A Kindlier More Gentle Jehovah?

by sparky1 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    I agree that my last post was dreadful. Anyway, I recognize that "qnw" (those are the consonants for all forms of the word, anyway) is rendered "jealous" for humans and "requiring exclusive devotion" for God. If your argument was that this makes God less human-seeming, then I would have agreed with you right from the start! But since you are saying that it makes God seem more kindly, I disagree.

    My dictionary gives multiple meanings for "jealous", which boil down to "envious", "suspicious", "possessive", and "protective". If you imagine a translator who doesn't speak English natively and is translating the NWT to his own language looking up "jealous" in his English-to-Whatever dictionary, this could be rather confusing for him. By being more specific, they have narrowed down the possible meanings of "jealous" to, basically, "possessive". God is possessive of the worshipful acts performed by the Israelites.

    It seems that the tentpole to your argument is that "jealous" sounds unkind, and I simply can't agree with that. steve2 pointed out that most people would admit that jealousy is sometimes a rightful emotion -- for instance, anyone who is married expects fidelity from their spouse (well, unless they have an "understanding"...). That's why I've asked you repeatedly to explain how "jealous" is unkind compared to "requiring exclusive devotion". Neither phrase conveys a sense of imminent violence in the case of disobedience.

    Ultimately I think you would agree that the impression of God in these passages is dependent on the whole of the surrounding text, and this has not been substantially altered in either version of the NWT. Right after the "jealousy" statement is a simple warning that mixing with the pagans around Israel will pollute their worship, but no fiery death from above is being threatened (right here). In Ex. 34:7, God brings punishment upon successive generations (that seems unkind), but is also merciful and slow to anger in verse 6 (that's kind). These readings, kindly or unkindly, are basically the same in every Bible that I can see on BibleHub.

    That's why I don't see a problem with this change. It's absolutely true that the Society is moving away from literalism in translation (they took this to painful lengths with the old verb forms in particular, which have now all been blown away). The goal with this revision, besides updating verbiage that used to confuse and amuse (ass -> donkey!) and simplifying translation work, is to lower the reading level of the Bible. Arguably this is the result of the Society's target demographic becoming, well, simpler.

    But without evidence of a wide-scale change to the descriptions of God in the NWT, I simply can't find a basis for disagreeing with a reading that tells us what it means for God to be jealous. This will put an end to speakers having to take a minute to explain to the audience what is meant by the word "jealous" every time the verse is read.

  • hamsterbait
    hamsterbait

    OhFORGODSAKE!!!

    This is an amateurish translation that changed ASS to " donkey" cos they think we were all giggling that Jesus Christ the Son of God rode into Jerusalem on somebody's backside (ass). We will never get back the time wasted on this shite.

    Agno - the longer the post the more hot intestinal gas. Just put your fingers in your ears and shout " gagagagag" long post say: shut up and listen to me I don't want to think.

    If Agno is a woman witless WHY oh WHY is she here debating stuff her lil' ol' JW brain should be workin' on cookin' her mains dinner, an' gettin' aw' gussied up for chile makin'?

    I repeat: we will never get back these precious moments wasted on ass - sorry- DONKEY holes.

    HB

  • bioflex
    bioflex

    Isn't it obvious why they had to make that revision. I mean that way they can stick to the idea that God has one name (Jehovah) ONLY. But the bible never says God has just one name. Sometimes i wonder if the JW's have any appreciation for the english language. In Exodus 3, Moses asked a simple question

    13 But Moses said to the true God: “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What should I say to them? NWT.

    Any logical person who has enen a little appreciation for the languge could have guessed what would come next.

    14 So God said to Moses: “I Will Become What I Choose to Become.” And he added(other translations use MOREOVER - which means to add further): “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become has sent me to you.’”. NWT.

    Then he goes on to add "Jehovah the God of your forefathers".

    "For you must not prostrate yourself to another god, because Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, he is a jealous God," EXODUS 34:14 NWT 1984 edition.

    Now, from the above text its obvious one of God's names is JEALOUS. You can imagine the pain this verse strikes in their hearts everytime they see it. It makes their ("we have got God's exclusive name) claim invalid.

  • sparky1
    sparky1

    Thanks bioflex for making my post understandable in such a succinct way and for adding to the idea of his many names. My contention is that the NWT 2013 revised goes through all sorts of linguistic gymnastics in order to make Jehovah God appear the way that Jehovahs Witnesses theological teachings and interpretations need and want him to appear.

  • steve2
    steve2

    What steve2 wrote two years ago, nicely gets to the nub of the issue (even if steve says so himself ).

    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".

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit