Talk:New World Translation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reworking Divine Name Paragraph

Again, I apologize for making changes without consultation. I am new to Wiki, and I obviously started off on the wrong foot. Sorry.

However, I made two changes, and I do believe they both ought to be made, so perhaps I can get some discussion on them.

1. The sentence "therefore their claim as to his lack of credentials is questionable in itself" is a purely subjective claim. If we do want to keep it at all, the language should be reworked, IMHO.

2. The second paragraph under Caracteristics, about the divine name, is disorganized, overly wordy, and just plain jumbled.

That paragraph also contains one argument that is utterly irrelevant to the subject: the argument about translisterating Greek names. Replacing kyrios with the divine name is in no way analogous to replacing one transliteration with another; one is a change of meaning, the other is simply a change of spelling. To my knowledge, the publishers of the NWT have never advanced this argument in defense of their rendering, and I don't think it remotely qualifies as representing the best arguments of the pro-NWT side.

I tried very hard to be neutral in my reworking of the paragraph, but I'm not wedded to my draft. If anyone else has a better edit, by all means come forward with it. But I really think that the paragraph needs to be changed.

--Danglick 17:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments, anyone? If no one has anything to add, I'm going to put my edit back in.

--Danglick 02:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Publishers of the NWT

Porthos, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your recent contributions to the various JW related articles. I'm a little confused about your recent changes to the beginning of this article. Obviously you and I have gone back and forth over the edits so I thought I'd address the issue here and see if we can reach a concensus. I have in front of me at this very moment a Reference edition of the NWT (Rbi8-E) copyright 1961, 1981, 1984. It lists as the Publishers:

• Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
• International Bible Students Association of Brooklyn, New York, USA

I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make with your edits and I don't want to be working at cross-purposes with you. It does seem that we have the same general goal for this article. Could you explain? Thanks in advance and kind regards. --DannyMuse 21:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and the point is that you are talking about the English editions, while I am talking about editions in English well as other languages. The producers are sometimes more than two: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc, as well as the local corporation that has prepared the translation and is the owner of the translated text. The changes are for accuracy.

The foreign language editions are not just translations, but updates with features that has not yet been implemented any the English edition. This is because of the collaborative efforts of New World Bible Translation Committee and Translation Services Department, which is supervised by the Writing Committee of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. - Porthos 22:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Porthos, Thank you for responding. Now I understand why you wanted the "local corporations" comment put in. With that explanation it makes perfect sense and your point is well taken. However, you might consider that if another JW found your edit confusing, someone unacquainted with the organization would almost assuredly be confused as well. Truly, JWs are an international organization (this is in fact a point that the JW contributors among us stress frequently in discussions regarding the various articles.) Nevertheless, this is the English Wikipedia and the assumption of readers will be that any and all info will first and foremost be relative to that language.

You seem knowledgeable on this subject. What do you think about adding a separate section to the main article for NWT in other languages around the world. Perhaps as (note the suggested new section inserted between two existing sections):

3 Characteristics of the Translation

4 The NWT in Other Languages (or whatever section title you think would be more appropriate)

5 The Kingdom Interlinear Translation

That would be an appropriate place to address additional publishing attribution relevant to the various language translations. To get things rolling, I made a quick addition of just such a section to the main article. The most current info I could quickly lay my hands on was from the Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses for 2003. I'm hoping you'll help flesh it out and make it more current! Thanks again for your contributions. --DannyMuse 06:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that this is the English wikipedia, but even non-English matter is discussed. English is the number one language, and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures was originally produced in English. The foreign language editions are of use to anyone wishing to understand the thoughts behind this translation. Not only so because you might be able to read it in your own native language, but also because later editions make use of newer source material as well as, in some cases, an expanded footnote apparatus not yet available in English.

As to whether or not the edits of mine are confusing, I do not know. Whenever I write a text, I read it over and over again. I try to be clear and very careful with my choices of words and expressions. Still, the texts might not turn out well. In such cases, I usually remove, rearrange, rewrite, or correct - or somebody else does it for me.

I reworked the part you added and linked it to certain pages within wikipedia. The languages are up-to-date as to the end of 2003, except for Arabic, which is new since a few months only. More languages will be added soon. - Porthos 02:01, 25 Jan 2005

Nice work. It sounds like you might have taken a bit o' umbrage to my previous comments. If so, I apologize, as I meant no offense. --DannyMuse 05:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No offence taken.

