New World Translation Brackets!!

by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Lady Liberty

  LL

  I can hardly see what the divine name being added to the New Testament has to do with declaring a different good news.

  Dear Mondo, If you believe that inserting God's name everywhere in the Greek scriptures does not have any kind of effect on the context of the scriptures that were altered, then I suppose I would feel as you said above. But by adding God's name in someplaces it totally changes who the reader think the scripture is about. Therefore in those instances, it changes the meaning, and changes what God wanted written. By changing the meaning it definately becomes a different "good news", because it is no longer God's thoughts. I want to clarify something before I make my next statement. I do not believe in the Trinity. I was raised a Wtiness and this has been one of the scariest, hardest subjects for me to move forward on. But I definately think after much study that in my heart I know there is more to it then I ever thought. I guess the reason is that when you leave the Greek scriptures alone, there are definatetly scriptures that seem to support some sort of Trinity. Because of my sincere desire to worship Jehovah with spirit and truth, I am scared that somehow I may offend him. So I am "out to lunch" for now on that subject. However, in all honesty I think it is pretty obvious why the Society chose to add to the scritures what they have. It is clearly to support their doctorine. Now keep in mind as far as the Trinity goes, I still hold to the JWs teaching, because of fear of being wrong and it is the only thing I have ever known. BUT....Jehovah God himself saw no need to insert his own name into the Greek scriptures, so why in the world would mere imperfect humans need to adjust what was obviously "perfect" in God's eyes already?? They should have never ever altered the scriptures..but they did, and by doing so,it changed the meaning of them..again..that is why it has become a new "good news". Sincerely, Lady Liberty
• 

  Lady Liberty

  Dear Mondo,

  In the information I posted, it gave this example of the effect altering the scriptures may or may not have:

  The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was published by the Watch Tower Bible Society in 1950. The word "Lord" was changed to "Jehovah" 237 times in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). In some verses, the meaning did not change because the verse was talking about the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). (For example, Hosea 11:1 is quoted in Matthew 2:15 when Matthew says, "And [Joseph] stayed [in Egypt] until the decease of Herod, for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah (rather than "Lord") through his prophet, saying: 'Out of Egypt I called my son.'" )

  In other verses, the meaning of the Bible is greatly altered when the word "Lord" is changed to "Jehovah." For example, in the New World Translation Revelation 11:17 says, "We thank you, Jehovah (rather than "Lord") God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king." There is a great difference in meaning when the verse identifies "Jehovah" as "God, the Almighty" rather than the "Lord" (Jesus) as "God, the Almighty."
• 

  AuldSoul

  Along the lines of your last post, Lady Liberty, I think it is important to stress that the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses directly negates the statement Jesus reportedly made that is recorded at Matthew 28:18.

  If all authority was Jesus' when he spoke those words, then his authority was equal to or greater than every other authority. In the case of the Father, his authority was equal to that of the Father. Which is why he is pictured sitting or standing beside the Father, the One seated on the throne, etc. Only an equal authority would be so positioned in relation to the Father.

  If the Father is Almighty, and the Son is elevated to the position of having all authority in heaven and on earth, why is the Son not also Almighty? The Father is not subject to the Son. The Son is not subject to the Father. They rule beside one another.

  If Matthew 28:18 is suspect, due to its plainly equating the resurrected Jesus to the Father in authority, why is not Matthew 28:19, 20 equally suspect?

  Why do Jehovah's Witnesses insist on lowering Jesus while the Bible makes perfectly plain that the Father's intent was to elevate the Son? How does acknowledgment of the Son and worshipping the Son in any way detract from the Father, or from the glory due the Father?

  Is it not even true today that the praise of a son is an honor to and a source of proper pride for the father?
• 

  Lady Liberty

  Why do Jehovah's Witnesses insist on lowering Jesus while the Bible makes perfectly plain that the Father's intent was to elevate the Son? How does acknowledgment of the Son and worshipping the Son in any way detract from the Father, or from the glory due the Father?

  Is it not even true today that the praise of a son is an honor to and a source of proper pride for the father?

  Dear AuldSoul,

  You made a very valid point. That is why I feel as Witnesses we were not giving Jesus all the glory and honor that his Father intended, and perhaps even to an extent worship. By altering the Greek scriptures, I believe it definately undermines what was originally intended.

  Thank you for your post!!

  Sincerely,

  Lady Liberty
• 

  Mondo1

  For the sake of time, I'm making this a general response, not directed at anyone in particular, but just addressing various points.

  Matthew 28 and Jesus having all authority is not overly significant, in light of it being necessarily given to him. If he simply possessed it because of who or what he was/is, then it would be, but as it is given, it is not.

