I recently had a casual conversation at a bar on the subject of atheism.
They used the expression "greek scriptures".
I didn't pursue it but it made me wonder.
If someone refers to the "greek scriptures" is that a sign of JW indoctrination?
by scotoma 13 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
NewYork44M
I never knew anyone other than Witnesses that use the terms "Greek" and "Hebrew" scriptures. Perhaps this person sensed that you might be a witness and wanted to speak the talk. Otherwise, I suspect this person was or is a witness.
-
Bobcat
I find it funny that "Christian Greek Scriptures" is more accurate. This is why we don't say "New Testament." Yet "Jehovah" is used, despite its lack of technical precision, because that is the form of the Tetragram that people are familiar with.
I've converted back to "New Testament." If asked, it is for the same reason I use "Jehovah." It is what people are familiar with.
-
Perry
Yes it is definitely a sign. I believe the Watchtower exists for the purpose of preventing people from accepting the New Covenant and avoiding condemnation. (The terms testament and covenant are interchangeable in the bible....same greek word)
What better way to prevent this than by doing away with its name? The enemy would have people believe that the New Covenant (a literal contract with God) was only for 144,00 people who lived long ago.... not for YOU. They say it was for rulership positions in the coming Kingdom. That's a lie from Hell.
Jesus made this clear in Matt 26: 27 - And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you, 28 for this means my blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins". - NWT (.....not simply rulership positions or earth / heaven destinations)
The terms old testament and new testament are appropriate because the root meaning of testament is covenant or contract. Both of the bibles' contracts with God that are described within it, allowed a person to avoid condemnation for their personal sins through the legal maneuver known as imputation. The death penalty was imputed onto someone or something else and the sinlessness of the scapegoat was imputed onto the sinner. Both biblical contracts work the same basic way; hence the WT would like to hide this fact about the primary purpose of the bible.
It has little to do with who gets to run the show after Jesus returns. It is of minor relative importance who makes it as the bride of Christ or the bride of Jehovah, or those that are "left over" in the earth after Armageddon.
What is of major friggin importance is whether or not a person will stand trial for their own sins or not. Many on that day will object and accuse Jesus of not holding up his end of the bargain. He will chillingly tell them "I never knew you"..... or, more literally; "I never had a contract with you to be your scapegoat.".
-
stuckinarut2
Greek scriptures.... sounds dirty....
-
A.proclaimer
I'm a born in and I've never realized that. I've always thought of it as the New Testament and the Old Testament. Come to think of it, I didn't realize those terms were never used in the Kingdom Hall, funny.
-
stuckinarut2
Seriously A.proclaimer?
You have never heard the WT use "hebrew and greek scripures"?
May I ask how old you are? I am a born in, and we were strictly told to always use those expressions rather than OT and NT...
-
Divergent
Nerds enjoy reading the geek scriptures ^^
-
Terry
The only Bible the Jews in Jesus day had which they could read (unless they were priests or a rabbi)
was the Greek translation of their Holy writings by the bogus "seventy" scholars.
Have you ever read the wild tale passed off as true about the Septuagint?
READ:
King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.
-
blondie
*** w11 6/1 p. 20 When Was the Bible Written? ***
ALTHOUGH the Bible is the most widely read book in history, there are many ideas in circulation regarding when it was written, especially the Hebrew Scriptures, often called the Old Testament.
*** w11 7/1 p. 24 Who Made the Laws That Govern Our Universe? ***
To provide some perspective, let us go to the fourth century B.C.E., about a century after the writing of the Old Testament—the Hebrew portion of the Bible—was completed.
*** w09 4/1 p. 21 Even in a Dead Language, the Bible Is Alive ***
RENDERINGS THAT MADE HISTORY
The Vetus Latina, translated from Greek, contained many renderings that were to make history. One of these was the translation of the Greek word di·a·the ′ ke, “covenant,” as testamentum, or “testament.” (2 Corinthians 3:14) As a result of that rendering, many people still refer to the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures as the Old Testament and the New Testament respectively.
*** w95 3/1 p. 19 “Old Testament” or “Hebrew Scriptures”—Which? ***
“Old Testament” or “Hebrew Scriptures”—Which?
TODAY it is a common practice in Christendom to use the terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” to describe the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek language parts of the Bible. But is there any Biblical basis for using these terms? And for what reasons do Jehovah’s Witnesses generally avoid using them in their publications?
True, 2 Corinthians 3:14, according to the King James Version as well as some other older translations, such as the German Septembertestament, Martin Luther’s first translation (1522), may appear to support this practice. In the King James Version, this verse reads: “But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.”
However, is the apostle speaking here about the 39 books that are commonly called the “Old Testament”? The Greek word here translated “testament” is di·a·the ′ ke. The famous German theological encyclopedia Theologische Realenzyklopädie, commenting on 2 Corinthians 3:14, says that ‘the reading of the old di·a·the ′ ke’ in that verse is the same as ‘reading Moses’ in the following verse. Hence, it says, ‘the old di·a·the ′ ke’ stands for the Law of Moses, or at most, the Pentateuch. It certainly does not stand for the entire pre-Christian body of inspired Scripture.
