Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel 123 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JuanMiguel
    JuanMiguel

    NOTE: The following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic Bible translation and the New World Translation. For those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, I understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of God, and of the Catholic Church. I believe each individual’s convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

    An Enlightening Example From a NABRE

    This Wednesday will mark the preparation for the Roman Catholic Church’s holiest time of the year, the season of Lent. A 40-day preparation for the season of Easter, it is a time of personal reflection, penance, and spiritual growth for these people. Being that out of the approximate 1.5 billion people on the planet who claim to be Christian, one billion of these are Roman Catholic, the behavior of a large number of people on earth changes dramatically every year on this date.

    This year on Ash Wednesday the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) will release the revised edition of the New American Bible. This is no little event. You may have already read or seen articles through various media outlets about it. Some people have mentioned that they don’t remember a time when a certain Bible translation’s revision or updating caught so much media attention in the United States and others are asking “why”?

    If you have had or have any connection or opinion regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible, you might find an interesting contrast of events in the answer.

    Translating Behind Drawn Shades

    Regardless of what one may think of either the Catholic Church, its teachings, or the New American Bible translation, the fact that the work has been done with such transparency (and maybe a little more than the USCCB would have wanted due to a problematic royalties agreement with the actual translators and scholars of the actual work), it is a striking difference when compared with what happens with the New World Translation—the Bible version that Jehovah’s Witnesses claim is the most accurate translation of the Scriptures available.

    A recent edition of the NWT (2006 paperback) has some scratching their heads since the once-proudly touted brackets—[ ]—around some translated expressions has disappeared. Is this a revision? If so, when did it happen and how? How was any of the work really done to begin with?

    While most feel that enough evidence now exists to show that it was mostly the work of one-time Watchtower president Fredrick Franz, a man who could make no claim to knowing the original languages well of enough to guarantee his own scholastic standards, regardless of who did what and exactly how, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark regarding the origins of the New World Translation and how it came to be without any real Biblical scholars at the helm.

    Hiding behind the claim that they were letting the work speak for itself (which with the current available plethora of Biblical language study sites now accessible to the public via the Internet shows was not a very flattering move), these non-scholars thought their identities and the process they adopted would be accepted by following the humility demonstrated by the translators of the American Standard Version. To their surprise (and often insulted by the response), beyond the group of active Jehovah’s Witnesses such acceptance never came.

    (In reality, it is the names of those who created the Americanized version of the Revised Version that were kept from the public to avoid any claim that these scholars were seeking personal fame from their work. The actual text was the work of well-known British scholars, and it was at the invitation of this team that Philip Schaff, well-respected Protestant theologian and Christian historian, hand-picked the 30 scholars who produced the American-English version. As stated in a current Wikipedia article on the process of Americanizing the language: “Any suggestion the American team had would be accepted by the British team only if two-thirds of the British team agreed. This principle was backed up by an agreement that if their suggestions were put into the appendix of the RV, the American team would not publish their version for 14 years. The appendix had about 300 suggestions in it.”—Wikipedia: American Standard Version.)

    Unlike the American Standard Version, and other scholarly translations of the text, the shades on the New World Translation were drawn so tightly by the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witness movement that over 50 years later it is still hard to piece together whose hand was in the NWT’s pie. And even when details can be verified as best as humanly possible, these are still sketchy. And what is worse, what has so far been uncovered as well as what is demonstrated in the writings of the so-called translators of the NWT itself, even if there was literal translation done, there is no mention of an editors’ board for verification of the work. The Watchtower Society has always been silent about any process of independent authentication and verification as part of the work they so proudly make claim to.

    One would think that if the New World Translation were so accurate that the Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves would use the current access to media and Biblical scholarship to demonstrate to the public why such an important work is needed. Truly, if it is the best translation of the Word of God out there, and, as they themselves point out, ‘people rely on a translation of God’s Word for their personal salvation,’ you would expect each new edition and anything regarding the only truly dependable Bible version to be big news.

    But there is only darkness and shadows given as an explanation instead. For example, who is at the translators’ helm now? Who is checking to see whether or not the text meets the needs of current American English? Even its 1984 revision did little to change its English of the 1950s. In 2010 one needs only to compare the NWT on the Watchtower website with the latest in Bible translation to see that Witnesses can no longer claim “modern English” as one of its facets.

    For Comparison: A Transparent Process

    The Catholic Church in the United States uses one official text for Mass and other liturgical (public) worship and educational activities, and has done so since its first release, namely the New American Bible (or NAB for short). Of course a Catholic may use and read any Bible they wish as long as it is a Church-approved translation (such as the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, the New Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem or New Jerusalem Bible, there’s even a Church- approved New International Version {NIV} Psalms). But when they come together or when it comes to official uses in the United States, it has pretty much been the NAB since the vernacular replaced Latin after Vatican II.

    Not without its critics, and not without its own Vatican-disapproved revision attempts to the Psalter (the 1991 revision used inclusive-language to the point of confusing even those who approve of inclusive-language use), the road to revision has been a long, choppy, and difficult one.

    But it has also been transparent. Whether the voices are pro, against, or somewhere in the middle, whether stated in person, by phone, letter, or on blogs for the public to read, the USCCB and the NAB translators have worked hard to take everyone’s concerns into consideration—and to do more than merely listen to them.

    Being the Bible that a large part of the English-speaking world will use, the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE—which people are pronouncing as “neighbor” ) looks more than promising based on early reviews and feedback from readers, both in academia and the public. Surely it won’t be welcomed by some who prefer previously-used terms over modern ones, even if these are no longer understood and don’t represent the text as accurately, but the majority of today’s Catholics seem eager to welcome it so far.

    But why on the news in America? Well, like the New World Translation can only make claim to, the NABRE is truly a version that people depend on for their salvation—millions of people, more than there are Witnesses and more that read and use its NWT Bible. Being the official translation of the Bible for Catholics in America (and, most interestingly, the only official American translation of any one denomination) it’s a pretty big deal.

    And the 50 recent scholars and editors—as well as the other 50 who came before and whose work actually makes the number 100 by the count that some make—we know their names, their academic background, and their religious affiliation.

    Religious affiliation?

    You read that correctly. The Vatican doesn’t allow current translations of the Bible to be made without Protestants at least on the editorial board. There has been such inclusion, even that from a couple of Jewish scholars, for the NABRE. Why? While the footnotes may at times be specifically Catholic in tone, the actual text has to be something that any Christian, and hopefully anyone who believes in the Bible, can read and fully trust as not being biased. While the results might still be questionable to some and up for debate among others, at least the attempt is a far-cry from the hush darkness of those who stir over the New World Translation. Who checks and verifies the validity of the Jehovah’s Witness Bible? Who else besides them can hope to use it?

    In Conclusion

    Of course, there is no claim that the NABRE is perfect or won’t require revision in the future. We might not rush out ourselves to by a copy because of our current convictions or religious affiliation. But for those at the head of the Watchtower who might be listening, this is how responsible translation of the Bible should at least be attempted. If not perfectly reaching the ideal, at least it’s a start.

    In a world where anyone can now look at and learn to read for themselves the most ancient extant manuscripts of the Bible available, in a world where the average person may have an opinion on how a verse should read—whether it’s because they believe it’s God’s Word or just on the sole basis as an important work that needs to be handled accurately, in a world where those in positions of responsibility are held accountable, the work of translating the Bible for us is no longer something that can be done behind closed doors.

    We may not be Bible scholars and we may not be able to read the original text with the accuracy of someone who is, be we deserve nothing less than the best modern scholarship has to offer. If we choose not to find it in the pages of the NABRE, it’s not because this isn’t a scholarly and trustworthy work. On the contrary, it will be more of a personal choice among other versions just as accurate and dependable, like finding that brand of jeans that feels like a better fit for us individually.

    This is not the case with the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. People aren’t taking issue with it because those who do so are evil or complainers or because they have nothing but hate for the Bible or Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s the darkness that hovers over it and the questionable results.

    While the Watchtower may have worked in the dark to produce this version, they can no longer afford to stay in the dark over why people of today reject its NWT Bible. We can see all the other jeans on the rack and try on any pair. But the Watchtower brand, while having the look of jeans, has no labels, doesn’t wear right, demands the body to fit it instead of attempting to fit the body, and by comparison just doesn’t match up.

