by dabster 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Oh, c'mon!
You're talking about a bronze/iron age book of myths that has been "revised" by a bunch of biased yahoos with absolutely no credentials or qualifications to take on a project like this for even academic or historical reasons.
It's all about their agenda, which is simply: Control.
Listen, Obey and Be Blessed: It's a Cult!
Thanks for the response Apog and Bobcat.
I had given only a quick glance back then to a couple of bibles--one a KJ bible-- by way of comparison--I realize now that the sister's emphasis on that scripture eventually prejudiced me against its being an unbiased translation. There were the ocassional sops thrown to sisters, I felt this might be one.
I have no business poking around in this topic--I am so sickened by the distortion and the control that was used on us.
Religion is the creation of scribes.
To FFtruther144,
You provided three videos for us to watch, and they were interesting, and it points out that the KJV stream may have some readings closer to the original than some thought. However, you did not provide the other side of the coin for the rest of us.
The fact is, that there is a solid reason why many Trinitarian scholars are defending the Wescott & Hort stream of Greek Text. These guys were about the best there could be in their field. More recent Greek Texts are just revised editions to keep up with the latest discoveries, and to have Evangelicals feel a bit more "comfy" on this matter, rather than depend on the scholarship of a couple of Catholic Bishops. Please, don't bring their faulty theological views to the table, which these videos made prominent by attacking the theology and character of these great scholars. We all have personal faults and strange views, including professor Walter Veith, I'm sure.
Professor Veith rejects modern versions on the premise that they are based on fewer manuscripts which God could not have allowed to be hidden for centuries until they were discovered in or prior to the 20th Century. Would this mean that any recent discoveries, even if proven to be ancient, are to be disregarded for the sake that God would have brought them out to public light sooner if it had any worth? The historical transmission of many biblical discoveries disputes such claims.
Furthermore, those making the most noise in objection to WH are conservative Evangelicals who just can't stand that Christ's deity is lessened in the WH Text stream. But what if the Trinity is a false doctrine to begin with? Would this matter? One could tell right from the beginning where Veith was going with these videos when he made the NWT prominent in his onslaught of modern versions deviating from the deity of Christ. He singled out scriptures where the KJV gave Christ more prominence than other modern versions. He mentioned John 1:1... why? .. when it reads the same in both streams of Greek texts. Then he selected 1 John 5:7 as "proof" that the KJV was truth because it showed that Jesus was God. Please! Then he went on to read 1 Tim. 3:16 to prove the same, where the KJV and the likes showed Christ was manifested as "God." Their drive is to defend the Trinity doctrine at any costs. So the KJV wins in his book as the "Word of God." Come on!
The other side of the spectrum is that many Trinitarians would love to see Walter Veith and others with the same theological zeal vindicated, but they see further. They, cannot in good conscience reject the virtues of scholarship and integrity presented by the W&H, even with all its faults. Two prominent scholars who have defended the Trinity vigorously, to the point of denunciating WT theology, still gave preference to the family of manuscripts preferred by WH, were textual critics Bruce M. Metzger, and Philip W. Comfort. This was not done lightly as Walter Veigh implied. This is Philip W. Comfort's conclusion:
"Modern advocates of the superiority of the Majority Text [like the one used in KJV] over other text-types are Hodges and Farstad, who produced The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. Their arguments are more theological than textual. They reason that God would not have allowed a corrupt of inferior text to be found in the majority of manuscripts, while permitting a superior text to be hidden away in a few early manuscripts somewhere in the sands of Egypt. Further, they argue that the church's adoption of the Majority Text was a vindication of its correctness, while the obscurity of the Egyptian text was a sign of its rejection.
"Most contemporary scholars contend that a minority of manuscripts--primarily the earliest ones--preserve the most authentic wording of the text." He then speaks of "the insertion of oral traditions and theological enhancements..." to the Received Text. He adds: "Thus, most scholars see TR [Textus Receptus]" as being the culmination of textual accretions [additions]." His preference, and, Metzger's as well, is thus for the W & Hort Greek Text that Veith is trying hard to erradicate from public conscience.
Oh, I forgot to include the details of the quoted source (Philip W. Comfort):
New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, 2008. Page xxiv of Introduction. Tyndale House Publishers.
I will add that the available streams of manuscripts by groups for the most part agree with each other. One can determine the will of God by using any of the popular Greek texts. I use versions from all three streams of manuscript transmission Walter Veith aluded to. I like the translations within those groups with all their diversity for different reasons.
To Wonderment -
Thank you for your reply. Like Phizzy said, your reply was balanced, however I respectfully disagree. It is not an opinion that no one endorses the NWT, it is a fact.
While some may say that there are some things that are accurately translated, no group, university or scholar endorses the NWT or the RNWT as an honest and true body of work or even a translation {save for the WTS and it's apologists}
I'm not, nor do I claim to be a scholar, but everytime the WTS quotes a scholar who endorses their version, research shows the scholars quotes were taken out of context....sounds familiar, doesn't it?
just saying,,,hopefully somewhat respectfully,
ttwsyf
Wonderment
I have a hard time believeing you watched all three of these all the way through, but that's your choice to make.
But I ask you to please focus on the first video at about 57 minutes in and LEARN about WHO these guys are.
EVERY bible that is based on their work is a pro New World Order bible, period!
The evil mis-translation is there, end of story.
Sorry, but facts are facts.
dabster,
I recommend reading Isaiah 66:5 in a chapter which both the Watchtower and popular Christian opinion agree is an end time scripture:
Old Version:
Isaiah 66:5
Hear the word of Jehovah, YOU men who are trembling at his word: "YOUR brothers that are hating YOU, that are excluding YOU by reason of my name, said, ‘May Jehovah be glorified!’ He must also appear with rejoicing on YOUR part, and they are the ones that will be put to shame."
[Name of person] is no longer a Jehovah's Witness ---> that are excluding YOU by reason of my name
Understand that if we really are in those end times then Jehovah's Witnesses are the ONLY RELIGION that is fulfilling this prophecy.
It thoroughly condemns them!
Now read how they changed it in the new version and ask yourself why?
Also compare it to other translations.
abe
FFtruther144: "EVERY bible that is based on their work [Wescott & Hort's] is a pro New World Order bible, period! The evil mis-translation is there, end of story. Sorry, but facts are facts."
Facts are facts. Yes, but in this case, what Walter Veith forwarded in these videos is a slanted presentation of the facts. Veith brought to light some truths (facts) here, no doubt. His position is one of ‘night or day,’ ‘black or white,’ ‘good or evil.’ By your use above of, "The evil mis-translation is there, end of story," I can see that you too see the work of W & H Greek as "evil."
But, things are not as clear cut as you would like to believe. If we look at the whole picture, we are going to find some individual's actions in all three groups of family manuscripts faulty or imperfect. That's because we are imperfect. The imperfections are magnified when we don't agree with someone else's view.
I do not agree with all the known beliefs and actions of Wescott and Hort. Some are weird. Others are downright wrong. However, that does not mean, I can not be helped by their expertise on the subject of biblical manuscripts and their historical transmission. The same with Walter Veith. To be honest, I got this weird impression of this man (Veith) when looking at his videos, at times he looked to me like a circus clown, at other times I wondered if he was capable of abusing an innocent child close by. I still looked at his videos, and I agreed with many of things he was saying. Other times, I felt he was letting emotions getting the best of him. Some of his conclusions were way off.
He stated that a Watchtower translator (unnamed) was given a thick marker to go over the King James (the only Bible) Witnesses had before their own (Not true!), and asked to remove or alter anything that disagreed with the WT doctrine, and that's how the NWT was done. This kind of stament is made by someone foolish who hasn't compared both translated texts with the originals. IF, he had done that sincerely, he would not say such silly comment. Any sincere person who takes the time to do an honest comparison, would see that both translated texts are differently across the board. The translation principles of both committees were a contrast in function. You can make a case the KJV succeeded where the NWT didn't, but that's beside the point. Veith is silly-wrong on this one. He said that Wescott or Hort believed in evolution, I don't. But Wescott & Hort were experts in the field of biblical manuscripts, and Greek, and most of us are not. Moses had killed a man, but later God used him to free his people from bondage in Egypt. So, everything is not black or white, good or evil.
We live in a world where we are forced to make compromises. Not one single man or Bible translation is perfect. Not one Greek Text is perfect, or the people behind them. Since we don't know it all, and we don't have all the answers, it may be prudent to use what's available to us, even if we find a mole along the path in the search for answers to our many questions. I appreciate your expressed view.
TTtruther144: "It is not an opinion that no one endorses the NWT, it is a fact. [..] I'm not, nor do I claim to be a scholar, but everytime the WTS quotes a scholar who endorses their version, research shows the scholars quotes were taken out of context....sounds familiar, doesn't it?
A fact? Not sure if I can apply the word ‘endorsement’ when a scholar have something positive to say about a product. That aside, I did mention Alan S. Duthie. I was hoping you would check his credentials. I have his books in my possession, and he did recommend the NWT to his readers. I don't understand why you insist that no scholar ever says anything favorable about the NWT. I wonder how far you have gone with your research.
Another scholar who provided a favorable review of the NWT was Dr. Jason BeDuhn. You say, "everytime the WTS quotes a scholar who endorses their version, research shows the scholars quotes were taken out of context....sounds familiar, doesn't it?" Is that the case always? See for yourself:
A reader asked Dr. Jason BeDuhn if he was quoted fairly by the WTS ( Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1998, p. 32) BeDuhn replied:
“I wrote a letter to the WBTS, thanking them for providing copies of the KIT free of charge to my class. I did this as a gesture of appreciation. I also took the opportunity to praise what I found to be the merits of the book. The sections of my letter quoted in the Watchtower accurately reflect my views. Naturally left out of the article were the few comments I made about individual passages I thought they should reconsider, because I found their translation weak. I personally don't find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones; this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive. [ …] As for the use of [quoting] ‘experts’ -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagrees.” [*In a 1998 letter to G---- T------.])
"
Correction to my previous post:
The following words are from TTWSYF. Sorry about that, FFtruther144. "It is not an opinion that no one endorses the NWT, it is a fact. [..] I'm not, nor do I claim to be a scholar, but everytime the WTS quotes a scholar who endorses their version, research shows the scholars quotes were taken out of context....sounds familiar, doesn't it?
See my response in my previous post.
