User talk:Duffer1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Truth in Translation

Just to let you know, I got the book today. Looks interesting, and thanks for the reference. Best, Tim (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion with FactCheck1776

Greetings. Your comments about DeBuhn and peer review are confusing. What was peer reviewed, the NWT, or BeDuhn's review of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck1776 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

His review. Duffer (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia requirement that a person's work be peer-reviewed before he can be quoted in an article. Mantey and Metzger are recognized authorities on Biblical languages and their opinions would be (or would have been) admissible as expert testimony in a court of law. Therefore, their opinions are worthy of consideration by readers. You have to admit it's unfair that the ony quote in the Criticism section is a quote in support of the NWT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck1776 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that neither Metzger nor Mantey reviewed, publicly or privately, any section of the NWT (NT or OT). Quoting them is giving what's called on wikipedia Undue Weight. Their opinions are sound bites, and meaningless, without a published review of what they're criticizing. BeDuhn is the only published review of the NWT, that is why his conclusions and statements are in the article. Duffer (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Duffer: Why do you write “BeDuhn is the only published review of the NWT”? Are you saying you have never read any other reviews of the NWT, or are you asserting that none exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Shilmer (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am under the impression that it is the only review of the NWT's NT. Duffer (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was, too (from you) but not any more. I've been Googling for 2 days and I have found scant support for BeDuhn and large numbers of scholars who take him to task.--Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Duffer: The NWT has had reviews published by a host of scholars.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the question of how you can know what they've done in private, I just read Mantey's letter to the Watchtower Society dated July 11, 1974, where it is clear he did read some of the most critical sections of the NWT, the same ones BeDuhn used in his comparison. (BeDuhn himself only selected certain texts and did not read the whole NWT.)

The bottom line is that you can't have a Criticism section where the only quote is in favor. Either remove the reference or balance it with a genuine critical comment. If you don't like Metzger or Mantey, how about Daniel Wallace, Th.M., Ph.D.?

There's a red herring here. You focus attention away from the NWT itself, and away from reviews of the NWT, and even away from reviews of reviews, and onto some notional requirement for peer review. The Wikipedia description of Undue Weight does not say that opinions are "meaningless without a published review." I believe Wikipedia is content to hear from all people whose credentials have earned them the right to be heard. Comments from the likes of Metzger, who BeDuhn describes as "a giant in my field," and Mantey, who the Watchtower itself has cited as an expert in Biblical languages, absolutely belong here.

I am sorry for not being specific in stating that BeDuhn's review was of the majority of the NTs most theologically controversial passages, and how most mainstream bibles render those passages. He's not a Witness. He's a published scholar. He found that the NWT's NT was the most accurate. He devoted an entire book to explaining how and why. You can have as many quotes in favor or against in any given article but it needs to adhere to WP:VERIFY and Undue Weight. You are also wrong about your assertion "The Wikipedia description of Undue Weight does not say that opinions are, in your words, "meaningless without a published review."" The policy specifically says: "all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source..." Their opinions are worthless in the absence of published findings. Technically since BeDuhn is the only published review of the NWT (in comparison to other bibles or not) his opinion is the majority view (that's not really relevant to our discussion here, but still something to think about). Please read the policy and learn what constitutes a "reliable source". Here's irony for you: find a group of theologically significant passages, then read the NWT W/refs to see their reasoning on that passages translation. Then go to Wallace's very own www.bible.org/netbible/ and read the footnotes for the passages. More than a few will have the same reasoning given, just different word usage in the final product. Duffer (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Duffer: Since you apparently have a copy of Beduhn’s book and I since I have never read it, would you please help me understand something? Of Beduhn’s work you write, “He found that the NWT's NT was the most accurate.” With those words is Beduhn asserting 1) the NWT is the most accurate of all NT translations, or 2) the NWT is the most accurate of certain NT translation, or 3) the NWT is the most accurate translation of certain texts within certain translations? It would be nice to get something definitive on this point.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
He found that (while admitting such a thing is difficult to quantify) the NWT's NT is the most accurate NT out of the following translations: NWT, KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, Amplified, Living, and Today's English Version. Duffer (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Duffer: Are you sure Beduhn's remark is not in relation to number 3 above, that is "the most accurate" in relation to certain texts of the translations you name? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What would you have me say? It's a review of the most debatable NT renderings (e.g. John 1:1, 8:58 etc..), NT spanning phrases or words like "worship"/"obeisance"/"being"/"man" and their respective verses, and of course "God"/"Jehovah"; what changes the meaning of the Greek, where and why. Duffer (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Duffer: Apparently my question is unclear. I’ll find a copy of Beduhn’s work at a library to put some context to his remarks of the NWT in relation to other translations (or specific texts of those translations).
Below you wrote, “I'm trying to prevent undue weight from being given to 50 year old, dated, refuted, nonsense.” Can you please explain how the time of review is relevant to a translation review when 1) the given texts translated remain the same and 2) the resulting translations of those texts remain the same? Also, what and who exactly has been refuted that you speak of? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll take the time to defend my hyperbole when dated, refuted, nonsense tries to creep into the article. Duffer (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit the Wikipedia rules do seem to call for peer-reviewed content. My mistake, I thought anything that could be regarded as expert testimony would qualify. Still, I think you're making too much of a technicality, because another article about the NWT that could be peer-reviewed is not likely to come along for some time, if ever. As you pointed out, BeDuhn's is the only attempt, and it's not as if we're talking about medicine or quantum mechanics, where the maxim is "publish or die," and experts are tripping over each other for bylines in the journals.

