NWT Revisions (page 2)

Simon

Are the confusing revision and edition (or printing)? If they changed the packaging / binding / layout, it doesn't mean they change the text.

Simon, though the copyright page of the NWT from the year 2006 says "2006 Printing" instead of saying "Revised 2006", it is a revised edition for it includes the changes in the wording (not simply the packaging, binding, and/or layout) and in illustrations of some maps, as I mentioned. Many readers on this site know that the WT has on many occasions revised the text of some of their publications without saying in the publications that it is Revised. Examples of numerous such revisions have been documented on this site.

Disillusioned JW

Jeffro, until you said you know, it was not obvious that you know, despite the fact that it was 16 years when you said you didn't know. That is because people don't always find answers to questions, even after 16 years have elapsed. Furthermore, the posts prior to mine (in this topic thread) did not state there were actual differences in the punctuation (the exclusion of single brackets around words) and changes in the wording in part of the Appendix [that also includes a new chart to the NWT]).

Jeffro

I suppose that's fair. If this forum is the only source of information where I would have been able to find that out. Lucky you were here 16 years later to help out. I've been checking the thread daily. Thanks. 🙄

Phizzy

" Many readers on this site know that the WT has on many occasions revised the text of some of their publications without saying in the publications that it is Revised. Examples of numerous such revisions have been documented on this site. "

One stark example of this, and a blatantly dishonest one, is where, in the Bound Volumes, they have changed something embarrassing, to hide it, that they did say in the actual magazine we got.

They had to do a special Print Run with the dishonest new version, then Bind that in to the Volume !

I showed one such example of this to a guy who came round to "Shepherd" me shortly after I left, and he said " I see nothing wrong with that " !!

Nikolaus

I appreciate DJWs anecdote. Thanks for sharing.

Sea Breeze

As an example:

Phil. 1: 9 used to read like this so that the reader would know that the WT inserted the word "other" into the text.

For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name - NWT

In the 2013 revision of the NWT it reads:

For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name - NWT

The brackets were eliminated.

When I was at the doors and someone would point out this scripture. I would say, "Sure, Jesus has the highest name in the universe other than Jehovah.

But the scripture clearly says that the name of Jesus is higher than every name.....and that includes the name of Jehovah. Quite a problem for JW theology.

Still, Ephesians makes it clear that Jesus name is the highest, even higher than Jehovah.

Eph. 1: 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named (NWT)

Jesus said, "come to ME and I will give you rest". So, what do JW's do, they go to Jehovah instead.

JW's have a problem following simple instructions.

Disillusioned JW

Hi Sea Breeze that is a good example you gave from Philippians which supports the point I made, but I think you meant 2:9 instead of 1:9. By the way, I also notice that in the 1984 NWT the brackets are in Philippians 2:9, but in that verse the brackets were not in any prior edition of the NWT. I'm guessing that the WT had added them to the 1984 revision of that verse due to criticisms by evangelicals and/or non-JW scholars of the Bible.

Your drawing attention to Philippians 2:9 reminds of something I have noticed about the NT which is very puzzling to me. The name Jesus (Iesous in Greek; Yeshua in Hebrew) was a very common Jewish name during the time that Jesus Christ lived on Earth (if he ever was a historical person) and is simply a variation of the name Yoshua/Joshua (which in turn is a contracted form of the name Yehoshua), which was also a very common Jewish name. It is thus very puzzling to me that the NT makes a big deal about that name Jesus being special when applied to Christ, when the one called Christ (if he ever existed) was by no means the first human to have that name. [For other examples of the NT making a big deal about the name Jesus, see Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31-33.]

During most of my active time as a JW I didn't know that the name Jesus was very common in the early 1 century CE, and probably most Christians today also don't realize it was very common. Luke 3:29 even lists a person named Jesus as an ancestor of Jesus Christ! For some documentation of that see the 1984 NWT and the Bible translated by Goodspeed and Smith (though the name Joshua or Jose is used in many other Bible translations). Even the criminal Barabbas (the one who the NT says Pilate released instead of Jesus Christ), according to some NT manuscripts of Matthew 27:16–17 (see the NRSV, the translators' note in the RSV, TNIV, REB, and the 1991 NAB) was named Jesus Barabbas (meaning Jesus son of the father)! The crowds thus were asked which Jesus they wanted to be released, namely "Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah" (NRSV)!

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas says the following. "These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.[12][13] The Church Father Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.[14] He however does not account for the high priest Biblical Greek: Ἰάσων, romanized: Iásōn from 2 Maccabees 4:13, whose name seems to transliterate the same Aramaic name into Greek, as well as other bearers of the name Jesus mentioned by Josephus.[10] It is however also possible that later scribes, when copying the passage, removed the name "Jesus" from "Jesus Barabbas" to avoid dishonor to the name of Jesus whom they considered the Messiah.[15] ]

Furthermore, the name Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua honors the name Jehovah/Yahweh/Yah/YHWH since it literally means "Jehovah/Yahweh/Yah/YHWH saves" or "Jehovah/Yahweh/Yah/YHWH is salvation", though some sources (incorrectly in my view) say it means "salvation" or "savior". For example, note that https://aleteia.org/2019/05/13/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-name-jesus/ says the following.

'The Catholic Encyclopedia points out that the Hebrew name Jeshua—or Joshua, or Jehoshua—means “Jehovah is salvation.” The Greeks transliterated that as Iesous, which in turn gave us the Latin form, Jesus.

“Though the name in one form or another occurs frequently in the Old Testament, it was not borne by a person of prominence between the time of Josue, the son of Nun and Josue, the high priest in the days of Zorobabel,” the Catholic Encyclopedia notes. “It was also the name of the author of Ecclesiasticus, of one of Christ’s ancestors mentioned in the genealogy, found in the Third Gospel (Luke 3:29), and one of St. Paul’s companions (Colossians 4:11).' Admittedly that Catholic source goes on to say the following. 'Though about the time of Christ the name Jesus appears to have been fairly common … it was imposed on our Lord by God’s express order (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:21), to foreshow that the Child was destined to ‘save his people from their sins.'” '

Jeffro

Disillusioned JW:

The name Jesus (Iesous in Greek; Yeshua in Hebrew) was a very common Jewish name during the time that Jesus Christ lived on Earth (if he ever was a historical person) and is simply a variation of the name Yoshua/Joshua (which in turn is a contracted form of the name Yehoshua),

It’s not a coincidence. Not only is it a very common Jewish name, but Joshua (Yeshua), the first priest to officiate at the the temple following the return from exile, was analogous to the anticipated ‘Sprout’. So it would have been especially convenient to either take advantage of another person being named Joshua (Jesus), or even just to say that was his name after the fact (quietly setting aside that his name was also supposed to be Emmanuel, or maybe David).

Smiles

@Jeff

Here is a WT official explanation of its "revision" to the NWT of 2013. This basic explanation cites only a few relatively benign "adjustments". Deeper research is required to identify the more biased additions/omissions which conveniently favor JW dogma.

Intro:

"OVER the years, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures has been revised a number of times, but the 2013 revision was by far the most extensive. For example, there are now about 10 percent fewer English words in the translation. Some key Biblical terms were revised. Certain chapters were changed to poetic format, and clarifying footnotes were added to the regular edition. It would be impossible in this article to discuss all the changes, but let us consider a few of the main adjustments."

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20151215/nwt-bible-2013/

NWT Revisions

Share this