Other Sheep & New Covenant WT Scams

by Perry 59 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  Don't take this amiss, Perry. I think the two-class Christianity idea is bunkum too. But I question what you say here:

  They base this belief upon the reading in the New World Translation of Luke 22: 29 which erroneously reads: "and I make a covenant with you, just as my father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom".
  
  On page 1584 of the New World Translation Reference Bible, each of the 33 occurances of the Greek word for covenant, diathe'ke is listed. Luke 22: 29 is not included in this list because the word "covenant" does not appear in the greek text for this scripture. Here is the page so you can see for yourself.

  The verb diatithemi in Luke 22:29, according to the blueletterbible site, means:

  1) to arrange, dispose of, one's own affairs

  a) of something that belongs to one

  b) to dispose of by will, make a testament

  2) to make a covenant, enter into a covenant, with one

  Other examples are included on the site - although it has to be said that the noun 'covenant' or 'testament' is already there, so the verb diatithemi is just rendered 'made' or 'make.' The NWT didn't mistranslate in this instance.
• 

  Perry

  tornapart says:

  true Christians follow what Jesus preached...to love their enemies.

  Exactly, just because I love my enemies doesn't mean that I'll allow them to rape and pillage my family and my neighbor. A true Christian would pray that God would open their eyes and hearts even as they took steps to mitigate or limit the evil to the best of their ability. There is no conflict here. Jesus never once condemned the military. A good military is a blessing from the Lord when used as protection and not agression.

  All of Europe didn't exceed 25 million people in the year 1000

  Yes and it more than doubled during the next 300 years after that. Keep in mind that the average live span was only around 35 years and you'll still come up with hundreds and hundreds of millions of people who lived and died during the 1200 year Papal genocide conducted by around 80 Popes in a row.
• 

  Perry

  Ann ... point understood that you are trying to make.

  Notwithstanding, the noun for "Covenant" isn't there in that scripture. Jesus didn't use that word in this instance even though he had just previouosly used in when describing THE New Covenant (Testament) just nine verses earlier:

  20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

  Strongs 1242.
  diatheke, dee-ath-ay'-kay; from 1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will):--covenant, testament.
  

  The context is critical here: The disciples were concerned about what they were going to get out of this, they wondered who was greatest. They had paid a heavy price in being disfellowshipped from much of their families and now Jesus was going away. They were a little rattled.

  So, like a good sheperd he comforted them by reminding them that they would be given a kingdom just as he had been given one and that they would all be together again.

  "Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table"

  1303.
  diatithemai, dee-at-ith'-em-ahee; middle voice from 1223 and 5087; to put apart, i.e. (figuratively) dispose (by assignment, compact, or bequest):--appoint, make, testator.
  

  Jesus gives, assigns, or appoints a kingdom to his followers. Even if a person allowed for the clumsy "make a covenant" rendering, there is not two covenants here. There is only one for the forgiveness of sins at that dinner table.

  Mt. 26: 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
  28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

  Clearly Fred Franz used this occasion to use the exact same English word for a different Greek word for the sole purpose of obscuring just exacly what THE New Covenant was.

  He acheived his purpose. Millions of people now reject their only hope of passing judgement because they were LIED to about what is the New Covenant. When people are lied to they will do anything. The Japanese would have never surrendered in WWII because they were LIED TO and told that the Americans were cannibals and would eat them and their families.

  Furthermore, that clumsy translation in the NWT and the subsequent theology built upon it are lies straight from the pits of Hell.
• 

  designs

  'lies straight from the pits of hell' unlike Jesus misuse of scripture heh
• 

  garyneal

  Perry's back...
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Perry, I'm still not convinced that the NWT has erred in translation here. The rendering may sound clumsy, but it is within the word's lexical meaning and fits with the context just fine.

  Check out the parallel Bible on this verse http://bible.cc/luke/22-29.htm. Admittedly, only Weymouth uses 'covenant' as a verb in this list, but the noun diathe'ke is derived from diatithemi anyway (according to Robertson's Word Studies).

  A couple of the older commentaries make these observations:

  The original word "appoint" has the force of a "covenant" or compact, and means that it should be "surely" or certainly done, or that he pledged himself to do it. All Christians must enter into the kingdom of heaven after the manner of their Lord - through much tribulation; but, though it must be, as it was with him, by many tears and sorrows, yet they shall surely reach the place of their rest and the reward of heaven, for it is secured to them by the covenant pledge and faithfulness of their Lord and King. - Barnes.

