T Nation

Bible Translations - Catholics and Protestants

I came across this information regarding Catholics and their view of the “Divine Name”:

http://communio.stblogs.org/2008/08/on-the-use-of-the-name-of-god.html

excerpt:
In liturgical celebrations, in songs and prayers the name of God in the form of the tetragrammaton YHWH is neither to be used or pronounced.

and for Protestants as well:

http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/lewis.htm

excerpt:

Even today, few people that profess to be Christians have any real interest in the name of the Father. Indeed the late Edwin H. Palmer, Executive Secretary, of the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION Committee wrote "Here is why we did not [use “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”]…Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate for example, Psalm 23 as ‘Yahweh is my shepherd’…furthermore, we do not know if we should say Jahu or Yahweh or Jehovah…"A tendentious view point seemed to have prevailed because among other things it made ‘good business sense.’ [bold mine]

Why do these translations try so hard to get rid of Jehovah’s name?

It makes it difficult to follow Romans 10:13, where it says, “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”

Oh no you’re going to start rolling out the Jehovah witness talking points now.

That’s a real shame…

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I came across this information regarding Catholics and their view of the “Divine Name”:

http://communio.stblogs.org/2008/08/on-the-use-of-the-name-of-god.html

excerpt:
In liturgical celebrations, in songs and prayers the name of God in the form of the tetragrammaton YHWH is neither to be used or pronounced.

and for Protestants as well:

http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/lewis.htm

excerpt:

Even today, few people that profess to be Christians have any real interest in the name of the Father. Indeed the late Edwin H. Palmer, Executive Secretary, of the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION Committee wrote "Here is why we did not [use “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”]…Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate for example, Psalm 23 as ‘Yahweh is my shepherd’…furthermore, we do not know if we should say Jahu or Yahweh or Jehovah…"A tendentious view point seemed to have prevailed because among other things it made ‘good business sense.’ [bold mine]

Why do these translations try so hard to get rid of Jehovah’s name?

It makes it difficult to follow Romans 10:13, where it says, “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” [/quote]

You do realize that the NWT is heavily modified from the KJV texts? The ESV and NRSV translations have been retranslated from the original texts as word for word translations. If YHWH was the ways it was in the original then that’s the way it was translated. Both those translations are as close to the original as you can get with out learning Hebrew or Greek.

The KJV, NKJV and NWT are heavily errant in their translations as compared to the original texts. So it’s not that Catholics or Protests did anything. Our goal is and has been to continually get as close to the original as possible. We don’t seek to gain anything by the translations, we want to be faithful to the original in as much as possible. Get you a greek NT, and an ESV and you will find the translation is spot on.

[quote]pat wrote:

You do realize that the NWT is heavily modified from the KJV texts? The ESV and NRSV translations have been retranslated from the original texts as word for word translations. If YHWH was the ways it was in the original then that’s the way it was translated. Both those translations are as close to the original as you can get with out learning Hebrew or Greek.

The KJV, NKJV and NWT are heavily errant in their translations as compared to the original texts. So it’s not that Catholics or Protests did anything. Our goal is and has been to continually get as close to the original as possible. We don’t seek to gain anything by the translations, we want to be faithful to the original in as much as possible. Get you a greek NT, and an ESV and you will find the translation is spot on.[/quote]

The NWT used the original texts as a basis for its writing. An honest question if I may. Review Ps 83:18. (I have a link to many translations below) The ESV does not use the name Jehovah. It uses LORD. Why is that? That is clearly different from the original texts.

edit:
http://bible.cc/psalms/83-18.htm

honest_lifter looks terrific. The russelites do have some decent body comp cred I gotta say.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You do realize that the NWT is heavily modified from the KJV texts? The ESV and NRSV translations have been retranslated from the original texts as word for word translations. If YHWH was the ways it was in the original then that’s the way it was translated. Both those translations are as close to the original as you can get with out learning Hebrew or Greek.