--7846 01:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some issues Involving the New World Translation

Wow this is really getting huge, can we shorten this down a bit? (or a lot!) george 02:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article or the Talk page? What do you think should be cut? Trimmed? --DannyMuse 07:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edgar Johnson Goodspeed Quotes

At this point, I would like to apologize for "warring" with my deletions of Edgar J. Goodspeed quotes; I did not realize it needed to be discussed. However, I would like to throw out some questions regarding their validity at this point.

• What credentials can you give for the 1950 letter supposedly from Edgar Goodspeed to the Watchtower?
  • Where do I find a copy of this letter?
  • How do we know who wrote the letter?
  • Why was the letter not used as an endorsement by the Watchtower Society until 1982, long after EJG died?
• In what context does the 1954 interview with EJG appear to be?
  • What was EJG referring to when saying that the translation was regrettable?
  • Just a reminder that the NWT was produced in volumes, and was in progress in EJG's time.

DannyMuse: I am very interested to see what sources backup your claim that EJG "recanted" from his supposed praise of the NWT under what you called "pressure...[from] those whom he relied on for financial interest". I sincerely enjoy all of the opinions here, and am eager to discuss them. Thank-you for your time and efforts.

--68.148.207.164 08:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear 68.148.207.164, I am not the Wikipedian that originally put this quote in the article. I merely objected to its removal it without some sort of proof of its lack of validity. I do not believe you have proved this. What is your basis/reason for questioning it? Also, I am not the individual that made assertions regarding EJG's change of opinion. By reviewing the edit history you should be able to determine who originally added this text and then you can ask them! --DannyMuse 17:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tried to compromise the insertion by giving a description of Goodspeed's comments. The quotations I added were from people who oppose JW's. Here are some references for you to look at so that you can see that I am telling you the truth when I use these quotes. (BTW, I got these links by googling "goodspeed new world translation")[1],[2],[3],[4]

I don't care if it is in there or not. My guess is that we should just leave Goodspeed out altogether since it seems to be so touchy. george 23:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you DannyMuse for pointing this out. My position is that due to the many viewpoints I have read regarding the authenticity of the 1950 Goodspeed letter (I cannot get my hands on a copy of it), we should be very wary as to the factuality of either argument. We cannot make an argument from silence here and simply say that because it is so controversial, we can just include the EJG quotes with anyone's personal interpretation. I agree with George m that we should leave these references out due to their controversial nature (unless we thoroughly examine all opinions regarding the 1950 letter and the 1954 interview, which would only add to the confusion already present on this NWT page). I have included some reference just quickly to give you an idea of the materials I am reading.

"However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed (to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second, though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts. Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal conversation in 1958."

Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses: Why They Read the Bible the Way They Do by Robert M., Jr. Bowman ISBN: 0801009952

Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes ISBN: 1565071069

[5] [6] [7]

Julius Mantey quote

While I do not doubt Dr Mantey made the statement quoted in the article I would think it neccessary to show what the original quote was that Dr Mantey says was taken improperly.

Dr. Julius Mantey, one of the most respected Greek scholars in the world, says this in response to the fact that the Watchtower Society had misquoted him in approval of the New World Translation when in fact he does not approve:

"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation."

To leave it like it is, is poor writing. George 19:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But is it true? Perhaps we should just include, "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures...." in the appropriate section and leave it at that. Kevin Rector (talk) 07:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am agreeable to that. George 11:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation

I'm removing the following line from the article as it is wholly unsubstantiated and probably not very accurate:

This resource has been recommended by many leaders of Christian groups outside the Witness community.

The vast/overwhelming majority of Christian groups and leaders would call the resource anathema. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the quote is factual. You say 'would'; implies you are unfamiliar with the subject. George 11:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, as soon as the the quotes from those leaders are presented then this information can go back in, right now it's vague and unsubstantiated. I am very much not unfamiliar with the subject. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:47, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Some Issues Involving the New World Translation

This section is tedious and non-encyclopedic. It needs to be either significantly scaled back or broken out into a new article. Kevin Rector (talk) 07:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

To Read this Article...

