18 ms·

It agrees with the Byington translation, as well as early King James versions and many other translations in that respect. But the most interesting testament t

It agrees with the Byington translation, as well as early King James versions and many other translations in that respect. But the most interesting testament to the accuracy of the NWT, I think, is that it uses parallel translations of texts from the era in languages other than Greek and Hebrew (for example Sumerian) that have definite article. This means that scriptures that are ambiguous due to the lack of grammatical constructs in Greek, are accurately represented. For example, John 1:1 reads “the word was a God” rather than “the word was God”. The same constructs elsewhere are assumed in most translations based on context, but modern context is based on doctrine, and doctrine is uninteresting for literary science.

jamesgeck0 7y ago
NWT apologists often fail to mention that the Byington translation was published exclusively by Watch Tower until the copyright expired. I personally suspect they published it for the sole reason of justifying translation errors in the NWT. > The same constructs elsewhere are assumed in most translations based on context, but modern context is based on doctrine, and doctrine is uninteresting for literary science. Context determines meaning. If you discard context you cannot translate documents accurately, in any language. The NWT has the worst of both worlds. It discards the context of the original document in order to support doctrine. This can be seen in John 1:1. The language is not particularly ambiguous. https://carm.org/john-1-1-word-was-god https://carm.org/john-1-1-word-was-god
- ImpressiveWebs 7y ago
  Matt Slick, the author of that article, is one of the worst Bible commentators you’ll find. He has zero credibility and does not understand Greek grammar. The NWT is correct and does not discard the context, which says that the Word was “with God”, and therefore could not be God. John 1:1 is one of the easiest verses to translate, yet most translations get it wrong because they are biased towards the Trinity or Oneness doctrines.

jamesgeck0 7y ago

NWT apologists often fail to mention that the Byington translation was published exclusively by Watch Tower until the copyright expired. I personally suspect they published it for the sole reason of justifying translation errors in the NWT. > The same constructs elsewhere are assumed in most translations based on context, but modern context is based on doctrine, and doctrine is uninteresting for literary science. Context determines meaning. If you discard context you cannot translate documents accurately, in any language. The NWT has the worst of both worlds. It discards the context of the original document in order to support doctrine. This can be seen in John 1:1. The language is not particularly ambiguous. https://carm.org/john-1-1-word-was-god https://carm.org/john-1-1-word-was-god

ImpressiveWebs 7y ago
Matt Slick, the author of that article, is one of the worst Bible commentators you’ll find. He has zero credibility and does not understand Greek grammar. The NWT is correct and does not discard the context, which says that the Word was “with God”, and therefore could not be God. John 1:1 is one of the easiest verses to translate, yet most translations get it wrong because they are biased towards the Trinity or Oneness doctrines.