The KJV, NKJV and NWT are heavily errant in their translations as compared to the original texts. So it’s not that Catholics or Protests did anything. Our goal is and has been to continually get as close to the original as possible. We don’t seek to gain anything by the translations, we want to be faithful to the original in as much as possible. Get you a greek NT, and an ESV and you will find the translation is spot on.[/quote]

The NWT used the original texts as a basis for its writing. An honest question if I may. Review Ps 83:18. (I have a link to many translations below) The ESV does not use the name Jehovah. It uses LORD. Why is that? That is clearly different from the original texts.

edit:
http://bible.cc/psalms/83-18.htm
[/quote]

Because it’s redundant. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but the JW translations have long been accused of changing texts to suit their own needs. The fact that the committee used in the retranslation was not independently over sought lends to further to this notion. The ESV was non-denominationally run and over sought by scholars from around the world to render as unbiased translation as humanly possible. I cannot say the NWT is truly unbiased. It will make all attempts to coinside the scripture with the belief system. If this weren’t true, they would not have sought to make their own, because good translations already existed. I pretty sure that all reference to the Holy Spirit as one in the same God has been removed, as John Chapter 1, and Acts chapter 5, for instance.

I don’t think this is a good or productive conversation to have really. I respect you, and I like you but on this we will not agree. I expect you to stand by your faith and hope you do. If Jehovah is how you need to relate to God almighty then by all means do it. As for me, my Christianity is rooted in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. I have good reasons for believing as such and I have no interest in changing.

By the way, your avatar is impressive. Great job on the lifting. Once my back heals, (which may be a year from now or more) then I hope to look that good.

[quote]pat wrote:
I cannot say the NWT is truly unbiased. It will make all attempts to coinside the scripture with the belief system. If this weren’t true, they would not have sought to make their own, because good translations already existed. I pretty sure that all reference to the Holy Spirit as one in the same God has been removed, as John Chapter 1, and Acts chapter 5, for instance.

[/quote]

The KJV was used before the NWT, and even with the KJV we didn’t believe in the trinity. ESV had not been created yet. The NWT was finished around 1950. I guess my point is that there are clear names for “Jesus” and “Jehovah” in the original text and the fact that “Jehovah” has been removed entirely is definitely suspect to say the very least. Each person has an obligation to reconcile this in their own heart. If they feel that the names “Jesus” and “Jehovah” interchangeable, or that they don’t need to call on Jehovah’s name to be saved (Rom 10:13) then that is the decision they must bear. (Gal 6:5)

I respect your insight as well (specifically your ability to clearly articulate the fallacy of evolution and how it is impossible to get something from nothing) and respect your desire to end the discussion. If others have things to say, obviously they can feel free.

[quote]
By the way, your avatar is impressive. Great job on the lifting. Once my back heals, (which may be a year from now or more) then I hope to look that good.[/quote]

Thanks a lot man. I am focusing on olympic lifts (did my first competition Dec 2011) with just some dips, curls, and pull ups for the upper body. Sorry to hear about your back. I had a bad back in high school that lasted a couple years, so I can empathize with you. I hope things heal up nicely and you can get back to the game.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I respect your insight as well (specifically your ability to clearly articulate the fallacy of evolution and how it is impossible to get something from nothing) […] If others have things to say, obviously they can feel free.
[/quote]

Trollol en passant?
That “something from nothing” gets mighty old.

Why would you know there was nothing?
Is it not a bigger leap of faith to assume there is a cause without cause then to assume the universe was always there?

…and it has 0 to do with evolution!

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I respect your insight as well (specifically your ability to clearly articulate the fallacy of evolution and how it is impossible to get something from nothing) […] If others have things to say, obviously they can feel free.
[/quote]

Trollol en passant?
That “something from nothing” gets mighty old.

Why would you know there was nothing?
Is it not a bigger leap of faith to assume there is a cause without cause then to assume the universe was always there?