This technicality (technique, really) could enable you to keep a stranglehold on the content of the page, but you still have to admit that it's unfair for the only quote in the Criticism section to be in support. I think you're trying to exercise undue control over all aspects of the page by even trying to spin the Criticism section.

In the absence of more than one peer-reviewed publication, and on a soft topic such as this, I'm wondering if Wikipedia arbitration would relax the requirement and allow for simple "expert testimony" until such time as additional peer-reviewed articles appear. I even wonder if a subject about which only one article has ever been submitted for peer review could even be regarded as a "scholarly community." I think it is worth at least asking the question. Wikipedia policies also specify that content should not be unduly one-sided. In a case like this one, where the only quote in the Criticism section is in support, it is possible that arbitrators will allow for the existence of significant contrary published opinion by recognized authorities, especially when, as in Mantey's case, the Watchtower recognized them as such when it suited them.

Wikipedia requires that "the material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community." I wonder, how many peer reviews does it take before one's work is considered thoroughly vetted? And exactly where are the peer reviews of BeDuhn's work? I've been Googling, and so far I've not found any. I did find BeDuhn's curriculum vitae, but it does not have a section on peer-reviewed publications such as I have seen in come other CVs.

If you want to insist on a legalistic approach, then beware of landmines in your path. The same Wikipedia policy stipulates, "Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it." In that case, the NWT itself fails an important test of being a reliable source, since its translators refused to sign their names. Also, this opens the door for a different interpretation of the other parts of the policy. If an unsigned source is simply less reliable, not wholly unreliable, then perhaps a scholarly source that has not been peer reviewed is also simply less reliable, but still valid for inclusion?

Here's a potentially more powerful question. If a scholar in Biblical languages renders a passage a certain way, and publishes it as part of a translation of the Bible, isn't that his or her de facto statement of opinion regarding the best translation of that passage? In other words, if I am a Greek scholar, and I publish a translation of John 1:1 as "...the word was God," isn't that the same thing as publishing my findings that such is the correct rendering of the Greek for that passage? I believe so, though perhaps there is a technicality that proves me wrong.

If such is the case, then we must consider the scholars who actually participated in the translation of a well-known Bible as having submitted their work for peer review. By that reckoning, a simple visit to www.biblegateway.com is enough to confirm that at least 21 different English Bibles, representing the work of hundreds of scholars, translate John 1:1 as "...the word was God" in contradiction to the NWT.

To believe the NWT is best, you have to believe all these scholars are biased, and only BeDuhn and a couple of others are not. And THAT is why I feel comfortable saying that "most" and "a few" are not "weasel words," but accurate characterizations of the mix of published opinion.

