Evolution - A serious question.

[babe]

There is no clearer signal that they hav absolutely no idea what they're talking about and it is safe to disregard anything else they might say, than a post like this.

If one is talking about any group of distinct ape species larger than chimpanzees/bonobos, any common ancestors they have would include our ancestors. We are more recently related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas, we are more recently related to gorillas than gorillas are to orangutans, and we are more recently related to orangutans than orangutans are to gibbons.

It is as correct, and as incorrect, to say humans descended from apes as it is to say chimpanzees descended from apes. We are apes, present tense.

Ever just sit and watch animals?

Cows are the true Gods. It might take science a thousand years to catch up with our earliest and most successful human religion, but catch up it will.

Apes are idiots uttering unintelligible "white noise", cackles, hoots, hollers, and grunts.

Cows speak clearly, and with purpose.

Moooooo. . . . .

I rest my case.

 

[One Brow]

I thought it would take another shooting of an "unarmed" black person to get him back. Hooray -- #OneBrowMatters

Most black people who are shot have both arms.

I will not be posting regularly, but will do so occaxsionally. Meatspace has gotten very busy.

 

[moevillini]

Meatspace???


...something tells me it's all happening at the zoo, I do believe, I do believe it's true...
Monkeys stand for honesty, giraffes are insincere, and elephants are kindly but they're dumb...


^ that's for Babe

 

[carolinajazz]

i wanna be absolutely sure about how and what i say.
only thing i can say with absolute certainty for now is:
1.the 1000 generations meaning 974 lost onese.
2.dinosaur's are mentioned in old testament.
in genesis 1:21 there is stated that the giant "tanin" where created. we dont hear the hebrew word tanin anymore until exodus something something about Moses/pharaohs henchmen staf turning into "tanin" which by now is accepted as snake/reptiles. so giant "tanin" refers to giant reptiles. thats old testament alone. in the talmud there is some more elaboration on what they where and where they "disappeared" too.
3.if you look at order of which things came first in genesis i think it was aquatic animals, land animals, mammals and humans
(might have forgotten a step in there) it is the same sequence as described by evolution. maybe i was a well informed guess or just plain luck.

#dontwannahearaboutdammemails

Since you want to "be absolutely sure about how and what you say", then let's get started! First of all, it's not the "Old Testament" it's the Hebrew scriptures! Why that "correction?" The Sacred Scriptures, as a collection from Genesis to Revelation, form one complete book, one complete library, all inspired by the one Supreme Author. They should not be divided into two parts, so that one part is given less value. The Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures are essential to each other. The latter supplements the former to make the one complete book of divine truth. The 66 Bible books, all together, form the one library of the Holy Scriptures.—Rom. 15:4.
Hence, there is no valid basis for the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures to be called the “Old Testament” and for the Christian Greek Scriptures to be called the “New Testament.” Jesus Christ himself referred to the collection of sacred writings as “the Scriptures.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Joh 5:39) The apostle Paul referred to them as “the holy Scriptures,” “the Scriptures,” and “the holy writings.”—Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15.
Therefore, in harmony with these inspired utterances, if you want to be "absolutely correct" you should refer to the Old Testament as the Hebrew Scriptures because that portion of the Bible was originally written mainly in Hebrew....and you should refer to the so-called New Testament as the Greek Scriptures, for the Greek language was used by men who were inspired by God to write that part of the Bible.

Point #2) Some dinosaurs (and pterosaurs) may indeed have been created in the fifth era listed in Genesis, when the Bible says that God made “flying creatures” and “great sea monsters.” Perhaps other types of dinosaurs were created in the sixth epoch. The vast array of dinosaurs with their huge appetites would have been appropriate considering the abundant vegetation that evidently existed in their time.—Genesis 1:20-24.

When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time. They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.

Point 3) Modern genetic research is moving toward the conclusion stated in the Bible long ago. The "order" of which things first came into existence, scientists have taken note of as presented in Genesis. For example, noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

So, Dutchman....I hope this helps clarify some things further in your mind!

