New World Translation Brackets!!

by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hellrider

  Mondo wrote:

  We have numerous works outside of the Bible that reflect the mindset of the time and it is from these and the scholarly work that has been done in these areas that can help us to determine how certain things should be understood. Of course, we must make sure that our conclusions do not conflict with Scripture in doing so, for in such a case ur interpretation would be wrong.

  Translation from JW-talk:

  We have numerous works outside of the Bible that reflect the mindset of the time, and of course we will pick and choose among these numerous works and extract those passages (with no regard to context) to use as we see fit, to support our allready established Watchtower-doctrines. Of course, we must make sure that our conclusions do not conflict with the Watchtowers interpretations of Scripture in doing so, for in such a case, the first-hand material would be wrong.

  AuldSoul, there is no point in arguing with this guy. He is like a brick wall, anything he can`t answer in an adequate way, he simply dismisses, or comes up with some insane, not even unlikely, but impossible, explanation! It`s like throwing water at a goose, it bounces right off. Fortunately, any jw reading this discussion, that still has his brain intact, will see this for himself. There are many people who have joined this board that has done it as a direct result of seeing jw-apologist try to justofy their doctrines. But for me, I`m getting so tired of it.
• 

  AuldSoul

  The "Look! I am coming quickly" escaped you entirely, did it not? WHO is coming quickly? I asked that you read the context...verse 20 is the clue, if you can actually consider a direct statement a "clue." Your assumption about the change of speaker is invalidated on the basis that the phrase "I am coming quickly" is used four times exclusively to refer either to kurios or to Jesus specifically. (Revelation 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20) The word kurios is changed in verse 6 to "Jehovah", altering the meaning of the text and contradicting Revelation 1:1 in the process.

  The slaves are Jesus' slaves, according to Revelation 1:1, and the revelation was given to him by God,and Jesus sent his angel to show his slaves. Try matching that verse up to Revelation 22:6 in the NWT.

  Jesus is coming quickly. The Lord (kurios) Jesus. As in, "Amen! Come Lord Jesus."

  Additionally, I could not find that "I, name, action" construction in any other instance and would appreciate the references so that I might verify your unsourced claim.

  With regard to John 5:28, 29...I agree with you. Jesus prayed that the Father would receive his spirit. Was that an uncommon prayer in those days?

  Why was it not a prayer when Stephen made the same request of the glorified Jesus?

  And since John 5:28, 29 explains Stephen asking that Jesus receive his spirit, why does not the same passage cast suspicion on the replacing of the judge from "Lord" (Jesus, contextually) to "Jehovah", particularly if that was the words of Christ that Stephen had on his mind at the moment?
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  is inserted without OT basis

  The "OT basis" is the fact that "Lord God" is an allusion to "Jehovah" God of the OT. "Lord" being a curious surrogate and titular tautology (in the sense of referring to him by two titles)from a book that has great appreciation for the name of God. (see Rev 15:3, 3:12) Also to note it is impossible from the book of Revelations to identify Jesus with the "Lord God", they are often mentioned in the same context, but in every case Jesus is distinct from the "Lord God". (again cf. 15:3)

  With that said there is no real basis to conclude that the use of the DN in vs. 6 of ch. 22 makes an unwarranted distinction between the Lord God of vs. 6, with Jesus of vs. 7,16. Keep in mind that the Nestle-Aland Greek text has vs. 13-15 being a quote from Is. 40:10, which shows God and his servant, "his arm" being distinguished as well.

  Major edit:

  Last part of my post contained mistakes on my part of the JW view of this! So I deleted it, I should be more careful eh? .
• 

  Mondo1

  The "Look! I am coming quickly" escaped you entirely, did it not? WHO is coming quickly? I asked that you read the context...verse 20 is the clue, if you can actually consider a direct statement a "clue." Your assumption about the change of speaker is invalidated on the basis that the phrase "I am coming quickly" is used four times exclusively to refer either to kurios or to Jesus specifically. (Revelation 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20)

  Actually, my argument is 100% valid, but your argument only begs the question. Is the Father also said to be coming? Yes he is. The angel uses the same phrase only a few verses back for himself. (22:7)

  The slaves are Jesus' slaves, according to Revelation 1:1, and the revelation was given to him by God , and Jesus sent his angel to show his slaves. Try matching that verse up to Revelation 22:6 in the NWT .