    And that’s the difference between doing something in the light and having produced something from the shadows of the dark.

  • dgp
    dgp

    Great post, Juan Miguel.

    May I only add that the English NWT translation was used as the source text for all other translations of the NWT into any other languages. Any translator will tell you that is just not right. And then, you don't know the names of the translators either.

    My conviction is that the Watchtower did this translation in the utmost secrecy because a faithful translation isn't what they wanted. They needed something they could quote at will to claim that their actions are all "Bible based". As any mildly competent dictator knows, if you are to follow the rules, MAKE THE RULES. Tailor them to your needs. That is the NWT. Besides, the importance of that Bible pales when compared to the magazines, so...

  • TTWSYF
    TTWSYF

    Great post Juan. Unfortunately, for the lurkers here, it would carry no weight. Nothing can change their mind that scholars back the NWT as being the most accurate... too bad.

    I remember a post last year speaking about [john8:58] when Jesus declares himself as I AM [Greek=egO eimi]

    NWT translates as 'I have been'

    The difference being that Jesus saying "I AM" equates him with God and "I have been" does not.

    For some of these lurkers, it didn't matter that the Jews with Jesus wanted to kill him for blasphemy, [ I mean, that alone proves the inaccuracy of the NWT]. no no, "I have been" is completely correct and in the perfect tense. End of discussion.

    These people aren't stupid, they just put up mental roadblocks that prevents them from seeing the truth.

    I am [of course] speaking of a minority on this board.

    sincerely meant respectfully,

    dc

  • TD
    TD

    Good to see you back Juan. Excellent post.

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    A facinating post.

    For those of us who are still 'in', and living in ENGLAND, it would be nice to have a NWT in ENGLISH.

    By that I mean English as used in England and not the US version that ruins the spelling ability of every JW child that is forced to read the Bible and all WT material except the KM.

    George

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    If you first establish in their minds that Satan the Devil and his hordes of demons spearhead a worldwide conspiracy to conceal the "truth of God's Divine Name" and the"truth of God's Word" and the "truth about Jehovah's purpose for mankind", and that this conspiracy even reaches into the world of scholarship, it's easy to convince the dubbies that the NWT is the only accurate one. It doesn't matter that no one on the translating committee had any scholarship credentials, because they were "spirit directed".

    Yes, I certainly do believe they were spirit directed.....check this out:

    1 Samuel 16:14

    "And the very spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him." NIV

    I checked 10 of the most popular translations, and nine of them said "evil" while one said "harmful".

    Now notice how the thought is made innocuous in the NWT:

    "And the very spirit of Jehovah departed from Saul, and a bad spirit from Jehovah terrorized him."

    Wouldn't want the reader getting the true sense of this OT god now would we?

  • JuanMiguel
    JuanMiguel

    Thanks for the wonderful comments, friends.

    Yes, I am quite aware that even this won't shake people to their senses if they don't want to see things as they are. Like Prodigal Son demonstrated so well, scholarship is often rejected by the JWs because the Watchtower teaches that such form of academia is tantamount to nothing less than Satanic blinding.

    Those who are religious generally see such biblical scholarship as Spirit-directed, evidence of God at work. An atheist friend of mine who recently retired from teaching theology on the university level (sounds funny, I know, but there some out there) is among those who, while admitting no belief in a god or the religious teachings found within, find such a dramatic change in modern Bible translation as encouraging and "the only type of scholarship worthy enough to transmit such ancient thought for the audience of today."

    But all the best evidence and even such transparency won't convice someone who doesn't want to be convinced. At least, for our part, current scholarship can help us understand that our position is not a futile one. Regardless if we view the Bible as the inspired Word of God or just some ancient work, at least there is the means to verify how to translate it correctly and how to determine if you have a car wreck in your hands.

  • Listener
    Listener

    This is wonderful news and makes my heart sing with joy. Thanks for sharing that fantastic news JM. Our scholars have become much better equiped and informed and it is a great work that they are undertaking.