  Revelation 11:17, whether it says "Lord" or "Jehovah" is a reference to the Father. (cf. vs. 15)

  I would agree that Romans 10 is a rather odd place to insert the divine name. As the context is speaking of "the Lord Jesus Christ" it would seem that kurios would refer to him. However, in line with that, I would not that kurios would then by taken as a title, not a name, per the use within the context.

  An example with proskunew would be Revelation 3:9 where, for example, the NASB says "bow down before your feet" in reference to what is done before the church in Philadelphia.

  For Zech. 12:10, there are a number of translation questions there, but if we accept the typical translation, one cannot disregard the change to the third person pronoun "him" in the very same verse, which brings to mind Jesus' words in Matt. 25:45. Doing it to the one God sent (hence the "him" in the text) is to do it to God himself.

  The A&W is the Father.

  No prayer is present in the quoted portions of Revelation 5.

  Mondo
• 

  AuldSoul

  And every creature that is in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, I heard saying: "To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever."

  Mondo1, what is this, if not a prayer of praise to the One seated on the throne and to the Lamb? It seems to be a prayer to which the four living creatures say, "Amen!" Please explain.

  While I am aware that "amen" is not necessarily in response to a prayer, this passage certainly fits the description of prayer given by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. One of the forms of prayer mentioned in a recent study article was praise.

  Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand!, (1988), p. 88, par. 22
  In the scene described by John, the hosts of heaven are rendering melodious acclaim to Jesus in acknowledgment of his faithfulness and his heavenly authority. In this, they are joined by voices from the earthly realm as these too share in praising both the Father and the Son. Just as the achievements of a human son can bring great credit to parents, so Jesus’ loyal course redounds among all creation "to the glory of God the Father." Thus, John goes on to report: "And every creature that is in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, I heard saying: ‘To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.’"—Revelation 5:13.

  Nothing in the text states that those on earth are singing. In fact, it says specifically that they are saying the quoted text. From whence came the idea that this quote was sung, Mondo1? From the Bible, or from the imaginations of the Governing Body or Writing Committee/Staff?

  Whatever the case, what is a psalm?

  Our Kingdom Ministry, August 2001, p. 5 (Theocratic Ministry School Review)
  17. What is a psalm? [si p. 101 par. 2] A psalm is a sacred song or poem used in the praise and worship of God.

  In fact, a psalm is a prayer of praise and worship in verse form, often sung or accompanied by music. Do you argue that a psalm is not a prayer, Mondo1? If so, you might want to check out the superscription of Psalm 102 and then explain why you believe a psalm is not a prayer.

  I think you responded hastily and incorrectly to my post. Maybe further consideration is in order.
• 

  Mondo1

  The text is not directed towards anyone, but it is a general exclamation of their worthiness to receive the things specific. What you are looking for is found in Revelation 4:11, but the Lamb is not spoken of there, only God.
• 

  Sunspot

  However, in all honesty I think it is pretty obvious why the Society chose to add to the scritures what they have. It is clearly to support their doctorine. Now keep in mind as far as the Trinity goes, I still hold to the JWs teaching, because of fear of being wrong and it is the only thing I have ever known.

  I so agree. With all the discussion and so-called excuses and reasonings that JWs will go to great lengths to "prove"......what is highlighted in yellow....says it all.

  IF it "wasn't there" to begin with....

  and if it seems only to be there to promote the WTS doctrine and beliefs....

  and if we cannot find any other religion or bible to support the WTS teachings about "the name".....

  we CAN reach the obvious.....OR as the WTS would say....."a thinking mind will find it is reasonable to conclude" this IS the case.....etc, etc.

  Annie
• 

  Borgia

  I am wondering why this suject of trinity is always presented like or...or: It´s trinity or WT kind of neo arian stance.

  Why is it not conceivable that there may be a position in the middle. Trinity not true neither is the WT stance.

  I do not remeber having read that during this year.....

  cheers

  Borgia
• 

  Hellrider

  Borgia, I agree with you. I don`t think it is, or ever was, necessary to establish a "doctrine" on it. To use a worn-out WT-phrase "Jehovah will reveal it to us in due time":.. But the point is that iin the NT, Jesus Christ is definitely to be worshipped as God, as he is "the image of God", and God to us! That`s pretty much all there is to it, but the WTS has decided to do away with what the Bible says, so they can elevate themselves, which is shown pretty clear in their precious 144000-doctrine. And from a christian pow, that is perverse.

  Mondo: To justify the NWT-translation of Zechariah with Matthew 25 is weak. This is jumping from text to text, with no regard for the context (not to mention that the "he" in Matthew 25:31-46 is Jesus, not the Father). In the manner you just jutified Zechariah now, anyone can justify any crazy biblical doctrine.

  Doing it to the one God sent (hence the "him" in the text) is to do it to God himself.

  You`re just explaining it away, instead of actually explaining it. This is called "twisting scripture".