A Kindlier More Gentle Jehovah? (page 3)

Junction-Guy

What happened to "his name is Jealous" why didn't they change it to "his name is requires exclusive devotion" It seems this new bible is going to leave out alot of sentences.

steve2

Apog, if the intent of the NWT is to go beyond being a translation to an exposition, then fine. It cannot have it both ways.

Surely, slippage of the meaning of ancient texts occurs when the most literal meaning is not assigned and some modern-day contextual extended meaning is applied. Amplified Bible here we come!

The Hebrew Scriptures tell us that the True God loves and hates and becomes angry - reactions that do not need to be softened for modern ears. The whole concept of having no other "gods" implies a fierce intolerance, a jealousy. There is, I suppose, no "shame" in being jealous - who would decry spousal intolerance of infidelity and reacting with jealousy at the thuoght of betrayal? I guess the "risk" in applying these literal readings to a divine being is it makes the divine being appear to be...uh oh...almost human and prone to all the foibles and afflictions of being human. Suddenly the blood lust of Scripture starts to make sense to modern readers; it describes the violence of humans who dress it up in the name of their "god".

nonjwspouse

Is it not also in the Bible that God fahioned man after himself? If jealous is human then jealous is also God. Just a thought that came to mind.

Randomthoughts

I haven't read the whole thread but this is a big change of scripture.

Jealousy is an emotion so why have WT removed this emotion of their god.

Maybe they don't like god having this emotion.

AndDontCallMeShirley

Apog: Once again, check your black-and-white thinking at the door. Do you really take me for a WT apologist, knowing so little about my stance after I've made 3000 posts here?

Asking a question constitutes "black and white thinking"?

Where did I even hint I take you for a WT apologist, Apog?

It seems you are having a conversation with yourself and projecting your musings onto any unlucky person who crosses your path (or wanders into a dialogue with you).

Incidentally, you still haven't answered my questions....

Apognophos

sparky1, I think I already stated everything that I had to say: that there's a subjective element of opinion here, as is always the case with translations, and that the change in Ex. 34:14 is perfectly in line with the stated goals of the revision. So although I have nothing new to say, it seems that you want some kind of response from me, so I guess I'll list all the mistakes you made in a recent post, as an educational exercise.

The NWT revised 2013 uses the same expression, "requires exclusive devotion" in both EXODUS 34:14 and JOSHUA 24:19; however the Hebrew word used in EXODUS is kan-naw' which is translated simply as jealous by STRONGS EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE and the Hebrew word used in JOSHUA is kan-no' and is translated by STRONGS CONCORDANCE as jealous or angry-jealous.

1. Do you really believe those are separate words just because they have separate Strong's numbers? Let me explain how this works. This is an ancient language, and some of the words are no longer in use in modern Hebrew. Therefore, some of the words in the Bible are actually untranslateable except through guesswork, especially if they are hapax legomena.

2. Even if a word is still in use today, that does not mean that it had the same connotation thousands of years ago. Therefore, concordances like Strong's cannot be compiled by asking a modern Hebrew speaker what the words mean. Instead they are based upon the context in which the words were used in the Bible texts. The fewer occurrences of the word, the less context; thus, the more guesswork that may be involved.

3. These words are spelled almost identically and are derived from the same root. The fact that a couple occurrences of a root word referring to jealousy are spelled differently from the rest is not necessarily significant. It could reflect a change in word usage at the time those passages were last touched by a scribe, and it could reflect simply the personal preference of the writer as far as what sounded good to his ear.

4. It's true that Strong's lists "kan-no" as "angry or jealous" and "kan-na" as merely "jealous", but considering that this word occurs a whopping two times in the Bible with this spelling, I am not inclined to give this much weight. As stated above, the concordance is not all-knowing, and it doesn't give its reasoning for how this slightly different spelling connotes anger. It's likely that they simply derived the "anger" part from the context of the verse. In other words, like a modern dictionary, the concordance is descriptive, not prescriptive.

How can two separate words with their own nuanced meaning be given the EXACT SAME interpretation? It is poor scholarship,period. You may swallow the Watchtower societies puffery and self promotion on the NWT 2013 revision but I do not.

0. See above. There is no clear proof that these words have nuanced meanings. Strong's is not the final authority on word meanings; no one is, when it comes to certain ancient Hebrew words.

1. I think you meant "translation", "rendering", "wording", etc., but not "interpretation". There is no interpretation needed here, unless you disagree that the jealousy in question is referring to the requirement to only worship God. I imagine everyone will agree that this verse does refer to worship, however.

2. This has little to do with "scholarship", poor or otherwise. The word meanings are fairly self-evident and do not require research to clarify them.

3. Once again with the same ad hominem attack that got things off on the wrong foot, eh? I did not swallow any "puffery" (you might want to look up that word before using it again, however), nor did I accept the GB's claims at face value. You seem to like to tell me what I believe, but you apparently know nothing about me. I stated already that I arrived at my conclusions based on reading the changes I've seen so far. I reserve the right to change my opinion upon seeing further changes, since obviously none of us knows all of the changes that have been made.

First, I have no intention of 'playing the expert' which is again a childish ad hominum attack. I use the dictionary and other reliable, expert sources to make sure that my assertions are correct. I would be a fool and a jackass if I just shot my mouth off without checking some reference material to see if my thoughts have some credence and basis in reality. Interestly enough I saw my spelling mistake and tried to correct it. For some reason the mistake would not correct and I had to live with my error. I hope you can forgive me.

1. The spelling mistake was a minor matter which I made a minor reference to. It only became a bigger deal when I had to explain it. Why was it necessary for me to explain in the first place, when I was quoting you? If you had noticed the typo before then, you should have immediately understood my little jest.

2. It was hard for me not to be amused to see someone use an English dictionary to tell me what a Hebrew word should mean. Surely you can see the levels of folly in that? Do I have to spell it out? You went from the Strong's definition of the word to a common dictionary and expected this to add weight to your argument. Once again, if anything, it argues against your point, but I'll address that below. My point here is that it betrays your inexperience with linguistics that you would use a line of reasoning like this.

3. How many times do I have to write "ad hominem" before you learn how to spell it? Is this enough? By the way, insulting someone is not an ad hominem attack. "Ad hominem" refers to arguing against the person instead of the statements of that person, using criticisms of the person as if they hold weight in an argument; it does not refer to simply teasing someone, as I may have done with you.

4. You never explicitly claimed to be an expert, this is true. However I feel that your assertiveness in this whole thread implies a certain confidence in your grasp of the issues which is misplaced. Lest we not forget who said what, my comment was simply a sarcastic "Okay then, Mr. Expert", which obviously did not require a literal reading like, "You, sparky1, are calling yourself an expert". It was simply a derisive comment about your over-confidence, not a claim that you had made some particular statement about being an expert. But you didn't really need me to explain this, right?

Secondly, I don't care if you don't live in a black or white world or whether you are an apologist or not. I never made such claims about you and that viewpoint is a fiction of your own mind. In regards to you considering my reading of your previous posts as 'slightly creepy research' that is hubris of the highest order. Every time you read a passage in the Bible you are researching the words of another person or of God himself to learn their viewpoint on many different matters. Do you consider yourself a 'slightly creepy researcher' when you do this?

1. Are you new to Internet forums? Pay attention to who is speaking to who in this thread. I quoted ADCMS right before I accused someone of black-and-white thinking (this was obviously not a comment about myself in any case, but a statement being made to someone else), and in the next sentence I continued to address someone to remind them that I was not an apologist. That quoted text means I was talking to him, not to you.

2. In fact both you and ADCMS did imply I was an apologist.

2a. ADCMS did so by asking me to defend the entire history of the NWT, a translation which I have openly criticized on a number of occasions. The only explanation I can think of for this non sequitur is that, in his polarized, "Watchtower can do no good" viewpoint, my defense of a single word translation must have meant that I was a pro-Watchtower agent.

