Apat na Halimbawa na MALI ang Salin ng NWT Bible

[kurungkoy23]

Four examples of where the New World Translation gets it wrong​

DECEMBER 21, 2015 BY ROB PHILLIPS

This is the last in a three-part series on Jehovah’s Witnesses
Jehovah’s Witnesses regard The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures as “an accurate, easy-to-read translation of the Bible” (jw.org). What many don’t realize is that four of the five men on the translation committee producing the complete 1961 edition had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever.
The fifth, who claimed to know both languages, failed a simple Hebrew test while under oath in a Scottish court.
What all this means is that the Watch Tower’s official version of the Bible is “an incredibly biased translation,” writes Ron Rhodes in Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
British scholar H.H. Rowley calls it “a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated,” classifying the text as “an insult to the Word of God.”
Revisions in 1984 and 2013 have not improved the translation.
So, what’s wrong with the NWT? In a phrase, the translators consistently have sought to conform the text to Watch Tower theology, particularly with respect to the person and work of Christ.
A few examples should make this clear.

Jesus as “a god”
John 1:1
This verse in the NWT 2013 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” The Watch Tower goes to great lengths to explain why this is an accurate rendering of the Greek, citing grammatical rules and misquoting Greek scholars to support its belief that the Word is “godlike, divine, a god,” but not co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.
In truth, as the late professor and dean Charles L. Feinberg noted, “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Compare the King James Version (KJV): “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The New American Standard (NASB) and Holman Christian Standard (HCSB) versions read exactly the same.

Jesus not eternal
John 8:58
The New World Translation (2013) renders this: “Jesus said to them: ‘Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.’” Because Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the deity and eternality of Jesus, their translators had to change the biblical text to match their errant doctrines.
Compare the KJV: “Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
Or consider the NASB: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” And the HCSB renders it, “I assure you: Before Abraham was, I am.”
Here, Jesus harks back to Exodus 3 where God reveals Himself to Moses in the burning bush as I AM, or YHWH, a unique name Jesus applies to Himself as He speaks to religious leaders of His day.

Jesus’ blood not divine
Acts 20:28
The NWT 2013 reads: “Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.”
Since JWs deny the deity of Christ, they cannot allow God to shed His blood to pay our sin debt.
Consider the plainer language of the KJV: “… feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
The NASB and HCSB both render it “His own blood.”

Jesus a secondary creator
Colossians 1:17
The NWT 2013 reads: “Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is the first of Jehovah’s created beings, who then created all “other” things. Again, the biblical text is bent to match JW doctrine.
The KJV reads: “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
The NASB reads: “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
And the HCSB reads: “He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.”
No English translation distorts the true meaning of this verse like the NWT.
We could cite other examples – Col. 2:9, Titus 2:13, and Heb. 1:8 to name three – but the point is that Scripture must dictate doctrine, not the other way around. And that is the fatal flaw of the five “scholars” who gave us what the late Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary called “a frightful translation.”

link: https://mbcpathway.com/2015/12/21/four-examples-of-where-the-new-world-translation-gets-it-wrong/

 

[spyx3m_119]

Let me just point out these facts for you to ponder:​

Back in the 16th century, opposers said that Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible was "FULL of falsifications!” They believed they could prove that Luther’s Bible contained “1,400 heretical errors and lies.” Today, Luther’s Bible is viewed as a landmark translation. The book Translating the Bible even calls it “a work of genius”!

In this 20th century, the New World Translation has also been charged with falsification. Why? Because it departs from the traditional rendering of many verses and stresses the use of God’s name, Jehovah. Hence, it is unconventional. But does this make it false? No. It was produced with much care and attention to detail, and what may appear unfamiliar represents a sincere effort to represent carefully the nuances of the original languages. Theologian C. Houtman explains the reason for the unorthodoxy of the New World Translation: “Various traditional translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded, apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding.” Let us consider some examples of this.

JOHN 1:1-​

In John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: “The Word was a god.” In many translations, this expression simply reads: “The Word was God” and is used to support the Trinity doctrine. Not surprisingly, Trinitarians dislike the rendering in the New World Translation. But John 1:1 was not falsified in order to prove that Jesus is not Almighty God. Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of “god” long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language. Five German Bible translators likewise use the term “a god” in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as “of divine kind” or “godlike kind.” These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine. But Jehovah and Jesus are not the same beings, the same God.—John 14:28; 20:17.

JOHN 8:58 & Luke 23:43 - ​

Just because a modern text writer decides where he wants the punctuation and capital-ization to be in his interpretation of the original text (as Westcott and Hort did for the text that is used by the NWT and Nestle did in the text used by the NASB, etc.) does not mean that is how the original Bible writer intended the meaning - as explained in the Kingdom Interlinear footnote for this verse.

For example, at John 8:58, most (if not all) text writers have left ego eimi uncapitalized. However, some respected trinitarian Bibles (such as NASB, TEV, and Phillips) have ignored the text writer's preference and used capitalization here in an attempt to make this verb appear to be a Name: "I AM."

Are these popular trinitarian Bibles also guilty of "deliberately deceiving," then, by miscapitalization?

We see The Emphasized Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham also punctuating this Scripture to produce the meaning found in the NWT:

"Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise."

And the footnote for Luke 23:43 in Lamsa's translation admits:

"Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today."

The Concordant Literal New Testament renders it:

"43 And Jesus said to him, 'Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise.'"