  Actually, grammatically, the slaves are God's not Jesus', in 1:1 so go ahead and match that up with 22:6. Jesus is the messenger of 22:6, God from 1:1 remains God.

  Additionally, I could not find that "I, name, action" construction in any other instance and would appreciate the references so that I might verify your unsourced claim.

  1:9 and 22:8.

  With regard to John 5:28, 29...I agree with you. Jesus prayed that the Father would receive his spirit. Was that an uncommon prayer in those days?

  Again, Jesus was in plain sight of Stephen. When you are looking at somebody that hardly counts as a prayer.

  And since John 5:28, 29 explains Stephen asking that Jesus receive his spirit, why does not the same passage cast suspicion on the replacing of the judge from "Lord" (Jesus, contextually) to "Jehovah", particularly if that was the words of Christ that Stephen had on his mind at the moment?

  It is a possible interpretation. The passage could go either way, and there would be no conflict.
• 

  AuldSoul

  What, exactly, is a prayer, in your theology, Mondo1? What does prayer mean? Is this requirement of invisibility one you made up to suit your dogma, or do you have some basis for insisting that prayer is only to things unseen?

  Mondo1: The first two times find it used to denote a speaker change. The third would logically do the same.

  Revelation 1:9 and 22:8 do not denote a change in speaker. Nor does the text in any way indicate that as a function of the construct. That is what threw me off. You said the construction denoted a change in speaker in two other places. Upon examining the texts you cited, I realize you are mistaken.

  In the case of Revelation 22, it also does not denote a change in speaker. It does denote something in all three cases, however. For this purpose it is not an uncommon construction at all. It denotes that the speaker personally affirms what follows, affixes his name to what is recorded, as a personal guarantor of the validity. (1 Corinthians 10:1; Galatians 5:2; Ephesians 3:1; Colossians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Philemon 19)

  I knew this usage of the construction, but had never run across the "change of speaker" theory regarding this construction before.

  Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand, (1988), p. 16, par. 5
  Revelation 1:1b, 2 continues: "And he [Jesus] sent forth his angel and presented it [Revelation] in signs through him to his slave John, who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw." Thus, John received the inspired record through an angelic messenger. He wrote it in a scroll, transmitting it to the congregations of his time. Happily for us, God has preserved it for the encouragement of the more than 50,000 congregations of his united servants on earth today.

  DttP: Seems to me that they disagree with your assessment about whose angel was sent and whose slave received the message. Perhaps you should have a chat with them.

  Mondo1: You mentioned that Jehovah is also coming quickly. But, once again, failed to give a reference. You can add Revelation 2:16 to the earlier list a gave, for a total of 5 occurrences of Jesus coming quickly versus the zero count of anyone else "coming quickly". Your assertion that verse 7 is the angel referring to itself as coming quickly is unfounded, since the angel is speaking for Jesus, the one who sent the angel.

  The only other THING that is coming quickly is a third woe.

  (edited to specify to whom I was replying)
• 

  AuldSoul

  Mondo1: It is a possible interpretation. The passage could go either way, and there would be no conflict.

  I suppose it is lost on you that changing the meaning of the text is wrong.

  Basically, if there would be "no conflict either way," but one way would cause someone to believe that Stephen cried out to the OT God of the Jews and the other way would have them believe that he cried out to Jesus...would it be better to leave the wording as it appears in the oldest available manuscripts, instead of changing it to suit doctrine?