Reading this article gives the impression that bible scholars are pretty well split on the accuracy of the NWT. 2 are quoting against (Countess, Metzger), and 2 are quoted for (BeDuhn, Kedar). Yet the reality is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of biblical scholars think that the NWT is a horrid mis-translation (William Barclay, Robert Bowman, James L. Boyer, F. F. Bruce, Ernest C. Colwell, Charles L. Feinberg, J. J. Griesbach, Julius Mantey, etc.).

So why is this fact nowhere in the article? Was this article written primarily by JWs? Kevin Rector (talk) 07:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

First let me say I thnk your edits today were quite good.

Next, every rendering in the NWT is supported in at least one other translation the scholars you mention find acceptable. Therefore presenting the pro and con arguments as they are is honest. As far as how many are listed, JW opposers have been the ones to add this information and they apparently felt these were the best examples. Mantey is quoted as an opposer. that makes three. If you want to change it go ahead, perhaps "Most" scholars instead of "Many"?

Apparently, the critics who work here, have been unable to make a very good case using real facts. That is what happens in an NPOV format when JW's get to contribute.

George 12:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The New World Translation in Other Languages

This is "As of 2004" does anyone with the info want to find out if it's changes "as of 2005"? Kevin Rector (talk) 17:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep this in mind. Many times a belief may be orthodox, popular, or considered unorthodox or cult by religious groups, but it is not the bible that most use to determine the right and wrong of a teaching, it is personal opinion or what is most accepted by the orthodox. This has been the case through out the bible from Abel to Jesus to Paul.

Thats why Jesus could make the statement at Matthew 7:13-14 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it;whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.

What does that have to do with what I asked about the "as of 2004" bit? Kevin Rector (talk) 16:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

In 2005, this translation translated to 53 languages. 61.22.157.95 14:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That's quite funny, since http://www.jw-media.org/people/statistics.htm states it is published in 52 languages.--Mini 14:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton in Septuagint

The following text:

"While all extant Greek manuscripts contain the word kyrios (lord) in these passages except some of fragments of the Septuagint which contain the Tetragrammaton,"

Is potentially deceptive. A person who is uninformed would not know that the Septuagint is the Old Testament. As it stands it sounds like it's a version of the New Testament that supports the JW claims to having the Tetragrammaton in it.

Furthermore, the Tetragrammaton being in an OT translation has nothing to do with it being in the NT autographs.

So, I'm taking it out. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the reference to the Septuagint should be qualified. The statement was not inteded to be deceptive I am sure. However this reference is valid. It was not brought up by JW's but was found by them after other scholars had referenced the point and actually placed the name in the NT where quotations of the HS (septuagint) occurred. ("You must love YHWH your God with...") With this being the case, as with the sept being produced around the same time as the gospels, it proves that the Tetragrammaton was in use at the time, a time frame from which we have no copies of the gospels. The reasoning then is not without basis. Regardless, it is the reason given by the translators for the inclusion of the name in the NT and thus belongs in the paragraph. George 18:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well if that's their reasoning then that's fine. But it needs to be noted that their reasoning is speculation, not supported by hardly any (if any) reputable bible scholars, and goes against the principles of textual criticism which requires actual manuscript evidence to make a claim. So I noted that. Kevin Rector (talk) 23:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why a New Translation Was Commissioned

I added the critics view of why it was comissioned. Kevin Rector (talk) 23:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Is this even a translation?

The only credible person who came forward as a "translator" of this work has admitted that no one on the committee knew Greek or Hebrew. There are large portions of the Old Testament that are literally word-for-word the ASV 1901 text. This article gives way too much credit to this as an actual Bible translation. It is a paraphrase of the Bible to accommodate the views of a particular sect and is of little-to-no importance to anyone who is not a Jehovah's Witness. It cannot be relied upon for any degree of scholarship or faithfulness to the original text. The article goes out of its way to characterize this as a legitimate translation and give balanced POV, when the reality is that you can only give it as balanced a treatment as you could any other piece of propaganda.

