. In certain contexts, "other" is a legitimate part of PAS.
metatron3@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment