NWT - Vurderet af Eksperterne...................
'
Jeg beklager kære venner , men dette er kun omkring halvdelen, af alle dem der IKKE mener at NWT burde kaldes en bibel...!
Tilsvarende nedenstående:
http://www.docbob.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=31
D.v.s. et lille udsnit af Verdens førende Filologer og Ligvister
Filolog = sørger for at oversættelsen er så tæt på det sprogbrug man brugte da den blev skrevet (Både 1. gang - 2.gang - 3.gang osv)
Lingvist = Den egentlige sprogkyndige oversætter!
Denne tekst sluttes der af med (Undskyld mit mindre gode engelsk, men dette er essensen:
KONKLUSION:
Hr. Jehovas Vidne: Ignorerer man bare disse græsk- Eksperter, og stædigt klamrer jer til en menneske-skabte lærebog udi VAGTTÅRNETS LÆRE, skrevet af mennesker uden lærdom i det Græske sprog og grammatik
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Mr. Jehovah's Witness: Are we to simply ignore these eminent Greek scholars,
and stubbornly cling to the Man-made teachings of the Watchtower, none of
whom had any education to speak of in Greek Grammar?!
Nedenstående er:
Reproduced by The Christian BBS with permission from:
HELP Jesus LOCAL DIST., BOX 2212, STN. R.
KELOWNA, B.C., CANADA V1X 4K6
WHAT GREEK SCHOLARS REALLY THINK!
About the New World's translation : "...the Word was a god."
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own
Kingdom interlinear Translation):
"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete
and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John
1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
///////
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and
Literature):
"A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious"
"reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously,
they are polytheists."
///////
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:
"This anarthrous (used
without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article
'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was
a god.'"
///////
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:
"The Jehovah's Witnesses people
evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their
mistranslation of John 1:1."
///////
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "
I can assure you that the
rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any
reputable Greek scholar."
///////
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:
"I have never heard of, or read
of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this
verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one
of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
///////
Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language):
"The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by
any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation
rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are
not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the
orthodox contention."
///////
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:
"The deliberate
distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations.
John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is
grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can
translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
///////
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:
"Much is made by
Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God'
in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns
in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible."
[Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek
scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
///////
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:
"A definite predicate
nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the
article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as
strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the
confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"
///////
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:
"The verb preceding an
anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a
divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as
a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the
word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."
///////
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:
"No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There
is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in
indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a
trinitarian."
///////
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:
"With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because
the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take
seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible -
The committee worked under him.]
///////
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the
Kingdom Interlinear Translation):
"The predicate (God) stands emphatically
first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of
inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply
affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is
declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
///////
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the
Emphatic Diaglott):
"So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies
of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly
imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and
with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be
called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so
superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators
or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the
truth."
Med venlig hilsen
jalmar
Jeg beklager kære venner , men dette er kun omkring halvdelen, af alle dem der IKKE mener at NWT burde kaldes en bibel...!
Tilsvarende nedenstående:
http://www.docbob.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=31
D.v.s. et lille udsnit af Verdens førende Filologer og Ligvister
Filolog = sørger for at oversættelsen er så tæt på det sprogbrug man brugte da den blev skrevet (Både 1. gang - 2.gang - 3.gang osv)
Lingvist = Den egentlige sprogkyndige oversætter!
Denne tekst sluttes der af med (Undskyld mit mindre gode engelsk, men dette er essensen:
KONKLUSION:
Hr. Jehovas Vidne: Ignorerer man bare disse græsk- Eksperter, og stædigt klamrer jer til en menneske-skabte lærebog udi VAGTTÅRNETS LÆRE, skrevet af mennesker uden lærdom i det Græske sprog og grammatik
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Mr. Jehovah's Witness: Are we to simply ignore these eminent Greek scholars,
and stubbornly cling to the Man-made teachings of the Watchtower, none of
whom had any education to speak of in Greek Grammar?!
Nedenstående er:
Reproduced by The Christian BBS with permission from:
HELP Jesus LOCAL DIST., BOX 2212, STN. R.
KELOWNA, B.C., CANADA V1X 4K6
WHAT GREEK SCHOLARS REALLY THINK!
About the New World's translation : "...the Word was a god."
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own
Kingdom interlinear Translation):
"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete
and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John
1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
///////
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and
Literature):
"A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious"
"reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously,
they are polytheists."
///////
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:
"This anarthrous (used
without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article
'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was
a god.'"
///////
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:
"The Jehovah's Witnesses people
evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their
mistranslation of John 1:1."
///////
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "
I can assure you that the
rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any
reputable Greek scholar."
///////
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:
"I have never heard of, or read
of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this
verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one
of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
///////
Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language):
"The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by
any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation
rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are
not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the
orthodox contention."
///////
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:
"The deliberate
distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations.
John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is
grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can
translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
///////
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:
"Much is made by
Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God'
in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns
in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible."
[Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek
scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
///////
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:
"A definite predicate
nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the
article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as
strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the
confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"
///////
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:
"The verb preceding an
anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a
divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as
a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the
word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."
///////
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:
"No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There
is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in
indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a
trinitarian."
///////
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:
"With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because
the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take
seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible -
The committee worked under him.]
///////
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the
Kingdom Interlinear Translation):
"The predicate (God) stands emphatically
first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of
inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply
affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is
declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
///////
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the
Emphatic Diaglott):
"So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies
of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly
imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and
with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be
called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so
superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators
or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the
truth."
Med venlig hilsen
jalmar