Franz left the organization and published a book. In it he claims to reveal the identities of the NWT translators. If no one on the committee knew Greek or Hebrew they probably would have had a hard time TRANSLATING then aye? The problem is that the NWT is NOT deliberately misleading in order to affirm Trinitarian a-priori, and for this critics claim, ironically, that it's biased. If you want propaganda, go pick up ANY mainstream bible and read it's OT. You'll see they've REMOVED the divine NAME of God, replacing it with the ambiguous TITLE "LORD". Mainstream bibles remove the names of cities that Jehovah destroyed, replacing their names with the pagan: "Hell" in order to affirm some ludicrous idea that the wicked will be punished their for all eternity (see Ecc. 9:5). Propaganda indeed. Duffer 03:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's only one apostate whos has started so much rukus and contraversy since 1980 a former member of th watchtower. He has admited that he never gave out the names of the NWT translators. Who ever wrote that portion is probably a disfellowshiped ex witness who thinks he has found some kind of light in the apostate that once was

Duffer's Edits

• Removed: "Dr. Julius Mantey, one of the most respected Greek scholars in the world has been very critical of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation and has been quoted as saying of it, "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures...." Pure POV bombast. Besides, the KIT is an entirely different animal than the NWT.

• • This is not "POV bombast". Rather it highlights the fact that a respected Greek scholar thinks that the KIT is a very bad translation. As such it deserves mention. There is a section on the KIT in the article and those critical of it deserve their voice to be heard as well. To remove relavant criticism is to push a POV and is wholly unacceptable. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • • The sole purpose of the quote is to stigmatize the KIT. If I added something like: "Dr. Jason BeDuhn (not a JW) likes the KIT so much that he uses donated KITs as a required text in his college level biblical Greek courses." That's true by the way, but the point is it would be deleted because it only serves to scew the viewpoint to the positive. The Mantey quote does the opposite. It has no business in an encyclopedic entry. Duffer 18:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • No, the sole purpose of the quote is to show that legitimate biblical scholars have significant issues with the KIT. If you want to note that DeBuhn uses it as the text for a class then go ahead. Kevin Rector (talk) 19:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Changed "Most Bible scholars are very critical of the New World Translation. They charge that it is a rewriting of the Bible to conform to Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines and theology." to "Some Bible scholars..." Only 4 accredited bible scholars that I'm aware of have come foward publicly against the NWTs New Testament. Countess/Mantey/Metzger and Wallace.

• • • Well then you haven't looked to hard for critics. Don't forget Bruce, Rowley, Barclay, Dodd The reality is that most is the more acurate word. To change it to some is simply deceptive. In point of fact there are virtually no legitimate Hebrew or Greek scholars who support the NWT. DeBuhn is often cites, but he is not a language scholar (his PH.d is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages). So even if there is one that supports it, and two that are critical "most" would be the correct word. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've never heard of these men, source? I primarily cite Dr. BeDuhn because Professor Rolf Furuli is a Jehovahs Witness; that somehow makes his testimony less legitimate...Duffer 19:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mantey came forward and alleged that the WT had misquoted him. His comments on the NWT stem from this, his own theological misgivings about Jehovah's Witnesses, and a MISTAKEN view of Colwell's Rule. Greg Stafford and Robert Hommel discuss Mantey's public letter to the NWT [here]
  • Metzger published "Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ" in 1953 again with the mistaken view that Colwell's Rule applies to John 1:1 he states: "It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists... As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." Though even the evangelical Dr. Dan Wallace, who also speaks out against the NWT AgREES with them here in that Colwell's Rule does not apply to John 1:1 and should be translated to reflect the qualitative nature of the second theos in the verse.
  • Countess and Wallace are the only 2 modern scholars that have come forward to produce accurate quotable quotes for the critics of the NWT. THAT HARDLY QUALIFIES AS "MOST", and I can just as easily point to Rolf Furuli, Jason BeDuhn, even Wallace in some instances in support of the NWT. To change "Most" to "Some" is being more than fair in a subject that should be deleted entirely.