The NWT is the topic of the criticism, not the source. I am not trying to keep a stranglehold on the article, I'm trying to prevent undue weight from being given to 50 year old, dated, refuted, nonsense. The edits that I reverted were terrible. One even said that the Kingdom Interlinear is "now known as the NWT". An interlinear translation is wholly different from a bible translation, and they (the KIT and the NWT) still both exist as separate entities. I would welcome arbitration. The article is a train wreck that could only benefit from communal scrutiny. Also rendering a passage a certain way cannot be held as a legitimate comparison to any other bible due to two main factors: The statement of faith and translation found at the beginning of most bibles where they stipulate theological reasoning for translation, and two: The type of bible that it is. You cannot compare a paraphrase to a dynamic, one is interpretive the other is literal; inherently incompatible for purposes of comparison. Duffer (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's get back to basics. The NWT is the subject of the article. It is purported to be a scholarly work, but no scholars will take responsibility for it. That makes it a suspect document. Ultimately, it is the NWT that has been submitted for peer review, but without knowing who its scholars are, how do we know who their peers are? Perhaps the best peer review would be offered by other anonymous scholars. Mantey's criticism is from 1974 because that's when he first wrote it (which was about the time the Watchtower first quoted him out of context and Mantey was forced to threaten "consequences"). What's the age of the criticism got to do with anything? The New Testament itself is almost 2 millennia old and plenty of people claim it is "old, dated, refuted, nonsense." You'll agree those arguments should not be allowed to stand. I am befuddled by your comment, "...rendering a passage a certain way cannot be held as a legitimate comparison to any other bible." Um, what? Of course its legitimate to compare Bible translations. If 30 Bibles translate a passage one way and 2 Bibles translate it an opposite way, it is perfectly legitimate to say there's a 30-2 opinion against the one in the minority. You are free to assign reasons as you see fit. You can believe the translators of the 30 Bibles are all biased while the translators of the 2 are not, but you cannot deny the simple fact that the numeric disparity exists. More importantly, you have no right to deny readers the right to know about the disparity and reach their own conclusions about WHY it may exist. The difference in the number of Bibles translated one way versus another is a verifiable fact and is germane to the discussion, especially since the NWT is in the tiny minority, and especially in a Criticism section.-- Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the NWT’s translators’ work Dr. Rowley wrote in 1953, “They profess to offer a rendering into modern English which is as faithful as possible. In fact, the jargon which they use is often scarcely English at all, and it reminds one of nothing so much as a schoolboy’s first painful beginnings in translating Latin into English.” Scholarly reviews of the NWT have been harsh, to say the least. The surest signal of poor scholarship is when peers refrain from ongoing discussion because the conversation’s end is considered so obvious it deems the subject unworthy. When I have tried to get fellows in humanities to entertain discussion of the NWT the result is predictable. They pucker, wince, shake their heads, throw their hands and mumble something akin to “rubbish”. I would be interested in whatever other reviews of the NWT Duffer is familiar with. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What total rubbish. You probably aren't aware that the Lockman Foundation kept the NASB translation committee, and advisers, anonymous for 25 YEARS, and you still won't find them listed in the bible itself (the Lockman Foundation has made the list available online at Lockman.org). Has that document ever been considered "suspect"? You want to know who the translator's peers are? Anyone qualified to accurately review the English translation of the Greek. Mantey got all up in a tizzy because he was quoted by the big bad WTS, in context (http://jehovah.to/exe/discussion/hommel.htm). FC: “ ...its legitimate to compare Bible translations. If 30 Bibles translate a passage one way and 2 Bibles translate it an opposite way, it is perfectly legitimate to say there's a 30-2 opinion against the one in the minority.” Your objection makes no sense. Comparing English translations, without also reviewing the Greek behind the rendering, cannot be held as a legitimate comparison because very often the meaning of a passage can be radically altered by the smallest things like punctuation, or lack of a definite article. More often than not, multiple renderings are correct. Luke 23:43 is a perfect example: Any honest scholar will tell you that putting a comma before or after “today” is a legitimate rendering, the deciding factor FOR EVERY TRANSLATION team in this case, is theological bias. Though technically the commonality of the idiom “truly I tell you today” could be used as support for the NWT rendering; making the NWT's rendering more accurate than virtually every modern translation in this instance (despite Mantey's misguided and DECIETFUL accusation that the mainstream rendering is the best simply because most bibles translate it differently than the NWT). I have every right to ensure that the article does not get unduly outweighed by misleading rhetoric, and original research. Duffer (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a quote from BeDuhn that I find particularly fitting (Truth in Translation pg. 177): "..popular opinion is not a valid regulator of biblical accuracy. We must adhere to the standards of accurate translation, and we must apply those standards equally to all." Duffer (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I'm not sure why BeDuhn's work is considered peer-reviewed, while that of more experienced scholars is not. Meanwhile, the very best scholarship, the stuff offered by the most skilled experts in Greek and Hebrew, in the form of actual translations of the Bible from the original languages, is somehow disqualified as "illigitimate." If that leaves your head spinning, you're not alone. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have misread Duffer. Where has he said Beduhn’s book underwent peer review protocol? Where has Duffer denied the vetting of other authors? It appears to me you misunderstand something.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's illegitimate for purposes of proving the NWT is somehow wrong simply because more translations render the Greek according to their theological biases rather than the NWTs theological bias, regardless if one or the other or both are capable of being accurate in the light of the original Greek. Duffer (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Check the article's history page. On 12/9, Duffer said, "BeDuhn is the only peer reviewed scholarly assessment of the NWT's NT compared to other bibles." That was his explanation for removing the quotes I added from Metzger and Mantey. Then he said (near the top of this page) that neither of them had even read any section of it, publicly or privately. That should have been my first clue there was a problem. But you're right, I did get confused, because I believed him at first. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the peer review. Even if you remove the "peer reviewed" from the above quote my statement is still wrong. I should have said: "BeDuhn is the only scholar to review the NWT alongside several other major English translations that is neither an evengelical or JW." There are Witnesses that have come forward with their own publications like Rolf Furuli, or (the now former witness) Greg Stafford, but those focus more on theology from the greek rather than translation of the greek. Duffer (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's always a challenge for people so see past their biases. But in order to ignore the fact that it's 30-2, you have to presume that one side is unaware of its bias or unwilling or unable or afraid to see past them. You have to assume that all of the 300 or so scholars in the first group are so biased that they would rather lie to themselves and others than give up their biases. You have to assume that these 300 or so scholars are men without skill, or integrity, or scholarly professionalism, or some mix of the three. I'd rather not do that. I'd rather assume that the NWT translators and the translators of the other Bibles were all equally susceptiple to bias, and all equally struggled to overcome it. And with that assumption as the backdrop, then the 30-2 mix becomes very meaningful. Your comments about how this kind of comparison is meaningless is just so much dancing.

