• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New World Translation Curiosities...

Daisy

Daisy

"guide our feet in the way of peace.”
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
62,279
Reaction score
20,855
Location
Down South
Gender
Female
Why are more and more modern bible translations becoming more like the NWT? Why were those on the NWT committee decades ahead of today's top orthodox scholars? This video series explains this and more on how the NWT is truly an accurate translation. Yes! The New World Translation is a valid translation. A video series that looks into it!

 
Here’s a video I put together from a collection multiple projects all edited into one, so the continuity isn’t the greatest. There were occasions where I was to explain some of the differences between the New World Translation and the King James Version bibles using non-Jehovah’s Witness materials.

 
The only Bible worth studying is the KJV. The rest say what one sect or another want them to say.
 
A discussion on the New World Translation and the 'King James' Bible and other translations. Highlighting "beginning" and "only begotten."

 
This is amusing entertainment for people who believe the bible to simply be a divine cookbook. All you have to do is follow the recipes exactly and you're good to go. But you have to have the right version or translation or your holy cupcakes will fail to get you into heaven.

Personally, I believe the bible to be far more. It is a conduit designed to bring my heart and mind into harmony with the will of God in MY life. This approach has worked for me. You mileage may vary.
 
No it isn't. There's no such thing as a "truly accurate translation" of the bible. Believing otherwise is nothing more than a wisp of smoke, rising from the end of an opium pipe. All translations are, by their inherent nature, inaccurate. ALL of them. And when you compound that with knowing the history of what versions of what books have been variously included, and excluded from the biblical canon, and when they were added or dropped, the whole idea of "accurate translation" becomes even more ludicrous.
 
All true. That said, Jesus and I have been collaborating on a revised, definitive version of the Bible that addresses all of these inconsistencies. We call it: Bible 2.0: Jesus x Phoenix Edition. It addresses many of the problems with the original, including the Noah family incest stuff, and of course that whole part about the dude who got swallowed by a fish. We've also introduced cross-over content to improve multiverse appeal; in Bible 2.0 audiences will be able to witness Jesus's character arc intersect that of Tony Stark. Finally and most pertinently, we're finally going to take care of that Jehovah fake news once and for all.

Bible 2.0 is expected to be released in fall 2026. Please contact your bishop or deacon for more details.
 
Who needs a video series when you can just ask ChatGPT?

The rise of modern Bible translations that some people perceive as becoming more like the New World Translation (NWT) often involves the evolving nature of biblical scholarship, cultural context, and translation philosophy. The New World Translation is notably associated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and its translation choices have been critiqued by some for being influenced by theological positions, such as the translation of "God" as "Jehovah" and particular renderings of Christ’s divinity.
However, there are a few broader factors to consider in the trend you're noticing:
  1. Inclusive Language: Many modern translations have embraced more inclusive or gender-neutral language to better reflect the original texts in a way that resonates with contemporary readers. This might include using words like "people" or "human beings" instead of "men," or shifting away from traditional phrasing that might seem exclusive. Some critics feel that these translations are moving toward a more ideological or doctrinal approach, which can sometimes draw comparisons to the NWT’s translation choices that aim to align with specific doctrinal views.
  2. Textual Scholarship: New translations often benefit from the discoveries of older manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and better understanding of ancient languages (like Hebrew and Greek). This can result in differences in how certain passages are translated. Sometimes these changes may seem to align with what certain groups, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, teach, but this is typically due to a growing scholarly consensus rather than intentional doctrinal influence.
  3. Theological Trends: Some contemporary translations aim to reflect certain theological views, such as the distinction between "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") and "Lord" in the Old Testament. The New World Translation has been criticized for its emphasis on translating the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) as "Jehovah" instead of "LORD" or "Yahweh," which some other modern translations (such as the English Standard Version or New International Version) continue to struggle with, trying to balance both scholarly and theological considerations.
  4. Cultural and Linguistic Shifts: Modern translators often face pressure to make the Bible more understandable to a broad, contemporary audience, sometimes altering phrasing to make scripture clearer or more accessible. While these translations aim for clarity, critics may argue that they can result in a loss of the traditional, historical meaning.
In short, while there may be similarities between certain modern translations and the New World Translation in terms of word choices or theological perspectives, the majority of mainstream translations are driven by scholarly work aimed at accuracy and readability rather than a deliberate theological agenda. However, those with particular theological perspectives, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, often gravitate towards translations that align with their interpretations.
 
Ruth 1:16-17 KJV
16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

Ruth 1:16-17 NWT
16  But Ruth said: “Do not plead with me to abandon you, to turn back from accompanying you; for where you go I will go, and where you spend the night, I will spend the night. Your people will be my people, and your God my God.i

17  Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May Jehovah do so to me and add to it if anything but death should separate me from you.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The KJV is poetic: Other editions are dumbed down. I just don't trust them.
 
Can your new addition please include the words of the US Constitution, a recording of Ethel Merman singing God Bless America, a paper pop-up page of President Trump, a copy of our 2nd Amendment, and an AI generated picture of a camel passing through the eye of a needle? Please? Pretty please?

Asking for a friend.



(I slay me!)
 
The problem arises from trademarks and copyrights. Trump will undoubtedly bring a suit to get his cut. At the very least, he will license his name to bible 2.0 for ongoing royalties in perpetuity.