• Changed: "Dr. Robert Countess, a New Testament scholar, with a Ph.D. in religion majoring in New Testament text, voices the concerns of most biblical scholars about the New World Translation:" to: "voices his concerns about the New World Translation..". Why I changed this should be obvious to everyone because they ARE his concerns, and his concerns alone, regardless if his criticisms are parroted by others that doesn't change the fact that they are HIS criticisms, and their criticisms are theirs, yours are yours. If anyone wants to call 4 people "Most biblical scholars" well then go ahead, just don't accuse ME of POV when I remove such rediculous crap.
• Oh yeah this man is here talking about religious matters and he uses foul words, very mature why does he not go comment on a comic book site. Last I heard that word I was twelve yrs old.
  • I don't have a problem with this. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Removed a section of: "Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament language at Princeton University and one of the most respected bible scholars in the world, says the New World Translation is "a frightful mistranslation... erroneous... pernicious... reprehensible."" Removed "..and one of the most respected bible scholars in the world..". To say how respected a scholar is then offer a quotable quote critical of the NWT is nothing more than appeal to authority. Yes Metzger was a pioneer in the field of Textual Criticism, but this article is about the NWT, not Bruce Metzger. Besides, he's not even around to confront the criticisms of his work by more modern scholars who don't agree with his criticisms of the NWT, specifically regarding John 1:1, 8:58, and Titus 2:13. I don't think it's appropriate for this article, though it is accurate so I'll stop deleting it.

• • Ok, except for the fact that Bruce Metzger is generally considered to be the most important figure in the field of textual criticism (which in fact makes him one of the most respected bible scholars in the world). This wasn't added as an appeal to authority but rather to note the qualifications of those who comment on the NWT. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Changed: "There has been some academic support however for the New World Translation. Dr Jason BeDuhn Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University comes forward to state:" to the more accurate: "Though, more modern scholars have expressed appreciation for the accuracy of the translation. Dr. Jason BeDuhn comes forward to state:". Metzger and Mantey's criticisms came out in the 1950s, regarding the New Testament only, contrary to this Wiki's rediculous portrayal of them being critical of the whole NWT. If their criticism was to be considered relevant, they would have to criticise the newer editions of the NWT, specifically the 1984 edtion. Countess and Wallace are the more recent, with Countess publishing his criticisms in 1987 and Wallace to this day speaking up about the NWT (though Wallace is often held as a "hostile witness" in support of the translation especially in regards to John 1:1 and the application of Colwell's (mistaken) Rule). So to say "more modern scholars have.." is entirely accurate with Mag. Art. Rolf Furuli (University of Oslo) publishing his support of the NWT in 1999, and Dr. BeDuhn (University of Arizona) in 2003. Not to mention the less theologically accredited apologists like the highly outspoken Greg Stafford.

