Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures/Archive 4

Mediation
Hi, I'm your friendly cabal mediation :). A request has been made by User:Duffer1 for cabal mediation. You can add your 0.02€ here. After you have each stated your cases we can get along with the mediation. Thanks - FrancisTyers 17:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediation was accepted before I got the chance to tell you guys I requested it hehe. Duffer 17:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

 * 1) The New World Translation is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase.
 * 2) To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word.
 * 3) Effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing, and where such would not conflict with their beliefs ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]).
 * 4) Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose.
 * 5) Whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.

My immediate question is who is saying these things. That is a long list of citations for would not conflict with their beliefs but we aren't attributing this to anyone? Couldn't we have it something like this obviously contrived example:


 * ''Reverend John Doe of X and Father Sean O'Reilly of X, among others believe that this rendering takes into account the pre-existing beliefs of the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Citations for 2, 4 and 5 would be nice too. Point 1 needs to be adjusted as above:


 * According to the publishers of the New World Translation, it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase (citation)


 * I doubt that such adjustment will be needed, following the spirit of "no weezle words": as long as there is no dispute or doubt about their stated intentions (they did state them). Harald88 01:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually this is the opposite of Weasel words. It is assigning a point of view to a real set of people that can be verified. Weasel words would be something like "Some people say that it is intended to be a literal..." and then not providing a citation. You are using "Some people say" instead of giving a real entity and citing it. Of course this part might not be in dispute in which case it is not needed, but I felt better safe than sorry ;) - FrancisTyers 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how the culture here works but I DON"T THINK IT IS FAIR to say it is INTENDED to be a literal Translation, as if it is NOT authentically one! This is biased and this is not said of other translations. ALL formal equivalence translations are INTENDED to be literal!

Thats my initial thoughts, any responses? - FrancisTyers 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be a "Reverend John Doe" if Mini and Tommstein familiar with the believes could point to the renderings in question?--Mini 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you rephrase that, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying. It doesn't have to be Reverand or Father specifically, it could be Dr. Enoch Garcia or Mr. Nikolai Alexandrovich or whatever. These are merely examples. - FrancisTyers 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you mean "why can't Mini and Tommstein point out where the translation is faulty", this is covered in the no original research policy. - FrancisTyers 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the answer to my question. So i have to write an essay and publish it on the internet or have to find someone who did it already. Thanks for clarification, i try to get some sources.--Mini 09:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * quote from wikipedia: In this translation, all the key doctrinal differences between Christianity and Jehovah's Witnesses are made explicit. --Mini 11:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The only part that is disputed, by Duffer1, is the last part of sentence 3: "and where such would not conflict with their beliefs ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8])." If you think the rest should be documented too though, sure, that's valid (I have never touched any of that, though, so I don't know where it came from, although I personally know the first three sentences to basically be true from having dealt with this translation for decades). Your proposed revision for point 1 also seems better than the present sentence to me. Which means, prepare to have it contested by certain others with almost 100% certainty.Tommstein 06:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so its citation time then. Can you find me a citation that says the NWT was translated as such that different words would be chosen where it would not conflict with their beliefs, or something similar. I'm not interested in examples, I'm interested in someone having published something to this effect. Thanks - FrancisTyers 15:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your adjustment of point one is pretty much a paraphrase of what the introduction to the NWT says; It's accurate, easily sourced, and reads well. As for the citations, I can provide you published resources that are critical (Metzger (1953, 1964), Mantey (1980), Countess (1987)),  and/or I can also provide you published resources (neutral: Dr. BeDuhn (2003), and affiliated: Mag. Art. Rolf Furuli (1999)) that refute Mantey, Countess, and Metzger's out of date and verifiably inaccurate criticism.  Who do you want to listen to and how much of it do you want to hear? :)  Duffer 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, all I was really looking for is a source from the publisher that states this (I may have used citation incorrectly here). What I was looking for is something like:


 * According to the publishers of the New World Translation, it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. (Publisher, 2003)


 * or if you have other sources:


 * According to the publishers, and other commentators, the New World Translation is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. (Publisher, 2005) (BeDuhn 2003)


 * Something like this. Basically instead of stating that the New World Translation is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase, we attribute this statement to some person or group of people. - FrancisTyers 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, on second thought, maybe not good: it suggests doubt about their intentions and thus would be unallowed POV except if one can cite a reputable source where such doubt is motivated ::::::However:
 * The publishers of the New World Translation stated that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. sounds to me rather neutral; and even better would be to cite a part of what they state, for example:
 * ''The introduction to the New World Translation states: "... [..] ..." Harald88 18:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this would be fine, great even. :) - FrancisTyers 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No! The introduction says "made to give as literal a translation as possible"--Mini 20:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be true if we are attributing it to someone or some group. - FrancisTyers 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine to me. Write what ever you want if it has not got to be true.--Mini 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:V Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - FrancisTyers 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no.. you've just given the already extremely hostile editors of the NWT and related Jehovah's Witnesses pages (user:Central and user:Tommstein) yet another means to circumvent accuracy, NPOV, and this websites' highly ineffective conflict resolution process.  I appreciate your efforts at mediation for us, but I must plead with you to take a look at the underlying reasons (User Contrib. Central,  User Contrib. Tommstein) of why these mediation requests are even occuring, and will likely continue, have a look at the most recent ( nonsense that's taken place just today, and that is over changing one word from "cow" to "bovine"!  These two have been warned countless times by other editors to maintain civility but it doesn't happen.  Please look into this.  Duffer 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What occurred today is that Duffer1 argued that something wasn't derived from blood because it was based on a part of blood, and proceeded to continually remove this fact. If someone wants to look into something about why there are so many problems here, take a look at this: User:Tommstein/List of Personal Attacks, Civility Breaches, Good Faith Violations, etc. by Jehovah's Witnesses. Yes, Duffer1 is one of the stars, and continues adding to his portfolio, like with the edit that this is in reply to, for instance. Someone, please do investigate this, if so inclined.Tommstein 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tommstein outright lied about things that I have said, I even tried to defend myself but he deleted that TWICE! Duffer 10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I provided a thousand links for verification. In reality they go to a black hole, not what is claimed.Tommstein 04:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought you were talking about the disputed text: "and where such would not conflict with their beliefs." As for attributing a citation to point number 1, you can find this in the New World Translation (With References), Introduction pgs. 6, and 7:


 * "The Translation Into English (skip first paragraph) - In the New World Translation an effort was made to capture the authority, power, dynamism and directness of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and to convey these characteristics in modern English. (skip next paragraph)  Paraphrases of the Scriptures are not offered.  Rather, an effort has been made to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern-English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not, by any awkwardness, hide the thought.  In that way the desire of those who are scrupulous for getting an almost word-for-word statement of the original is met.  (skip to next paragraph)  Taking liberties with the text for the mere sake of brevity, and substituting some modern parallel when a literal rendering of the original makes good sense, has been avoided.  Uniformity of rendering has been maintained by assigning one meaning to each major word and by holding to that meaning as far as the context permits."