2b. You did so by dredging up an old post about my AGM notes and saying that I had apparently already made my mind up. This was asinine, as I had written those notes after reflecting on the changes I saw in the new NWT. How does it invalidate my opinions if I already reviewed these sorts of changes almost a year before you started this thread? It seemed clear to me that you were accusing me of being pro-Watchtower, which is insulting on two different levels: one, because it's not true, and two, because it implied that I am close-minded just because I still hold the same opinion that I did in October.

3. Dredging up old posts is creepy. Almost anyone here would tell you the same thing. It's not good etiquette. Clearly you thought you had some kind of juicy lead on me, but all you proved in this case is that I've been consistent on this subject so far.

4. Claiming that I failed to make a good case, in that old post, for my statement that the translation was improved is frankly bizarre. It was a casual statement of opinion. I wasn't aware that my posts would one day be used as evidence in a court case; sorry for the lack of clairvoyance on my part.

Thirdly, my so-called 'dictionary excursion' strengthens my argument rather than weakens it. The only direct synonym for the word jealous according to Merriam-Websters dictionary is possessive. Possessive as a word is a far cry from the phrase "requires exclusive devotion". Again, it seems to me that you are not really reading my posts. The list of words that I quoted are considered RELATED to but not replacements for the word jealous by Merriam-Webster.

0. I confess that I made a typo in a previous post. Where I put "Look at how many definitions with different shades of meaning" I meant to say "how many synonyms" (I use the word "synonym" to refer to any related word; though MW makes a distinction, you'll find that the dictionary allows for my word usage, so please don't argue whether they are synonyms or not).

1. If you read the sentence with "synonyms" instead, you'll see that the point I was leading up to, in my "As stated at the AGM" paragraph, is that a direct translation can contain misleading connotations that a translator can choose to avoid with a more specific rendering. If you had any lengthy experience with translations, such as reading interlinears or watching subtitled movies for which you know the language being spoken, you would have observed that this is done constantly by translators. Being literally correct is not supposed to be the goal of a translator. This was a problem with the old NWT, in fact.

2. I'm not going to repeat my lecture about changes in word usage, except to point out that Strong's Concordance was published in 1890. Do not compare MW's choice of "possessive" as a synonym against the Strong's definition of the Hebrew word.

3. I still don't know what you're trying to prove here. If "jealous" is defined as "Intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness", then how on earth does that conflict with the rendering "requiring exclusive devotion"? You clamor on about how I have not used "logic" in refuting you (without seeming to realize that human language is not all that logical), but as far as I'm concerned, you are the one who's failed to prove your point, and I've simply called you out on it.

Fourthly, my question to you about EXODUS and JOSHUA should help you with your thinking on the NWT 2013 revision. Where you see honing of scripture, I see homogenizing and bastardizing of intent.

1. You do realize that the 1984 NWT used the phrase "exacting exclusive devotion" in Joshua 24:19, right? Now it reads "requires" instead of "exacting", which is another example of improved wording that is less likely to confuse ESL translators. I can't tell if you realize that this phrase "exclusive devotion" was already being used in the old NWT because I don't understand the point you're making by bringing up this verse. You can call it "homogenizing" that they now use the same phrase here and in Exodus 34:14, but I call it "consistency".

2. You have failed, in my eyes, to demonstrate that the "intent" has been bastardized. After all your breathless outrage I still can't tell how God's being jealous could mean anything other than his requiring exclusive devotion.

I was not at the AGM and so I cannot refute your claim that one of the reasons for the NWT 2013 revision was because 'many changes in wording were prompted by difficulties that translators in foreign fields were having with the old NWT, and this is likely one of those problem areas'. However, I can quote to you from the introduction of the NWT 2013 revision.: "This revised edition has built on the fine foundation laid in previous editions of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a bible that was first released more than 60 years ago. However, the English language has changed during the past half century. Such change prompted current members of the New World Bible Translation Committee to initiate this comprehensive revision. Our goal has been to produce a translation that is not only faithful to the original texts but also clear and easy to read." No mention of translation difficulties at all, just a concern with the change in the English language. Actually, I am 59 years old and the word jealousy means the same thing today as it did when I was a little boy. So in this one, singular instance your argument about the word jealousy does not hold water because its meaning has not changed over my lifetime.