…and it has 0 to do with evolution![/quote]

Just to make sure I am arguing correctly, you are saying that Evolutions believe that the universe was always there?

I’m saying that evolution has nothing to do with explaining how a big bang event could have happened, since your post could imply that.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I’m saying that evolution has nothing to do with explaining how a big bang event could have happened, since your post could imply that.[/quote]

I can understand that. I apologize for the confusion. Typical evolutionist (from my experience) remove God from the equation. However some believe in a God and Evolution. It may have been more accurate for me to say that he does a very good job of disproving the Big Bang, and getting something from nothing.

No need to apologize, I seem to come off too brash here. Sorry.

But since we started, let me expand on my bewilderment regarding your use of termini.
Why would you find use for a word like “evolutionist”? And: “believe[sic] in God and evolution”?

If you happened to like or merely eat the occasional steak, how would it sound if I extrapolate all kinds of ideas based on that and call you “steakist” who “believes in steak”?

Understanding evolution as a potent and extremely useful theory may have serious implications for perceiving the world, but it does not hand out commandments or morality, nor does it form a basis for a cult or ideology.

What we can agree on: a godhead, for the lack of a better word, might have used or manipulated evolution towards creating humanity.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

What we can agree on: a godhead, for the lack of a better word, might have used or manipulated evolution towards creating humanity. [/quote]

Could you please expound on this for me?

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I cannot say the NWT is truly unbiased. It will make all attempts to coinside the scripture with the belief system. If this weren’t true, they would not have sought to make their own, because good translations already existed. I pretty sure that all reference to the Holy Spirit as one in the same God has been removed, as John Chapter 1, and Acts chapter 5, for instance.

[/quote]

The KJV was used before the NWT, and even with the KJV we didn’t believe in the trinity. ESV had not been created yet. The NWT was finished around 1950. I guess my point is that there are clear names for “Jesus” and “Jehovah” in the original text and the fact that “Jehovah” has been removed entirely is definitely suspect to say the very least. Each person has an obligation to reconcile this in their own heart. If they feel that the names “Jesus” and “Jehovah” interchangeable, or that they don’t need to call on Jehovah’s name to be saved (Rom 10:13) then that is the decision they must bear. (Gal 6:5)

I respect your insight as well (specifically your ability to clearly articulate the fallacy of evolution and how it is impossible to get something from nothing) and respect your desire to end the discussion. If others have things to say, obviously they can feel free.

Alright, alright, THIS is my last comment on the matter. KJV was the only English translation for a while so everybody used it around the 17 - early 19th centuries at least in America. The very first translation from original language was the Latin Vulgate of which the English version of that is the Douay-Rheims Bible. The ESV and NRSV version came to be because the questions of translation error. So they sought to translate word for word the bible from original texts, not a thought translation but a word for word in the scope of the modern English. The problem is that all major Protestant and Catholic scholars hold the NWT as errant. Some protestant denominations are turning their backs on the KJVs these days as well.

That’s kind of why I don’t want to get into to much, I don’t want it to be a pissing contest between you and I, because both of us are relying on others to be telling us the truth. I mean, unless we both learn fluent Hebrew and Greek and go to the original texts ourselves, we won’t truly know who has the more faithful translation. I have 3 different translations that I use, ESV, NRSV-CE, and NAB…The NAB is a terrible translation, I really don’t know why we use it.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

Well the problem lifting wise for me, is I had back surgery which should have been a problem, but I happen to be the lucky 1% who had a complication I can do nothing about. The muscle he Dr cut through has extensive edema and that’s the hold up for me getting back in to lifting. According to my calculations, I should have been already lifting fairly close to normal, but the edema is rather painful and the muscle is weak. There is nothing I can do about it, it just has to go away, but it may take a long time. I am ‘exercising’ but not training…It’s killing me. I’ll take some prayers, if you could spare a few seconds :slight_smile:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I cannot say the NWT is truly unbiased. It will make all attempts to coinside the scripture with the belief system. If this weren’t true, they would not have sought to make their own, because good translations already existed. I pretty sure that all reference to the Holy Spirit as one in the same God has been removed, as John Chapter 1, and Acts chapter 5, for instance.