 

[♪alt13]

Since you want to "be absolutely sure about how and what you say", then let's get started! First of all, it's not the "Old Testament" it's the Hebrew scriptures! Why that "correction?" The Sacred Scriptures, as a collection from Genesis to Revelation, form one complete book, one complete library, all inspired by the one Supreme Author.

The "Supreme Author" sure does have a weak *** library. I've got more books than that in my window sill. **** my library card grants me access to a rather impressive collection for free. If I had access to just 66 books and had to tithe after I read them I'd be like "umm, rip off". Srsly the SLC Mayor has pwned your god. Way more books, way less hassle.

 

[Red]

"When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time. They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God."

Huh?? Not all dinosaurs went extinct. Some dinosaurs still exist. I had a flock of them on my lawn this afternoon. They're known as birds, and they are a branch of dinosaurs, basically. Here is one of the more recently discovered feathered dinosaurs from China:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/feathered-dinosaur-bird-wings-discovered-china/story?id=32517806

The connection between dinosaurs and avians is pretty clear by now. Dinosaurs did not disappear "leaving no connecting fossil links".

No link?? Birds are avian dinosaurs:

https://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

 

[Bronco70]

The Sacred Scriptures, as a collection from Genesis to Revelation, form one complete book, one complete library, all inspired by the one Supreme Author.

Is God the inspiration, or the author? For the record, I believe the Old Testament (yep) to be true, in the sense that I believe it to be an authentic written record of the oral traditions of ancient Hebrews.

Lots of good stuff in there, but it has man's fingerprints all over it.

Point 3) Modern genetic research is moving toward the conclusion stated in the Bible long ago. The "order" of which things first came into existence, scientists have taken note of as presented in Genesis. For example, noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

What I read: If I took what science knows, and presented it in the simplest terms, so that anyone could understand, it could pretty much sound like the Biblical account of creation.

So science is right. Awesome.

My .02, and not even worth that.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Is God the inspiration, or the author? For the record, I believe the Old Testament (yep) to be true, in the sense that I believe it to be an authentic written record of the oral traditions of ancient Hebrews.

Lots of good stuff in there, but it has man's fingerprints all over it.



What I read: If I took what science knows, and presented it in the simplest terms, so that anyone could understand, it could pretty much sound like the Biblical account of creation.

So science is right. Awesome.

My .02, and not even worth that.

for once i almost agree. but i think translating it over the years is what mans fingerprints are. in the original language it is pure and more inline with science.
for example it does not state 2nd day 3rd day etc.
translators put that in.
also the talmud is the "oral torah"

 

[DutchJazzer]

i know my English is bad, my Hebrew is a bit better.
but lets look at genesis.
the first mention of a "day" in genesis 1:5 there are different translation: https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-5.htm.
i can pick anyone of those english translation:

God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
(new international translation)

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
(king james)bible

now there is no mention of the sun until genesis 1:14-1:16 (what people call 4th day)

And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

.
so if you read this in English translated from Hebrew there was day night before day 4. 4 days passed before the sun was created.
yet every "day"
started with
there was evening and there was morning the 2nd day
there was evening and there was morning the 3rd day
there was evening and there was morning the 4th day(supposedly sun moon and stars got created on that day).

see the problem, this problem is easily solved morning and evening are actually wrongly translated from hebrew. what actually is said =
ORDER and CHAOS
so every time there was evening there was morning day 2
what it says is something like from CHAOS and then ORDER "day 2"
from Adam on the clock starts on a different time line(24 hour day)
before Adam the 6 days god created earth are not 6 days we know.

so yes the old testament has man fingerprints on it, finger prints of their interpretation/translation


edit: this issue was arisen long before big bang, Einstein and all this evolution/big bang stuff became science one of the notable people on this is a Rabi called Rambat, long before these things became science.
it is not like evolution and big bang became prove religious "nuts" scrambled and reinterpreted the bible. no this was before all these theories came out

 

[carolinajazz]

Huh?? Not all dinosaurs went extinct. Some dinosaurs still exist. I had a flock of them on my lawn this afternoon. They're known as birds, and they are a branch of dinosaurs, basically.


The connection between dinosaurs and avians is pretty clear by now. Dinosaurs did not disappear "leaving no connecting fossil links".

No link?? Birds are avian dinosaurs:

Definition of DINOSAUR: Any of a group of extinct often very large mostly land-dwelling reptiles that lived millions of years ago.

...sorry to burst your bubble, there Red...but those "hummingbirds" in your yard are NOT Dinosaurs! So unless you have a Jurassic Park in your yard, your thinking is WAY OFF base! And as far as birds being "avian" dinosaurs, you might as well believe that the closest living relatives to man are houseflies! Or that Butterflies evolved from Rhinoceros! You can believe what you want....but all the combined powers of OBSERVATION, COMPARISON, DEDUCTION, REASON & LOGIC put together with the ACTUAL EVIDENCE prove otherwise!!!

 

[carolinajazz]

i know my English is bad, my Hebrew is a bit better.
but lets look at genesis.
the first mention of a "day" in genesis 1:5 there are different translation: https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-5.htm.
i can pick anyone of those english translation:



now there is no mention of the sun until genesis 1:14-1:16 (what people call 4th day)


.
so if you read this in English translated from Hebrew there was day night before day 4. 4 days passed before the sun was created.
yet every "day"
started with
there was evening and there was morning the 2nd day
there was evening and there was morning the 3rd day
there was evening and there was morning the 4th day(supposedly sun moon and stars got created on that day).

see the problem, this problem is easily solved morning and evening are actually wrongly translated from hebrew. what actually is said =
ORDER and CHAOS
so every time there was evening there was morning day 2
what it says is something like from CHAOS and then ORDER "day 2"
from Adam on the clock starts on a different time line(24 hour day)
before Adam the 6 days god created earth are not 6 days we know.

so yes the old testament has man fingerprints on it, finger prints of their interpretation/translation


edit: this issue was arisen long before big bang, Einstein and all this evolution/big bang stuff became science one of the notable people on this is a Rabi called Rambat, long before these things became science.
it is not like evolution and big bang became prove religious "nuts" scrambled and reinterpreted the bible. no this was before all these theories came out

First “Day”
“‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3,*5.

Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.

Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J.*W.*Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse*3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.

Fourth “Day”
“‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is*’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohrʹ, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3,*’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohrʹ in verse*14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.

Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.

Thus the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

 

[Red]

Definition of DINOSAUR: Any of a group of extinct often very large mostly land-dwelling reptiles that lived millions of years ago.

...sorry to burst your bubble, there Red...but those "hummingbirds" in your yard are NOT Dinosaurs! So unless you have a Jurassic Park in your yard, your thinking is WAY OFF base! And as far as birds being "avian" dinosaurs, you might as well believe that the closest living relatives to man are houseflies! Or that Butterflies evolved from Rhinoceros! You can believe what you want....but all the combined powers of OBSERVATION, COMPARISON, DEDUCTION, REASON & LOGIC put together with the ACTUAL EVIDENCE prove otherwise!!!

The fact that birds are dinosaurs is now indisputable. Heck, just compare an ostrich to any raptor, and you can see the relationship clearly. Now, thanks to very well preserved fossils, it's proven beyond any doubt. You can believe any half baked nonsense you want, but tell that nonsense to any paleontologist in the 21st century, and they will bring you up to speed. BIRDS ARE AVIAN DINOSAURS, whether you like it or not. Your opinion does not overturn the facts. Nice try, but try to stay out of education as a profession, lol. Don't feel sorry about disappointing me. I know what I'm talking about. You're basically clueless. Just tell the scientists who know full well birds are the sole surviving branch of dinosaurs. See how far you get, lol....

Try not to get a headache, now....

https://www.nhm.org/site/research-c...tute/dinosaurs/birds-late-evolution-dinosaurs

"Recently, fossils of early birds and their most immediate predecessors have been collected at an unprecedented rate from Mesozoic-aged rocks worldwide. This wealth of new fossils has settled the century-old controversy of the origin of birds. Today, we can safely declare that birds evolved from a group of dinosaurs known as maniraptoran theropods-generally small meat-eating dinosaurs that include Velociraptor of Jurassic Park fame."

 

[carolinajazz]

Here's a good one for you pseudo-intellectual evolutionists!

"Human fist evolved to punch, new study says!"

https://www.latimes.com/science/sci...punching-evolution-males--20151021-story.html

...but the REAL truth? The human hand with its opposable thumb is a remarkably versatile tool. Without the hand, how would you write a letter, take a photograph, hammer a nail, use a telephone, or thread a needle? Thanks to the hand, pianists play exquisite pieces, artists paint beautiful pictures, and surgeons perform delicate operations. “The apes, having short thumbs and long fingers, are handicapped in relation to delicate manual dexterity,” states The New Encyclopaedia Britannica.

There is another important difference between the hand of a man and that of an ape. About a quarter of the motor cortex in the human brain is devoted to the muscles of your hands. The human motor cortex, explains Professor Guyton’s Textbook of Medical Physiology, “is quite different from that of lower animals” and makes possible “an exceptional capability to use the hand, the fingers, and the thumb to perform highly dexterous manual tasks.”

In addition, neurosurgeons have discovered another region of the human brain that they call “an area for hand skills.” Skillful hands require sense receptors. These tiny nerve endings are abundant in the human hand, especially in the thumb. A doctor interviewed by Awake! said: “When people lose even a bit of sensation from the tip of their thumb, they find it difficult to position small objects like screws.” Your arms have other types of sense receptors that enable you to move your hands to the right place even in pitch-darkness. Thus, while lying in bed at night, you can scratch your nose without punching your face.

No wonder the human hand has caused thinking people to marvel! “In the absence of any other proof,” wrote the famous scientist Sir Isaac Newton, “the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.” “We can land men on the moon,” says Professor Napier, “but, for all our mechanical and electronic wizardry, we cannot reproduce an artificial fore-finger that can feel as well as beckon.” Man’s hand, states The New Encyclopædia Britannica, is probably “the most elegantly skillful biological organ” and one that “distinguishes him from all other living primates.”

 

[carolinajazz]

The Human Hand!

Our hands are beautiful instruments of amazing precision. With them we can thread a needle or swing an ax, paint a portrait or play the piano. Our hands are also highly sensitive. Even a brief touch may reveal whether a substance is fur, paper, skin, metal, water, or wood. Yes, our hands are much more than implements for grasping and manipulation. They are also a source of knowledge about our world. And they are a means of conveying warmth and affection.

Why is the human hand so adept, so expressive, so sensitive, and so versatile? The reasons are many. Consider four.

1. Our two hands have a total of more than 50 bones, about a quarter of all the bones in the body. The intricate assembly of the parts of the hand—the bones, the joints, the ligaments—gives the human hand extraordinary flexibility.

2. The hand has an opposable thumb mounted on a saddle joint, an ingenious configuration of two saddle-shaped surfaces at right angles to each other. This joint, along with the associated muscles and other tissues, gives the thumb amazing flexibility and strength.

3. Three sets of muscles control the hand. The two most powerful sets—the extensors and the flexors—are in the forearm and operate the fingers by means of tendons. How bulky and unwieldy the hand would be if these muscles were located in it! The third set, much smaller, which does lie within the hand, gives the fingers precision of movement.

4. Your fingers are, in effect, living sensors—the fingertips having about 2,500 receptors in just one sixth of a square inch (1 sq*cm). Moreover, the receptors are varied, each kind having its own function, enabling you to feel texture, temperature, wetness, vibration, pressure, and pain. As a result, the human finger is the most sensitive touch sensor known.

So what do you think...mindless "evolution"....or exquisite "design"?

 

[DutchJazzer]

First “Day”
“‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3,*5.blah blah blah.........

see thats where your wrong ur using a wrong translation interpetation

 

[One Brow]

The Human Hand!

Why is the human hand so adept, so expressive, so sensitive, and so versatile?

Becasue compared to other apes, humans are weaklings, and one of the adaptations we developed in response was better use of our hands.

So what do you think...mindless "evolution"....or exquisite "design"?

Mindless evolution, without question.