 * Do you plan on going straight down the list to cover sources first? Just curious, cheers.  Duffer 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind, give the sources in any order you see fit. I note Tommstein and Mini haven't given a source for point 3 yet. - FrancisTyers 20:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been eight sources for weeks or months now.Tommstein 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "... where a literal rendition does not, by any awkwardness, hide the thought." This is a direct statement to allow a change for their beliefs. Who else defines "the thought" of the text if not the translator? At one point you skipped "... is met. It is realized that even such a seemingly insignificant matter as the use or omission of a comma..." and you may know that ancient greek did not know a comma (think about Luke 23:43).--Mini 18:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly: that is the dilemma with all translations on whatever subject -- as I explained at the start. I hope that that is clear now. Harald88 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is, but that is not what is in dispute here. Changing to different words when theologically convenient after claiming to always use the same word when context allows is.Tommstein 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's some quotes: (Dr. Jason David BeDuhn Truth In Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003):
 * (on proskuneo pg. 48): In our exploration of the Greek word proskuneo in the New Testament, therefore, the NAB and NW receive the highest marks for accuracy, while the others (NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, AB, LB, KJV) show a tendency to lapse into interpretive judgements guided by their theological biases.
 * (on the entirety of the NWTs New Testament, pf. 163): While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said that the NW(T) emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.  Holding a close second to the NW in its accuracy, judging by the passages we have looked at, is the NAB.  Both of these are translations produced by single denominations of Christianity.  Despite their distinctive doctrinal commitments, the translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produced by single individuals.
 * Dr. BeDuhn is not a Jehovah's Witness (as if that somehow makes his testimony more credible..). Duffer 11:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This has all already been addressed on the actual mediation page.Tommstein 04:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus time
Ok, nows the time to try and hash it out. Here is my suggested consensus text, incorporating the constructive input so far. Let me know what you think, feel free to suggest additions, subtractions and changes of style, etc. - FrancisTyers 10:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The publishers of the New World Translation stated that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing, and, in the opinion of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and others, where such would not conflict with their beliefs. ([1] [2] [3] [4]). Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.


 * The heading that this paragraph is found under is: "Characteristics of the Translation." While much controversy surrounds the NWT, that really isn't a characteristic of the bible itself.  I suggest (as I proposed before mediation even began) that the criticism be relegated to it's very own paragraph, or even, entire section.  As it is (above), there is no room for rebuttal from sources that are actually accredited.  I suggest:


 * "The publishers of the New World Translation stated that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts."
 * Either directly following this paragraph, or in it's own section elsewhere in the article, have something like:
 * "It is the opinion of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, and other critics of the translation, that the NWT is a "highly biased" and untrustworthy reproduction of the original texts, though modern, accredited scholars such as Mag. Art. Rolf Furuli, and Dr. Jason BeDuhn have come forward to express their approval of the NWT as one of the most accurate, and least biased, modern translations available."
 * This allows for both the criticism, and approval of the translation, without slanting the article in one direction or the other. Duffer 13:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I doesn't mention "where such would not conflict with their beliefs.", which is the part I think Tommstein wants to get in, and he has sources. Where would you suggest that placed and how should it be worded in your opinion? Personally I think you can make the room for both sides. I don't see a problem with criticism having its own section, do you Tommstein? - FrancisTyers 13:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Duffer1's suggestion is an abortion. I do not mind at all there being a whole section dealing with criticism. The only thing is, creating a whole criticism section does not justify the removal of "where such would not conflict with their beliefs" from the sentence it is in, because then the sentence would just be incorrect (with a gaping hole). It would be somewhat along the lines of:


 * The Holocaust never happened.


 * ====Allegations that the Holocaust happened====


 * See what I mean. A whole section discussing something does not warrant the rendering of other sentences incorrect.Tommstein 02:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that Tomm wants: "where such would not conflict with their beliefs", but that is a 'criticism' of the translation, not a 'characteristic' (Tomm has sources, but so do I). If you add the 'criticism' paragraph to the middle of the 'characteristics' paragraph, then we'd have a rather convoluted paragraph.  I suggest adding the criticism either directly below the main paragraph or in another section of the article that would allow for further investigation of the specific criticisms.  Duffer 13:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a criticism of anything, just a statement of fact, although, if you want to consider it a criticism of something, it would be of the "characteristics" of translation. I have not seen any sources yet that say that this translation never translates any words differently when the context doesn't absolutely demand it, just a Witness who likes the translation and one non-Witness that likes some parts of it and devotes an entire appendix to parts he doesn't like about it. Until we find a source actually stating that they never, ever break their 'word-for-word equivalence', all defenses and other assertions to the contrary are moot.Tommstein 02:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is someone's criticism. The NWT translators do not claim that it is an exact word-for-word equivelant (unless you mean the Kingdom Interlinear Translation).  Please note my above (The Translation Into English) quotation of the Introduction of the NWT, specifically the last line: "Uniformity of rendering has been maintained by assigning one meaning to each major word and by holding to that meaning as far as the context permits."  Duffer 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The disputed part of the sentence is in reply to the earlier part of the sentence, not anything the translators themselves did or didn't say. The quote in your last sentence, however, says pretty much the exact same thing, 'one-meaning-per-word' equivalence as far as the context permits.Tommstein 02:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Redux
How about something like one of the examples below.


