Bible Translations

Originally posted by FMF
If you have read the book then you will know exactly what the appendix says and should not need to ask me.

I am not asking you because I think you have not read it, it was a rhetorical question regarding your ability to comment on an entire book because you claim to have read the appendix. It appears to me that you are simple cherry picking, the reason why you read the appendix and not the entire book you will now tell us.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not asking you because I think you have not read it, it was a rhetorical question regarding your ability to comment on an entire book because you claim to have read the appendix. it appears to me that you are simple cherry picking....

You are accusing me of cherry picking?

I started all this by acknowledging that Jason BeDuhn has positive things to say about the NWT. See page 1.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

You carefully copy pasted a paragraph about Jason BeDuhn from wikipedia. But you didn’t copy paste the entire paragraph which is only 197 words long. Instead, you very deliberately selected 132 words and posted them. The remaining 65 words you omitted. Does this fit your definition of "cherry picking"?

Originally posted by FMF
You are accusing me of cherry picking?

I started all this by acknowledging that Jason BeDuhn has positive things to say about the NWT. See page 1.

you only read the appendix because. . .

Originally posted by FMF
You carefully copy pasted a paragraph about Jason BeDuhn from wikipedia. But you didn’t copy paste the entire paragraph which is only 197 words long. Instead, you very deliberately selected 132 words and posted them. The remaining 65 words you omitted. Does this fit your definition of "cherry picking"?

No because i gave a reference to the entire article and also showed that the translation was not without bias. There was no attempted act of suppression. You on the other hand only read the appendix because it suited your cherry picking purpose didn't you. Ouch.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you only read the appendix because. . .

Having acknowledged and accepted that Jason BeDuhn has written some very positive things about the NWT, I was curious about your behaviour - when this topic cam up in the past - whenever his fundamental criticisms of the accuracy of the translation were mentioned, and by things like how you would copy paste only part of the paragraph about him on the NWT page at wiki. So I sought it out. I still acknowledge and accept that Jason BeDuhn has said some very positive things about the NWT. But I still find your behaviour really odd. But once one reads that appendix, it makes sense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You on the other hand only read the appendix because it suited your cherry picking purpose didn't you.

I read the appendix as a direct result of your cherry picking, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
to avoid religious bias - they cannot therefore make the claim that its our translation that is the reason for the point that we are trying to establish.

So is it safe to say that other translations are the same as NWT, in this case NET? If so, what others do you consider to be on the same level playing field and which of the contemporary versions do you not?

Originally posted by leunammi
So is it safe to say that other translations are the same as NWT, in this case NET? If so, what others do you consider to be on the same level playing field and which of the contemporary versions do you not?

t depends on the base text and on the translators. There is bias in every translation to what extent it exists and why is the interesting thing. Some give different flavours and some give off flavours. 😵

Originally posted by FMF
I read the appendix as a direct result of your cherry picking, robbie.

You are blaming me for your cherry picking, that's hilarious. Are you now going to publicly state that the New world translation was the most accurate translation of all the Bibles that were surveyed, lets hear you say it FMF.

Originally posted by FMF
Having acknowledged and accepted that Jason BeDuhn has written some very positive things about the NWT, I was curious about your behaviour - when this topic cam up in the past - whenever his fundamental criticisms of the accuracy of the translation were mentioned, and by things like how you would copy paste only part of the paragraph about him on the NWT page at ...[text shortened]... T. But I still find your behaviour really odd. But once one reads that appendix, it makes sense.

Fundamental criticism like 'The New World Translation was the most accurate translation', 'a remarkably good translation', agreed 😵

Originally posted by MarshallPrice
I'm aware many people here are Christians, and I'm just curious as to what translation of The Bible you personally read and why.

The REV because of the commentary...
http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/

Pre 1984 NIV
http://thecripplegate.com/farewell-niv/

NKJV
KJV

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are blaming me for your cherry picking, that's hilarious. Are you now going to publicly state that the New world translation was [b]the most accurate translation of all the Bibles that were surveyed, lets hear you say it FMF.[/b]

What other "independent" bible scholars apart from Jason BeDuhn have described the NWT as the most accurate translation of all the Bibles?

Originally posted by MarshallPrice
I'm aware many people here are Christians, and I'm just curious as to what translation of The Bible you personally read and why.

It would be the NWT for many reasons. One reason which is a very important one is that in most bibles the name of God which is Jehovah has been removed from them by almost 7K times. First why would the name of Almighty God be removed in most bibles and even completely removed in some? It actually helps in the formulation of the trinity doctrine, but that's another subject.
Most bibles can be trusted on most levels and used for the spiritual guidance and advancement we all want. But one should ask if it really can be trusted to be truthful on all levels if it removes the name of Almighty God?

Originally posted by FMF
What other "independent" bible scholars apart from Jason BeDuhn have described the NWT as the most accurate translation of all the Bibles?

What other Bible scholars have made an independent study as to the accuracy and bias of Bible translations, none that I know of.