'And they went with haste and found Mary as well as Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger.17 When they saw it, they made known the saying that had been spoken to them concerning this young child'
(Luke 2:16-17 NWT)
On using the word 'it' for the baby Jesus in the NWT; Paidion wrote; 'So does the King James Version, the ESV, RVS, ASV, and Websters translations. The NKJV inserts "him" at this place. Phillips inserts "this sight." Do you condemn all of these translations as well?You can't use the fault (or non fault) of another translation to justify the NWT
I 'did' notice that some other translations use 'it' here, but that makes the case even worse for the NWT (Did they simply plagiarize at this point? Or just find it more acceptable to go along with the KJV?).
The point is that the word 'was added'. The verse would have been sensible and understandable using only 'seen' or 'saw'.
'It' is never a good word to use when writing, as 'it' is easily misunderstood if the subject is not 'really well' defined.
And, as happened here, using 'it' makes it worse, because it allows for the disrespectful interpretation of Jesus as 'the it' (where leaving this as 'seeing / the scene', or sign would have sufficed)
I would say the Phillips Translation is the best here.
(I might also note the Madonna translation on Luke 2:17; 'I saw 'the sign' and 'it' opened up my eyes')
It is interesting that some translations (NIV, NLT, GWT) do jump to the conclusion that what the Shepherds saw was simply a baby, but what the shepherds saw was the 'sign', the sign they were told they would 'see' as told them by the Angels; "A baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger" (See Luke 2:12, 'lying in a manger' is actually the 'sign' part)
The NASB, ISV, ABPE, DRB, YLT all stick to 'when they had seen this', 'when they saw this', 'when they had seen', And 'seeing', and 'having seen', (in order respectfully)
Notice that these versions (NASB, ISV, ABPE, DRB, YLT) did not have to include the word 'it'
, and yet remain readable and accurate. This makes these translations the better translations of this verse
And note all 7 of the online Greek texts ( http://biblos.com/luke/2-17.htm
) use only 'denotes - de' (having seen, moreover), with no other words.
Paidion wrote;' Do you condemn all of these translations as well?'
I did not condemn anything, the question was 'What's wrong with the NWT'. You are the one jumping to the conclusion that I was condemning something (speaking of getting emotional!). I am proving that 'the NWT
' is not well translated.