    It stands to reason that God has allowed the bible to remain vertually intact for well over 2000 years and is willing to see that it remains so. It is his word, from him and belongs to him and there are many dedicated people who respect this to the utmost degree. There is no reason to think he would guide his holy spirit to allow only a select few JWs to maintain it's integrity, quite the opposite given the very limited distribution that occurs.

    Let's see how the GB views this new version and how willing they are to humble themselves and adopt it.

  • Curtains
    Curtains

    Hi Juan

    although I have never been a catholic and have only been exposed to a few bible translations (mainly of course to the NWT) I would still be interested to see why the NABRE receives such high praise from modern scholars. Would you please supply an example from the NABRE

    The watchtower we studiend on sunday was very vitriolic against the catholic church for taking the name of God out of the bible. So I guess they would be asking if the name of god has been included in the NABRE especially in the NT. They would dismiss the NABRE on these grounds. (of course I don't agree with JWs on this but would like to know nevertheless how the NABRE translates the tetragrammaton/adhonai, kyrios - is it always Lord or God or does it sometimes use YAHWEH like some Catholic bibles)

    edited to add: okay so I guess this is what you mean

    Surely it won’t be welcomed by some who prefer previously-used terms over modern ones, even if these are no longer understood and don’t represent the text as accurately, but the majority of today’s Catholics seem eager to welcome it so far.

    I'd like an example please (preferably from the NT) thanks. i understand if you cannot share such info until the bible is published on Wednesday.

  • JuanMiguel
    JuanMiguel

    Hi Curtains,

    Thanks for the comments, especially info on what it being studied in the Watchtower at the Kingdom Halls. It has been so long since I've attended a Watchtower Study.

    I don't have much to share in the way of previews as not much has been provided for the general public. I did however find a few snippets and some links to some examples.

    Some Old Testament portions of the NABRE are currently available on the USCCB website here: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/seven-psalms-songs.shtml

    Mind you, the New Testament portion of the NABRE was completed in 1986 and since been the text available to the public. It can be found here: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/canonical.shtml

    I can't say I am the best to answer such question about the Catholic Bible. I was using the recent revision of their official text to contrast with the NWT. The NABRE has been produced by many and quote openly, but the NWT is a closeted proceedure. The NABRE has also been verified by its process of checking with both scholars and laypersons before deciding on the final text that is being published, whereas no one on the NWT translation commitee (if there is still one) is making themselves and their work accountable to critics.

    I am not meaning to advocate its use or becoming a Catholic or even saying people should accept the Scriptures as the Word of God. I am only pointing out that if the Governing Body really had the world's most accurate rendition of the Bible, and that people's lives depended on it, their work on it would be far more extensive and far more open than it is. At least they would provide some reason as to why those who translated it are truly qualified since in today's modern age it is easy to see by comparison that it is no longer as accurate as once claimed and no longer reflects common English (unlike the NABRE which translators of listened to people to see how they speak and how they quoted and understood Biblical passages in order to make sure the text would be understood by its audience).

    Not Praised by "Many Scholars" but Produced by Many Scholars (and sometimes given the "Thumbs Down")

    Actually if I wrote it correctly, I didn't mean to give the impression that it was modern scholars who were highly praising the NABRE. And while I don't think I actually said that in any form (feel free to correct me so I can correct myself) what I did express was that the NABRE is an important revision since it will affect the lives of those who speak American English.

    The USCCB itself states that this revision of the New American Bible "is the culmination of nearly 20 years of work by a group of nearly 100 scholars and theologians, including bishops, revisers and editors." I do know that not all of them were totally in agreement with one another, and that not everyone was satisfied with the end result from what I read over the past few days from news articles on the subject. But that is to be expected with such a large number of professionals who are attempting to create a single work with such a scope as the NABRE.

    While the previous NAB of 1970 and the recent release of the NAB Revised New Testament in 1986 received generally favorable reviews by scholars (according to the news reports), the 1991 Psalter revision did not. It was criticized not just for the excessive use of inclusive-language (which was at the hight of its novelty in Bible translation at that point), but for the fact that it was used to the point of obscurring certain Christo-centric and Jewish thought in the process.

    To illustrate, the 1991 Psalter rendered Psalm 1:1-2 as:

    Happy those who do not follow

    the counsel of the wicked,

    Nor go the way of sinners,

    nor sit in company with scoffers.