• • Your change here makes the article less accurate. Furuli has not written anything that has been peer reviewed and is generally recognized as a JW apologist. If you can cite any legitimate scholars who support Furuli's work perhaps your claims would hold some weight. As already mentioned DeBuhn is not a language scholar. Using the words "Though, more modern scholars..." at the least contains a connotation that the modern scholar's work is more accurate or more relevant. This is simply not the case. Your 2 scholars supporting the NTW can not outweigh the overwhelmingly vast majority of legitimate scholars that discount them. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Actually he has (Assyrian Chronology, Cuneiform tablets, Manichaeism), but not on this subject. I can't cite a single scholar that has even reviewed his work. The pompousness of the evangelical "scholarly" community is staggering to say the least. The problem is that Dr. BeDuhn's and Mag. Art. Furuli's work IS itself reviews of criticisms by those notable scholars (and those who parrot them): Countess/Metzger/Mantey.. The only people who have reviewed their work are protestant apologists Rob Bowman, James White, Robert Hommell, and Carl Olof Jonsson. With the exception of James White, none of these men have a doctorate in any field of study. Modern apologists have taken to attacking those who stand up for the NWT while those with doctorates in the field ignore BeDuhn/Furuli wholesale. These scholars that ignore the substantive criticism of BeDuhn and Furuli are guilty of willfull ignorance. The internet has created a time vacuum, so to speak, where refuted and/or outdated material is propagated once again by those who missed the refutations, or dishonestly ignore them. And yes, Furuli and BeDuhn can outweigh the rhetoric of those supporting theological agendas over the original texts. The problem here is that you're supporting criticism over translation, criticism that has been largely refuted. And not only that, but to have criticism of the NWT and not any other bible translation in the entirety of Wikipedia is more than suspect. I'm not saying the NWT is without it's faults and biases, but to suggest more-so than any other translation is just pure horsepucky. If you're worried about bias and accuracy, go talk to those translation committees, those "scholars", that translate maintream bibles with the word "Hell" in them and remove the divine name from the OT entirely, they attribute personality to the "Holy Spirit" as if personal pronouns actually meant something in the greek when even Dr. Dan Wallace admits this is dishonest and that the greek texts do not support the personhood of the holy spirit. These are unequivocal issues that are being willfully ignored, I can't call that "scholarship" and still feel good about myself. Duffer 20:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To say that my changes here are POV is just the complete opposite of reality Duffer 14:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Well I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As far as I can tell you have in mind the distinct goal of making the criticisms of the NWT sound less harsh than they are and to trumpet the scant resources that view the NWT in a positive light. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Those "criticisms" that have been largely refuted, and/or abandoned by modern protestant apologists? I'm offended that you suggest i'm trying to downplay criticism. I'm doing nothing more than adding a balanced view of this issue where you have perpetuated a tradition of one sided criticism, and you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me this article, the way it was, was fair or balanced. Personally I feel that all of this crap should be deleted. Duffer 20:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Well, I sorry for offending you, this is clearly a very emotional issue for you. However I stand by my assertions that you statements in the article downplay the criticism of the JW translation and highlight some very scant support for it. Whether this is intentional on your part I can not say, and I'm sorry for assuming that was your goal. Furthermore, it's not useful or true to say that modern Protestant apologists have refuted the criticisms levied by biblical scholars. It is also deceptive to say that because those criticism were levied 10, 20 or 50 years ago that they are now "abandoned" or somehow mistaken. If modern scholars do not engange DeBuhn and Furuli it could very well because they don't consider their positions credible enough to warrant comment. I can't say why and you can't say why because neither one of us is a biblical scholar of a caliber to be of any importance. Finally, the goal of the article is not to be "fair and balanced" it is to be a NPOV representation of the facts. If the fact remains that most biblical scholars think the NWT is a bad translation it is within the spirit of NPOV to relate that fact. If the translation has been criticized heavily (as it has) then it is NPOV to note that fact. Kevin Rector (talk) 20:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • An important point to realize, that nobody seems to be dealing with, is that most who are touted as "Greek Scholars" quite frequently have very strong views when it comes to theology. Scholars who believe in the trinity as fact will strongly criticize a translation that does not agree with their views, even if Greek grammar supports the alternate view. It is not fair and balanced to say whether or not "most" biblical scholars agree with a certain translation if "most" biblical scholars are of a certain majority theological perspective, as is true with the trinity. What I recommend that all do is to focus, not on numbers of biblical scholars but on the merits of the translation itself. John 1:1 is supported grammatically. Col 1:15,16 is supported gramatically. Titus 2:13 and Heb 1:8 are supported grammatically. Simply because someone wishes to press a different perspective does not make the alternate invalid, even if that someone is a "Greek scholar." All that is needed is to cite an authority that establishes the translation as credible, which the NWT Committee has done in their Appendixes. Numbers of scholars are beside the point - especially if those scholars are theologically predisposed (e.g. Countess, Mantey, etc). Wes 20:16, June 29, 2005

Characteristics of the Translation, God's Name

I rewrote this section for accuracy and emphasis of an issue that Jehovah's Witnesses take very seriously. The previous:

The Tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters representing the divine name and usually transliterated as YHWH or JHVH, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) almost 7,000 times. While many English translations of the Bible replace it with the capitalized word LORD, the New World Translation translates it as Jehovah. Most scholars believe that the ancient Hebrew pronunciation was likely "Yahweh" or "Yahveh", but the original pronunciation is unknown. Jehovah's Witnesses use the pronunciation "Jehovah" because of its familiarity, and point out that other Biblical Hebrew names are also transliterated into anglicized equivalents, e.g. Jeremiah and Isaiah instead of Yirmeyah and Yeshayahu.

The New World Translation also uses the name "Jehovah" 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament), particularly in the case of quotations from or allusions to Old Testament passages containing the Tetragrammaton. While no extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament contain the Tetragrammaton in these passages the publishers of the New World Translation argue that the Tetragrammaton was probably written in the original manuscripts. Their reasoning is based on the only copies of Greek scripture from the first century, namely the Greek language Septuagint (a translation of the original Hebrew bible or Old Testament). These fragments contain the Tetragrammaton, thus pointing out that the name was being used in the Old Testament at the time the New Testament was being written. Since there are no manuscripts of the same age for the New Testament, the translators have relied on the Septuagint version of the Old Testament to support their reasoning. Most biblical scholars consider this to be poor reasoning and mere speculation. Traditional textual criticism would require the use of the existing manuscript evidence to support their claim and such manuscript evidence does not exist.

