Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures/Archive 1

Old Talk Content
I am expanding the article on the New World Translation and I would like to explain why I have removed the 'controversial verses' section from the article.

First of all, let me state that I am in no way disputing that there are critics of the New World Translation who believe, strongly and sincerely, that the New World Translation errs in the verses cited as well as others. There are also Jehovah's Witnesses who maintain - with equal sincerity and conviction - that the New World translation renderings are justified. Both sides could explain in detail the reasons for their arguments, but such information would simply add a lot of unnecessary information to the page.

If the list of verses remains in the article, doubtless numerous Jehovah's Witnesses will feel obliged to publish lengthy defences of the NWT renderings - basically a pointless exercise, when all such 'information' amounts to is basically opinions, arguments and counter-arguments that can readily be found on dozens of web pages already.

I looked at other articles on Wikipedia about other Bible translations (King James Version, New International Version, New American Standard, etc) and did not find similar lists. This could hardly be due to lack of controversy, as some supporters of the KJV have extensive webpages devoted to what they consider to be errors in the NIV, and, I assume, vice versa.

An encyclopedia article is not the place to go into detail about the specific renderings employed by a particular translation.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the article should hide the fact that the NWT has its critics, nor that the article should be a one-sided tribute to the translation. I believe the present revision makes that clear.

The article already has a link to a site defending the New World Translation. How about simply adding a link to a site critical of the translation? I have left a space for one.

I disagree that there isn't a place for some brief information of this sort. The nature of the translation and the issues that surround it, is a perfectly valid point of information. The list doesn't argue pro or con whether they are correct or valid renderings, only that they are an example of the kind things that surround the controversy of the translation.

I also disagree that other bible versions don't, or shouldn't have, information on the kinds of issues that surround them. For example even the overly-brief article on the Today's New International Version has examples of gender neutral language in the translation, which is appropriate because gender neutrality is the controversy that surrounds that translation. It also discusses the issue of politically correct Jewish renderings. (BTW, I didn't write this article, but who knows I may expand it)

Similarly, the article on the King James mentions that the ecclesiastical words were to be kept, bishop etc, and this section in the King James needs to be expanded. The King James also has examples of verses discussing the style - because style is one of the issues that people talk about when they talk about the King James.

Most of the other versions don't have this kind of information, simply because nobody has bothered yet.

I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses _should_ feel the need to argue these verses in the article. Nobody has to argue that they are wrong, and nobody needs to argue that they are right. The only point is to mention the kind of controversies that (face it we all know) surround the translation. It's only a starting point for the reader to conduct their own investigation.

Is it really good scholarship to merely say that there is controversy, without mentioning what the issues are? What if there was an article on the Council of Nicea but didn't list the issues? What if there was an article on the biblical canon without listing the issues? Will the article on the Textus Receptus really be complete until somebody mention Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum?

Chrisbitmead 04:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-

I agree in principle with a lot of what is stated above. I didn't intend to suggest that the article should be totally devoid of reference to controversial issues, and I have introduced some such references already. By all means say what the main issues are. But let's recognize at the same time that in Bible translation there are controversial issues in just about every verse. What I am talking about is whether we should have a long list of specific verses that are the subject of controversy. By the nature of things, if there is a long list of controversial verses, we will feel we have to defend it with our side of the issue. If we write that "so-and-so has been accused of theft", then 'so-and-so' is going to want to defend himself. It is not enough to say that the existence of such accusations is a fact (whether or not the accusations are accurate). If they are not refuted, then the insinuation is that they are valid.

All articles on Bible translations should refer to a range of views on the quality of the translation. But no article on any Bible translation as far as I know, has a list of verses such as you propose. So I would suggest references to what are considered to be the main objections of critics of the NWT, along with the response of Witnesses, maintaining the NPOV of course.

Please be assured that I respect completely your right (and everyone's) to have your opinion on the New World Translation and to include in the article facts about that translation.

Jpb1968 17:40, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- A critique of the New World Translation is available at http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html

I am removing the purported names of the translators. It's not true that 'former members of the Watchtower governing board have revealed the names.' Only one such former member exists and he has alleged - not revealed - that those were the names. Unless further evidence is forthcoming, such "information" can hardly be included in the article. Further, I have removed the link to Palm NWT as it is a copyright violation. Please do not mark changes as minor when they are not. --Jpb1968 11:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If encyclopedias only printed information that is sanctioned by official organizations, nothing would get printed at all. The source is now documented, people can assess its credibility on their own.