  If your argument is that it makes no difference whether attributions are made to Jehovah or to Jesus, I think your religion would disagree with you on that point. Since the oldest available manuscripts plainly use kurios here, and since the context plainly directs Stephen's statements to "Lord Jesus" that customarily were reserved for the Father, and since the following strong plea (prayer) was directed at the one who would be judge...WHY did they change this instance?
• 

  Lady Liberty

  Dear Mondo,

  In line with your discussion with AuldSoul, I am wondering how you can explain this away.. I certainly cannot. And these are the very reasons I am still unsure what to think, however, there are ALOT of scriptures that sure seem to say something different then what the Watchtower teaches. See below for an example: http://www.carm.org/jw/jwresponse.htm

  1. First and Last
  2. How many firsts and lasts are there? In the Bible God is called the first and last and so is Jesus. Since God says there is no God apart from Him and Jesus and God are both addressed by the same title, then that poses a problem for the Jehovah's Witness.
  3. Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says -Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
  4. Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
  5. Revelation 1:17-18, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."
  6. Obviously, Rev. 1:17-18 can only refer to Jesus.
  7. Revelation 22:12-13, "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
  8. Here, both the "Alpha and the Omega" and the "First and the Last" are said to be one and the same.
  9. Also, at this point go to Titus 2:13 where it says that Jesus is the one who is coming soon, therefore, Jesus and Jehovah are the same.

  Sincerely,

  Lady Liberty
• 

  AuldSoul

  Excellent addition, as always, Lady Liberty!

  Since Alpha and the Omega equates to Aleph and Taw, and since the meaning is simply a restatement of beginning and end, the First and the Last, and since the one to whom it is applied is also called "the One who is and who was"...and it does say this one is coming (although, it doesn't say quickly)...is "the One who is and who was" also properly applied to Jesus? Then what of "Almighty"? If one has "all authority in heaven and on earth" is that one somewhat less than Almighty? If so, in what way?

  An addendum to my last post is that the third woe (the one that is "coming quickly", just like Jesus) is the last of a series of seven trumpets, the great trumpet, the trumpet that with one blast brings to a completion the seven seals, the three woes, and the seven trumpts. (Revelation 11:14-19) What accompanies that trumpet? Does the third woe mean Jesus is coming quickly? For what purpose?

  Matthew 24:30, 31; Mark 13:26, 27; Luke 21:27, 28; 1 Corinthians 15:51, 52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17

  What does your Bible say about the trumpet that comes quickly with Jesus, just before he exercises dominion over the earth, Mondo1?
• 

  Hellrider

  LL:

  About Rev 1:17-18 and 22:12-13, myself and other posters (inlcuding Leolaia) had a huge discussion with Mondo about this in the thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx

  ...it`s covered somewhere in the thread, from around page 12 (or something). In short, Mondo claims that the "first and the last" when used about Jesus in 1:17, refers not to his ontological status, but to his status as "the first to be ressurected". This is, of course, total BS, and I tried to force him to understand why it is BS, but it was like talking to a brick wall. About Rev.22:12-13, Mondo claims that there is a speaker change in the text, and that it is Yahweh that suddenly pops by to say "I am the first and the last, I am coming soon blah blah blah", etc, and he justifies it by the fact that Jesus is introduced again, a few passages later. I`m not sure about that text, but he might be right. On the other hand, the fact that Jesus is the one, elsewhere in Rev, that is described as the one "coming soon", it looks like Mondo is wrong even there.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Hellrider,

  Mondo1 was asserting that the construction "I, name, action or testament" indicates a change in speaker. It indicated the same thing then that it does today, and if he didn't know it before I am sure he has now apprehended it.

  "I, AuldSoul, do solemnly swear..."

  "I, AuldSoul, being of sound mind and body..."

  "We, the people of the United States of America..."

  It was a legalistic linguistic construct, which explains Paul's frequent usage, that affixed the named one as guarantor to the vow, contract, testimony. A sort of notarization that the following (or, more rarely, the preceding) is authentic, binding, or true. This construct was being used in many languages long prior to the writing of Revelation, and is still being used in the same way in legal documents down to this day.

  No mystery in it at all, no possible significance as far as changing speakers...I am not even sure where he got that notion.