As far as the NASB translators' names being anonymous and whether this made it a suspect document, the answer is no for the obvious reason that it did not glaringly contradict most of the previous scholars on critical points. But, to the Lockman Foundation's credit, they eventually realized it was important to publish the names and credentials of the translators, and they did so. The NWT translators said they wanted to remain anonymous to avoid stealing honor from God. That would be laudable if not for the example of Paul the Apostle. When Paul's credentials were questioned, he realized it is better to be thought of as "bragging" if it can help in some way. The Watchtower can never do this because they will have to admit that Franz and the other whistleblowers were telling the truth, and the "translators" were not translators at all, and that the WTS has been lying to the world.

I don't want to be mean, but it's easy to understand why nobody else has included the NWT in a scholarly comparison or parallel Bible. It's because the scholarly community does not consider the NWT valid for inclusion in such comparisons. (Somebody want to tell me how to indent, so I can format my comments in a way that makes sense?) --Factcheck1776 (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To indent start EACH paragraph with a colon ":".
The more colons you have at the start -
The more indents you will get. Duffer (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you're being mean, just irrational. You cannot just ignore the fact that the NWT is accurate despite the majority of mainstream bibles word passages differently.
You're not trying very hard to avoid circular reasoning. Your statement starts with the assumption that the NWT is accurate. To be safe, fair, and rational, you must start without any preconceptions about which versions are accurate and which are not. If you do that, then you cannot ignore the fact that there is such a huge disparity in the numbers. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
When taken out of context It would be circular sure, but I've been saying the whole time that BeDuhn finds the NWT to be the most accurate. Where have I disputed a disparity? I haven't, I'm just saying that the comparison is illegitimate for encyclopedic (reasonable) purposes, and Wikipedia agrees (WP:NOR). Duffer (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, passages have multiple legitimate renderings, and possible meanings. If you could find a review or study that says: 30 out of 31 translations CORRECTLY translates passage XYZ yet 1 Bible fails to render the passage according to the Koine Greek. Then you have a legitimate comparison.

Um... exactly what would make such a study authoritative? Wouldn't its authors be just as subject to bias as they Bibles they are purporting to review? --Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not authoritative, but legitimate for the purposes of rational comparison. Duffer (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to understand that bibles are translated for a target audience, you can read as much at the beginning of nearly every bible available.