 * 1) The publishers of the New World Translation state that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and others state that in addition to allowing for context, the translators also made allowances for their beliefs ([1], [2]), although this is disputed by a number of academics. ([3] [4]). Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.
 * 2) The publishers of the New World Translation state that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. There is a continuing debate as to if the existing beliefs of Jevohas Witnesses were taken into account when making the translation and this is covered more fully in the criticism section. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.
 * 3) The publishers of the New World Translation state that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. According to Jehovahs Witnesses, to a very great extent one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.

Feel free to chop and change them around and repost them. - FrancisTyers 17:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we agree on #2 and remove: "and this is covered more fully in the criticism section" until we actually get a "Criticism" section? (if we even want a criticisms section?), By the way, thank you Francis.  Duffer 17:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you know that this is unlikely. Please try to be constructive. - FrancisTyers 09:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reduces a simple, verifiable fact to the 'opinion' of 'critics'. Also seems to claim that some academics have said that they have nowhere, at all, translated things differently when not demanded by the context, while I haven't seen any sources that indicate that.
 * There's also continuing debate about whether the world is round, man landed on the moon, and the Holocaust happened. This is only slightly less ridiculous, in that all the evidence is in written form and can be checked by anyone. Even one of Duffer1's 'defense witness sources' has an entire appendix in the same book Duffer1 quoted from taking issue with some Witness theology shenanigans they played in making the translation, to say nothing of the criticism he sprinkles throughout the book that he couldn't dedicate entire appendices to.
 * Isn't this the same thing we would have if Duffer1 just got his way and we deleted the part he doesn't like?Tommstein 06:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your input. If you can find a better source, a more neutral source, or a source that states that this is the belief of a large number of people then I'm sure we can discuss this problem you have with attributing ideas more. This is not the same as deleting it at all, because it is still in there, just attributed, see WP:V. We have a whole page on Holocaust denial, perhaps you'd like to make a page "Criticisms of the NWT" or something, that page could go into a lot of detail. Make sure your edit is properly attributed to the source and sticks closely to what the source actually said. Wikipedia policy states that:


 * Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.


 * From WP:NPOV. So, in this case, the JWs have a minority view (that their translation is best), but the people who actually bother to write criticism of their translation have an even more minority view. Please read up on Wikipedia policy and try to be constructive. Thanks! :) - FrancisTyers 09:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How many Witnesses have you seen putting up pages stating that the translation never, ever uses different meanings for words when not demanded by the context? My running count is at 0. How many sources are there saying the opposite? Plenty. I fail to see how this is the minority view, as you have claimed without references yourself. I also fail to see how an insertion could be much less low-key than adding a few words at the end of an existing, incorrect sentence.Tommstein 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. This does not say that the translation never, ever uses different meanings for words when not demanded by the context. You really think that this is not a minority point of view? As far as I am aware the majority of people could not care less about the JWs or their NWT and the number that actually do is I think probably smaller (significantly) than the number of practicing JWs. - FrancisTyers 11:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If it "does not say that the translation never, ever uses different meanings for words when not demanded by the context," then that supports what I'm saying. No one says that, except Wikipedia editors Duffer1 and possibly Cobaltbluetony.Tommstein 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's something interesting I stumbled back into last night. It is from former Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses member Raymond Franz, regarding a discussion he had with his uncle Frederick, who later became the President of the Watch Tower Society ('God on earth', if you will) and was one of the translators of this translation, probably the main one since he was Vice-President at the time and the only one that had even meager education in these languages. It is taken from Raymond Franz's book Crisis of Conscience, page 27:


 * "Somewhat disturbed by what my research revealed, I approached my uncle with the evidence. His response took me by surprise. 'Don't try to understand the Scriptures on the basis of what you see today in the organization,' he said, and added, 'Keep the Aid book pure.' I had always looked upon the organization as God's one channel for dispensing truth and so this counsel sounded unusual to say the least. When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words 'to office' in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, 'Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased.' I walked out of his office wondering if I had actually heard what I had heard. In future days I was to remind him of these statements on more than one occasion during Governing Body sessions."


 * I apologize for interjecting even more actual research into this argument, but I couldn't resist.Tommstein 08:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well.. thank you for your time Francis, user:Tommstein has been indefinately banned, this decision has been upheld by the ArbCom. I think Tomm was the only one who objected to my deletion of the line "and where such would not conflict with their beliefs ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8])" (except maybe Mini).  I'm going to RV the paragraph, but i'll leave the dispute tag for abit to give others a chance to object.  Duffer 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to write whatever you want - wikipedia takes anyones opinion (and i'm not the one to argue about english expressions). As you stated right before inserting my nick: "no reasonable person would" add an objection ;) --Mini 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks, unless anyone has any objections I'll close the case? - FrancisTyers 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wether the facts show this or the WTS states that - it is up to you as mediator to close this case. Just as a reminder: "Rather, an effort has been made to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern-English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not, by any awkwardness, hide the thought." (Introduction to the NWT, emphasis added) --Mini 18:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what I mean to say is that I am not a final arbiter of this page, if there are no objections, i.e. if there is still a dispute, I will stay and try and help you guys hash it out. If on the other hand there is no dispute remaining then I don't see a reason not to close the case. - FrancisTyers 19:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost
I think the point in question could be summarized like this: Critics of the New World Translation argue that deviations from single-word for word translating by the NWT translators was done in such a way so as to support their beliefs, whereas the translators believe that the research done to come to this translation was decades in the making and was the source of their beliefs; this translation stands as a reflection of that research. - CobaltBlueTony 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do the critics "argue" but the defenders "believe"? This implies one is more sincere than the other. Perhaps we should say that the translators "assert". Merecat 06:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Merecat. joshbuddy 06:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Septuagint & Tetragrammaton
I didn't think versions of the Septuagint that were used by first century christians would have had the Tetragrammaton in it. From what I understood, the very few that did were in a different place and time. (Two centuries earlier) j o s h  b u d d y talk 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Archived
I have archived most of this talk page because it was really long. You can read the old stuff at the top.whicky1978 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

paragraph removed
This paragraph was removed by :
 * "Critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation argue that the new translation was commissioned not so much to bring the language up to modern use but to remove the strongest evidence of the deity of Jesus Christ from the Christian Scriptures. For this and many other reasons they contend that it was designed specifically to support Jehovah's Witnesses' theology and doctrine."

