re: bible question

Status
Not open for further replies.

aceinc1

can't wait to die
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
320
Reaction score
11
Location
Gulbarga, India
re: bible question

hi all,

remember my Bible research, the Bible I have is a 1970 print by the name of "New world Translation of Holy scriptures" made by "watch tower bible and tract society of Pennsylvania".

I wanna know, is this a valid version of Bible? In the book they've mentioned that till that time they had 7 reprints each in millions of copies, that was only till 1970.

regards,
Aceinc1
 

Cassiopeia

Otherwise Occupied
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
10,881
Reaction score
5,368
Location
Star to the right and straight on till morning.
Well, that's a can of worms for you. It depends on a person opinion of what constitutes a valid version of the Bible. Is it used by the Jehovah Witnesses? I ask because of the "watch tower" part.

Where do they say it originates?
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,975
Yes, I believe it's the version used by Jehovah's Witnesses; it's put out by Watchtower. It was translated with that group's agenda in mind. Of the half dozen men on the translation committee, only one had any formal schooling in languages (Fred Franz; 2 years of Greek, and self-taught in Hebrew).

You may have difficulty finding this translation listed among the commonly consulted versions of the Bible. You can probably make some deductions based on that.
 
Last edited:

Smiling Ted

Ah-HA!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
2,462
Reaction score
420
Location
The Great Wide Open
For the most widely accepted classic translation of the Bible, try the King James. You can download it at http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

For a more accurate translation of the Hebrew scriptures (Genesis to Chronicles), use a direct Hebrew to English translation made according to the masoretic text. Try Soncino, or the Jewish Publication Society of America.
 
Last edited:

NikeeGoddess

Banned
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
103
and now for a different point of view because i'm allowed and it's a free country.

is this a valid version of Bible?
every version is valid as equally as it is invalid because the bible is a man-made fiction work of art.
 

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,976
Reaction score
1,880
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
In America, there are currently three English translations of the Bible that are the most heavilly read by laymen:

The King James Version (KJV)
The New Internatnal Version (NIV)
The New American Standard Bible (NASB)



Some other significant notables that heavilly circulate in America include:

The Living Bible
The Jerusalem Bible
The Amplified Bible
The Full Life Bible



There are "types" of Bibles

--interlinnear Bibles will compare one translation to another, side-by-side on the same page (so you will literalty have two or sometimes even three or four translations all under one book cover)

--devotional Bibles will have "thoughts for the day" peppered throughout for meditaton and reflection

--margin Bibles have huge wide margins that are completely blank to allow you to scribble your own margin notations

--transliteral Bibles have the original Greek and Hebrew on the page for you along side the English translation





When it comes to trying to determine if a Bible is "any good," some of the criteria looked at include the following:

1) How many scholars sat on the translation committee? (If it was a small number of scholars, or even just one person, then the translation will likely be heavilly skewed toward a more narrow opinion of things. The Dake translation is an execellent example of a disturbingly narrow focus in a translation.) The King James Bible had several hundred translators working on it all at once for many years. As did the New International Version. (One long-standing urban legend holds that William Shakesspeare was one of the KJV translators and that he hid little jokes in the Book of Psalms--and THAT urban legend pre-dates "The DaVinci Code" by many decades.)

2) What is the education level of each member of the scholarship comittee? How many of them have formal training in ancient languages? How biased are their theological standings? Is there a broad representation of varying opinions amogst the committee members?

3) Which base-texts was the translation derrived from? (The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. However, there IS an ancient translation of the Old Testament that was translated FROM Hebrew INTO Greek back in the very early part of the First Milennium. That document is called the Septuigant. Some modern translation refer to the Septuigint. Meanwhile the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls have become an important reference since the 20th Century.)




I rank the Top Three as follows:

King James is the most poetic. It's also been the most heavilly-quoted down through the centuries. Therefore, when someone tries to quote or somehow invoke a Bible passage, going for the King James will ring more bells in people's minds than any other version. This is especially important for a writer to consider, especially a speechwriter or a scriptwriter whose end-product is HEARD rather than READ.

New American Standard Bible is the most literal translation. Far more literal on a word-for-word basis than most others.

The New International Version is the most accessible for multiple cultures using contemporary English. It was translated (back in the 1970's, so it's a VERY recent translation) with an eye toward the diversity found in the current global usage of the English language. The word "bold" for exmaple means "brave" here in America, but in England "bold" means "cheeky." So in the NIV the word "bold" has been replaced by the word "courageous" so that both American and British readers could get the same meaning from the same passage. Many other such globally-minded substitutions have been achieved in the NIV.



I have a bias toward the NIV myself. But I own a King James and refer to it for the poetry.

My absolute favorite web site when I am trying to find a verse that I can't remember is:

http://bible.com/

They have an awesome search feature and you can compare one translation to another.
 
