The new bible did NOT remove the previously [bracked inserted words], it only removed the brackets, so it's even more deceptive..

by EndofMysteries 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  MeanMrMustard gives a good example here. "Other" is clearly not a word that is present in a translation of the words.
  "True" is inserted in the example of the opening post, and it is clearly not part of the original. While NWT's are notorious for choosing words to support JW doctrine, removing the brackets is a way to make sure readers think the word belongs there and is from "Jehovah."

  The Bible should be a difficult book to read. It should force you to think about what it is trying to convey. But WTS took that out.
• 

  Terry

  Everybody already knows what I'm about to say, yet I feel I need to say it.

  Step 1: Certain people, each according to their ability and understanding, talk about some persons, places and events.

  Step 2: Listeners hear what is said, each according to his ability to hear and understand.

  Step 3: The above continues until thousands and thousands of transmissions have ocurred.

  Step 4: Disagreements about facts, details, importance or meaning arise and a need for VERIFICATION (falsifiability) arises to settle disputes.

  Step 5: The stories are transformed into WRITTEN versions.

  Step 6: Written versions are referred to as SOURCE DOCUMENTS (in fact, they are redacted oral hand-me-down versions.)

  Step 7: The faux source documents are copied in part or in whole by persons, each according to his ability and motivation.

  Not stop.

  The so-called ORIGINAL or SOURCE documents either wear out, or they are destroyed after being copied.

  At what point in this chain of transmissions of oral stories converted to written accounts and copied into versions DO WE PAUSE AND ASK:

  "How can any of this be regarded as evidence?"

  In fact, none of the (not really original) originals remain in existence anywhere on the earth.

  None of the many generations of copied materials (which contain tens of thousands of discrepent texts) can be compared to so-called originals (they don't exist, remember?) and we are left with only as much confidence as we are able to assert.

  And now, we are discussing accuracy??? Really?
• 

  DATA-DOG

  I like Terry's point. The problem with the WTBTS, is that they are not faithful to what they say are the oldest extant MSS. So the copies of copies or copies are not being adhered to. The hypocrisy comes from claiming the those copies of copies are infallible and inspired, and then ignoring what they actually say.

  Also, when does the dummining stop and education begin? At the AGM the gave the example of praying for our daily bred. " Some cultures consider bread to be a luxury item!" chuckles one of the GB. " We know we don't pray for luxury items, can we say rice?!" [ paraphrasing here] That example is so lame that I cannot even describe it. It was that dumb. Why can't the GB, the most spiritually gifted collective in all of human history write "bread" and add a footnote explaining what it is. Where is the education of the reader? Christ's brothers can't handle that assignment?

  I forget what they decided on, "food" maybe? I truly believe that their little funny examples were given for no other reason than to establish a precedent. They have been changing little things for soooo long now, nobody seems to notice. You start with not expaining what "bread" is, and then you finish with not explaining what "grace" is to a whole new generation.

  It's their responsibility to teach, not dumb down the material. Imagine dumbing down Shakespear until it reveals ebonics, whats the point? Is Shakespear tough to grasp at times, yes. Is it hard to follow? Sometimes it is. Do you need a dictionary handy, yeah. Will you need to understand context? Definitely. You may just need some education, but that is what makes it enjoyable.

  There are more poor teachers than poor students.

  DD
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Terry:

  You are correct. However, I believe the thread is less about overall accuracy/truth of the Bible, and more about WT dishonesty.

  MMM
• 

  Vidiot

  Bobcat - "I wish they had kept them in because some of the bracketed material was interpretational."

  Which is why they didn't keep them in.

  After all, how many authoritarian religions (especially ones facing as many problems as the WTS) would feel particularly inclined to leave their scriptures open to interpretation?
• 

  sir82

  Data-Dog's points are well taken.

  Wouldn't you expect the "one true religion" to encourage study on the part of its adherents, to raise their level of understanding, instead of simplifying the message to the point where it resembles pre-chewed mush? In what sense is that either "faithful" or "discreet"?

  We've reached the point - well maybe the point was reached decades ago - where reading the Bible is absolutely unnecessary in order to be a "good" JW. In fact, Bible reading could be looked upon as a hindrance, particularly if done without the filter of the WT "literature" to "explain" it.
• 

  Vidiot

  sir82 - "Wouldn't you expect the 'one true religion' to encourage study on the part of its adherents, to raise their level of understanding?"

  They used to.

  Eventually, they started losing too many people that way, though.
• 

  NeverKnew

  Didn't someone say that the Interlinear was available as a parallel? If that's the case, haven't they just screwed themselves by removing the brackets?

  Which would hold the greater weight - the Interlinear or the RNWT?
• 

  Wonderment

  There has been a tendency for a while now for bible translators to not indicate words added to the literal text. Others only do it in extreme cases. It is regrettable that the NWT followed thru with a recent custom. It improves readability at the expense of accuracy.

  EndofMysteries: While the word "true" for "the True God" is not strickly literally in the text, for the most part, it is sort of understood in the Hebrew idiom because of the presence of the definite article before God, which singles out God from the false gods.

  Bible translator J. Wash Watts (Ph. D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) also adds true to references of God in the Hebrew text, but shows them in brackets, thus: [the One True] God. Watts devoted a great part of his life to understanding and translating the Hebrew Old Testament.

  Concordant Literal Version reads: "the One, Elohim."
• 

  EndofMysteries

  wonderment - when I view the hebrew interlinear OT, scriptures such as ex 18:11 (other gods), ex 18:12, (sacrifices for God), and ex 18:16, (the [true] God ) all say in the interlinear , e aleim. Can you look them up and see if any difference or the presence of the definite article.

  The interlinear I was using is http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo18.pdf