This is not fully accurate, and in the case of the final paragraph, entirely misleading as there are far more than one reason to introduce the divine name to the New Testament. On top of this, more recently is has been argued by [Gerard Gertoux] that the actual pronunciation of the name IS knows, and that it is not "Yahweh" or some other two syllable equivelant. I wrote the following for the main Jehovah's Witness page, but I felt I needed to reproduce it here as well for obvious reasons.

God's Name in the Old Testament

The Hebrew divine name of God, the Tetragrammaton ("YHWH"), is found in the Old Testament 6,828 times. Nearly all orthodox bibles either remove the proper name entirely (replacing it with the ambiguous title: "God" or "LORD" in all capitals), or they render the name (as either "Jehovah" or "Yahweh") only a handful of times. The New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses (NWT) differs significantly here from almost all other bibles. The NWT consistently renders all 6,828 instances of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (divine name) as a proper name: "Jehovah." They chose the transliteration "Jehovah" because: "Jehovah is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name.." On top of the 6,828 instances of the Tetragrammaton, the NWT translators introduce 145 more instances where they believe the name should be there, but is not technically extant. They cite the works of C.D. Ginsburg as justification for the additional 145. Such consistent use of the name is done out of what they believe to be a deep respect for the "Author of our salvation."

God's Name in the New Testament

They believe that the divine name was removed from New Testament (NT) manuscripts over the first couple of centuries, post Christ, due to Jewish superstition. With this belief in mind, they introduce 237 instances of the divine name into the New Testament despite total lack of extant manuscript evidence. They point to several, though admittedly speculative, reasons for justification:

• Passages where the apostles directly quote Old Testament Scriptures that contain the divine name.
• New Testament scriptures that suggest the name would be there if 1st century manuscripts were discovered, most notably Jesus' words as recorded by the apostle John (John 17:6): "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world..", and Luke (Acts 2:21): "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." (NWT)
• Recovered 1st century Septuagints (Hebrew to Greek translations of the Old Testament) that contain the Tetragrammaton. Confirming that the Name was indeed known by Greek speaking Jews of the time.
• Four instances in the book of Revelations that contain the abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton as the exclamation: "Hallelujah!" (Literally: "Praise Jehovah!") (Revelations 19:1, 3, 4, 6)

These reasons, among others, culminate into the consistent use of "Jehovah" throughought the Old Testament and New Testament of the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses. On the other side of that coin, the perpetuation of Jewish superstition to render the proper name as an ambiguous title culminates into the quasi-consistent use of "God" (or "LORD") throughout the Old and New Testaments of other Bible translations. "Quasi-consistent" in that many of these mainstream translations do render the name, in some form, in a handful of Old Testament passages, thus not entirely consistent in either usage. This is summed up by Dr. BeDuhn (Truth in Translation pg. 170): "Both practices violate accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God."

This change is entirely appropriate for this section. The only thing that I see that could possibly be considered POV is the couple of sentences that occur after: "On the other side of that coin..." though those sentences are balanced by the quote from Dr. BeDuhn that criticises BOTH methods. This is far more accurate, and far less ambiguous than what was previously up. I do not see at all why it has been deleted twice now. Duffer 15:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It is generally considered bad form to put identical information in two different articles. If it's that important you should break it out into a separate article and link to it in the two articles. I don't have the time or energy to deal with this today. Kevin Rector (talk) 18:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a complete rewrite

This would have to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia, and I've seen a few shockers.

The article clearly needs to be split up, separating the explanation of what the NWT is from the analysis of its content.

It is also POV in variously attacking and supporting the NWT in different parts of the article.--K. 30 June 2005 06:29 (UTC)

Removal of Reaction

The reason for the removal is plain and simple it is bias and should NOT be included this is not an page on the reaction but about the FACTS so lets please stick to the FACTS not some half wit nobody scholar that has recived NO PHD in GREEK from any university anywhere in the world.... we can add one reaction after another and NEVER SEE ANY FACTS!!! SO lets cut it down to the FACTS!!!! THAT IS WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ALL ABOUT!!!

Firstly, please sign your posts and if you are making such a significant change to the article, include an edit summary.

As to the change itself, such a major change ought to be discussed prior to making it. You cut out perhaps 80% of the article. It is bad Wikiquette to make such a change without the consensus of the editors active on the page. As such, I am reverting the change.