Last edited:

FinbarReilly

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
458
Reaction score
50
Location
Sacramento, CA
Website
twosparrows.5gigs.com
and now for a different point of view because i'm allowed and it's a free country.


every version is valid as equally as it is invalid because the bible is a man-made fiction work of art.

And OT...as well as just slightly baiting...Silly Goddess...Especially as there are some versions that are just so horrible that they are practically worthless. Of course, I recommend the Living Bible, but that's just me...

FR
 

dpaterso

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
18,805
Reaction score
4,600
Location
Caledonia
Website
derekpaterson.net
List recommendations and links by all means, but any kind of religious debate is better suited for the moderated forums, and that's where such posts will end up. Free country, private message board.

-Derek
 

Dustry Joe

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
214
Reaction score
17
All bibles are approximations. Catholic bible is different, King James has artifacts of the period, many contemporary ones are far removed...but you go back to the beginning and you find a collection of scrolls, some considered canonical and some not, a few documents or equal validity but adopted spottily, a rewrite by the Deuteronomists very early on...

Basically, in our society, if you want to sound Biblical use the King James. If a character is going to quote something that is radically different from that (or doesn't sound biblical enough to convince the viewer--like hip stuff from "Good News For Modern Man" or something) it might be worth a line where somebody says, "What bible is that?" or some such.

the bible is a man-made fiction work of art.

Of course it's man-made. But it's not "fiction". It's mythology. Big difference.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
47,985
Reaction score
13,247
Yes, I believe it's the version used by Jehovah's Witnesses; it's put out by Watchtower. It was translated with that group's agenda in mind. Of the half dozen men on the translation committee, only one had any formal schooling in languages (Fred Franz; 2 years of Greek, and self-taught in Hebrew).

You may have difficulty finding this translation listed among the commonly consulted versions of the Bible. You can probably make some deductions based on that.

Does being self-taught mean you understand the language any less?

I was self-taught in English, after all.
 

xhouseboy

In the Yellow Woods
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
1,512
Reaction score
324
every version is valid as equally as it is invalid

Not as a source of reference for a particular story, they're not.

And presumably this was why the OP posed the question.
 

Aramis

Custom User Title Not Found
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
70
Reaction score
14
Location
Between
Yes, the New World Translation is the version used by Jehovah's Witnesses. Technically, no new books or anything like that has been added, but the way they've translated certain passages supports their own doctrine at the expense of accuracy. See this link for examples and more details:

http://www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs_witnesses/texts.htm
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
47,985
Reaction score
13,247
Or, of course, you could ask one of Jehovah's Witnesses to explain their beliefs, instead of consulting a website which is apparently critical of such a group.
 

Aramis

Custom User Title Not Found
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
70
Reaction score
14
Location
Between
I suppose it depends on the religious persuasion of the OP, since he's the one with the original question.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
47,985
Reaction score
13,247
Well true.

But it confuses me, this '1970' print of the NWT. It was only completed in 1984. Unless what he has is a copy of the Greek Scriptures, or a partial Bible, as it was gradually translated up to 1984.
 

Aramis

Custom User Title Not Found
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
70
Reaction score
14
Location
Between
I think 1984 would just be when their official translation was finished.
 

Aramis

Custom User Title Not Found
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
70
Reaction score
14
Location
Between
The website I was on said that's when they published their most recent revision.

EDIT: I know you don't trust them because they're opinionated, but they can probably get dates straight.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
47,985
Reaction score
13,247
Correction:

The entire work was originally released in six volumes, from 1950 to 1960.

The revised one-voume edition was released in 1961, with neither footnotes or marginal references.

A second revision was released in 1970 and a third, with footnotes, in 1971.

The current one-volume edition, with footnotes and marginal references was released in 1984.

And no, I don't trust hostile websites. I'd rather go to the source, or people who know what they're talking about.
 

dpaterso

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
18,805
Reaction score
4,600
Location
Caledonia
Website
derekpaterson.net
I wish this thread had been posted last week, I could have asked the two very nice ladies who dropped by for a friendly chat to explain this puzzling date discrepancy.

-Derek
 

Aramis

Custom User Title Not Found
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
70
Reaction score
14
Location
Between
I wish this thread had been posted last week, I could have asked the two very nice ladies who dropped by for a friendly chat to explain this puzzling date discrepancy.

-Derek
Only the most dedicated would come to our house. We're completely in the middle of nowhere.
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,975
Does being self-taught mean you understand the language any less?

I was self-taught in English, after all.

JMO, but I think in the case of ancient languages, yes, it does make a difference. Personally, I'd prefer the translator(s) of the Bible I used to have studied Hebrew at a seminary with teachers who'd studied it intensively. (And I'd want the educated input of more than one person in that translation.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.