NWT inserting Jehovah in the NT (discussing the "J" references)

by AuldSoul 36 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  As an aside, note how the kurios in Romans 14:9 is not rendered "Jehovah" as it was three times in the previous verse in the NWT, even tho its reference to the "kurios of the living and dead" is directly based on the preceding statements about "dying for the kurios and living for the kurios so that alive or dead we belong to the kurios"; this is because the kurios in v. 9 explicitly refers to Christ who "both died and came to life"

  Actually it's even better than that, as v. 9 doesn't use kurios but the related verb kurieuo ("to be lord of") which echoes and refers back to the uses of kurios in the previous verses. For the sake of consistency the NWT should have forged a verb "to jehove" (over the living and the dead).

  This passage, along with Romans 10, constitute irrefutable evidence that kurios was in the text right from the start, since the substitution of any other divine name breaks the very line of reasoning.
• 

  Leolaia

  Ah yes, yes, I forgot it was in that verse...certainly that would be why there is no "Jehovah" there, but it shows clearly why the name in v. 8 was kurios to begin with.
• 

  badboy

  IS THIS CHANGING SUBJECT,BUT THW WORD`JEHOVAH 'ACTUALLY ORIGINATED FROM CATHOLIC CHURCH!
• 

  IronClaw

  Thank you AuldSoul and Company for such an informative topic. I'm saving it for future use.

  The Claw.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Slim,

  I don't really understand the basis for your contention. It seems to me that no matter what they say, if they use the J references as cause for using a word that is not indicated by the older manuscripts then the J references are being used as an authority superior to the older manuscripts.

  Can you please clarify why you believe they should be trusted to be telling the truth about which they regard as a superior authority when their undeniable choice of which to use as an authority directly contradicts their later claim?

  Narkissos and Leolaia, thank you SO much for jumping in. I am glad that so many are getting some benefit out of this thread.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Narkissos

  It seems to me that no matter what they say, if they use the J references as cause for using a word that is not indicated by the older manuscripts then the J references are being used as an authority superior to the older manuscripts.

  Along the lines of the NWT Appendix 1D, I guess the official answer would be that they consider the J-references as a confirmation rather than a cause for their choice.

  However I tend to view the wording of the critical apparatus as not only "amateurish," as Leolaia kindly puts it, but deliberately misleading. The J-references there come before the Greek witnesses, making the latter appear as a mere "variant reading"; they are presented as supporting "Jehovah" whereas what they actually bear is the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, i.e. "yhwh". This, combined with the popular assumption that Hebrew is somehow more "original" than Greek (which is of course absurd in the NT), is utterly deceptive to the average reader who will hardly take the time of going to the introduction or the appendices, and even less of reading them critically.
• 

  Kristofer

  What's also interesting is where they decide NOT to translate Kurios into Jehovah.. Philippians 2:11 ..."jesus christ is (lord)(jehovah)(Kurios) to the Glory of God the Father."