New Testament

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the base text is inspired direct from god.

there is no new inspiration in the translations (the translations must be accurate to the original text to be considered inspired).

the accurate parts of a bible translation that also contains errors are still thought of as inspired, because they are the words of the original text.

there is no added input from god in a translation (that we are aware of).

are these all correct?

the bases text is considered inspired,

(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching,
for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  that the
man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

all spurious texts and interpolations have been identified in scripture and removed
or noted. They are not considered inspired as are the Apocrypha.

a Bible translator may be working under inspiration but the fact that he or she
produces nothing of originality marks this latter assertion as obsolete or not quite
understanding the process of translation for nothing new is added to the original text
in translation.

these questions seem to be Ad nauseam, to be perfectly honest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the bases text is considered inspired,

(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching,
for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  that the
man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

all spurious texts and interpolations have been id ...[text shortened]... riginal text
in translation.

these questions seem to be Ad nauseam, to be perfectly honest.

there was only one question and it probably was 'ad nauseum'. i find putting things in my own words helps me understand what ive been told. i assume you dont think this is a bad thing?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the bases text is considered inspired,

(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching,
for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  that the
man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

all spurious texts and interpolations have been id ...[text shortened]... riginal text
in translation.

these questions seem to be Ad nauseam, to be perfectly honest.

if somebody adds to the original text, it can be deemed as inspired, correct?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if somebody adds to the original text, it can be deemed as inspired, correct?

nope, the Bible is complete, anything added to the original is extra biblical unless of
course its restorative i.e it restores something that was lost originally as new
manuscripts/understanding comes to light. for example we are criticized for having
introduced the divine name into the Greek portion of scripture, the so called new
testament, what people fail to realize is, that the new testament contains hundreds of
direct quotations from the so called old testament which does contain the original divine
name, which laterally had been removed by translators, so, an attempt has been
made to make a restoration.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the bases text is considered inspired,

(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching,
for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  that the
man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

all spurious texts and interpolations have been id ...[text shortened]... riginal text
in translation.

these questions seem to be Ad nauseam, to be perfectly honest.

"a Bible translator may be working under inspiration but the fact that he or she
produces nothing of originality marks this latter assertion as obsolete or not quite
understanding the process of translation for nothing new is added to the original text
in translation."


could you expand on this, i dont follow it, especially 'this latter assertion' what is this referring to?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"a Bible translator may be working under inspiration but the fact that he or she
produces nothing of originality marks this latter assertion as obsolete or not quite
understanding the process of translation for nothing new is added to the original text
in translation."


could you expand on this, i dont follow it, especially 'this latter assertion' what is this referring to?

you are asking if anything new is produced???? how can it be, a translators job is
simply to convey the original in a different language, how can that produce something
new if its carried out accurately? thus the question doesn't really make any sense or
belies a misunderstanding of the role of the translator.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are asking if anything new is produced???? how can it be, a translators job is
simply to convey the original in a different language, how can that produce something
new if its carried out accurately? thus the question doesn't really make any sense or
belies a misunderstanding of the role of the translator.

Is it not true that the bible scholar Jason BeDuhn in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament complained that the deliberate insertion of the name "Jehovah" more than 230 times into the New Testament text of the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it violated "accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God"? And did BeDuhn not also suggest that for the New World Translation to garner wider acceptance and really prove its worth, its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures#cite_note-64

Originally posted by FMF
Is it not true that the bible scholar Jason BeDuhn in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament complained that the deliberate insertion of the name "Jehovah" more than 230 times into the New Testament text of the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation was [b]"not accurate translation by the most basic princi ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures#cite_note-64[/b]

You beat me to this, but only because robbie and I have been through this territory many times already and I didn't want to hear his evasions yet again.

Good timing, though.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You beat me to this, but only because robbie and I have been through this territory many times already and I didn't want to hear his evasions yet again.

Good timing, though.

robbie is pretending not to read my posts.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You beat me to this, but only because robbie and I have been through this territory many times already and I didn't want to hear his evasions yet again.

Good timing, though.

He will probably get amnesia again.

Originally posted by galveston75
That is just a general explination. But I have in detail explained the process of how God communicates and that is by direction.
He does not inspire as he did with the Bible. But he very clearly does help us to progress with knowledge, so in that sense he still communicates with man as opposed to abandoning us to own future.

I've had a think and this is where i'm stuck. I don't see how the 'process' of the Biblical writings is any different from how you described JW literature is written.

Robbie stated earlier that God used the writers of the Bible to record his thoughts, that was his perception of what 'inspired' is to mean in this context. God has a thought, he then transmits that thought to a writer, via the Holy Spirit, who then transfers it to paper which then went on to become part of the Biblical canon. That's the process. Yet you have described exactly the same process happening for JW literature. God has a thought which he then transmits, via the Holy Spirit, to a writer within the JW organisation who records that thought on to paper which ultimately ends up being put into print.

Both situations follow the same process do they not?

Originally posted by Suzianne
You beat me to this, but only because robbie and I have been through this territory many times already and I didn't want to hear his evasions yet again.

Good timing, though.

sigh,

The name Jehovah is a translation of the Tetragrammaton (transliterated as YHWH).
According to Jewish tradition, the name of God was not spoken and the original
pronunciation is unknown. The New World Translation uses the name Jehovah 6,973
times in the Old Testament; it also uses the name 237 times in the New Testament
where the extant texts use only the Greek words kurios (Lord) and theos (God). The
translators believed that scribes substituted either Lord or God for Jehovah as they
did to the Hebrew texts. They conclude that the lack of references to Jehovah in
those quotations were the result of paraphrasing on the part of later copyists. Doctor
Paul E. Kahle states, "We now know that the Greek Bible text as far as it was written
by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by Kyrios, but the
Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS
(manuscripts). It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios,
when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more."
The Watch Tower Society notes that the Tetragrammaton appears in "the oldest
fragments of the Greek Septuagint", and adds that extant manuscripts of the New
Testament contain the name Jehovah "in its abbreviated form at Revelation 19:1, 3,
4, 6, in the expression Alleluia or Hallelujah."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

If you can refute these assertions then do so, otherwise we have every right to
make a restorative translation which BeDhun fully understands despite his
misgivings, from the same article,

BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged
"as the most accurate of the translations compared", and thus a "remarkably
good translation", adding that "most of the differences are due to the greater
accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation".

pity that FMF troll could not bring himself to comment upon this but in typical troll
style seeks to highlight those areas which are to him the most controversial. Best
kicked into touch.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I've had a think and this is where i'm stuck. I don't see how the 'process' of the Biblical writings is any different from how you described JW literature is written.

Robbie stated earlier that God used the writers of the Bible to record his thoughts, that was his perception of what 'inspired' is to mean in this context. God has a thought, he then tra ...[text shortened]... ly ends up being put into print.

Both situations follow the same process do they not?

you seem to be having some sort of trouble with the fact that such writers for the
watchtower are not producing anything new, they are merely commenting upon what is
already considered as inspired, the Bible, therein lies the difference.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged
"as [b]the most accurate of the translations compared", and thus a "remarkably
good translation", adding that "most of the differences are due to the greater
accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation".[/b]

So you agree with BeDuhn when he says something you agree with, but he's wrong when he says something that does not suit you? Is that how it works?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you seem to be having some sort of trouble with the fact that such writers for the
watchtower are not producing anything new, they are merely commenting upon what is
already considered as inspired, the Bible, therein lies the difference.

If the content of their "commenting" is not actually in the Bible it is something "new" that they have written, surely?