[/quote]

The KJV was used before the NWT, and even with the KJV we didn’t believe in the trinity. ESV had not been created yet. The NWT was finished around 1950. I guess my point is that there are clear names for “Jesus” and “Jehovah” in the original text and the fact that “Jehovah” has been removed entirely is definitely suspect to say the very least. Each person has an obligation to reconcile this in their own heart. If they feel that the names “Jesus” and “Jehovah” interchangeable, or that they don’t need to call on Jehovah’s name to be saved (Rom 10:13) then that is the decision they must bear. (Gal 6:5)

I respect your insight as well (specifically your ability to clearly articulate the fallacy of evolution and how it is impossible to get something from nothing) and respect your desire to end the discussion. If others have things to say, obviously they can feel free.

Alright, alright, THIS is my last comment on the matter. KJV was the only English translation for a while so everybody used it around the 17 - early 19th centuries at least in America. The very first translation from original language was the Latin Vulgate of which the English version of that is the Douay-Rheims Bible. The ESV and NRSV version came to be because the questions of translation error. So they sought to translate word for word the bible from original texts, not a thought translation but a word for word in the scope of the modern English. The problem is that all major Protestant and Catholic scholars hold the NWT as errant. Some protestant denominations are turning their backs on the KJVs these days as well.

That’s kind of why I don’t want to get into to much, I don’t want it to be a pissing contest between you and I, because both of us are relying on others to be telling us the truth. I mean, unless we both learn fluent Hebrew and Greek and go to the original texts ourselves, we won’t truly know who has the more faithful translation. I have 3 different translations that I use, ESV, NRSV-CE, and NAB…The NAB is a terrible translation, I really don’t know why we use it. [/quote]

I know you didn’t want to turn this into a battle, and on that I agree. I would like it if you stick around just a little to discuss some of these points. This is two posts in a row that mention the NWT is errant in its translation. I don’t expect you to know all of them, but I suspect you have a couple in mind that really bother you, otherwise you won’t have brought it up. Could you humor me a little and tell me which ones you really don’t agree with?

Also, it is that “translating word for word” part that I have wanted to comment on. It is the Tetramgrammaton, Jehovah’s name in Hebrew that clearly is in the original text. I am sure you have seen it during your studies of the scriptures. With the care being taken to translate word for word (which I honestly believe many of the writers were genuine with in their intentions) the question would still remain why the Tetragrammaton was purposely omitted. (however this conversation ends, it can be no worse than what I have seen in my door-to-door ministry work, haha)

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

Well the problem lifting wise for me, is I had back surgery which should have been a problem, but I happen to be the lucky 1% who had a complication I can do nothing about. The muscle he Dr cut through has extensive edema and that’s the hold up for me getting back in to lifting. According to my calculations, I should have been already lifting fairly close to normal, but the edema is rather painful and the muscle is weak. There is nothing I can do about it, it just has to go away, but it may take a long time. I am ‘exercising’ but not training…It’s killing me. I’ll take some prayers, if you could spare a few seconds :)[/quote]

Wow! Yeah, I never had anything that bad. I do feel real bad for you. It must take a lot of patience to “wait” out the recovery. I have a gym at my work, and it takes a lot to stay out on days I should be resting :slight_smile: During high school the main issue I had was related to weakness in the bad muscles as well, but that was self-inflicted, never did any leg work, so thus started my obsession with have really strong legs and back.