The apostle is referring to only a part of the Hebrew Scriptures, the old Law covenant, which was recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch; he is not referring to the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures in their entirety. Furthermore, he does not mean that the inspired Christian writings of the first century C.E. constitute a “new testament,” since this term occurs nowhere in the Bible.
It is also to be noted that the Greek word di·a·the ′ ke that Paul here used actually means “covenant.” (For further information see New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References, Appendix 7E, page 1585, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984.) Many modern translations therefore correctly read “old covenant” rather than “old testament.”
In this connection, the “National Catholic Reporter” stated: “The term ‘Old Testament’ inevitably creates an atmosphere of inferiority and outdatedness.” But the Bible is really one work, and no part is outdated, or “old.” Its message is consistent from the first book in the Hebrew part to the last book in the Greek part. (Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17) So we have valid reasons to avoid these terms that are based on incorrect assumptions, and we prefer to use the more correct terms “Hebrew Scriptures” and “Christian Greek Scriptures.”
*** si p. 11 par. 27 “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” ***
27 It is a mistake of tradition to divide God’s written Word into two sections, calling the first section, from Genesis to Malachi, the “Old Testament,” and the second section, from Matthew to Revelation, the “New Testament.” At 2 Corinthians 3:14 the popular King James Version tells of the “reading of the old testament,” but here the apostle is not referring to the ancient Hebrew Scriptures in their entirety. Nor does he mean that the inspired Christian writings constitute a “new testament [covenant].” The apostle is speaking of the Law covenant, which was recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch and which makes up only a part of the pre-Christian Scriptures. For this reason he says in the next verse, “when Moses is read.” The Greek word rendered “testament” in the King James Version has uniformly been rendered “covenant” in many modern translations.—Matt. 26:28; 2 Cor. 3:6, 14, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version.
*** Rbi8 p. 1585 7E The Expressions “The Old Testament” and “The New Testament” ***
7E The Expressions “The Old Testament” and “The New Testament”
2Co 3:14—Gr., ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης (e·pi ′ tei a·na·gno ′ sei tes pa·lai·as ′ di·a·the ′ kes );
Lat., in lectione veteris testamenti
1611 “in the reading of the old testament” King James Version.
1950 “at the reading of the old covenant” New World
Translation
of the Christian
Greek Scriptures,
Brooklyn.
Today it is a common practice to refer to the Scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic as “The Old Testament.” This is based on the reading in 2Co 3:14 in the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version. The Christian Greek Scriptures are commonly called “The New Testament.” It is to be noted that in 2Co 3:14 the word di·a·the ′ kes means “covenant,” as in the other 32 places where it occurs in the Greek text.—See App 7D.
Concerning the meaning of the Latin word testamentum (genitive, testamenti), Edwin Hatch, in his work Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889, p. 48, states that “in ignorance of the philology of later and vulgar Latin, it was formerly supposed that ‘testamentum,’ by which the word [di·a·the ′ ke ] is rendered in the early Latin versions as well as in the Vulgate, meant ‘testament’ or ‘will,’ whereas in fact it meant also, if not exclusively, ‘covenant.’” Likewise, in A Bible Commentary for English Readers by Various Writers, edited by Charles Ellicott, New York, Vol. VIII, p. 309, W. F. Moulton wrote that “in the old Latin translation of the Scriptures testamentum became the common rendering of the word [di·a·the ′ ke ]. As, however, this rendering is very often found where it is impossible to think of such a meaning as will (for example, in Ps. lxxxiii, 5, where no one will suppose the Psalmist to say that the enemies of God ‘have arranged a testament against Him’), it is plain that the Latin testamentum was used with an extended meaning, answering to the wide application of the Greek word.”—See Ps 25:10 and Ps 83:5 ftns.
In view of the above, the rendering “old testament” in the King James Version in 2Co 3:14 is incorrect. Many modern translations correctly read “old covenant” at this point. Here the apostle Paul is not referring to the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures in their entirety. Neither does he mean that the inspired Christian writings constitute a “new testament (covenant).” The apostle is speaking of the old Law covenant, which was recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch and which makes up only a part of the pre-Christian Scriptures. For this reason he says in the next verse, “whenever Moses is read.”
Therefore, there is no valid basis for the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures to be called “The Old Testament” and for the Christian Greek Scriptures to be called “The New Testament.” Jesus Christ himself referred to the collection of sacred writings as “the Scriptures.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Joh 5:39) The apostle Paul referred to them as “the holy Scriptures,” “the Scriptures” and “the holy writings.” (Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15) In harmony with the inspired utterance in Ro 1:2, the New World Translation contains in its title the expression “the Holy Scriptures.”