Sledgehammer subtlety: The insidious reworking of Micah 6:8

by rory-ks 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Interesting. I recall hearing at the AGM that "loving kindness" was being replaced throughout the Bible, as it was an expression referring to loyalty and, as such, was being rephrased more clearly in the Revised NWT.

    Looking at the literal translation here, the word that was translated "kindness" before (and still is, in most Bibles) means "covenant loyalty". So the rNWT verse itself does not seem problematic.

    I can't say if the change was motivated by ideology or not. It looks like the best general definition of the word is actually "favor", which is somewhere between "loyalty" and "kindness" in meaning, but in this context, "cherish favor" or "love favor" would not make sense, so I don't blame them for picking another word.

  • mynameislame
    mynameislame

    Wow, I've mostly been a live and let live and even thought the dubs were harmless and maybe even an Ok way of life.

    But this stuff is a bit scary. It is sounding more and more like they are up to something nefarious.

  • exWTslave
  • PaintedToeNail
    PaintedToeNail

    marking for later

  • Gypsy Sam
    Gypsy Sam

    Marked

  • RottenRiley
    RottenRiley

    Did you compare them to all the other Translations? "Require is used in serveral translations, they always change their Bible for a self-serving message, it's used to trick and back up false doctrines

    "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

    Read Micah 6 ASV | Read Micah 6:8 ASV in paralle

    He has made clear to you, O man, what is good; and what is desired from you by the Lord; only doing what is right, and loving mercy, and walking without pride before your God.

    Read Micah 6 BBE | Read Micah 6:8 BBE in parallel

    He has told you, human one, what is good and what the LORD requires from you: to do justice, embrace faithful love, and walk humbly with your God

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/micah/6-8-compare.html

  • rory-ks
    rory-ks

    Though I appreciate the kind remarks, I can't take credit for catching this change. It came out in the comments section of the article Love Kindness by Meleti Vivlon over at Beroean Pickets.

    I really can't recommend Beroean Pickets highly enough. It is like watching someone departing from "the truth" in real time. He's not out yet, but he damn well will be soon.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    I agree Rory, and I think , perhaps more knowingly that he lets on, he is helping sincere, thinking JW's to take little baby steps themselves. Many JW's would feel really frightened to even read here, but there, on Beroean Pickets it is avery gentle and reasoned and calm presentation.

    Long may it continue, however people are helped, it is all to the good.

    I am concerned about the words "cherish loyalty" which Problemaddict does not see a huge problem with.

    Hebrew, like Greek, "has a word for it", (usually), it seems to me that it is a stretch to use "loyalty" here, the idea of the "just stone" or true weight is what lies behind the words, which means living right more than mere loyalty, which can of course be loyalty to anything if it is not specified as to what.

    "Living right"(exercise justice) is specific.

    It seems that once again, the WT, by pushing its cult agenda, has weakened the translation, losing the thought of the Writer in a welter of propaganda.

    Again with James, the new rendering ignores the whole context of the Letter, James was more than likely written toward the end of the first Century, when there would have been a Church hierarchy of Elders etc, but "James" is not concerned with this at all, he is writing on Christian Ethics, faith combined with works, hence he is urging older men to help those who need it, it would matter not if they actually had a"position".

    To impose the 21st century structure of the WT/JW cult on the first Century church in translation is both silly and dishonest.

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    For any who have access to TWOT (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament), there is a nearly three page article (under "698" which corresponds to Strong's # 2617) for the Hebrew hesed. This is the word that the NWT would nornally translate as "loving kindness" and footnote as "loyal love." (But translated "loyalty" in the rNWT at Micah 6:8. "Cherished" is 'ahab, Strong's # 157.)

    The article gives a history of its translation, listing several milestone studies. (E.g. Nelson Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, 1927, translated into English from German by one A. Gottschalk. This is described by TWOT as a sort of watershed on the subject, and the views expressed therein generally held to by modern translators. See here for resources available on Google Books.)

    Although the article in TWOT discusses hesed in various contexts, a train of thought underlying the discussion is whether hesed refers to loyalty required as a part of covenant agreements, or whether the covenants were the result of God's already existing hesed. In the judgment of the TWOT article (written by a Richard L. Harris), hesed precedes/supercedes covenant obligations, and, in fact, it is this hesed that prompts God to enter into covenant contracts with people.

    The article ends saying, "The word "lovingkindness" of the KJV is archaic, but not far from the fulness of the meaning of the word."

    To be sure, there is an aspect of fidelity or loyalty to hesed. To illustrate, a husband and wife would have loyalty/fidelity towards one another. The question is, 'Are they loyal because they have a marriage contract, or is the marriage contract a result of their loyalty/fidelity towards one another?' If you chose the latter, then you will agree with the gist of the TWOT article on hesed.

    I get the feeling, though, that the Society would lean towards the former. But I think (IMO) that view is ultimately self-defeating.

    Take Care

  • Jon Preston
    Jon Preston

    Lets put it this way, my wife and I were strongly encouraged to push our wedding to as soon as possible, foregoing A wedding ceremony and reception because we had a child born out of wedlock....so loyalty to a contract was pushed to please jehovah without any consideration on how we felt about each other, getting married, monetary issues (and we were dirt poor), eTc. No the hurry was to get married at the courthouse to become publishers and be welcomed int. The congregation so we could associate regularly with everyone. At the time we thought "yes!!!" now when my wife attends weddings the only feeling she has is regret for missing her wedding....

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit