Libra_Spirit,
Didn't someone named Greeber, a psychic and spirit medium, write that version of the Bible?
Why do you think they call themselves spirit directed?
As I understand it, at one time they called themselves spirits directed.
IS the NWT really the WT Bible?
by Bleep 103 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Faraon
-
Bleep
Hello gjnat
Asking me about Jehovah God approved the inspired book of God? Hmmm.
I have allready said I think Jehovah did inspire the Book called the Holy Bible. Otherwise it would not be called Holy.
Could you think of a better question to ask a Jehovah's Witness?
-
hillary_step
Bleep,
I have allready said I think Jehovah did inspire the Book called the Holy Bible. Otherwise it would not be called Holy.
With logic like this in action, what can we add!
HS
-
Earnest
stocwach:
The translation of "hosios" as "holy" in Revelation 15:4 is not wrong but the Greek word used conveys more than being holy and so can also be translated as "loyal" or "kind" (Young's "Literal Translation"). There simply isn't an equivalent word in English to convey the full sense of the Greek and I think this verse is a good example of the scholarship involved to give the full flavour of the original rather than simply following other English translations.
You ask me to comment on the different meanings given to "proskuneo" when it is used in reference to God ("worship") and to Jesus ("obeisance").
Well, what is the derivation of the word? Vine's "Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words" says it is (from pros, "towards," and kuneo, "to kiss") and is used of an act of homage or reverence. So if it is used of God it would refer to worship but, if not, it would usually refer to a lesser degree of reverence. Of course, if you believe that Jesus is God, as many Bible translators do, then you would translate it as "worship" to fit your theology. The truth of this can be clearly seen in Matthew 18:26 where the same word is used in connection with a slave toward his master. There the word is translated "prostrated himself" (NASV), "begged him" (New Living Version), "worshipped him" (AV), "did homage to him" (Darby), "bowing to him" (Young), "do obeisance to him" (NWT). Similarly, it is unlikely that the magi had come to "worship" the king of the Jews (Matthew 2:2) although they may well have come to show reverence toward him.
You also ask me to comment on the insertion of the word "other" at Phillipians 2:5 and Colossians 1:15-17.
Phillipians 2:5 does not contain the word "other" in the NWT.
In Colossians 1:15 it describes Christ as "prototokos pases ktiseos : firstborn of all creation". Quite clearly, if this means he was included in creation then in saying "all things were created" by means of him it implies all things other than himself. Just as Paul explains in a different context "when he says that 'all things have been subjected', it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him." (1 Cor. 15:28) The genitive case in Greek ("of all creation") may have several meanings. Grammatically it is possible to include the firstborn in creation and it is also grammatically possible to exclude this one from creation. So the way this is translated depends on what you believe Paul was conveying to the Colossian congregation. Your difference with the NWT is not one of grammar but one of theology just as it is with the translation of "proskuneo".
When translating from one language to another it is often necessary to add words to give the sense of the original. This happens in all translations of the Bible, probably more often than you realise. The AV shows these additional words by using italics. Some translations don't distinguish them at all. The NWT uses square brackets which leaves no doubt that they are additions to the text. One can only wish that all translations were so honest in this respect.
Earnest
Edited to add this clarification: stocwach asked how I can in good conscience be apologetic to such a deceitful organization. I understand why I am seen to be defending the WTS but in fact I am defending what I believe is true rather than the organization that produced it. I defend the truth in the Bible although its parameters (what was included) were decided by the Catholic Church. Hell, I even defend this forum because there is so much truth in it. Seriously, I really think the NWT and KIT are significant contributions for Bible students of all persuasions despite the rather orgocentric doctrines that have been derived from it.
Edited by - Earnest on 3 August 2002 21:30:57
-
pomegranate
Putting the man made traditional WORD "Jehovah" in ANY Bible is a perversion beyond perversions.
NWT = perversion beyond ANY Bible translation out there. "Jehovah" is a disgusting thing by all
angles of what Christ taught. Have you caught sight of a disgusting thing that CAUSES desolation?I believe I have, and it's named "Jehovah."
Man made traditions will be trashed. "Jehovah" is a man made tradition that has POLLUTED the NWT.
That in itself makes the NWT worthy of the fire.
"Jehovah" is right up there with the rest of the traditional false gods, like Baal.
Baal = god of sexual perversion. That's exactly what I see in the name "Jehovah" now.Jehovah the god of child molestors. Let's see the power of Jehovah remove this BIG FAT SPOT OFF HIMSELF.
Don't forget, false gods are powerless. You can be sure the spot will remain and grow bigger.
Just like a nasty CANCERJEHOVAH, can you tell a I HATE THE NAME? I believe God does too.
typo
Edited by - pomegranate on 3 August 2002 21:13:3
-
stocwach
Earnest, my mistake, I meant Philippians 2:9, and I am sorry to say once again you are wrong in your defending the NWT as being honest and forthright in that it adds brackets to words inserted. In Colossians it does, but Philippians it doesn't!!!!!!!!!! They just couldn't be quite honest enough for this blatant distortion now could they?
It is not up to the translator to decide what should be added. It is up to the translator to translate based on what the original author wrote, and to add words to the text is condemned by God.
The bottom line is the NWT cannot be trusted, because it is obvious that it has been altered to fit JW theology. Even where the NWT Translation Committee attempted to be forthright by explaining how they determined when the divine name should appear in the NT, they blatantly disregarded their own rule in 1 Peter 2:3 and 3:15!!!!!! You cannot deny this, so don't bother with your drivel, because it doesn't change this obvious deception.
Earnest, you may believe they were correct in doing so, but it puts you in the same hypocritical boat. It is not the translator's option to be selective in taking the divine name out in passages that clearly identify Jesus. It the author intended the reader to understand the verse to mean "Jehovah" when he quoted a verse that contained the divine name, then he unequivocally intended each time! You can say all you want and rant and rave, but this is a fact that cannot be disputed.
-
stocwach
BTW Earnest,
Of course words are added all the time in various Bibles, and I'm well aware it occurs quite frequently. There is nothing wrong with this, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT CONTEXT!!!!! The NWT does not follow this rule, and therefore cannot be trusted.
-
stocwach
Sorry Earnest, but your arguments are just too easy to unravel and I can't resist to yet debuff you yet one more time.
One only need to go to John 20:28 which in the NWT says "In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!" and then to 1 John 5:20 which says But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.
Now Jesus would have surely rebuked Thomas if he was incorrect or blashphemous in making such a statement, especially due to the Bible being inspired, God surely wouldn't have allowed such a distortion if it weren't true.
So you see Earnest, you are incorrect in saying that "obeisance" being chosen by the JWs to fit their theology is no different than other Bible's translating the word "worship" to fit another theology. The word "worship" has nothing to do with fitting a particular theology. It has to do with conveying what the author's intention was, which is easily deciphered when considering other verses such as above. The JWs would have complete justification in "obeisance" IF JESUS REBUKED THOMAS, but unfortunately for them, HE DIDN'T. This only proves that the NWT is simply altered to fit the theology, rather than again allowing the Bible to dictate what the theology is.
-
Earnest
stocwach:
You said "I am sorry to say once again you are wrong in your defending the NWT as being honest and forthright in that it adds brackets to words inserted. In Colossians it does, but Philippians [2:9] it doesn't!!!!!!!!!! They just couldn't be quite honest enough for this blatant distortion now could they?"
I have checked both the NWT and the KIT and in both cases the verse in Philippians has brackets around the word [other]. You may wish to retract your comments above.
You also said: "It is not up to the translator to decide what should be added. It is up to the translator to translate based on what the original author wrote, and to add words to the text is condemned by God."
But you added: "Of course words are added all the time in various Bibles, and I'm well aware it occurs quite frequently. There is nothing wrong with this, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT CONTEXT!!!!!"
It would seem that by "context" you mean your understanding of scripture. But if you believe that "firstborn of all creation" means "the one who is born first (of all creation)" then the context certainly implies "other" when it refers to the rest of creation.
You also say: "If the author intended the reader to understand the verse to mean 'Jehovah' when he quoted a verse that contained the divine name, then he unequivocally intended each time!"
That may be true. But not necessarily. It is more likely to be true when the author is referring to the God of the O.T. It is also more likely when the author is specifically quoting a verse i.e. he says "It is written" or something similar. But when it is clear that the reference is to someone other than Jehovah it is absurd to insist Peter must have used his name.
You refer to John 20:28 and 1 John 5:20.
In 1 John 5:20 he says "This is the true God" and you conclude he is referring to Christ. The context is John has just spoken of gaining knowledge of "the true one" and that we are "in union with the true one" by means of Christ. It seems evident to me he is referring to "the true one", epecially so when you consider the same John wrote elsewhere that we should "know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ". (John 17:3)
I have found John 20:28 a more difficult scripture to reconcile with what the rest of the Bible says about Christ. I am not convinced that Thomas meant anything more or less than what he said. But I am convinced he was mistaken. Although Jesus didn't rebuke him I don't think that was the time or place for it. Thomas had just realised that, yes, it was true - Jesus had risen. The point Jesus wanted to make was "Because you have seen me have you believed [in the resurrection]? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe." An implied rebuke was given by the writer of the account who concluded that "these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God". I am sure Thomas got the message. Did you?
Earnest
-
Faraon
Many of those who criticise the NWT for using the name "Jehovah" in the NT are apparently oblivious to the fact that many English translations, including the Authorised Version, have replaced the Name in the O.T. with "Lord" almost 7000 times. If one is to insist that the NWT is an interpretation and a paraphrased version then that same label must be applied to those translations which replace "Jehovah" in the O.T. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
This is in the Old Testament, where there *may* have been a name for the mythical tribal Jewish god of war. Admittedly nobody knows for sure what this name really was so even the NWT errs in calling it Jehovah. They should just write the tetragrammaton. However there is no excuse for including it in the NT and calling it a translation.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=english
NASB Judges 11 40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.
AMP Judges 11 40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to mourn the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
NLT Judges 11 40 for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter.
KJ21 Judges 11 40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
ASV Judges 11 40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
YLT Judges 11 40 from time to time the daughters of Israel go to talk to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year.
DARBY Judges 11 40 from time to time the daughters of Israel go to talk to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year.
This site has also the Biblia Sacra Vulgata in Latin.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Judges+11%3A40+++&VULGATE_version=yes&language=latin&x=17&y=8
I still have a Latin-Spanish dictionary from my days in catholic High School in Mexico. The word anni means years. Plagnant means to cry as in mourning, specially in sad occasions, especially in funerals. I like the Vulgata because thanks for many people not understanding the language, it has not changed through the years.
Judges 11 40 ut post anni circulum conveniant in unum filiae Israhel et plangant filiam Iepthae Galaaditae diebus quattuor
The NWT gives the following account
Judges 11:40 From year to year the daughters of Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Gephthath gileadite four times a year
Note that the NWT, like YLT and DARBY, gives the impression that she was still alive after her murder and burning. Even the words celebrate and commemorate do not give the impression of her being alive after this barbaric custom.
Note that verse 31 of chapter 11 of Judges says:
31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
Verse 35 says:
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
What had he promised? A burnt offering!
[quote] 39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, [quote]
Why did she cry for her virginity? Because by the untimely sacrifice, she would have no descendents. Jephtah had not promised to have her work in the temple. He had promised to murder and burn someone for his victory. The first that came to meet him.
Yes, I know there are various translations that try to hide Jephtah's murder/sacrifice of his daughter, which was approved by omission on the bible. The NWT says that the daughters of Israel commended his daughter four times a year, just as JWs commend the murder/sacrifice of their children in the altar of the Watchtower by denying them blood now, and vaccines and transplants in the past.
Can the bible be the word of god? Definitely no. Does the NWT reflect old documents? Heck no. In my own research by comparing texts, I have found out that the WT researches just consult other bibles and write the version that most accommodates to their beliefs, and then they have the gall to tell their followers that they just translated the bible, and accommodate their beliefs to it, when the opposite is true. From what I have seen they accommodate their bible to their beliefs. When confronted they say that other translations are similar, just like children and criminals say to their parents, teachers, and judges: "but other kids/criminals did it too!" trying to be absolved by passing the blame to others.