 
Loulit01 said:
The only Bible worth studying is the KJV. The rest say what one sect or another want them to say.
Click to expand...

Basically I am in agreement……Luke 17:21 is a good example…..KJV saying “the kingdom of God is within you”……with most other versions saying “in your midst, among you, etc”….to their credit the NWT agrees with the KJV……to me this is a huge difference….one’s discovery of God should be personal as opposed to some collective experience….and there are other scriptures whose translations are not in agreement…..
 
The Third video discussing the differences between the New World Translation, the King James Version and others.

 
Loulit01 said:
The only Bible worth studying is the KJV. The rest say what one sect or another want them to say.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that the KJV doesn't say what the sect that created it wanted it to say?
 
Metanoia said:
What sect was that ? You seem to know……
Click to expand...

How do you figure that I seem to know?

Ask Loulit01. He seems to be the expert on the KJV.

Or, you know, use Wikipedia.
 
Noodlegawd said:
What makes you think that the KJV doesn't say what the sect that created it wanted it to say?
Click to expand...
The KJV has replaced the terms Sheol/Hades/Gehenna/Tartarus all with one term, hell, even though their meanings are something different...

Sheol and Hades referred to the pit or grave in the Bible...

Sheol
A Hebrew word corresponding to the Greek word “Hades.” It is translated “Grave” (capitalized), to distinguish it as the common grave of mankind rather than an individual grave.—Ge 37:35, ftn.; Ps 16:10, ftn.; Ac 2:31.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=Sheol&p=par&r=occ&st=a

Hades
A Greek word corresponding to the Hebrew word “Sheol.” It is translated “Grave” (capitalized), to distinguish it as the common grave of mankind.—See GRAVE.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=Hades&p=par&r=occ&st=a

Grave​

When lowercased, referring to an individual grave; when capitalized, the common grave of mankind, equivalent to the Hebrew “Sheol” and the Greek “Hades.” It is described in the Bible as a symbolic place or condition wherein all activity and consciousness cease.—Ge 47:30; Ec 9:10; Ac 2:31.




Gehenna was the Greek term for the Valley of Hinnom, south and southwest of ancient Jerusalem...a place where dead bodies and garbage were thrown to burn up...

This name appears 12 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and whereas many translators take the liberty to render it by the word “hell,” a number of modern translations transliterate the word from the Greek geʹen·na.—Mt 5:22, Ro, Mo, ED, NW, BC (Spanish), NC (Spanish), also the footnotes of Da and RS.

Gehenna was used by Jesus and his disciples to symbolize the eternal punishment of “second death,” that is, everlasting destruction, annihilation.—Re 20:14; Mt 5:22; 10:28.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=Gehenna&p=par&r=occ&st=a




Tartarus
In the Christian Greek Scriptures, a prisonlike abased condition into which the disobedient angels of Noah’s day were cast. At 2 Peter 2:4, the use of the verb tar·ta·roʹo (to “cast into Tartarus”) does not signify that “the angels who sinned” were cast into the pagan mythological Tartarus (that is, an underground prison and place of darkness for the lesser gods). Rather, it indicates that they were abased by God from their heavenly place and privileges and were delivered over to a condition of deepest mental darkness respecting God’s bright purposes. Darkness also marks their own eventuality, which the Scriptures show is everlasting destruction along with their ruler, Satan the Devil. Therefore, Tartarus denotes the lowest condition of abasement for those rebellious angels. It is not the same as “the abyss” spoken of at Revelation 20:1-3.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=Tartarus&p=par&r=occ&st=a
 
Noodlegawd said:
How do you figure that I seem to know?

Ask Loulit01. He seems to be the expert on the KJV.

Or, you know, use Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
You clearly said that a sect created it……not that possibly or even probably….the burden of proof is on you…..otherwise it is an unsubstantiated assertion…..
 
Metanoia said:
You clearly said that a sect created it……not that possibly or even probably….the burden of proof is on you…..otherwise it is an unsubstantiated assertion…..
Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't "clearly say" anything. I asked a question.

But really, who do you imagine might have created it if not a sect, and why aren't you criticizing Loulit01 for also assuming that every bible translation is created by some sect?
 
Noodlegawd said:
But really, who do you imagine might have created it if not a sect, and why aren't you criticizing Loulit01 for also assuming that every bible translation is created by some sect?
Click to expand...

Go back to post# 3…..Loulit01 excluded the KJV….I might disagree with him in stating that all other bibles are created by sects…..most bibles seemed to be compiled by a diverse group of scholars……not just from one denomination…..
 
For anyone interested compare different Bible versions of Matthew 20:15-16……they reveal very different interpretations…..
 
The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England, and there were no original text to translate from. The translators of the King James bible created a version of the bible in which they edited previous translations that would be approved by the King and Parliament.

So it really doesn't matter which version of the bible you use, they all most likely have it wrong.
 
A brief discussion on "Truly I tell you today you will be with me in paradise." Where can the "comma" be placed?

 
Daisy said:
A brief discussion on "Truly I tell you today you will be with me in paradise." Where can the "comma" be placed?
Click to expand...

It might be of interest…..but without a synopsis of some sort few are willing to consider these things….a teaser would be helpful….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.