Thanks for bringing this out. I was aware of a similar problem in Romans 10, but it's harder to see the issue there because one has to read the whole chapter and consider the context. What Paul does is refer to a scripture that was originally about YHWH, but because he was quoting from the Septuagint which had replaced God's name with "kyrios", it allowed him to apply the scripture to Jesus instead (10:13). But this is a much simpler example of the issue with the NWT insertion. I'll have to remember this in case it comes in handy some day.
A glaring example of how Watchtower's insertion of "Jehovah" corrupts the NT
by Island Man 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
The New World translation is not the only translation to do this.
Scriptures 1998
An American Version
Messianic Israel Standerd
-
sarahsmile
The scriptures Island Man wrote Romans 14:8,9 was stating Jesus as Lord. Later Paul qoutes Old Testament but not in 8 or 9.
The scripture Apogno qouted Romans 10:13, Paul stated it was written and he referred back to OT: LORD,YHWH.
So the Wt should not insert Jehovah where it does not belong in Romans 14:8.
No comparison with Romans 10:13.
Everyone knows Jesus is Lord and YHWH is LORD. That the first teachings of the WT.
The point is the Wt will change scriptures.
Island Man good Job! Just another manipulation of WT!
Apognos look at the scriptures again! It was a nice try! I read the chapter!
-
designs
villagegirl, Listener- what brand of pot are you two smoking.
-
Listener
Designs - The scripture is talking about Jesus but the WTBTS relates that scripture to both Jesus and Jehovah. Of course the WTBTS does not support the Trinity but because they have translated the above scripture as they do, their rendering only supports the trinity.
Maybe you could explain why their translation does not support the trinity and the smoke surrounding me will clear.
-
designs
If you remember your Wt. Christology Jehovah is Lord by existence whereas Jesus is Lord by appointment. Verse 8 would refer to existence and verse 9 is by appointment.
-
finallysomepride
bookmarked
-
Apognophos
designs, yes, it is possible to use weasely Watchtower reasoning to make this passage apply to Jehovah and then Jesus in turn, just as the Society claims that certain titles belong to Jesus and certain titles belong to Jehovah (even though the titles are often difficult to distinguish and basically equal, and they arrived at who owns which titles by ex post facto reasoning on which scriptures they feel are talking about one or the other). Someone has to be willing to be honest to the text itself to get Island Man's point.
JWs are strongly conditioned to reject the Trinity, but the fact is that some scriptures support -- not actually a trinity -- but a binity where Jesus and God are one. This is where Romans 10:13 comes in, sarahsmile. Paul makes it clear that we need to call on the name of Kyrios to be saved. Who is Kyrios here, YHWH or Jesus? True, in the original verse Paul is quoting, Joel 2:32, it says, "Everyone who calls on the name of YHWH will get away safe." However, note the context. Here are the verses as found in the NWT, but with "kyrios" put back in (here's an interlinear link if you want to see for yourself). Notice the clear line of reasoning.
10:12: ...there is the same Kyrios over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him.
10:13: For "everyone who calls on the name of Kyrios will be saved."
10:14: However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard?...
10:17: So faith follows the thing heard. In turn the thing heard is though the word about Christ [Christos].
Keep in mind, Paul was reading and quoting his own people's writings in Greek, as many Jews did at that time. The Greek Septuagint had already replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios. In these verses, Paul is talking consistently about calling on "Kyrios". He does not use the word "Theos" once. If he wanted to distinguish between God and Jesus, he could have, but he chose to use a verse in Joel about calling on YHWH's name to instead refer to calling on Jesus' name and went on to explain why it's so important to preach about Jesus, because otherwise no one can call on him.
This is significant because JWs like to use any verse that refers to God's name to explain why it's important to bandy about the name "Jehovah". Ignoring the fact that this is not an accurate transliteration of YHWH, we are still left with the fact that here in Romans 10:13 Paul was not even intending to refer to the name of God at all, but instead wanted people to hear that Jesus was the name of "the Lord" (kyrios).
I don't mean to derail the thread, but I think Island Man's point was already made, and this point about Romans 10 relies on the same understanding of Paul's belief that God and Jesus were both Lord in some way, so the points complement each other.
-
designs
Even good ol Saint Paul couldn't pull off the Creed the Bishops eventually developed.
-
Pistoff
Following a more literal translation can help to reveal the difference of opinion among the early Bible writers, something the watchtower doesn't believe existed and/or wants to prevent you from realizing.