 

[Bronco70]

Serious question for carolinajazz:

Have you considered the possibility that God uses the same science we do? The same physics, the same biology, the same everything. The difference? We are still learning how it all works. We are constantly discovering new things, while God already knows it, and uses it to do what He does.

The more I learn about the Big Bang, and admittedly I know precious little, the more and more it makes sense to me as a process for God to create what He creates.

So then I wonder, why do God and science have to be mutually exclusive? The only answer I can come up with is the assumption that the Biblical account of the creation must be taken literally. The Bible doesn't specifically mention anti-matter, or the Higgs boson, or any of that, so it must not apply.

You think that maybe it's portrayed the way it is to make it easy for simple humans to understand? IIRC, you posted something that contained a quote from a "respected geologist" that pretty much asserted just that.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Serious question for carolinajazz:

Have you considered the possibility that God uses the same science we do? The same physics, the same biology, the same everything. The difference? We are still learning how it all works. We are constantly discovering new things, while God already knows it, and uses it to do what He does.

The more I learn about the Big Bang, and admittedly I know precious little, the more and more it makes sense to me as a process for God to create what He creates.

So then I wonder, why do God and science have to be mutually exclusive? The only answer I can come up with is the assumption that the Biblical account of the creation must be taken literally. The Bible doesn't specifically mention anti-matter, or the Higgs boson, or any of that, so it must not apply.

You think that maybe it's portrayed the way it is to make it easy for simple humans to understand? IIRC, you posted something that contained a quote from a "respected geologist" that pretty much asserted just that.

only idiots and uninformed people like neil degrasse tyson thinks science and religion are mutually exclusive.

 

[Red]

Serious question for carolinajazz:

Have you considered the possibility that God uses the same science we do? The same physics, the same biology, the same everything. The difference? We are still learning how it all works. We are constantly discovering new things, while God already knows it, and uses it to do what He does.

The more I learn about the Big Bang, and admittedly I know precious little, the more and more it makes sense to me as a process for God to create what He creates.

So then I wonder, why do God and science have to be mutually exclusive? The only answer I can come up with is the assumption that the Biblical account of the creation must be taken literally. The Bible doesn't specifically mention anti-matter, or the Higgs boson, or any of that, so it must not apply.

You think that maybe it's portrayed the way it is to make it easy for simple humans to understand? IIRC, you posted something that contained a quote from a "respected geologist" that pretty much asserted just that.

Consciousness studies may be the frontier that bridges science and spirituality. There has been a school of modern physics somewhat enamored with core ideas at the heart of some Eastern mystical traditions. Standing in the way of a further fruition of consciousness studies is Scientism and the dogma of scientific materialism. The observer effect demonstrated by quantum physics, that the act of observation precipitates events, is probably the one insight most responsible for the emerging view that consciousness itself might precede matter, and that in turn is bringing quantum physics closer to the world revealed by the world's mystics through the ages.

Here is an example of a quantum physicist attempting to arrive at a synthesis that is about as far removed from scientific materialism as it gets. I won't judge him. But there is an element of abstraction involved that can seem more divorced from reality then the ravings of a madman, or an ivory towered professor. Still, a good example of how consciousness studies as seen through the lens of a physicist is out there these days.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqdcdky9wR4

And a manifesto basically calling for a less materialist dominated paradigm:

https://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science

 

[carolinajazz]

see thats where your wrong ur using a wrong translation interpetation

...I'm using the most accurate and well respected translation available! The English edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, was prepared directly from the original languages by an anonymous committee. This version, in turn, has been the primary text used for translations into about 60 other languages. Translators for those languages did, however, make extensive comparisons with the original-language text. The New World Translation aims for a literal rendering of the original-language text whenever such a rendering would not hide its meaning. The translators seek to make the Bible as understandable to readers today as the original text was to readers in Bible times.

Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations—including the New World Translation—for examples of inaccuracy and bias. One such scholar is Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States. In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.” His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, for that is where “bias is most likely to interfere with translation.” For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. What is his assessment?

BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation.” BeDuhn says that this version “emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” He calls it a “remarkably good” translation.

Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation. In 1989 he said: “This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”