However, you are welcome to cite specific reasons for why you think the material should be removed and discuss it with the rest of those active on this page. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Konrad one glance at your webpage and we can all see where you stand on the subject, your anti-JW and therefore have NO BUSINESS HERE!!!! ANY FURTHER TAMPERING WITH NPOV OF THIS PAGE WILL RESULT IN NPOV TAG AND THE REQUEST FOR MOTERATION AS WELL AS ASKING THAT YOU BE BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA!!!! THE PAGE IS ABOUT THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION NOT THE REACTION THEREOF REACTION IN ITSELF YEILDS TO A POINT OF VIEW, POINTS OF VIEW HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS PAGE, THE IDEA OF WIKIPEDIA IS TO CONVAY FACTS!!!

You seem quite upset. I have no desire to get involved in a revert war, as I'm still tired from the battle over Charles Taze Russell, where I was accused of being pro-JW. Such is life.

In response to your comments, it seems you don't quite understand Wikipedia policies. I'm sure you'll find it helpful to read Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:03, 27 July

Sir I dont think you understand the IDEA, Consept, and spirt that IS wikipedia, its not about policies, its about facts buddy. plain and simple we have A responcablity above ALL OTHERS to convay FACTS and only the FACTS. Reactions Criticisms should be left to forums like yahoogroups or smartgroups. This is for all intents an information site, NOT A GROUP to discuss points of view.... NO POLICY is above that, if I have to step on some feet to get only facts into differant pages I will. Someone has to otherwise its just going to become a Bitch board for people to voice their point of view.....

But you are imposing a biased point of view, yourself, by removing any mention of the fact that there are contentious aspects to the topic of the article; very few people here will agree with your exclusionist POV on what constitutes the idea, concept and spirit of Wikipedia. You've been doing this same thing in the Wal-Mart article, too. You must realize that a balance must be struck: The fact that a serious debate exists is noteworthy, and it is informative and in fact necessary to neutrally describe the points of view in the debate, as long as they aren't misrepresented or written in such a way as to lead the reader toward particular conclusions (advocacy). It requires careful phrasing and editing, and often takes quite a few revisions in order to reach a point of relative stasis or consensus. In the end, the article is of higher quality for having included more informative prose. That is the idea, concept and spirit of Wikipedia. — mjb 20:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

MIKE READ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability The Ace!

The fact that a serious, notable debate exists is verifiable. See Talk:Wal-Mart for details.

I think we need to review The Principles of Wikipedia etiquette

• Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
• Treat others as you would have them treat you.
• Be polite please!
  • People can't see you or know for sure your mood. Irony isn't always obvious, and blunt, raw text can easily appear rude. Be careful of the words you choose — what you intended might not be what others think.
• Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).
• Work toward agreement.
• Argue facts, not personalities.
• Don't ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
• Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
  • Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
• Be prepared to apologize.
  • In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
• Forgive and forget.
• Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
• Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on user's talk pages, or list them at Great editing in progress.
• Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
• Help mediate disagreements between others.
• If you're arguing, take a break; if you're mediating, recommend a break.
  • Come back after a week or two. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
  • Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself — there are 665,371 articles on Wikipedia! Take up a Wikiproject or WikiReader, or lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention and Cleanup. Or write a new article.
• Remember what Wikipedia is not.
• Review the list of faux pas.
• Be civil.
• Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
  • Amend, edit, discuss.

The Ace!

Kettle, meet Pot. — mjb 07:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Again you must share your pot Mike cause you really don't get it. Sites and authors that make their living bashing a book or a company are NOT Varifiable sources of information NPOV must be kept, if you cant verify from a creditable source it has NO place here!!! The Ace!

one name missing from article

Hans Grüber.

This scandal was not mentioned. It caused the society a lot of pain and caused a revision I think, If I remember right. Do to the fact he was a catholic preist, and his wife was in to spiritism and helped him in his translating. I think this happened when the book changed from it's green cover to black.--Greyfox 03:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? A Yahoo search for that name and "new world translation" turns up nothing. Are you thinking about the spiritistic fruitcake that did his own translation and said that spirits and voices were guiding him in making it, and who the Society has quoted in support of their version of John 1:1?Tommstein 05:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hans Gruber is the name of the bad guy in the movie Die Hard.