1. "No mention of translation difficulties at all, just a concern with the change in the English language", eh? What do you call the part quoted right before your sentence where they wrote "but also clear and easy to read"? As I said, the number of questions they were fielding from translators (and there were thousands of them) was one of the stated reasons for the change. So although they don't mention translators in this foreword, they do acknowledge that a clearer reading for all was desired. It was never stated to be entirely an issue of drifts in word meaning; it was about reducing the verbiage and reading level of the original NWT.

2. Appendices A1 and A2 in the new NWT explain a lot of the same things that I've said above, stating that some of the old word choices were indeed confusing to modern readers because of drift, and giving examples. The new translation of "jealousy" is one of them. Perhaps this makes clear to you that this was not some sneaky change; they specifically draw attention to it and explain their reasons for it.

sparky1

Before I answer your post Apognophos I would like to ask you a serious and honest question. I have NO ulterior motive in asking you this so I hope you will not take offense at my question. What are your advanced education credentials? Do you have any degrees in linguistics, philosophy, logic, rhetoric,philology, ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, or any other type of degree? Thanks in advance for your reply.

sparky1

One more question Apognophos. How old are you? And yes I do have an ulterior motive for asking this question although the motive is a benign one.=)

Apognophos

I'm in my thirties, and indeed I have no credentials (I also have too much free time today, judging from my last post...). My intention is not to come across as an authority on this or to claim any expertise, I'm just a language enthusiast who happens to disagree with you on this one subject.

sparky1

Ha ha!!! I have no credentials either! You and I are just two dilettantes sparring across keyboards. Please don't take offense but your last reply to me was dreadful. It was just a more verbose rehash of your previous posts and a self justification of things you said. I am 59 years old and you remind me of MYSELF when I was your age. You are a smart young man( I hope you are a man, if you are a woman I apologize for being sexist) and you will develop your critical thinking skills more sharply over time. This is constructive criticism and not meant to attack you personally, so please keep your emotions and your judgements in check.:) It appears to me that your mind is still stuck in 'Watchtower logic' (I think that is an oxymoron but I believe that the phenomenon exists) and as you expand your horizons you will develop a more practical empirically based way to organize your thoughts and arguments.

That being said, I want to 'overstimulate' your intellect and prod you some more. (Sorry! I'm not doing this to be a jerk...just trying to make you think outside the box.)

For the sake of argument I will agree that kaw-naw', kan-naw' and kan-no have basically the same meaning. Agreed?

I am going to quote you directly now and I hope that you will take this in the spirit it is intended....not to attack you but to help you use your own words in drawing a logical conclusion. Here goes:

"2. Appendices A1 and A2 in the NWT explain a lot of the same things that I said above, stating that some of the old word choices were indeed confusing to modern readers because of the drift, and giving examples. The new translation of jealousy is one of them."

"You must not bow down to another god, for Jehovah is known for (kan-naw';jealous) requiring exclusive devotion." EXODUS 34:14 NWT 2013 revised

"Whether the husband becomes (kaw-naw':jealous) jealous and suspicious of his wife's faithfulness........." NUMBERS 5:14 NWT 2013 revised

The Watchtower society cannot have it both ways. If they make the claim that 'old word choices were indeed confusing' and feel that it is necessary to change the word jealousy in one place in the scriptures in order to make it more understanable and more easily translated into other languages and that basically kan-naw', kaw-naw' and kan-no have the same meaning then they must make the same changes to the word jealousy elsewhere in scripture. They are still using the word jealous in regards to human beings but they have transmogrified the word into the phrase "requiring exclusive devotion" when referring to Jehovah. Hence the title of my post:A Kindlier More Gentle Jehovah?

Now lets have some fun with this!!

A Kindlier More Gentle Jehovah?

Share this