I do understand that. The difference is that whereas the bulk of English-language Bibles target audiences with different mannerisms of speech (for example, surfers vs. scholars), the NWT was targeted at an audience that is predisposed toward Arianism. Whereas other Bibles' differences are mainly stylistic, the NWT's differences are calculatedly theological.--Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The only thing that Witnesses have in common with the teachings of Arius is that they do not believe that Jesus is "God the Son". 'Other Bibles' differences' are rife with more bias, bad and theological translations, than the NWT could dream of. Duffer (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I gave you an example of Luke 23:43 where a passage could be accurate with either punctuation. Lets go for a more substantive passage: Revelation 3:14. Wallace's NET bible translates it: “...the faithful and true witness, the originator of God’s creation..” Here the NET bible deliberately renders the passage to mean “over creation” (to dispel the idea that Christ was created) yet in the footnotes he admits: “BDAG also notes, “but the mng. beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable”. Despite the fact that the linguistically probable meaning of the passage is that JESUS WAS THE FIRST CREATED, John's specific words, he renders the passage differently because of a theologically perceived connection. He admits as much later in the footnote: “Such a meaning is unlikely here, however, since the connections described above are much more probable.” You can read about these alleged connections and how they miraculously trump John's own words at http://www.bible.org/netbible/ Click on Rev -> Chp 3 -> vrs14 -> Ft 54.
BDAG is a $125.00 Greek-English lexicon that the WTS knows most of us don't have access to, so we can't check the context of that quote. In fact, it doesn't appear to say any such thing about being translated a certain way for theological reasons. I guess "linguistically probable" simply means that the word is more often used to mean "first created" than some other things, the same way that the word "pancake" is more often used to mean a breakfast flapjack than makeup you wear on your face, although it is certainly used both ways. He puts it in a footnote just to be fair. This is because he's trying to be honest, scholarly, and thorough. This is a bad example for you to use.--Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What does the WTS have to do with what I quoted? I'm quoting Wallace. It's a perfect example that proves exactly what I said. He admits the language probably means that Jesus is "part of" creation (rather than "over") yet due to some perceived theological connections to other verses he renders 3:14 contrary to the probable meaning of the language employed. Duffer (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
How about the KJV and NKJV totally fabricating the introduction at Rev 1:11: “..saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last..."”.
Now that's a great example. The KVJ guys obviously screwed up. (Was it the WTS that pointed this out, or was it other scholars in what you call "Christendom?") This actually shows my point very well. If you go to BibleGateway.com, you'll find that most bibles no longer have this reference, but a few still do. Young's has it, and you can still see it in the KJV, but the others dropped it. This shows that the system works. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's even in the NKJV. Nothing has changed. I am not sure what you mean when you ask who it was that pointed this out to me. I found out about it several years ago when I was discussing Jesus and respective titles applied to him, someone quoted the KJV at Rev 1:11 against something I had said. Anyways, BeDuhn mentions it as well alongside 13 other additions to Rev that has zero manuscript support (pg. 39 fn3). Duffer (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to draw away from the NWT, I'm just showing you how easy it is to find that practically any translation committee can be as you say: “without skill, or integrity, or scholarly professionalism, or some mix of the three.”

Yes, and that includes the NWT translation committee. The difference is that the NWT translators go quite a bit farther into the realm of downright lying, the first and greatest of which is that they read Hebrew of Greek.--Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that you have not gotten the fact that that claim has yet to be proven. How has the NWT translation committee lied? You don't even know for a certainty who they were. Duffer (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just personally find it ludicrous to assume that 30 are correct simply because they are the majority.

I never said that. I said (1) it is worth consideration; (2) all else bing equal, it makes me somewhat more likely to consider a certain rendering as correct; and (3) Wikipedia readers should be allowed to know about the disparity so they can reach their own conclusions about why it exists.--Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Including an alleged disparity would be deliberately misleading since it would direct readers to believe that the NWT is wrong, or inaccurate. Besides, unless you can find a reliably published source that says what you're saying, it falls under wikipedia's no original research policy (for good reason) Duffer (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If the NWT translators were not translators then how did the NWT get translated?

You're assuming it was translated. They "translated" it mainly by paraphrasing other English Bibles and by abusing a Greek-English lexicon. Franz was the very definition of the old addage, "knowing just enough to be dangerous." The other "translators" had no training at all.
Hearsay. Duffer (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it then that their renderings stand to critical scrutiny and as BeDuhn says be the most accurate?

That's the point, they don't, and BeDuhn is in a tiny minority of people who think they do.
They do and BeDuhn proves it. This discussion is quickly degenerating. I will not entertain it much longer.. Duffer (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If none of the alleged translation committee had any knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic (as is claimed) where did the NWT's Old Testament come from?

Anybody can read an English Bible and use it to create a new "translation" to fit their agenda. And like Like I said, Franz knew just enough Greek to sound credible to the other "translators," who knew even less.--Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess that the NWT is disregarded because the pool of scholars are likely mostly evangelical, and or cowards.
Or they could just be right. There's that. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Right to ignore? I find it rather shameful and embarrassing on their part to avoid the debate. Duffer (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just my POV but BeDuhn has an eloquent thought on this subject (Truth in Translation, Preface pg. ix): “Even people with the best of intentions can be led by their commitments and biases to produce inaccurate or careless books on the Bible. So I am writing to clear up a number of misconceptions about the Bible, and about the claims made by those who are listened to when they speak about the Bible. I am not writing to support any denomination or sect of Christianity, but simply to inform – to add information to a debate that has been conducted mostly in the shadow of ignorance. .... I was moved to write because of my shock at the lack of the most basic facts about the Bible in the modern popular debate over its accurate translation and meaning. I was greatly disappointed to find that the few well-trained scholars who have participated in the debate, for reasons known only themselves, have chosen to reinforce rather than alleviate the burden of misinformation and wanton bias in the debate.” Duffer (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