I agree with its removal, but on the basis of its lacking any reference or sourcing. If someone wants to restore it, please provide the needed reference/source for this statement of established views, or discuss further here. - CobaltBlueTony 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting back and forth
I will work to combine the two editions of this page and from there we can add and take away. Hopefully this will stop the nonsense.Johanneum 00:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The pages were basically the same. I guess someone is just having fun. I started with the edition "23:27, 7 April 2006 Johanneum (switched supportive and critical around matches main page on jw's)"   which is backed by Smyth, Cobaltbluetony. It seems that just the one paragraph was not in the other edition. Even then at least some of the info is double, could we just delete that and try to prevent this going back and forth? I know it will not stop the vandalism though :-)  Johanneum 01:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We are dealing with anonymous vandals (possibly all the same person), who use false edit summaries, refuse all discussion and throw away many days of neutral edits at a time. There's no point in trying to compromise with this behaviour. In any case, I can't work out what you're proposing: there have been so many changes that it's hard to keep track. – Smyth\talk 10:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Try asking an admin for semi-protection, any users who have registered in the last 4 days will not be able to vandalise the page, I think that IP addresses are also blocked. Ansell 11:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ansell, I should have just left your last version. sorry about that. In the lastest revert, we are missing a paragraph, you can add it to the page if you wish. This was the paragraph that I added because it was the only major difference between the reverting war. Johanneum 12:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't revert or I will be accused of 3RR myself, however, I agree that the missing part of the paragraph has useful information and should be ressurected by another user, thus confirming the consensus for at least that part of the article being changed. Ans  e  ll  23:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Tag
It appears the dispute tag could be removed and movement toward concensus reinstated. I am going to pull it. Feel free to reinsert if I am incorrect. George 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Supportive sources
It would be nice to see some Supportive sources that aren't written by Witnesses.--Jeffro77 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't exist. Evangelical scholars largely stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA" after spending a few minutes with Stafford.  Duffer 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why the ad hominem response?--Jeffro77 08:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of subject
While commendable the contributors for their time and their efforts, my subjective opinion is that the article they created tends to be out of subject. Instead of giving enough information about the concept of the NW project as regards its language and the features of its editions (especially the Reference Bible and the Interlinear), it focuses too much on the use of the Divine Name and the rendering of stauros, while both subjects should be analyzed in different articles and not in this one. Of course, the use of Divine Name in NT and the rendering "torture stake" have caused much controversy, but they are not conclusive about the quality or the style of the NW. Any serious scholar would estimate the translation as a whole, and not only by judging the rendering of two or three words. So initially we intended to translate the English article into the Greek Wikipedia, but soon we preferred to make a new one, which, according to our opinion, would help the reader to understand what the NW really is as a linguistic project, a translation that helps even the unscholarly reader to communicate as much as possible with the original text of the Holy Scriptures. With respect, --Vassilis78 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (Athens, Greece)

Languages table
I don't think that a table listing each and every langauge that the NWT has been translated into is really necessary. It is sufficient to say that it has been translated into 62 languages. At the most the languages could be included in a footnote. Including it in the article, especially considering that it is such a long list, doesn't really help the reader. I guess I am saying it is not notable. BenC7 08:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am tending to agree with the notion that the list, especially in table form, is not truly beneficial to the article, but someone else doesn't seem to "get" how Wikipedia works and has reverted my placing of it in footnotes again. Not in the mood to get into a 3RR, especially with someone who could be my brother/sister, so a little help in communicating with this individual would be beneficial for civility and smooth editing. - CobaltBlueTony 16:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cross
I'm worried that the current revision of the article seems to present a biased, Jehovah's Witness view, about what "stauros" meant, stating that it is a fact that stauros did not refer to the cross, but I'm sure there are many scholars who would disagree. This will have to change for an NPOV artice.

Also the usage of the "Cross and Crown" symbol by Jehovah's Witnesses should probably be mentioned somewhere. Theusername 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, there is a good essay on this subject posted on an ex-JW messageboard here. Although I've never seen such a thorough discussion of this subject I'm not sure that such a link would qualify to appear in the article, but it would be useful for someone who tries to improve the Wikipedia article (which may be me). Theusername 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a point, i wouldnt trust everything you read on those message boards. As ive looked at them and much of the info is a little off from the truth. This probaly comes from changes the Jehovahs Witnesses have made over the years, or someone trying to distort the truth...? --Iron Chef 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right you are. Thanks for pointing it out. I have pulled the whole section, as it was inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. BenC7 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Iron Chef 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)