2001 Translation – An American English Bible:

43 And [Jesus] replied, `I tell you this today; you will be with me in Paradise.'

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament by E.W. Bullinger, DD., page 811 says:

"'And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say this day, with Me shalt thou be in the Paradise.' The words today being made solemn and emphatic. Thus, instead of a remembrance, when He shall come in...His kingdom, He promises a presence in association (meta, 'with') Himself. And this promise he makes on that very day when he was dying.... Thus we are saved (1) the trouble of explaining why Jesus did not answer the question on its own terms; and (2) the inconvenience of endorsing the punctuation of the [KJV] as inspired; and we also place this passage in harmony with numberless passages in the O.T., such as 'Verily I say unto you this day,' etc.; 'I testify unto you this day.' etc. Deut.vi.6; vii.1; x.13; xi.8;,13,23; xii.13; xix.9; xxvii.4; xxxi.2, etc., where the Septuagint corresponds to Luke xxii.43."

Yes, there is no reason to deny the rendering of Luke 23:43 as, "I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."

ACT 20:28 -​

Trinitarians, for obvious reasons, prefer this translation of Acts 20:28 -
"... to shepherd ["feed" in some translations] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." - NASB.

This certainly seems to be excellent evidence for a "Jesus is God" doctrine.

But there are 2 major uncertainties about the proper translation of Acts 20:28. Either one of those uncertainties completely nullifies any trinitarian "evidence" proposed for this scripture!

First, even some trinitarian Bibles translate this verse, "the church of the Lord." - NEB; REB; ASV, Moffatt. Since Jesus was often referred to as "the Lord," this rendering negates any "Jesus is God" understanding for Acts 20:28.

Yes, even the popular trinitarian work The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, uses this translation for Acts 20:28 also:

"to feed the church of the Lord"! - p. 838, Vol. 2, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

And the respected, scholarly trinitarian work, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 480, United Bible Societies, 1971, explains about this first uncertainty concerning the translation of Acts 20:28. Although, for obvious reasons, preferring the rendering "the church of God" at this verse, this trinitarian work admits that there is "considerable degree of doubt" about this "preferred" rendering. They admit that "The external evidence is singularly balanced between `church of God' and `church of the Lord'."

Second, even some trinitarian Bibles render this verse, "to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." - RSV, 1971 ed.; NRSV; NJB; ETRV [footnote] (also see TEV and GNB).

The New Testament Greek words tou idiou follow "with the blood" in this scripture. This could be translated as "with the blood of his own." A singular noun may be understood to follow "his own." This would be referring to God's "closest relation," his only-begotten Son.

Famous trinitarian scholar J. H. Moulton says about this:

"Before leaving idios [which includes the form idiou above] something should be said about the use of [ho idios, which includes tou idiou] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11, 13:1; Ac 4:23; 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations .... In Expos. vi. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 `the blood of one who was his own.'" - A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90.

Highly respected trinitarian New Testament scholars Westcott and Hort present an alternate reason for a similar rendering:

"it is by no means impossible that YIOY [huiou, or `of the Son'] dropped out [was inadvertently left out during copying] after TOYIDIOY [tou idiou, or `of his own'] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion [restoration] leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind." - The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix.

And A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481, by the trinitarian United Bible Societies tells us:

"Instead of the usual meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [`through the blood of the own'], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean `with the blood of his Own.' (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou may have dropped out after tou idiou, though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that `his Own' (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to `the Beloved'."

Therefore, we can see that a rendering similar to RSV's "the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son [or `beloved']" is obviously an honest, proper rendering.

Although the UBS Committee didn't actually commit itself one way or another on this rendering of tou idiou at Acts 20:28, it did mention that

"some have thought [it] to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [`his own Son']." - p. 481.

Obviously this includes those trinitarian scholars who translated the Revised Standard Version (1971 ed.) and Today's English Version.

Since so many respected trinitarian scholars admit the possibility (and even the probability) of such honest alternate non-trinitarian translations for Acts 20:28, this scripture can't honestly be used as proof for a trinity concept, and Bowman's insistence that it be so used is certainly misleading (at best)! And his insistence that the NWT has dishonestly translated here is certainly dishonest in itself!

Colossians 1:16-17 -​

The use of the word "other" by the NWT at Col. 1:16 makes many trinitarian "scholars" very upset. Dr. Walter Martin tells us in his The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed., p. 75 that this "dishonest rendering of Col. 1:16, 17, and 19 by the insertion of the word "other" is "one of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the author has ever seen." He further states that "attempting to justify this unheard of travesty upon the Greek language and simple honesty, the New World Bible Translation Committee enclosed each added 'other' in brackets." [But see pp. 77-88, Truth in Translation, Dr. Jason BeDuhn, University Press of America, 2003 for a detailed explanation of this scripture and the arguments by some trinitarians concernng it.]

Well, the KJV also adds words at many places in the scriptures and frequently signifies these additions by italicizing such added words. In fact all Bible translations add words to make the intended meaning of the original language clear to the readers of another language. The NWT usually indicates added words with brackets [ ] and does so at Col. 1:16, 17 with ["other"]!

Yes, all Bible translators supply needed words in accordance with their own under-standing of what meaning the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, Beck, etc.) added the word "other" at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not actually written in the original text (also compare KJV at Job 24:24). Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God's Word? Of course not!