"Bearing Thorough Witness" book and Jason David BeDuhn quotes

The BeDuhn book, Truth in Translation, finally arrived today at the office.  Here's a comparison with what the faithful slave says and not even the half of what BeDuhn says:

Bearing Thorough Witness About God's Kingdom, box on page 105:

'Jehovah's Witnesses Build Their Beliefs on the Bible'

"As amply demonstrated in the case of the early Christian congregation, the history of true worship is a record of progressive spiritual enlightenment. (Prov. 4:18; Dan. 12:4, 9, 10; Acts 15:7-9) Today, too, Jehovah's people adjust their beliefs to conform to revealed truth; they do not force the Scriptures to fit their views. Impartial observers have recognized this fact. In his book Truth in Translation, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, wrote that Jehovah's Witnesses approach the Bible "with a kind of innocence, and [build] their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there."

Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason David BeDuhn, page 165:

"This movement [Jehovah's Witnesses] has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to reinvent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there."

Also on page 165:

"I have identified a handful of examples of bias in the N[ew] W[orld Translation], where in my opinion accuracy was impaired by the commitments of the translators...The NW and NAB are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are remarkably good translations."

Page 169, Appendix: The Use of "Jehovah" in the NW:

"The name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book of the New Testament. So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament, as the NW does two-hundred-thirty-seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text...The NW has "Jehovah" consistently in both its Old and New Testaments, while the other translations consistently have "Lord" in both their Old and New Testaments. Both practices violate accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God."

Page 175, 176:

"The inconsistency of NW translators in not using "Jehovah" in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Peter 2:3, and 1 Peter 3:15 shows that interpretation rather than a principle of translation is involved in deciding where to use "Jehovah."...If in such cases they sometimes use "Jehovah" and sometimes revert to "Lord", then they are interpreting the reference of the biblical author. Once we recognize that interpretation is involved, and see three examples where this interpretation has led the translators not to use "Jehovah", we must wonder if they have been correct to use it in all seventy of those other occurrences...By moving beyond translation of the Greek to an interpretation, the translator ventures from the bedrock of the text to the shifting sands of opinion--and that's a risky move to make...For the NW to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth over its competitors, its translators will have to rethink the handling of these verses, and they may find that that rethinking needs to extend to the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament at all."

The appendix in this book is loaded with clear refutation of any serious basis of using the name Jehovah in the New Testament.  Wish I could scan the whole thing for you all.  But BeDuhn, while he does acknowledge that the NWT is a good translation, is very clear in pointing out that it also has some bias and interpretation/conjecture rather than relying on the original Greek text.  Wish you were here to read it with me.  Fire at will.

SD-7

Once we recognize that interpretation is involved, and see three examples where this interpretation has led the translators not to use "Jehovah", we must wonder if they have been correct to use it in all seventy of those other occurrences...By moving beyond translation of the Greek to an interpretation, the translator ventures from the bedrock of the text to the shifting sands of opinion--and that's a risky move to make...For the NW to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth over its competitors, its translators will have to rethink the handling of these verses, and they may find that that rethinking needs to extend to the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament at all."

This guy does not even begin to understand what he is dealing with in the Watchtower Society.  If he can even imagine "rethinking the handling of these verses" - he is giving them a false sense of intellectual honesty which is practically akin to the idea that dogs practice scientific reason.

Keeping for future reference. Thanks SD-7 V Interesting.

Valid point, there.  They're NOT going to redo the NWT and take Jehovah OUT of the New Testament--that would be akin to apostasy!  People would leave in droves!  Oh, wait, they already are...

SD-7

Interesting but not surprising. Thanks for supplying the reference.

Yes, indeed, very interesting!  Sorry, I didn't check my email today...I was busy doing things to take my mind off of my recent loss...baked a strawberry topped cake and made dinner for a friend's birthday...went out and voted and all but one of my candidates lost.  Oh well, tommorrow's another day!  Will catch up on emails then.  Hope you are well, dear friend.

"This movement [Jehovah's Witnesses] has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to reinvent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there."

Is this guy serious?

Russell built his whole theology upon Millerite millennialism and prophetic speculation. That is why his books were called "Millennial Dawn"

I kind of sense a "be nice to everybody, why can't we all just get along" type of mentality going on here.

You cannot really get along with a religious culture with the social charms of a Tai Pan viper.

Today, too, Jehovah's people adjust their beliefs to conform to revealed truth; they do not force the Scriptures to fit their views. Impartial observers have recognized this fact.

Thankyou SD-7   "Forcing the scriptures to fit their views" was the core of BeDuhn's criticism of the NWT.  Although it might be mild by internet discussion board standards, his appendix on the use of the name, "Jehovah" is blistering by academic standards.

If I recall correctly, Mr.BeDuhn is an ardent proponent AGAINST Christ's divinity, that is why he was so in favour of the NWT translation of John 1:1 as "a god" over the more widelt accepted "God".

The WT likes to quote Jason in regards to some of his views,of course only the VERY SELECTIVE views are quoted by the WT, the rest as shown by sd-7 are NOT mentioned at all, for obvious reasons.

"This movement [Jehovah's Witnesses] has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to reinvent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there."

This shows how IGNORANT Beduhn is about the JWs. Only an idiot would make such a blanket statement in the absence of any evidence to support it.

The entire Russell/JW movement was based on Russell's PREDETERMINED views on Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and Hellfire, and the NWT was created for the simple reason of supporting the movements PRETERMINED anti-Christian views.

If I'd had any respect for Beduhn I would have lost it when I read that statement.