BeDuhn is entitled to his take on the debate. I've perused 2 different debates between BeDuhn and other scholars, and I feel safe saying that they have a similar opinion of him. The POINT, of course, is that Wikipedia readers have the right to hear both sides and make their own decisions. So stop removing edits as though your point of view is the only one that cares about real scholarship. Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you call their comments "nonsense." I imagine that to a person who is enaging in circular reasoning, a straightforward argument can look that way. But please let other readers make their OWN judgement calls about that, and quit trying to be the final arbiter. I didn't remove any of your edits. I just tried to add balance, and I tried to do it fairly. The bulk of scholarly opinion is against the NWT and BeDuhn. According to Wikipedia rules, the number of quotes and supporting materials in the article should reflect that. I was extremely nice to include ony two quotes against the NWT, since the real mix is something like 100 to 1. You have consistently refused to acknowledge that the REAL nonsense is a "Criticism" section where the only quote is in support. The fact that you said something as silly as "neither Metzger nor Mantey reviewed, publicly or privately, any section of the NWT" shows that you are way too emotionally invested in being right to be the judge of what should be considered fair material for the article. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say one more thing about Bibles. I'm perfectly aware that the one I usually read (the NIV) is not even close to perfect. How do I know? Three reasons. First, at the bottom of every page, it shows possible alternate renderings, if any, for various passages on that page. It explains why some scholars think one thing and other scholars think another thing. It talks about the differences between older and newer manuscripts, literal renderings and non-literal ones, why one was chosen over another, and so on. In short, it is honest with me. Second, my wife reads a different Bible. Every morning we read a few chapters together and we often notice and talk about the differences. It's fun to see how certain verses can come out sounding so different sometimes. This is more evidence of a kind of intellectual honesty within what you call "Christendom." Third, I wrote to Zondervan a long time ago (maybe 20 years) and they sent me a full list of the NIV translators and their credentials. I noticed that the translators were all humans, which is another way I know that the NIV is imperfect. :-) --Factcheck1776 (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about critical quotes. It is why I have not disputed Marvin's additions. I hope you don't think I've accused you of intellectual dishonesty, If it feels like I have then please accept my apology. I personally own a few hardback translations, and several bible programs that have dozens of translations. Duffer (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude... major direction change here. I'm sorry. I've let this whole debate thing become more important than love. In truth, I don't really care if JW's call Jesus "a god" and they don't believe in the Trinity. In all candor, that's fine with me. The really important matters are matters of the heart. The Bible says, "If any man does not love, he does not know God." A person can have squeaky-clean doctrine and not have love, and he really has nothing. There's lots of people whose doctrine is what I would consider to be "off base," but who are walking in love and are closer to God's heart than I am. So forgive me, dude. Delete all my previous comments if you like. They weren't that clever anyway. :-) Have a good one. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your candor is touching. Thank you :). I wish you and your wife the best. Duffer (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BeDuhn Follow up

I got the book. About a third of the way through it. I notice he seems to focus a lot on passages dealing with the question of the deity of Christ. In any case, do you have a list of the scholars he is disagreeing with in the quote "I was greatly disappointed to find that the few well-trained scholars who have participated in the debate, for reasons known only themselves, have chosen to reinforce rather than alleviate the burden of misinformation and wanton bias in the debate". I'd like to read what they wrote that he is disagreeing with. I haven't read the section on John 1:1 in full yet, but it looks like he's saying John was supporting polytheism, or at least working on that assumption? Again, I need to read it in full, but it looks like you've dealt with a lot of BeDuhn questions and I figured you'd be the person to ask. Thanks. Tim (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On page 189 is a list of (among other things) scholars that he mentions throughout the book and on what pages they can be found. He doesn't provide a specific list for the quote you cited, but it's easy to get an idea who he's talking about when you use the appendix. I did not get the impression that John was supporting polytheism from BeDuhn, the end of the section "How can there be "a god" in the bible?" (pgs 125-128) has thoughts on the matter. Duffer (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll have to read through that chapter. Thanks.Tim (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