Examples
I'd like some examples of where this translation differs more from others. For example, I heard that Witnesses don't believe died on a Christian cross but on a stake. If this is derived from their translation, it should be mentioned.

The Jehovah's Witnesses translate the Greek word "saturos" as "torture stake" in the New World Translation (available online at www.watchtower.org). The word "saturos" can in fact refer to several shapes, including I X T and the traditional Christian cross. It was most commonly used with reference to the latter. Thus it may be argued that the New World Translation has selected the I shape since it fits their belief that Jesus died on an upright stake.

Most translators use "cross" because there are issues with the NT text if one goes with "torture stake". Most notably that Thomas wanted to see the marks left in Jesus' hands by the nails (pl - a stake would require just one nail). Furthermore, the notice on the cross was placed over Jesus' head, not his hands as would be the case with an upright stake.

Most mainstream Christians note however, that to argue the shape of the cross is irrelevant, since theologically the point is that Jesus died for sins. To them, debating minute details belittles Jesus' sacrifice.

Catholic
I think that the Catholic church doesn't authorize using this version for religious purposes or something. Could you confirm?

Most Catholics would be more comfortable with a version that included all of the Deuterocanonical books accepted by the Church than any "Protestant" version. While Witnesses are not "Protestants", it is likely that most outside of the group would perceive them, and their verison of the Bible, such.

Rlquall 22:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A problem with history?
Why was it necessary to edit "Yankee Stadium" into "the Stadium"? There is no structure in NYC called "the Stadium". Was it at Yankee Stadium, or not? If it was at Yankee Stadium, then it is imperteinent whether the editor likes or appreciates the name, that's what the place is called. If it was at another stadium, please give its name. Also, what was wrong with the term "single-volume", if the work was produced at first in phases, then all put together between two covers? Would not the proper term be "single-volume"? Everyone should always feel free to neutralzie POV and correct factual errors; however no good purpose is served by making things deliberately vague.

Rlquall 13:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Too technical?
I realize that both the educational level and intelligence level of most Wikipedia readers and users is quite high, but does the last edit of this article go beyond the idea of an encyclopedia article for the general user? Would some brief summary and links to the apppropriate Web sites serve most users better? The English-language Wikipedia is probably not the best place for an in-depth discussion of transliterated Greek declintions.

Rlquall 11:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I would replace with perhaps one paragraph briefly summarizing the controversies. But I'm new to Wiki, so I don't want to go in and make drastic changes.

Danglick 1:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV dispute
This article is biased to Anti-JW view. Someone erased JW view. This article must be changed. Rantaro 11:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rantaro, I reverted a couple of things because they were not negative statements, The words used could have been taken as accusatory but they were not. It's kust an english thing. :D george m

Capitalisation
Sorry DannyMuse, I wasn't too fussed about whether name was capitalised or not as it does refer to Jehovah. But it's not capitalised anywhere else in the paragraph and I just thought it should match. May be I should have provided more explanation. If you'd like to make it match, I'll leave it up to you.

cairoi 05:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Cairoi: Actually, you were right, I was wrong. In doing some further research I have found that the word "name" is generally only capitalized when used as a substitute for God's name, not simply in reference to it. Consider this commentary from a footnote on the verse Leviticus 24:11 from the Reference edition of the NWT:


 * "The Name." Heb., hash·Shem´; that is, the name "Jehovah" as indicated by vss 15, 16. Post-Biblical use of this expression is found in the Mishnah, as in Yoma 3, 8; 4, 1, 2; 6, 2. It is believed that the expression "the Name" was substituted for "Jehovah" by the Sopherim to avoid what seemed to them to be flagrant blasphemy in saying, "began to abuse Jehovah."


 * So I changed all the capitalization in the paragraph in question to be consistent with this practice. --DannyMuse 16:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about the HaShem thing myself. I think it does look better in the style of capitalisation you chose but.  Thanks for doing all that research.  cairoi 22:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)