by smmcroberts 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
In a previous blog I showed why the GB cannot be a "slave". In that blog I promised to review the rest of their infamous claim of being "faithful and discreet". That blog is now ready for your consideration:
http://smmcroberts.net/blog/whos-a-faithful-discreet-slave-then/
It turns out, based on the evidence, that they can't logically be both discreet and God's channel. They have to be one or the other (or neither.)
Unfortunately, “faithful and discreet slave” is a mistranslation. Playing devil’s advocate, the actual term is “faithful and wise servant.” Whether the term “faithful” can be used in connection with the Governing Body is moot. “Wise” is defined as “having wisdom or discernment for what is true, right, or lasting.” The term “discreet” is “exercising or showing prudence and wise self-restraint in speech and behavior.” And finally, a slave is “one bound in servitude as the property of a person or household,” where a “servant” is “one who is privately employed to perform domestic services.”
Now whether the Governing Body is a faithful and wise servant is something members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses must decide. But they also have to decide whether the GB is responsible for the horrendously awful translation of the scriptures.
You also quoted Revelation 22:18* to show that the translators shouldn’t have used “Jehovah” in their New Testament Greek translations. You wrote that “they did not remain faithful to the extant manuscripts.” As horrendous as the JW New World Translation is, a translation is merely to render into another language. If the GB is inspired of God, then making these changes is perfectly okay. Also, the scriptural reference to Revelation 22:18 refers only to the book of Revelation, and not to the Bible. The early Christians had an open canon. King James translators changed many references to God to “Lord.” This didn’t mean that they were adding to the scriptures, or taking away from them; nor did it mean that the translations were necessarily bad. But they are weighted to the JW doctrine where, for some insane reason, the term “Jehovah” is overly important to them. In most other faiths, Jesus is the one to whom Christians look. And the JWs believe that Jehovah is the Father of Jesus where the scriptures teach fairly clearly that Jehovah, not Michael, is the pre-existent Jesus.** If the GB is wrong about that, then that’s another doctrinal kink they have to answer for.
--------------------- * “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book….”
** Both Jehovah and Jesus share the same titles, such as the First and the Last, Savior, Judge, etc. In fact, Jehovah will come to judge the nations, and his coming mirrors that of Christ’s. John declared that the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son. (John 5:22) The Witnesses explain the identical titles by saying that Jesus is so much “One” with Jehovah that they can use the same titles.
Yes, Cold Steel, I know all of that.
They stuck in the name "Jehovah" in Revelation as well, so I maintain that Rev. 22:18 is a pertinent quote. But you could use Deut. 4:2 instead if you prefer: "YOU must not add to the word that I am commanding YOU, neither must YOU take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah YOUR God that I am commanding YOU."
But I don't really care what the Bible has to say about it: Translators have a duty to be "faithful" to the document they are translating and not insert their own biases.
The Watchtower took it upon themselves to mistranslate the Greek word for "Lord" (Kurios) into "Jehovah" 237 times. They did this arbitrarily and inconsistently. Wherever Kurios was obviously used in reference to Jesus, they translated Kurios as "Lord".
If they had at least been consistent in their substituting "Jehovah" in place of "Kurios" then Philippians 2:9-11 would read in the NWT:
"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those in heaven, and of those on earth and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, to the glory of God the Father."
But that would contradict their preconceived notions about Jesus not being Jehovah, so it's painfully obvious that they let their own doctrine dictate what their Bible translation should say.
So I think this is an excellent example of one way in which they have not been faithful.
And, Yes; "discreet" and "slave" are also stupid translations. But that's what they choose to call themselves, so we have every right to call them on it and show that they have not lived up to their claim. I don't think it's just up to the JWs to decide if the GB has lived up to their claim. Since they broadcast their boast out into the world, the world has a right to judge whether or not the claim is justified.
Good points all! I agree 100 percent. They're a fairly closed people and their Bible translation is garbage. After all these years, I still like the KJV. I use other translations, but the New World Translation makes me groan when I read it because it's so crude and unrefined. It's like the translators went out of their way to force their doctrines. They formulated those doctrines, then translated the Bible to support those doctrines. The "slave" thing is particularly dreadful, though. I forget the scripture, but it even noted the difference between a slave and a servant. Strange that the JWs would then make those translations.
Does it ever bug anyone else that Witnesses pronounce the phrase as "faithful indiscreet slave"? At least where I've been. I grew up wondering why it was good for the slave to be "indiscreet". Is it because they're so bold in preaching?, I wondered. Eventually I read the words for myself in the literature. Then I understood it was being said "faithful 'n' discreet slave", like "rock 'n' roll"....