PS -- for the record, although I have an interest in the subject, I have no vested interest (as I mentioned to Factcheck also). The NWT isn't high on my list, but rather, translation comparisons, textual criticism, and translation methodology. I have more of an interest in BeDuhn than the NWT. He had an interesting approach. Reminded me of the Comprehensive New Testament comparisons.Tim (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I very much so like BeDuhn's approach (obviously) and would love to read analysis from other scholars (regardless of their theological beliefs) if they could format their analysis in a way that examines multiple renderings fairly. Duffer (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I have a prepub copy of the Comprehensive New Testament, and when you guys were talking about Rev 1:11 I looked in it's notes. Of the twenty translations studied, only three the KJV, the NKJ, and the Living Bible paraphrase, had the passage you were citing. It also listed it as a Minority reading in Greek (i.e. there are Greek texts that have it). The notes also show when translations introduce wording that has no Greek foundation (either from the Peshitta or Vulgate, ect) or no foundation at all. Neat little tool. Can't wait to see the proofed book when it hits Amazon.Tim (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Does the CNT review or cite the NWT? Duffer (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Their interest was in the broadest range of textual backgrounds by widely used or textually unique versions. They did twenty: ASV, Douay-Rheims American (Vulgate influence, with weird "Western" text deviations from the old Latin), Jewish New Testament (unique both for its audience but also because of the previously unidentified Peshitta influence), Holman Christian Standard, English Standard Version, KJV and New King James (almost but not completely identical on the textual receptus), Murdock's translation of the Peshitta, New American Bible (surprisingly accurate), New American Standard (most accurate, at only a 17% deviation from the Nestle-Aland), the NAS update (treated separately because it became LESS accurate), New English Translation, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible (also weird "Western" text influences), New Living Translation, New Revised Standard, Revised Standard, Revised English Bible, Today's English Version, and the Living Bible. Doesn't the NWT follow the Westcott-Hort? That text would already be covered by the ASV, I think. Also, they only dealt with textual issues, and not interpretational ones. John 1:18 son vs God is a textual difference. The controversies surrounding the NWT deal with interpretational ones like John 1:1 NET "fully God", REB "what God was, the Word was", and of course NWT -- those all fully deal with the same textual grammatical issue in a different interpretational way and wouldn't even show up in the notes. That was beyond the scope of the book, which was to show textual influences rather than denominational perspectives.Tim (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to add -- the notes show practically every textual difference that can be translated... about 15,000 of them -- so anyone can check their own translations against any variation.Tim (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calling God "Jehovah"

Not to start another debate, because I know this is a really old topic, but I was reading my Bible this morning and it suddenly occurred to me... why would I want to call God Jehovah? That would be like calling my Dad by his first name, only worse. I'd feel hurt and disrespected by my children if they called me by my first name. I have a special relationship with them, different than my relationship with people who are not my children. Anybody can call me Eric, but only my children can call me Father, and I prefer it that way. Others may feel differently, of course. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Joel 2:32 commentary): "Whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah, i.e., the believing worshippers of the Lord, will be exempted from the judgment. “Calling upon the name of Jehovah” signifies not only the public worship of God, but inward worship also, in which the confession of the mouth is also an expression of the heart." Duffer (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen, brother, Jehovah is the only true God. Calling on some other god's name is useless. Still, I'm glad that Jesus came to reveal an even deeper and more worshipful relationship to God, where we get to call him Father. It's like this: Once I was an orphan. I knew there was a God, but I didn't know who he was. Then I found out his name was Jehovah, so I started loving and worshipping him by his true name. But then--miracle of miracles--he adopted me! Now I get to call him Father. People who aren't adopted into his family should keep calling him by his proper name, Jehovah, and it is proper and right for them to so. But his children get to call him something even better, and nobody can take that away from them. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nontrinitarianism

Hello, I hope this works, I thought it would be the quickest way to contact you. I am currently involved in a "discussion" on the talk page of Nontrinitarianism and would appreciate some support from people who believe in the article as I am encountering interferance from a (obvously biased) Trinitarian. If you have the time, and/or know anyone with input, please help. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete? Eh? I really don't plan on staying, I have given my input several times over. I don't have the energy to participate in something so inherently wasteful of the time of everyone involved. Duffer (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
But you have to admit there is a bias in C.Logan's bureaucratic impedance of improvement of the article, he has already edited his comments after your reply to hide the bias, and hypocritically adds spurious comments in the same article without referencing them (your deletion). I know you have better things to do, but thanks for what little bias exposing you have done so far, it will go a long way. My applogy was for using large chunks of the Watchtower CD-ROM library material, I thought you might bring up copyright issuse. hence delete it if you wish. But let me and others sift through it for useful referencing first. On not wasting time, I understand, but I hate the Trinity and I can't let it go so easily. Thanks again, it almost brought tears to my eyes when after so much ... intense involvement I finally felt I was not alone. Don't for get about the article though, mention it to someone who is taking a break from publishing, anyone you think would have an interest, wheelchair-bound, etc. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't really say he's impeding the progress of the article, he's just adding more bias to an already overly biased article. Also don't worry about the CD-rom stuff, I personally believe that any responsible person should have full access to any information they wish Witness or not (also I'm sure your quotes would readily fall under Fair Use). I generally avoid quoting the WT stuff in internet discussions though since it tends to distract irrational people from dealing with the points of argument. The Trinity to me is an interesting concoction of valid points, philosophy, and pure nonsense. I don't hate it though as it's not really one of the apathy inducing "once-saved-always-saved" type of heresies, but it is poisonous for sure. Anyways, don't lose sight of what's really important: work. Duffer (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NWT sub-user page