    Rather, the law of the LORD is their joy;

    God's law they study day and night.

    Inclusively speaking these verses can and should be applied as rendered, but Psalm one is seen by Jewish exegesis to refer to the difference between the path taken by Adam and faithful servants of God like Abraham, Levi, and David, to name a few. And since antiquity Christianity has seen it as foreshadowing the faithfulness of Christ himself. That an individual, and specifically a male, is being referred to by word play is obsurred with the use of inclusive terms, even though in Hebrew the terms are nomitatively inclusive of both sexes. The problem is that the pronouns used are also generic masculine at the same time, and this is something that cannot be accurately reproduced in American English if one relies on a totally inclusive-language approach.

    A Return to Commonly Understood Speech

    In the new revised Psalter, the NABRE will return to its previously non-inclusive form as well as update the text to read:

    Blessed is the man who does not walk

    in the counsel of the wicked,

    Nor stand in the way of sinners,

    nor sit in company with scoffers.

    Rather, the law of the LORD is his joy;

    and on his law he meditates day and night.

    An example of how the NABRE translators have listened to both layperson and scholar is the return to the usage of "blessed" for "happy" in the revision. While the term "happy" is actually far more accurate technically speaking, the expression is somewhat meaningless in Catholic speech. Since the Latin term for this type of happiness has been adopted in American English as "beatitude," and is in the common vernacular of the American Catholic to the extent that it carries the meaning of this type of happiness and excluding the meaning generally attributed to "happiness" in a more secular way. the translators adopted the term "blessed." The word is pronounced in two syllables as bles-SED and is an adjective, which is different from the state of having merely 'received a blessing.' which is, in American English, the word "blest" a verb in the past tense. The state of being "blessed" is also the type of happiness used in Matthew chapter 5 by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount where the NABRE uses the same expression such as "blessed are the meek," etc. An interesting side note to this is that from antiquity these words of Jesus have also been referred to as "The Beatitudes," taken from the same expression in the Latin.

    In other words, Catholics don't use the American English word "happy" to express the kind of state these words express. Since they use the adjective "blessed," the translators decided to stick with Catholic speech in the NABRE instead of produce new but foreign and novel approaches. It has also been noted by most contributing Protestant voices that they too understand the use of "blessed" in this sense, and thus the newer "happy" was disposed of altogether.

    The use of "amen, amen," for "most truly I say to you," a unique expression in Jesus Christ's speech, is also such an example. While "verily, verily" has been adopted by many Protestants, the more modern term of the "most truly" as also occurs in the NWT just never caught on after 40 years of trying to include it in various translations in American English. In this instance, the return to the publically preferred "amen, amen" is actually a transliteration of what occurs in the Greek text. Since there are no actual words in English to express the multiple meanings carried in the word "amen," leaving it this way as used by the everyday Christian turns out to be far more accurate than any other American expression.

    Catholics and the Divine Name

    The NABRE doesn't use the Divine Name (YHWH) in its main text, just as it doesn't appear in the NAB's main text either. It is only found in the footnotes, and only in the form that scholarship shows mostly closely resembles ancient Hebrew speech, namely "Yahweh." Nothing here has changed.

    Jehovah's Witnesses tend to forget (or conveniently fail to mention) that Catholics (and by association the Orthodox) are spiritual descendants of the original Christians who called themselves Jews before they were expelled from the Jewish congregation. As such they have left much of their liturgy (worship proceedures) unchanged since the days of the synagogue, including the basic order of the Mass or Divine Liturgy (which is almost exactly like a Temple worship service, minus the Liturgy of the Eucharist/Holy Communion). As such certain practices, like leaving the Divine Name to be uttered only by the High Priest, have never been altered.

    I do remember that this past year there were news reports that Catholics had just stopped using the Divine Name in their Masses. These weren't entirely correct from what I later learned. In some instances the name "Yahweh" was included in some vernacular songs and hymns, even though it isn't in the official Latin text of the Mass. Since Catholics believe like the Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus is now the High Priest, and that Jesus is thus Yahweh's (Jehovah's) representative, adding this to the fact that they believe Jesus is present spiritually during Mass and Yahweh's utmost and final word of revelation regarding himself, Christ's presence itself is the fulfillment of the utterance of the Divine Name. Therefore it is still only "uttered" by the High Priest, in this sense.

