the new jw bible and the verses they removed

by Crazyguy 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Phizzy

  I don't have the RNWT to compare, but I think a couple of posters on here are working on doing a side by side presentation so we can see the difference.

  What I find very annoying is the use of the word "spurious" for most of these verses, yes in a number of cases we do know they are deliberate later additions, but this is not necessarily true of all.

  And what it fosters is the idea that there is some kind of "genuine" or reliable text, which as Prof. Ehrman clearly shows is simply not the case.

  All we have is copies of many generations of copies, many done by amateur copyists not familiar with the language they were copying quite often, the oldest we have is about 150 years after the originals, so Textual Critics can only take a guess at what was originally written.

  And hence, the Master Texts are simply educated guesses. We have nothing that we can be sure is not spurious.

  As Bart Ehrmann says, there are more errors in the manuscripts than there are words in the new Testament.

  And yet the WT wants you to lay down your life, or worse, the life of one of your children, based on their weird interpretation of doubtfull words that have no Provenance.

  Crazy.
• 

  Phizzy

  Just another example of where it suited the WT to leave something in, which by their criteria of Oldest or Best Manuscript should have beeen left out.

  Luke 22 v19&20 RNWT

  "Also, he took a loaf,+ gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body,+ which is to be given in your behalf.+ Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”+ 20 Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant+ by virtue of my blood,+which is to be poured out in your behalf."

  This is what prof. Ehrman has to say on the words "for you" (on your behalf RNWT):

  "Everywhere else in Luke, as we saw

  in chapter 3, Luke has eliminated Mark’s references to

  Jesus’ death as an atonement. The only remnant of that

  teaching is in some manuscripts of the Lord’s Supper,

  where Jesus says that the bread is his body to be broken

  “for you” and the cup is his blood poured out “for you.”

  But in our earliest and best manuscripts, these words

  are missing (much of v. 19 and all of v. 20). It appears

  scribes have added them to make Luke’s view of Jesus’

  death conform to Mark’s and Matthew’s. I’d say that’s

  rather important—unless you think that Luke’s views

  on the subject don’t really matter."
• 

  Phizzy

  I see the big old Reference NWT lists in a footnote that these words are not in the oldest manuscripts.

  I wonder if the WT have any plans for a Revised Reference Bible, and if so, will it be even as honest as the old one ?

  I doubt either somehow. The JW rank and file is dumbing down fast, told that they "don't read big books " ! (see Gorbachov's thread) and the WT is becoming more dishonest.
• 

  Bobcat

  Interesting Catholic Forum thread where the WT as a bible society and the revised NWT is discussed (here).
• 

  Phizzy

  Are they now going to be known as the Watchtower, Hidden Bible, and Tract society ?