i know how to build a house....i know how to "restore" a house......but you just can't "restore" a house that has never been built, or there is no proof it was ever built........there is zero proof the divine name was ever in the Bible or that jesus and the apostles used it.....zero...oomps
The New World Translation Dirty Dozen...lurkers will love it!........
by oompa 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Cadellin
Every time I think I have a grip of the extent of the dishonesty of the society's scholarship, the floor gives way beneath me. I need to explore this a little further...thank you, thank you.
-
Cadellin
Oh, hey--I can make more posts!
-
donny
I agree with Leolaia, these references were posted to convince JW's that the transaltion of Jehovah in the NT is based on solid evidence. However, this was one of my sources of issue with organization while I was still in it. I was able to see through the facade and realize that these "J sources" have no more weigjht than the NWT. It would be like someone translating the New Testament into another language and using the NWT as a source to support a particular rendering.
-
oompa
cadellin....and any others....i have a years worth of my research and my letter points to WT about this......another really pissy thing is that right NOW.....WT teaches the bible has been preserved incredibly accurately..and at the exact time teaches it has been changed and altered by satan and apostates.......i do not think they do this about any other topic, and believe me...you never see both points in the same book or article.........oompa
anybody wanting the infor or cliffnotes version...just pm me
-
slimboyfat
What is particularly noticeable is that the "J references" in the 1984 Reference Edition occur in the critical apparatus, alongside references to actual MSS in the textual footnotes — as if they are comparable textual witnesses on the presence or absence of kurios in the text.
That just looks bad. It makes the NWT look amateurish, which I think is the opposite intended effect.
But critical apparatuses reference Latin, Syriac, Gothic versions and so on in footnotes. And a couple of the J sources have claims to having roots in early versions.
-
Chalam
Hi oompa,
With the greatest respect, translating the Tetragrammaton from Hebrew to English is not critical. I am happy with Yahweh, Jehovah (less so because of the JWs) or LORD.
The name that is important is this one (also begins with "J" or "Y" or "I" like depending on if you like an English version or not).
Philippians 2:9-10 (English Standard Version)
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth
Ephesians 1:20-21 (English Standard Version)
20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
All the best,
Stephen
-
slimboyfat
No textual evidence indicates that the name was once present in copies of the NT, and these "J versions" cannot be cited as witnesses of a more original text if what they are doing is restoring the name (an innovation in transmission, not a retention of what was already there) to a text that did not contain it.
There is no external textual evidence for the tetragram, but there is internal textual evidence, such as Howard and Trobisch cite in making their argument for the tetragram in the original NT. You may not find the evidence compelling, but that is to say a different thing.
The J references are not cited "as witnesses of a more original text". The point of using the J documents is clearly spelled out in the NWT appendix. The argument is made on other grounds that the tetragram stood in the original text. The J documents are referred to because they indicate where other translators have felt it appropriate to use the divine name, they are not cited to imply that they are earlier or superior witnesses, but because they indicate how other translators have dealt with the same problem of where to restore the divine name. An exception of course is Shem Tob which may well be a witness to an early version of Matthew's gospel.
-
BabaYaga
Inimitable Oomps said: anybody wanting the infor or cliffnotes version...just pm me
I have your secret password edition, Dear Oomps! But I'm bookmarking this thread, anyway...
-
oompa
slimboy...but there is not "grounds that the tetragam stood in the origainal text".......none.......show me a fragment of a manuscript...anything.......the ability of satan and his apostate cronies could remove the NAME from every extant manuscript from the second and third centuries is absurd isnt it?..........oompa