    Catholics also have a different approach to treating things holy than do Jehovah's Witnesses. Catholics handle holy things with great reverence and only when necessary. Some holy things are rarely touched or approached since humans are sinful by comparison. God's name is one of these things. Only the holiest of lips, the High Priest, can utter it--at least in their theology. So you are not likely to hear it at a public worship service.

    This doesn't mean they don't use it or say the name otherwise. They do. The Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bible has "Yahweh" in the main text some 6,000 times, almost as many time as the NWT (but since there are no manuscripts or evidence to prove it existed in the New Testament, it never occurs in this rendition in these books).

    But since the text of any new Catholic Bible translation has to serve more than the Catholic community itself, the NABRE uses the same practice they Church has followed since its beginning. So don't expect to find anything more than "Lord" or "God" in all capital letters.

    I know this won't sit well with the Jehovah's Witnesses. I know all the counter arguments. Again, I am only rewriting what I am reading from other sources. A lot of this can be found by anyone--and has even been covered on this board in the past by other people--as the reasons for Catholics not using the Divine Name frequently is well established.

    I did find a verse in the Bible that Catholics use, but it may not sit well with the JWs since it is from the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals. True, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls there is now proof that these books were well-known and used by Jews and originally written in Hebrew (some of this Hebrew text of Tobit, for example, is translated into English for the first time in parts of the NABRE, a major first for any translation of the Bible into English), but this won't do much to impress if they aren't open to it. But nonetheless, here it is, from Sirach 23:9-10:

    Let not your mouth form the habit of swearing,

    or becoming too familiar with the Holy Name.

    Just as a slave that is constantly under scrutiny will not be without welts,

    So one who swears continually by the Holy Name will not remain free from sin.

    Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics don't make it a habit to use God's name since it is more important and far more holier than other names or words. Because sin causes people to misuse terms, especially holy ones, they are careful as to how they use it and how frequently they make utterance of it.

    All This Got Me to Buy the Book (Especially Since the Conservatives at "Mel's Church" are Upset)

    Again I know this won't sit well with many JWs, but Catholics do treat God's name with this type of "specialness." For them this is "hallowing" or making God's name "sacred" or treating it as "holy," to use it not as if it were any other common word or name.

    While I don't have much more to offer (this was a lot to get in a short time and took some help from a Catholic university teacher I know, a lot of thanks to him), I don't expect the JWs to find anything to accept in the NABRE as they never gave the NAB a second glance either.

    However, of interest, the NABRE is far more word-for-word than its previous version. Since the NT is out (see the links above), one might be interested in that a lot of the word order of NABRE NT is similar to the word order in the NWT NT--except for the fact that the NABRE reads far more smoothly. Except for the lack of the Divine Name and its choice to render most of the so-called "Trinity proof texts" the traditional way, the similarity might be interesting to a handful.

    On a personal note, I have decided to purchase a copy and made an advance order on Amazon.com. What is of interest to me now is that a very critical approach to translation is said to have been done, and I would like to see that. I hear that the conservative Catholic camp (the ones who think everything should still be in Latin and even that the current Pope ain't the "real" one--even if you don't believe in Catholicism, what's up with these particular folks?) is up in arms because of the scholarly approach and the "audacity" of the translators to employ the ancient texts, even the Dead Sea Scrolls over the Latin Vulgate (even though the Pope told people to use the ancient languages over the Latin). But then again some of these think he's not the right Pope.

    I dunno, maybe they belong to "St. Mel Gibson Catholic Church" or something, but I for one feel better about using a trustworthy academic approach open to all than otherwise. I am also interested in the fact that it's the first translation into any vernacular to use some of the ancient Hebrew versions of the Apocryphal books (that have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls and Masada) in their rendition.

    P.S.:--There is no such thing as "Mel's Church" and not all conservative Catholics can fit into such a label. I am just joking around. But even if I don't believe in Catholicism or the Pope, where do these people get off saying "the Pope ain't the Pope"? Sheesh! Go join your local Kingdom Hall.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit