NWT is soooo inaccurate....

by iwasblind 36 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jhine

  Nitty Gritty , so the argument appears to be that because the Tetragrammaton is not found in even the earliest of known manuscripts it actually must have been in there originally . That is supposition not fact .

  A more plausible argument is that in quotes from the OT the Divine name should be included . However this has been discussed at length and reasons given for the writers to not include it when quoting .

  One article which discusses this issue can be found at

  www.tetragrammaton.org/english_is_nwt_better.html

  I will quote a small part to give a taste ,

  " The New Testament frequently quotes the Old Testament . The New Testament quotation sometimes includes a verse that uses the Hebrew name of God . Matthew 3;3 is an example . It says " The voice of one crying in the wilderness , make ready the way of the Lord , make his paths straight " Matthew quoted Isaiah 40:3 and applied it to John the Baptist who made the way ready for Jesus . Isaiah 40:3 used the Hebrew name of God . However , when Matthew quoted the verse he applied it to Jesus by using the Greek word for Lord .However the NWT says " Someone is crying out in the wilderness , " Prepare the way of Jehovah , you people ! Make his roads straight " Again the Greek text from which the NWT was translated uses the Greek word for Lord and not the Hebrew of God .

  I have just had visitors arrive and will continue later .Apologies .

  Jan
• 

  alcyone

  A couple of notes on YHWH vs. NT:

  1, The Jews stopped to pronounce the name before 1st century. Why we cannot find any criticism of this custom in the Bible? Majority of Septuagints used Kurios instead of the tetragrammaton. But there is no discussion of how bad is to use 'Kurios' instead of YHWH anywhere in the Scriptures. So it seems the 1st Christians accepted usage of Kurios.

  2, Standard WTS claim somebody replaced YHWH in the centuries after Jesus: I have not seen any hard facts provided by WTS supporting this theory. Historic science simply does not work this way - I cannot simply state something happened but I need to provide proofs or strong indications for it.

  3, Christian heresies in the first centuries are documented - Docetists, Ebionites, ... We have also good traces of Gnosticism, discussions with Jews, various discussions among Christians. But we do not have any trace of discussion of Kurios / YHWH. Why?

  4, At the end of 1st century there was apprx. 1 million of Christians spread across the whole Roman world. How did somebody manage to replace YHWH with Kurios in this geographically dispersed realm? How did these conspirators manage to leave no trace of this big change?

  5, George Howard and WTS - GH says a) it is a theory b) he is not supporting 237 places changed by the WTS. Try to google him.

  6, How is it possible we do not know exact form of the name? If it was widely used then at least one Christian or even enemy of Christians would use it - but there is no form preserved in Greek / Latin form. Why did not secular historians from that era say 'Christians... those people using the name...'?

  7, This step done by the WTS is not a small thing - it is completely changing meaning of some scriptures - for example Rom. 10, or Acts 7:59,60
  
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  Several myths here:

  1. The NWT is NOT the only bible to use yhwh in the NT.

  Compare:

  The Scriptures 1998

  Messianic Israel Standerd Bible

  American English Bible 2001

  Although a valid point is that the name YHWH does not occur in any of the manuscripts we have. In fact Paul's letters first turn up in a gnostic religion called Marcionism which said YHWH was not Jesus father.

  2. The NWT is the only bible I know to read Job 6:6 the way it does.

  3. The insertation of 'other' in the NT from 1950 to 2006 had brackets and one could see it was not in the original text. (Removed in the RNWT 2013 and NWT 2006)

  4. "At the end of 1st century there was apprx. 1 million of Christians spread across the whole Roman world."

  FALSE!

  Maybe a few Ebonites and Jewish Christians but certainly not a million. More like a few thousand,.

  Tacitus mention is based on a bad historian he is quoting which is acknowledged by many today.
• 

  jhine

  OK I'm back , an unexpected visit by Older Granddaughter and boyfriend .!

  HTBWC I'm not really sure what point you are making , perhaps it's me , and I'm sorry , but I'm not sure if you are pro or anti the NWT

  Nitty-Gritty you said that changing Lord to Jehovah wasn't adding to the Bible .Well yes I suppose that is true , but as the above illustration shows it is altering the meaning , just as is adding the word " other " .

  To Christians of most other denominations this translation seems to be for one purpose - to alter the way Jesus is portrayed by the scriptures .

  The writers of the NT could have used the original Hebrew in the Greek if they had wanted to , which they didn't . So why do the WT feel that they have to improve on the works of the apostles ?

  Jan
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  jhine I'm not pro NWT. The points i'm making is there is alot of inaccurate posts on this thread I am trying to clear up.
• 

  Isidore

  Nitty grittty, your assertion about YHWH being somehow removed from the original text is a desperate attempt to prove that WT teaching is correct.

  The fact is this: the WT pushes this conspiracy theory because of their denial of Christ's divinity and ultimately the denial of the Trinity.
• 

  jhine

  Bumped