Regarding the accuracy of the New World Translation - Read Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

It covers a number of translations:

King James Version
New Revised Standard Version
New International Version
New American Bible
New American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
Living Bible
Today’s English Bible
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Cliff Notes:

The New American Bible and The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures were rated the most accurate translations.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I cannot say the NWT is truly unbiased. It will make all attempts to coinside the scripture with the belief system. If this weren’t true, they would not have sought to make their own, because good translations already existed. I pretty sure that all reference to the Holy Spirit as one in the same God has been removed, as John Chapter 1, and Acts chapter 5, for instance.

[/quote]

The KJV was used before the NWT, and even with the KJV we didn’t believe in the trinity. ESV had not been created yet. The NWT was finished around 1950. I guess my point is that there are clear names for “Jesus” and “Jehovah” in the original text and the fact that “Jehovah” has been removed entirely is definitely suspect to say the very least. Each person has an obligation to reconcile this in their own heart. If they feel that the names “Jesus” and “Jehovah” interchangeable, or that they don’t need to call on Jehovah’s name to be saved (Rom 10:13) then that is the decision they must bear. (Gal 6:5)

I respect your insight as well (specifically your ability to clearly articulate the fallacy of evolution and how it is impossible to get something from nothing) and respect your desire to end the discussion. If others have things to say, obviously they can feel free.

Alright, alright, THIS is my last comment on the matter. KJV was the only English translation for a while so everybody used it around the 17 - early 19th centuries at least in America. The very first translation from original language was the Latin Vulgate of which the English version of that is the Douay-Rheims Bible. The ESV and NRSV version came to be because the questions of translation error. So they sought to translate word for word the bible from original texts, not a thought translation but a word for word in the scope of the modern English. The problem is that all major Protestant and Catholic scholars hold the NWT as errant. Some protestant denominations are turning their backs on the KJVs these days as well.

That’s kind of why I don’t want to get into to much, I don’t want it to be a pissing contest between you and I, because both of us are relying on others to be telling us the truth. I mean, unless we both learn fluent Hebrew and Greek and go to the original texts ourselves, we won’t truly know who has the more faithful translation. I have 3 different translations that I use, ESV, NRSV-CE, and NAB…The NAB is a terrible translation, I really don’t know why we use it. [/quote]

I know you didn’t want to turn this into a battle, and on that I agree. I would like it if you stick around just a little to discuss some of these points. This is two posts in a row that mention the NWT is errant in its translation. I don’t expect you to know all of them, but I suspect you have a couple in mind that really bother you, otherwise you won’t have brought it up. Could you humor me a little and tell me which ones you really don’t agree with?

Also, it is that “translating word for word” part that I have wanted to comment on. It is the Tetramgrammaton, Jehovah’s name in Hebrew that clearly is in the original text. I am sure you have seen it during your studies of the scriptures. With the care being taken to translate word for word (which I honestly believe many of the writers were genuine with in their intentions) the question would still remain why the Tetragrammaton was purposely omitted. (however this conversation ends, it can be no worse than what I have seen in my door-to-door ministry work, haha)[/quote]

This posting sums up my beef pretty well. But like I said, you and I, unless we learn the ancient tongues and study the ancient texts we have no way of knowing who is right. We both are trusting others, but I have names and you don’t. I tend to trust those who are willing to take accountability over an anonymous counsel.

For instance, can you refer me to the NWT translation of John 1:1 and Acts 5:1-5? We can look at those and discuss them in more detail.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Regarding the accuracy of the New World Translation - Read Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

It covers a number of translations:

King James Version
New Revised Standard Version
New International Version
New American Bible
New American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
Living Bible
Today’s English Bible
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Cliff Notes:

The New American Bible and The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures were rated the most accurate translations.[/quote]
The New American Bible is rated an accurate translation?? That’s an alarming statement as it’s commonly regarded one of the worst even by Catholic Scholars and it’s a Catholic Bible. It’s a good rudimentary Bible, but really digging your heals into the Word, I prefer the 1 degree of separation of from the original texts. The NAB is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation.

Do you have a link to the website that makes this claim?