LinuxWorld Editorial Machinations

James Turner writes "The editors of LinuxWorld Magazine have been fighting a quiet war with the publishers (Sys-Con Media) for half a year, trying to get hack-journalist Maureen O'Gara purged from their site. Well, with O'Gara's recent vile attack on Pamela Jones (which I won't give any more free publicity by linking to), enough is finally enough. In my latest blog, I've basically told Sys-Con that it's either her or me. I suspect, given the amount of page views O'Gara's tripe brings to the Sys-Con sites, that they'll choose her." James isn't the only one either.

Comments

[ot] JW's own bible.

[Proteus]

I have several JW friends. What impresses me about their religion is that most of them remain pretty calm and well-reasoned in the face of some pretty crappy things written about them. There's a lot of trash on the 'net about JW's, and most seem to just shrug it off and take it in stride.

Yes, they do have their own version of the bible, but I was impressed to note that much of their literature cites many different translations. They also are actively encouraged to seek out other viewpoints and Bible translations -- they even publish a bible translation that is "their" version with annotations on where major translations differ, and why the translators chose that particular phrasing. In this way, they are really no different than Catholics, who also have "their" version of the bible.

Their worldview might be a little odd, but it isn't like it's a result of just making crap up: there is evidence of a fair amount of scholarly work behind their decisions.

I knew most of the smear on the Internet was bunk the moment I told a JW (now a friend) that I was pagan and they went "Oh! I've always been curious about the neo-pagan movement." We had a great conversation, and at no time did they try to convert me. This seems to be the more common experience (at least for me) than the common representation.

Re:[ot] JW's own bible.

[Proteus]

*sigh*, I've heard this response before. Why does this stuff always come up, and why do people insist on demonstrating a lack of scholarship?

1. Jehovah's witnesses do *not* have their own 'version' of the bible.
   Actually, they do. The "New World Translation" is a biblical translation made by a committee of individuals with direct ties to the JW organization. Much original source material is included, and it is considered a scholarly translation by many; however, the rights to this translation are held exclusively by JWs, and it is their official translation. Additionally, there are many deviations from other well-accepted scholarly translations of the Bible which lead many theologians to suspect some bias. (Note: there is *always* bias in translation).
2. The name of God is in the bible numerous times, assuming of course that you look at the original texts, and not in the King James and subsequent revisions, which have progressivly fewer instances of God's name in them.
   Many translations of the Bible have a name of God in place of the tetragrammaton. JWs are so proud of the fact that their translation uses one of the accepted derivatives, but often know very little about why most older translations do not include a pronuciation of God's name: the correct pronunciation is lost to us, as the Jewish tradition long held that it was too holy to pronounce. The translators of older versions often felt that it was better to merely replace references to the tetragrammaton with GOD or LORD so as to avoid calling God by the wrong name, which is sensible from a theological point of view.
3. Strangely enough, that name is JEHOVAH.
   That is one of many possible alternatives for the tetragrammaton, but is not the only or most-accepted version. Also, most people who have studied Christian history know that to be the common English transliteration of the tetragrammaton. As to the question of why it was removed, one needn't wonder: one only needs to do a spot of research. Hint: it isn't some Church plot to blot out the name of God.
4. Perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses have aren't so bad, eh? After all at least they know how to address God using His name.
   Some would say that they are a bit disrespectful in thinking that they have revealed truth from the Almighty, and scorning those who believe that they don't know the true name of God, and feel -- legitimately -- that it is disrespectful to call God by a name that men have derived from guessing at the meaning of the tetragrammaton.
5. I any case the most significant difference between the New World translation and the King James, apart from the lack of antiquated language, is the inclusion of God's name where it exists in the original text.
   Firstly, this comparison to the KJV is tiring: almost no one uses it anymore, and it's pretty well-acknowledged as an outdated and inaccurate translation of a latin text. Secondly, the KJV isn't in "antiquated" language: it's still modern English. Finally, none of that changes the fact that there are significant scholarly disagreements among Bible scholars regarding choices of translation in the NWT. The NWT translators regularly refuse to participate in ecumenical discussions, which reinforces (but, I'm aware, doesn't prove) the idea that biases in the translation are deliberate.