Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures/Archive 4

message: I think the point in question could be summarized like this: Critics of the New World Translation argue that deviations from single-word for word translating by the NWT translators was done in such a way so as to support their beliefs, whereas the translators believe that the research done to come to this translation was decades in the making and was the source of their beliefs; this translation stands as a reflection of that research. - CobaltBlueTony 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do the critics "argue" but the defenders "believe"? This implies one is more sincere than the other. Perhaps we should say that the translators "assert". Merecat 06:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Merecat. joshbuddy 06:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost

message: I didn't think versions of the Septuagint that were used by first century christians would have had the Tetragrammaton in it. From what I understood, the very few that did were in a different place and time. (Two centuries earlier) joshbuddytalk 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Septuagint & Tetragrammaton 

message: I have archived most of this talk page because it was really long. You can read the old stuff at the top.whicky1978 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: This paragraph was removed by  :
:"Critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation argue that the new translation was commissioned not so much to bring the language up to modern use but to remove the strongest evidence of the deity of Jesus Christ from the Christian Scriptures. For this and many other reasons they contend that it was designed specifically to support Jehovah's Witnesses' theology and doctrine."
I agree with its removal, but on the basis of its lacking any reference or sourcing.  If someone wants to restore it, please provide the needed reference/source for this statement of established views, or discuss further here. - CobaltBlueTony 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph removed 

message: I will work to combine the two editions of this page and from there we can add and take away.  Hopefully this will stop the nonsense.Johanneum 00:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are dealing with anonymous vandals (possibly all the same person), who use false edit summaries, refuse all discussion and throw away many days of neutral edits at a time. There's no point in trying to compromise with this behaviour. In any case, I can't work out what you're proposing: there have been so many changes that it's hard to keep track. – Smyth\talk 10:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try asking an admin for semi-protection, any users who have registered in the last 4 days will not be able to vandalise the page, I think that IP addresses are also blocked. Ansell 11:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't revert or I will be accused of 3RR myself, however, I agree that the missing part of the paragraph has useful information and should be ressurected by another user, thus confirming the consensus for at least that part of the article being changed. Ansell 23:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting back and forth

message: It appears the dispute tag could be removed and movement toward concensus reinstated. I am going to pull it. Feel free to reinsert if I am incorrect.
George 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Tag

message: It would be nice to see some Supportive sources that aren't written by Witnesses.--Jeffro77 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't exist.  Evangelical scholars largely stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA" after spending a few minutes with Stafford.  Duffer 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the ad hominem response?--Jeffro77 08:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supportive sources

message: While commendable the contributors for their time and their efforts, my subjective opinion is that the article they created tends to be out of subject. Instead of giving enough information about the concept of the NW project as regards its language and the features of its editions (especially the Reference Bible and the Interlinear), it focuses too much on the use of the Divine Name and the rendering of stauros, while both subjects should be analyzed in different articles and not in this one. Of course, the use of Divine Name in NT and the rendering "torture stake" have caused much controversy, but they are not conclusive about the quality or the style of the NW. Any serious scholar would estimate the translation as a whole, and not only by judging the rendering of two or three words. So initially we intended to translate the English article into the Greek Wikipedia, but soon we preferred to make a new one, which, according to our opinion, would help the reader to understand what the NW really is as a linguistic project, a translation that helps even the unscholarly reader to communicate as much as possible with the original text of the Holy Scriptures.
With respect,
--Vassilis78 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of subject 

message: I don't think that a table listing each and every langauge that the NWT has been translated into is really necessary. It is sufficient to say that it has been translated into 62 languages. At the most the languages could be included in a footnote. Including it in the article, especially considering that it is such a long list, doesn't really help the reader. I guess I am saying it is not notable. BenC7 08:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am tending to agree with the notion that the list, especially in table form, is not truly beneficial to the article, but someone else doesn't seem to "get" how Wikipedia works and has reverted my placing of it in footnotes again.  Not in the mood to get into a 3RR, especially with someone who could be my brother/sister, so a little help in communicating with this individual would be beneficial for civility and smooth editing. - CobaltBlueTony 16:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages table 

message: I'm worried that the current revision of the article seems to present a biased, Jehovah's Witness view, about what "stauros" meant, stating that it is a fact that stauros did not refer to the cross, but I'm sure there are many scholars who would disagree. This will have to change for an NPOV artice.
Also the usage of the "Cross and Crown" symbol by Jehovah's Witnesses should probably be mentioned somewhere. Theusername 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are. Thanks for pointing it out. I have pulled the whole section, as it was inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. BenC7 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cross