Duffer: I have created a sub-user page to continue editing the article on the NWT while it is protected.

You may or may not know the current circumstance of dispute. If you are aware of this, it is understandable that you have not offered public comment, and I am neither asking that you do so nor that you continue refraining. But, if you want, any feedback on my page set up for continuing the work of improving this article would be appreciated. You understand Wikipedia policy, and have demonstrated a competent perspective on appropriate presentation and verification. Despite my intention of working to improve this article, we both know feedback you offer on this sub-user page could be construed one way or another regarding the current dispute. Hence, if you decline my invitation it is understandable. Regardless, whether you like it or hate it, perhaps something in my editing will offer ideas for later editing to improve the Wikipedia article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Duffer: Since you have a copy of Beduhn’s Truth in Translation book, would you consider scanning a page or two and emailing them to me? I found a quotation online from Beduhn’s work from his Chapter 11 stating of John 1:1:

"Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god." "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs. Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek" "Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John."

If this quotation is accurate and contextually saying what it appears to say (i.e., that the NWT’s rendering of “a god” at John 1:1 may or may not have come from bias but regardless it is more accurate as a translation) then it has a place in the NWT article I am working to improve. Specifically the place it would hold is as a counterview to what Bruce Metzger says on the matter. The NWT article deserves both perspectives. If you could locate, scan and email this page to me for corroboration it would be most appreciated.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Marvin. I do not have immediate access to a scanner but I can verify the quotes for you, and provide full context. What you have quoted above is a mish-mash of Beduhn quotes:
Truth In Translation (ch. 11, pg. 124): "Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god." The translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text of John 1:1 already and believing certain things about the Word, certain creedal simplifications of John's characterization of the Word, and made sure that the translation came out in accordance with their beliefs. Their bias was strengthened by the cultural dominance of the familiar KJV translation which, ringing in their ears, caused them to see "God" where John was speaking more subtly of "a god" or "a divine being." Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the most obvious sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."
The last couple of sentences you quotes above are found a few pages away:
Truth In Translation (ch. 11, pg. 129): "Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John. John is not describing something like the Hindu concept of an avatar, such as when the god Vishnu is thought to periodically take a mortal form to accomplish things on earth. John is careful to say that what incarnates is the logos, something that was "with," "near," and "in the bosom" of God (the Father)."
Also, Beduhn directly speaks about Metzgers comments in the same chapter:
Truth In Translation (ch. 11, pg. 120): "As flawed as the original "Colwell's Rule" is, it has been made worse by misrepresentation down through the years. Notice that, according to Colwell, his "rule" allows him to explain why a noun that you already know (somehow) to be definite turns up sometimes without the definite article. The "rule" does nothing to allow you to determine that a noun is, or is not, definite. Even if "Colwell's Rule" were true, it would at most allow the possibility that an article-less predicate nominative before a verb is definite. It could never prove that the word is definite. But since the rule leaves no way to distinguish between a definite and indefinite predicate nominative before a verb, many have mistaken it as making all pre-verb predicate nominatives definite.
So Bruce Metzger mistakenly writes that "Colwell's Rule" "necessitates the rendering '..and the Word was God'" (Metzger 1953, page 75). Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht, in their book So Many Versions? Twentieth-century English Versions of the Bible, say "It is true that the Greek does not have the article before 'God' here. However, since in this verse in Greek theos (God) is a predicate noun and precedes the verb and subject, it is definite, since a definite predicate noun when it precedes the verb never takes an article in Greek" (Kubo and Specht, page 99). Even Colwell recorded fifteen examples from the New Testament that go against Kubo and Specht's "never." Since many Bible readers rely on the opinions of people like Metzger, Kubo, and Specht, it is easy to understand why the public remains ill-informed about assessing Bible translations."
I hope that helps you. Duffer (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Duffer. What your provided helps. I just had my library secure a copy of BeDuhn's book for my review. I should have it soon. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox NWT Critical Review Section

Duffer, from your perspective I would appreciate an opinion of my sandbox NWT article’s Critical Review section.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)