The answer to your question is in the New World Translation in the introduction pages before Genesis. An apppedix is also referenced in this section that is in the NWT and it goes into gteat detail as to why the text was changed.. I am taking the info from the 1984 revised edition.
the name Jehovah in the New Testament
by jahrule 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Awen
The best info I have found so far in regards to the New World Translation and the use of the Divine Name:
and some facts about who translated the NWT from the Hebrew and Greek, their qualifications and the replacement of Jesus' name in the NT with that of Jehovah's (Yahweh).
make sure you follow all the links in the post below, especially "The Bracket Game" quite enlightening. Also the links to the left of the page can be very informative.
http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/nwt_errors.htm
-
Doug Mason
Rather than carry over the methods used in the Hebrew Scriptures for the Divine Name(s), the early Christians developed their own set of sacred words that are now known as the "Nomina Sacra".
In this process, and there were 15 words created using this method, they abbreviated the selected divine word with two letters and then they drew a line over these letters, to show what they were.
Searching the www for "nomina sacra", in the context we are discussing, will provide the details.
Doug
-
freydo
Speaking of the NT - The following is from the book, HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL pp 344-45, that adds some very pertinent detail.
"The gospel account of Matthew states explicitly that Jesus was of royal blood - a genuine king - the lineal descendant of both Solomon and David. If this were true, he would have enjoyed a legitimate claim to the throne of a united Palestine....And the inscription affixed to the cross would have been much more than a sadistic derision.....And thus he would have engendered the opposition precisely by virtue of his role - a priest-king who might possibly unify his country and the Jewish people, thereby posing a serious threat to both Herod and Rome....the very perpetuation of the story would seem to attest to something - some genuine alarm on Herod's part, some very real anxiety about being deposed. Granted, Herod was an extremely insecure ruler, hated by his enslaved subjects and sustained in power only by Roman cohorts.....If Herod was indeed worried, it could only be by a very real, concrete, political threat - a threat posed by a man with a more legitimate claim to the throne than his own, and who could muster substantial popular support. The "Massacre of the Innocents".....and the traditions relating to it reflect on Herod's part some concern about a rival claim, and quite possibly some action to forestall or preclude it. Such a claim could only be political in nature. And it must have warranted being taken seriously...To suggest that Jesus enjoyed such a claim is of course to challenge the popular image of 'the poor carpenter from Nazareth.' But there are persuasive reasons for doing so. In the first place, it is not all together certain that Jesus was from Nazareth. 'Jesus of Nazareth is in fact a corruption or mistranslation of 'Jesus the Nazorite.'....In the second place there is considerable doubt as to whether the town of Nazareth actually existed in Jesus' time. It does not occur in any Roman maps, documents or records. It is not mentioned in the Talmud. It is not mentioned in any of the writings of Saint Paul....And Flavius Josephus - the foremost chronicler of the period, who commanded troops in Galilee, and listed the province's towns, makes no mention of it either. It would seem in short, that Nazareth didn't exist as a town until some time after the revolt of AD 66-74, and that Jesus' name became associated with it by virtue of semantic confusion - either accidental or deliberate. And whether Jesus was 'of Nazareth' or not, there is no indication that he was ever a 'poor carpenter.' Certainly none of the Gospels portray him as such; indeed, their evidence suggests quite the contrary. He seems to have undergone training for the rabbinate, and to have consorted as frequently with wealthy and influential people as with the poor - Joseph of Arimathea for instance and Nicodemus. And the wedding at Cana would seem to be further witness to Jesus' status and social position. This wedding does not appear to have been a modest, humble festival conducted by the 'common people.' On the contrary, it bears all the marks of an extravagant, aristocratic union, a "high society" affair attended by at least several hundred guests. There were abundant servants, for example - who hastened to do both Jesus' and Mary's bidding. There was a 'master of the feast' or 'master of ceremonies' - who in the context would have been a kind of chief butler or an aristocrat himself. Most clearly, there is a positively enormous quantity of wine. When Jesus 'transmutes' the water into wine, he produces, according to the Good News Bible, no less than six hundred liters, which is more than eight hundred bottles. All things considered, the wedding at Cana would seem to have been a sumptuous ceremony of the gentry.....his presence at it, and his mother's would suggest they were members of the same caste. And this alone would explain the servants obedience to them." -
sd-7
Well, the translators of the NWT have given three basic reasons for putting the name Jehovah in the New Testament: (1) there are several (roughly 70) quotes of the Old Testament that, in their original form, would have included the divine name. (2) There are some texts referred to as the "J" texts, a translation of the NT into Hebrew supposedly done in the 13th century or so, that included the divine name in the NT. (3) I don't remember, but "as true Christians, the apostles certainly used the divine name", or in layman's terms, because the first century Christians certainly believed what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, they therefore must have used the divine name.
Jason David BeDuhn, a Bible scholar that Jehovah's Witnesses have referred to as an "impartial observer", devoted an entire appendix in his book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament", to deconstructing the Witnesses' reasoning. He states, to paraphrase--and I actually did a post on this issue somewhat recently--that for one, the NWT is inconsistent in rendering the divine name even when an OT quote is involved. Two, the J texts are just translations; they serve only as proof that someone else agrees with the Witnesses, not as proof that the first century Christians used God's name. The original Greek texts are clear on this point. Three, to assume that early Christians believed the same as the Witnesses and then to 'translate' accordingly is to enter the realm of interpretation rather than loyally adhering to the original Greek text.
So, the Witnesses, while accurately restoring the divine name in the Old Testament, do not have a legitimate basis for putting it in the New Testament. They do it because of bias. They wanted to de-emphasize Jesus Christ and focus on the name of Jehovah--hence the change of the religion's name in 1931. They could have called themselves Jesus' Witnesses, but they chose to be called Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly they were not convinced that the divinely provided name of being simply Christians was sufficient. (Translation: they were ashamed to be called by Christ's name. Sorry, needless jab...) Logically then, their translation would be in harmony with that emphasis.
SD-7
-
PSacramento
sd-7 has posted what is correct and his conclusions are also correct.
At best JW should be called "Jehovahites", they are certainly not Christians as they view Jehovah as their Lord and Saviour and not Chirst.
They admit as much in their insistence on using the OT term "Jehovah" for the tetrgramatton with their reasoning that they want to eb aqssociated with the "God of the OT", obvioulsy by imp[lication they do NOt want to be associated with the "God of the NT".
-
JWoods
Arianism is what it was called back in the day.
No other religion claiming to be "Christian" has been so disdainful of the Christ.
-
possible-san
Well, ...
In my opinion, I think that the "Christian" in the first century worshipped "Jehovah/YHWH."
If not so, Christianity is completely different religion.However, IMO, I think that they did not pronounce even if they used the Divine Name (YHWH).
It pronounces as "Adonai" in Hebrew, and pronounces as "Kyrios" in Greek.
And that "Kyrios" was Jesus for them. (Jews refused this thought)IMO, the conclusion drawn from there is that "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are, in substance, the same God.
But, they had distinguished the "Father" and the "Son."possible
-
cantleave
are there any jehovah's witnesses on this site who can asnwer my question? if not, where will i find them?
Try a Kingdom Hall!
-
Doug Mason
I would class WTS theology as semi-Arian, and that Arius would class the WTS as heretical.
Arius taught that the Holy Spirit was a Person, but that he was created by the Father and the Son together, and that the Holy Spirit was subservient to them.
Doug