Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures/Archive 1

message: I am expanding the article on the New World Translation and I would like to explain why I have removed the 'controversial verses' section from the article.  
First of all, let me state that I am in no way disputing that there are critics of the New World Translation who believe, strongly and sincerely, that the New World Translation errs in the verses cited as well as others.  There are also Jehovah's Witnesses who maintain - with equal sincerity and conviction - that the New World translation renderings are justified.   Both sides could explain in detail the reasons for their arguments, but such information would simply add a lot of unnecessary information to the page.  
If the list of verses remains in the article, doubtless numerous Jehovah's Witnesses will feel obliged to publish lengthy defences of the NWT renderings - basically a pointless exercise, when all such 'information' amounts to is basically opinions, arguments and counter-arguments that can readily be found on dozens of web pages already.
I looked at other articles on Wikipedia about other Bible translations (King James Version, New International Version, New American Standard, etc) and did not find similar lists.  This could hardly be due to lack of controversy, as some supporters of the KJV have extensive webpages devoted to what they consider to be errors in the NIV, and, I assume, vice versa.  
An encyclopedia article is not the place to go into detail about the specific renderings employed by a particular translation.  
I am not suggesting for a moment that the article should hide the fact that the NWT has its critics, nor that the article should be a one-sided tribute to the translation.   I believe the present revision makes that clear.
The article already has a link to a site defending the New World Translation.  How about simply adding a link to a site critical of the translation?  I have left a space for one.
------------
I disagree that there isn't a place for some brief information of this sort. The nature of the translation and the issues that surround it, is a perfectly valid point of information. The list doesn't argue pro or con whether they are correct or valid renderings, only that they are an example of the kind things that surround the controversy of the translation.
I also disagree that other bible versions don't, or shouldn't have, information on the kinds of issues that surround them. For example even the overly-brief article on the Today's New International Version has examples of gender neutral language in the translation, which is appropriate because gender neutrality is the controversy that surrounds that translation. It also discusses the issue of politically correct Jewish renderings. (BTW, I didn't write this article, but who knows I may expand it)
Similarly, the article on the King James mentions that the ecclesiastical words were to be kept, bishop etc, and this section in the King James needs to be expanded. The King James also has examples of verses discussing the style - because style is one of the issues that people talk about when they talk about the King James.
Most of the other versions don't have this kind of information, simply because nobody has bothered yet.
I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses _should_ feel the need to argue these verses in the article. Nobody has to argue that they are wrong, and nobody needs to argue that they are right. The only point is to mention the kind of controversies that (face it we all know) surround the translation. It's only a starting point for the reader to conduct their own investigation.
Is it really good scholarship to merely say that there is controversy, without mentioning what the issues are? What if there was an article on the Council of Nicea but didn't list the issues? What if there was an article on the biblical canon without listing the issues? Will the article on the Textus Receptus really be complete until somebody mention Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum?
Chrisbitmead 04:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Talk Content

message: I think that the Catholic church doesn't authorize using this version for religious purposes or something.
Could you confirm?
Most Catholics would be more comfortable with a version that included all of the Deuterocanonical books accepted by the Church than any "Protestant" version.  While Witnesses are not "Protestants", it is likely that most outside of the group would perceive them, and their verison of the Bible, such.
Rlquall 22:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic

message: Why was it necessary to edit "Yankee Stadium" into "the Stadium"?  There is no structure in NYC called "the Stadium".  Was it at Yankee Stadium, or not?  If it was at Yankee Stadium, then it is imperteinent whether the editor likes or appreciates the name, that's what the place is called.  If it was at another stadium, please give its name.  Also, what was wrong with the term "single-volume", if the work was produced at first in phases, then all put together between two covers?  Would not the proper term be "single-volume"?  Everyone should always feel free to neutralzie POV and correct factual errors; however no good purpose is served by making things deliberately vague.
Rlquall 13:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem with history? 

message: I realize that both the educational level and intelligence level of most Wikipedia readers and users is quite high, but does the last edit of this article go beyond the idea of an encyclopedia article for the general user?  Would some brief summary and links to the apppropriate Web sites serve most users better?  The English-language Wikipedia is probably not the best place for an in-depth discussion of transliterated Greek declintions.
Rlquall 11:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical? 

message: This article is biased to Anti-JW view. Someone erased JW view. This article must be changed. Rantaro 11:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV dispute