  I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me - The Codex Alexandrinus, with some other MSS., the later Syriac, and Origen, read in the first clause, διαθηκην, a covenant. I appoint unto you a Covenant, as my Father hath appointed unto me a kingdom: - Ye shall be ministers of the new covenant, as I am king in that spiritual kingdom to which it relates. This is a curious reading: but our Lord is probably to be understood as promising that they should get a kingdom ... . - Clarke.

  [emphasis mine]

  The issue appears to be centered on nuances in understanding ('How many covenants are there in Luke 22?') rather than translation IMHO.
• 

  Perry

  I understand Ann. And such is the nature of languages.... slippery, somewhat subjective little things.

  Couple of points here:

  The Codex Alexandrinus, with some other MSS., the later Syriac, and Origen, read in the first clause, διαθηκην, a covenant. I appoint unto you a Covenant

  First off, vast numbers of Christians do not except the minority text scripts as authoritative for a number of very good reasons. I am one of those. You can read about my reasons here. Vaticanus and Alexandrinus and the few frags and mss based on them make up less than 1% of all known manuscripts. They contain thousands of disagreements with each other and enough words are omitted, that if added up would equal the length of 1 and 2nd Peter. That's a lot of missing ends of sentences and key words for people like pseudo translators Fred Franz to perform his alchemy with, not to mention the obvious problem of the actual quality of the manuscript itself.

  What the text is saying is something is this:

  "By virture of the New Covenant (which they were all just previously discussing), with me as its blood furnisher (legalizer), and you all as members, I can now and do hereby, under the rights and terms associated with that Agreement extend co-rulership rights with me to you all."

  The above captures the meaning of the discussion, but so does "I appoint unto you a kingdom". - Much cleaner, concise and less apt to be misconstrued.

  diatheke - Strongs 1242 means literally A Contract

  diatithemai - Strongs 1303 is a related word and literally means: to put apart, i.e. (figuratively) dispose (by assignment, compact, or bequest):--appoint

  The words are different although related. In diatithemai, the "assigning" is performed under the terms of a non-specific agreement or authority. However, diatheke is a specific contract.

  See the difference?
• 

  AnnOMaly

  The words are different although related. In diatithemai, the "assigning" is performed under the terms of a non-specific agreement or authority. However, diatheke is a specific contract.

  See the difference?

  Yes. One is a verb and one is a noun derived from the verb. The 'assigning' can only occur as a result of a specific agreement/authority.

  To illustrate any difference: It is somewhat analogous to,

  "This is the new bequest"

  "I bequeath you an estate, just as my father bequeathed me an estate"

  The words 'bequest' and 'bequeath' are different although related, however, someone may choose to express it in another way:

  "This is the new testament"

  "I bestow upon you an estate, as my father bestowed upon me"

  or

  "This is the new contract"

  "I make an agreement with you for an estate, as my father made an agreement with me"

  or

  "This is the new covenant"

  "I covenant with you an estate, as my father covenanted with me"

  Whatever the rendering, a diathe'ke can be 'diatithemi-ed,' a covenant covenanted (an expression often used in the LXX - diatheken diatithemai), a bequest bequeathed, a contract contracted.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Just to add (I had to break off and do something else) ...

  We're basically on the same page with this 'new covenant' thing, Perry. All I'm disputing is the part where you think the NWT mistranslated Luke 22:29 by rendering diatithemi as 'make a covenant.'
• 

  Perry

  Long Day.

  Yes, we are in basic agreement. No way two different covenants were being discussed that night.

  However, I still maintain "make a covenant" is totally out of place because the wording "a covenant" sounds like it could still mean something specific in the English language. Wheras "appoint", "bequeath", "bestow" better preserves the action that is acheived by virture of some unknown, non-specific authorithy or position of the giver. That non specific authority or position is revealed just nine verses earlier when they were discussing THE New Covenant and so makes perfect sense with the context.

  I wouldn't have a problem with using a verbalized form of covenant if there was such a word in English, but there isn't. So, I'll make one up to make my point. How about covenatize ?

  I covenatize a kingdom unto you. This preserves the official action without the possibility of connoting a specific covenant that may or may not be part of some other one.

  We can agree to disagree on this. We wouldn't even be discussing it if the WT didn't walk through the idiomatic open door of that rendering and teach the very opposite of what Jesus would have wanted us to do with his New Covenant with mankind.

  Have a good evening!