Sloppy Scholarship and 3rd Rate Love (3/1 WT)

metatron

This Watchtower is supposed to help people identify True Christianity, relative to their cult standards (March 1, 2012)

Of course, they use the name 'Jehovah' as a club to fend off other claimants - why does it not surprize me that they self reference this silliness by quoting the New World Translation and its wrongful insertion of 'Jehovah' in Romans 10: 13? No logic here....

And for proof that Christians used the Name, they offer an unreferenced quote from Jewish sources in regard to burning Christian books. Unfortunately, as regards the facts here, it isn't at all plain that the standard Gospels are being referred to and the minim might be Gnostics.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilyonim

Additionally, you would think that 'having love among yourselves' would top the list of identifiers of true religion (as Jesus might think - but he seems to be a secondary character in Watchtower-Land) but in this Cult Apologia this love is listed THIRD!

Given the minimal charity that Witnesses display, even towards each other (they mention helping after a storm - whoop-de do) , I guess I shouldn't be surprized here either. The Mormons do much better, together with whatever local church exists in your area that has any bake sale for a child that needs an operation the parents can't afford.

OOps, I forgot .... they gotta preach... no time for that charity crap.

metatron

N.drew

Funny I was going to start a thread on the NWT where they have translated "lord" into "jehovah".but studying it I found this:

Romans 10:13 Hebrew Bible

?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????

OK! How about this:

http://scripturetext.com/romans/10-13.htm

factfinder

N. Drew-

Romans 10:13 in the Hebrew version DOES have the tetragrammaton, God's name in Hebrew: Yod, Heh, Vav, Heh. (Right to left.)

That seems to support what the WTS says. The other translations substitute "Lord" for God's name.

I don't see your point? I don't think you meant to support the WTS, did you?

N.drew

The trouble with this war is prejudice. That is what infuriates me so. The ancients that wrote the scriptures, wrote them for something but the logical thinkers who are looking for the truth have thrown it all away.

If the Watchtower is correct about something will you call them wrong? Lying won't win anything.

I don't see your point? I don't think you meant to support the WTS, did you?

I don't support the Watchtower, no. It makes a funny vision in my head, what you said factfinder.

factfinder

N.Drew-

It does seem that the WTS is correct that the Hebrew translation of the Greek Scriptures DOES have Jehovah's name, not "Lord".

I certainly try to be objective and do admit when the WTS is right about something.

What is the funny vision "in your head" that my comment makes you see, N. Drew? !!!

Hoffnung

Romans 10:13 is a tricky one. In the Greek Manuscripts of this verse Jehovah or the tetragrammaton is not there. As the hebrew versions are translations of the greek text, that can not be used as a valid argument. If it is not in the original greek text, it is not in the hebrew translation of the same greek text either.

Unfortunately that is not all. In Romans 10:11, Paul writes: "For the Scripture says:..." , and verse 13 is clearly a quote from an old testament verse. Actually Romans 10 is full of OT verse quotes. In the original OT verse, the tetragrammaton is definitely there. The question is: did Paul use an OT verse and applied to Jesus? The context seems to confirm this (verses 5 to 10), the more so as until today, no greek text with Jehovah inserted in this verse could be found. But as it is also a OT quote, I prefer to leave it out of the debate and point to other more definite mistranslations, which are there in abundance. Just some 0,02$

Hoffnung

Sulla

The whole point, factfinder, is that the NT goes out of the way to apply dozens of OT passages that originally refer to YHWH and directly re-interpret these to apply to Jesus. Romans 10 is just one typical example. The whole point is that the primitive Church insisted all these passages were really about Jesus. For the Wt to take these passages and put "Jehovah" back in them, when absolutely no valid reason exists to do so, is simply an attempt to make the books say something they do not say. We have a word for that.

Phizzy

Unless you know which manuscript Paul used when referring to the O.T you cannot know for sure that he was looking at one, or even familiar with one, that used the tetragrammaton, some substitute for it, or one that used simply Kyrios.

It is quite plain that a lot of his quotes are from the Septuagint, copies of which in Paul's time probably did not have the Name in full or even in part, from the 2nd century B.C , maybe earlier, the Name was not pronounced, in Hebrew manuscripts the vowel points for "Lord" being there to show that the Name should not be uttered when reading.

I know that there are a few champions of the WT's use of the Name, on here, Slimboyfat, and some scholars argue for its use in many instances, but I have my doubts.

If you read Paul's words in a translation that uses "Lord" it just seems much plainer than the NWT. It is plain to me that the NWT's insertion of "Jehovah" with no manuscript backing is motivated not by a desire for accurate translation, but to obfuscate the source of the trinity doctrine, that source often being the words of Paul.

WTWizard

Love among yourselves? I bet that most Muslims do better than that than the witlesses (with the exception of the very few that go around blowing things up in the name of Allah and are not doing it simply to defend themselves from Christians that would rip apart their families in the name of Jesus). Atheists, too. At least atheists and agnostics don't go around tubthumping the Bible in Nigeria.

True Christianity is actually quite easy to understand, once you take away the religions and their attempts to confuse things. The truest Christianity in its original form is what Jesus himself did, and no one else can claim this. The next step down from that is to take the core principles: Man is scum because of a single act, Jesus died to un-scum us from that act, and such sacrifice is perfect, complete and nothing ever need be added to it. Simple.

Of course, one can be a disciple of Christ without being a Christian. What this means is using Jesus' teachings (not the Paulian rubbish that confused so much of what we call Christianity) the way you would use a course. If you are beginning a new endeavor, you are going to need teaching. The courses are designed to get you to that level of proficiency. Jesus' teachings can do the same thing. However, it is with the realization that eventually you are going to reach the proficiency level of the course. At which point, you begin experimenting and rise above the course. With discipleship of Jesus, you cease being a disciple of Christ once you reach that level. You then begin adding your own observations to the program, and get better than you ever could have had you remained a disciple.

N.drew

I hope the point that gets across to believers in the Watchtower is they changed it from the original.

It seems (but I'm not a scholar haha!) that it was written originally under inspiration from the Holy Spirit (they teach it was) as Lord and NOT Jehovah. So when they replaced Lord (meaning the one to obey) with Jehovah (meaning the one to fear) they changed the original intent of the passage.

And that is going beyond what is acceptable according to them and according to truth.

In other words they can not teach that the Bible is the word of God and also take liberty to change it. But they have.

There is plenty of proof that they have changed it.

Sloppy Scholarship and 3rd Rate Love (3/1 WT)

Share this