NWT is soooo inaccurate.... (page 3)

berrygerry

"Re: the origin of the word Jehovah that was in the Aid book - why did WTS remove that important piece of history from the Insight book"?
You mean that it was coined by some Catholic monk? I have no idea, I would have left it there.

Part of WTS' policy of both rewriting and obscuring their history.

Rutherford took a page out of his contemporary's "branding" strategy (Hitler - moustache, and swastika flag design).

Rutherford's masterpiece was grabbing the obscure, seldom-used word Jehovah, and definitively stating that this was God's name.

The next critical step was also a masterpiece - "Jehovah's organization."

"wait on Jehovah"

"jehovah's elders"

"leave it in Jehovah's hands"

"jehovah's way"

"jehovah's servants"

"trust in Jehovah"

"rely on Jehovah"

Brilliant, and appalling.

Nitty-Gritty

Jehovah is a recognized English version of YHWH. Gosh, even Indiana Jones used it!

berrygerry

Gosh, even Indiana Jones used it!

I remember that well.

Jehovah is a recognized English version of YHWH.

Don't strawman.

It was EXTREMELY unused.

Rutherford grabbed it as a brand, pure and simple.

berrygerry

Summary of: Selling Hitler: Propaganda and the Nazi Brand

The Nazis pursued propaganda not just as a tool, an instrument of government, but also as the totality, the raison d'etre, the medium through which power itself was exercised. Moreover, Nicholas O'Shaughnessy argues, Hitler, not Goebbels, was the prime mover in the propaganda regime of the Third Reich - its editor and first author. Under the Reich everything was a propaganda medium, a building-block of public consciousness, from typography to communiques, to architecture, to weapons design. There were groups to initiate rumours and groups to spread graffiti. Everything could be interrogated for its propaganda potential, every surface inscribed with polemical meaning, whether an enemy city's name, an historical epic or the poster on a neighbourhood wall. But Hitler was in no sense an innovator - his ideas were always second- hand. Rather his expertise was as a packager, fashioning from the accumulated mass of icons and ideas, the historic debris, the labyrinths and byways of the German mind, a modern and brilliant political show articulated through deftly managed symbols and rituals. The Reich would have been unthinkable without propaganda - it would not have been the Reich.

Substitute Hitler and Reich with Rutherford and Watch Tower - no different.

It's all propaganda.

Jehovah or an equivalent , was never in the New Testament . It was not removed from the NT , it was never there . The writers of the NT chose not to use Jehovah .The WT translators ( whoever they are ) have arbitrarily put Jehovah back into the NT where it suits WT doctrine .

The NWT is all about making the Bible fit their teaching .

Jan

Wonderment

Dumplin said:

No one in their right mind would trust the New World Translation - simply because of the deceptive nature of Jws. [...] Also, an interesting observation by Dr. Bruce Metzer of Princeton University: "if JWs take this translation [of John 1.1] serious, they are polytheists."

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { }

Of the Hebrew king being called Elohim (God) at Psalm 45:7 the New American Bible, St Joseph Edition, 1970, interestingly explains in a footnote: “The Hebrew king was called Elohim, ‘God,’ not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient pagans but as meaning ‘godlike’ or ‘taking the place of God’.”

Could the same thing be said of Jesus Christ described as theos (God or a god) at John 1.1?

jhine

When challenged on this question polytheism JWs have replied " well Jehovah's representatives are called gods "and that's correct . What the WT fails to take into account is all the rest of the Bible . Such as Rev 5: 6-14

The Lamb ( who they agree is Jesus ) is standing in the centre of the throne , the four living creatures and the 24 elders all fall down and praise him .

Vs 13 sees all creatures everywhere giving the same praise to Jehovah AND the Lamb and falling down and worshipping . Them ?

This cannot mean that Jesus is an angel , angels do not accept praise .( this thread is overlapping another one now ) .

So , yes the original wording of John 1:1 is a little ambiguous in it's grammar but PROPER translators who know Greek also look at the Bible as a whole .Though having said the original is a bit ambiguous there are translators who do feel just from the grammar that it should read " the Word was God " but I do not understand enough about the subject to know if they are right .

Just knowing how much the WT doctors the rest of the BIble to fit it's theology makes me not trust them on anything .

Jan

Nitty-Gritty

@ berrygerry
Jehovah is a recognized English version of YHWH.

Don't strawman.

It was EXTREMELY unused.

Rutherford grabbed it as a brand, pure and simple.

I didn't say it was used a lot, I said it was a recognized English version of the name of God, (as God is not a name). It wasn't used a lot, and that is precisely the point! Hence the inclusion of it in the NWT. Making God's name known.

As for Rutherford grabbing it as a brand, that's rubbish.

jhine

Nitty -Gritty , as I said before Jehovah or any equivalent was not in the original NT , so why should the WT translators need to put it in ? If the apostles had wanted it in Christian writings they would have used it .

It seems to me to be arrogant of the WT to say that they know better than the apostles .Also they are going against the warning not to add or abstract one word from the Bible .

The WT writers themselves say that all scripture is for our benefit , then proceed to change it . Not just by adding the name Jehovah but by adding the word other where it never was .

Please look into these things for yourself and check out was is being said here .

Jan

Nitty-Gritty

@jhine

You don't know if the apostles didn't include Jehovah or equivalent in their wrings as the original manuscripts no longer exist. Apostasy crept into the christian congregation pretty soon after the last of them died and by the 3th century the teaching of the trinity was in full swing. The oldest known NT manuscripts are about 150 years after the last of the Apostles died. These do not have the divine name in them. In fact apparently there are no existing NT manuscripts with the divine name, not even where quotes are made from the OT where the name does appear, which is very strange. This is the reason why some scholars such as prof. George Howard believe that the divine name WAS included in the original writings of the apostles, because when you are quoting a scripture (from the OT) where the divine name obviously appeared (as in the dead sea scrolls) then the same name should appear in your quote otherwise it wouldn't be a quote. Another scholar ( Prof. Wolfgang Feneberg) makes a logical observation "He [Jesus] did not withhold his father's name YHWH from us, but he entrusted us with it. It is otherwise inexplicable why the first petition of the Lord's Prayer should read: 'May your name be sanctified!.........in pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased with kýrios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form in Hebrew or archaic Hebrew characters. . . . We find recollections of the name in the writings of the Church Fathers".

In any case, your argument that including the name Jehovah in the NT means a word was added is not true, a noun was substituted with a name. Nothing was added.

NWT is soooo inaccurate....

Share this