FTR, I am not a 'fan' of the NWT, by any stretch. I did not vote in the poll, for it did not adequately express my personal beliefs, there, but did already write comentary.
Were I to remove a, granted, rather large handful of verses that are 'translated' :rolleyes: as they are to provided specific 'doctrinal' reinforcement of beliefs, I would find little to disagree with in 95% of the translation. It really is very hard to find a difference, sometimes:One might note in the NWT Col. 1:16-17, even the 'translators' were forced to admit this is not found in the text. :rolleyes:
One Ken Anderson said it this way:I'd offer that Mr. Anderson says it better than I could, here.
Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't! IOW, even this "put-up-job" does not always accomplish all its intentions, and the NWT would be at least "Exhibit B" in that regard.
All this said, I would be the first to suggest avoiding the NWT, as it is an obviously 'made' translation with what amounts to a poison solution. As a farmer, I am fully aware that a 1% solution of some poisons will kill everything that it hits just as certainly as a 100% mix. Why take the chance when it is unnecessary?
Ed
"A" Added by Ed for emphasis, not found in the text.
How many errors in 1769 Oxford KJV?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 22, 2006.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
Ken Anderson:
-
As I have mentioned before, I use the KJV because for me it reads well and is easier to memorise. There are many translations out there, some of which I use in order to get a better understanding of a particular passage or verse. I also use commentaries and look up the Greek and Hebrew.
I thought the argument has always traditionally been, that it was the "original" languages that are inerrant? I'm not trying to be awkward here, but I can't really see how something can be directly translated into English from either the Hebrew or the Greek? I see the same arguments taking place among Muslims and their translating the Arabic version of the Quran into English. There are problems, surely? That is the reason we study the original languages?
I apologise if I appear to be over simplifying the problem. I've even used the New World translation when speaking to Jehovah's Witnesses. I began the Christian life with a J. B. Phillips translation. But I must admit I do love the KJV and always revert to that for general use.
Ps: In reference to using the NWT with JW's I find it even more useful when they use their interlinear verson. For then I can point out to them what a particular passage or verse says in the Greek. -
-
Grahame: //I thought the argument has always traditionally been, that it was the "original" languages that are inerrant? I'm not trying to be awkward here, but I can't really see how something can be directly translated into English from either the Hebrew or the Greek? I see the same arguments taking place among Muslims and their translating the Arabic version of the Quran into English. There are problems, surely? That is the reason we study the original languages?//
I'm not a cookie cutter Christian (ccC).
I study the scripture for myself and commune
with the Holy Spirit about what I should do about
what it says.
Contrary to others:
I believe that all English Versions are (collectively and
individualy) are the inerrant Written Word of God.
If there seems to be some descrpancy, let us talk about it
here in the Versions/Translations forum.
I only throw a sop to those who think some bibles are 'invalid'. -
-
-
-
Please read an AV 1611 or a repro if at all possible. You'll see a marginal note for the second them in Psalm 12:7 that reads, "Heb. him, I. euery one of them". The AV men used "them" ONLY because they knew the preceding verses referres to plural PEOPLE. In their marginal note (conveniently left outta later KJV editions) the translators give the LITERAL meaning of the Hebrew. -
I can tell you a doctrine left outta EVERY version, old or new....KJVO! -
Amen, Brother Cranston! Preach it!
-
-
Amen, Brother Robocop3 -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs: -
An additional example of an error that is found in many Oxford KJV editions at 1 Chronicles 7:1 [“Shimrom” for “Shimron”] was first introduced in the 1629 Cambridge edition and reintroduced in the 1769 Oxford (Scrivener, Authorized Edition, pp. 33, 221). This error is found in Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1812, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1859, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, 1885, and in today’s Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. Some Cambridge editions printed in 1833, 1842, 1865, 1869, 1872, and 1887 have this same error. A present American Bible Society KJV edition and a present Thomas Nelson KJV edition still have this error. Can KJV-only advocates explain how an error first introduced in 1629 is still found in some present KJV editions?
Page 2 of 2