My highlights from the AGM (page 4)

MrFreeze

I had dinner with my family yesterday and my mom was excited to show me the new Bible. I thought the NWT was the most accurate version of the Bible. Why did they need a new one?

Apognophos

because in the NWT I have it has always read 'I have been'. The one I have is the 1984 study version

Oops! You're correct, it did already say "I have been" in 1984. The phrase "I was" sounded right to me, so I didn't double-check the old Bible before posting that. Perhaps slimboyfat was thinking of an earlier revision?

That isn't even consistent with their own teaching!! The reason why the 'old' NWT said "in accord with" instead of "after" is because their version of the '70 years' isn't actually supposed to end until the Jews were home (in the 'magical' month of Tishri [October], for the same reason that Armageddon was supposed to begin in October of 1914). But now they've changed the verse so that whilst it's still wrongly using "at" (in reference to 'exile') instead of "for" (in reference to Babylon's dominance), it more correctly indicates that the 70 years ended before the Jews returned to Jerusalem.

Hmm, interesting, I didn't know about the "in accord with" point. But it seems like both versions are saying that the 70 years end before God turns his attention to his people, so I'm not sure I fully grasp your point about the 70 years ending before the return of the Jews. Didn't it always end before they returned?

Jeffro

Apognophos:

Hmm, interesting, I didn't know about the "in accord with" point. But it seems like both versions are saying that the 70 years end before God turns his attention to his people, so I'm not sure I fully grasp your point about the 70 years ending before the return of the Jews. Didn't it always end before they returned?

Nope (well, not in JW belief anyway). Even though (as you've correctly noted) the Bible indicates that the 70 years definitely end before the Jews got back to Jerusalem, that's not what JWs actually believe.

*** kc chap. 14 p. 137 par. 26 The King Reigns! ***
By our calendar that would be October, 537 B.C.E., which date therefore marks the completion of the foretold 70 years of desolation.

*** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
Hence the count of the 70 years of desolation must have begun about October 1, 607 B.C.E., ending in 537 B.C.E. It was in the seventh month of this latter year that the first repatriated Jews arrived back in Judah, exactly 70 years from the start of the full desolation of the land.

*** w68 8/15 p. 494 par. 24 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***
Here, then, very definitely established, is another milestone—the time when the seventy years of desolation of the land of Judah came to an end—about October 1, 537.

*** si p. 85 par. 3 Bible Book Number 15—Ezra ***
A faithful remnant journeyed back to Jerusalem in time to set up the altar and offer the first sacrifices in “the seventh month” (Tishri, corresponding to September-October) of the year 537 B.C.E.—70 years to the month after Judah and Jerusalem’s desolation by Nebuchadnezzar.

The 70 years of nations serving Babylon actually ended with the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, but JWs falsely claim there were 70 years of exile, which is invalidated by the context of Jeremiah chapter 29 anyway.

Apognophos

I'm still recovering memories from yesterday's meeting, and I'd like to correct myself on something. I said that there was no begging for money, but there was a prominent mention of contribution boxes by one speaker, who said that 'probably all of the remote locations have them nearby too'.

Another interesting NWT change: the main Bible text no longer says "Sheol" or "Hades", only "the grave", though the original Hebrew/Greek words are given in footnotes.

Calebs Airplane

I can't decide whether to call this annual meeting a deflated baloon or a train wreck...

Maybe I'll just call them both things...

hoser

I'm still recovering memories from yesterday's meeting, and I'd like to correct myself on something. I said that there was no begging for money, but there was a prominent mention of contribution boxes by one speaker, who said that 'probably all of the remote locations have them nearby too'.

and the chairman mentioned credit/debit at the assembly halls

AnnOMaly

Thanks Apog.

Jer. 29:10 - is it still "at Babylon"? -- Yes; it now reads, "For this is what Jehovah says, 'When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.'"

Disappointing. For all the 'ooohs' and 'ahhs' about the revisions, this is a glaring blunder that should have been amended (as some of the Scandinavian NWTs had been).

Dan. 9:2 - is "devastations" still in the plural, or have they even used another word? -- The word is in fact "desolation" now.

Hm. Interesting.

Matt. 24:39 - is the expression "took no note" still used? -- Yes, this verse is unchanged.

Disappointing. It's as bad as John 17:3's 'taking in knowledge,' and yet they changed that one.

Eph. 6:11 - does it still have "machinations"? -- Of course not :) It's now "crafty acts".

Hurrah. About time.

Have they retained the phrase "undeserved kindness"? -- Yes.

*Wince*

Are the plurals 'YOU' and 'YOUR' no longer capitalized? -- That is correct; the appendix mentions this but does not justify it and simply says "readers may consult earlier editions of this translation for this information". Um, thanks?

I guess it'll be easier to direct inquiring minds to blueletterbible.org or scripture4all.org in future.

slimboyfat

A small point, but I notice that "New World Translation" is smaller in relation to "Holy Scriptures" on the cover of the new Bible than on the old one.

Quarterback

Mentally disease has been replaced with "obsessed"

Apognophos

Have they retained the phrase "undeserved kindness"? -- Yes.

*Wince*

Yes, actually I seem to recall that during the run-up to the new release, as they remembered the original release of the NWT, specific mention was made of the change in wording from whatever they were using before (KJV?) to the NWT, when "grace" became "undeserved kindness". They dwelled on how that gave them a new perspective on the subject. (Perhaps not an accurate perspective, but hey.) So obviously they are proud and unapologetic about that translation.

My highlights from the AGM

Share this