Found a new difference between the old NWT and the new one...

ILoveTTATT2

Yesterday I read Jeremiah 8-11 because that's what was studied in the CLAM. I am in a different city and decided to go to the meeting to check it out and possibly ask the witnesses some questions and see how they treat a "newcomer".

Anyways...

NWT, 1984 version:

(Jeremiah 10:13) 13 At [his] voice there is a giving by him of a turmoil of waters in the heavens, and he causes vapors to ascend from the extremity of the earth. He has made even sluices for the rain, and he brings forth the wind from his storehouses.

NWT, 2013 version:

When he makes his voice heard, The waters in the heavens are in turmoil And he causes clouds to ascend from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, And he brings the wind out of his storehouses.

No big deal right?

Well, the previous NWT's footnote shows their extreme hubris in the translation:

“Sluices,” by reading beda·qim′ instead of bera·qim′, “lightnings”; MTLXXSyVg, “lightnings.” See JTS, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 214-216. Compare Ps 135:7 ftn, “Sluices.”

So M, the Masoretic Text, T, the Aramaic Targums, LXX, the Septuagint, Sy, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg, the Vulgate, ALL say "lightnings". This means that in Hebrew, in Aramaic, in Greek, in Syriac, and in Latin... ALL scribes AND ancient translators in those languages understood that part to mean "lightnings".

But noooooo... we'll trust an article in the Journal of Theological Studies from 1952 called "Who maketh lightnings for the rain" from Edward J. Kissane that suggests it's not "lightnings", but "sluices". Even though every other translation (that I could see) had "lightnings" in that verse.

I don't have JSTOR access, but if you'd like to read the article:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23952854.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

If you want to read more about Edward Kissane:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kissane

What does this show? Incredible hubris and an incredible willingness to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary by Fred Franz, who made the previous NWT.

Scully

What significance does that particular interpretation have for any JW or any other person of another denomination?

I can't think of any, but maybe you can.

Pointing out a detail like this to an Active™ JW will likely get you branded as a nit-picker, and someone who just wants to be negative for the sake of being negative.

I agree with you, in principle, that the translation of the NWT is highly questionable and completely unreliable, but given that it's on something that is of such negligible importance, I sincerely hope that you find bigger fish to fry than this.

ILoveTTATT2

It may not be much, it doesn't change the meaning of the text much, if at all, but my point was that they go against the "original" hebrew and the ancient translators who all understood the same thing, just because they wanted to be different.

This attitude is seen on their insistence on 607, on the cross vs stake argument, among others.

"We are right even though there's a mountain of evidence saying we are wrong."

slimboyfat

Interesting topic. I got a book on conjectural emendation from the library the other week. It's a good read. Basically a conjectural emendation is where a textual critic suggests a reading for the text that he argues is original but has not survived in any extant manuscript. Apparently this is common practice when it comes to many ancient texts that are not well attested. It is less commonly used with biblical texts for two main reasons 1) biblical texts are better represented than other ancient texts so critics don't need to resort to conjectural emendation as often and 2) there is an understandable inhibition on the part of believers to suggest novel readings that imply the whole textual tradition has been corrupted.

I think there is a good argument to be made in favour of conjectural emendation at various points. Don't know about this particular verse.

The JW assertion that the divine name was originally used throughout the New Testament is of course an extreme case of conjectural emendation.

The book I'm reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Longer-Written-Conjectural-Emendation-Restoration/dp/9004235337

Earnest

I note that the Concordant Literal Version translates Psalms 135:7 (which reads similarly) as "...He has made sluices for the rain..."

The history of the transmission of the Old and New Testaments shows that scribes often changed the text, either inadvertently or deliberately. So it is feasible that in an early copy of Jeremiah bera·qim′ (lightnings) was written in place of beda·qim′ (sluices), and subsequent copies and translations followed suit.

However, there is a principle in textual criticism that the more difficult reading should be preferred, i.e. is more likely to be the original. So in the absence of textual evidence to the contrary NWT (2013) was corrected to read "lightnings".

I agree with Scully it is no big deal but it is an interesting find. Thanks for letting us know.

jwleaks

The correct translation of specific words in the Bible can drastically affect modern English language. For example: if secular society accepted the NWT 1984 version then we have "fruit" in the garden of Eden and "sluices" in the book of Jeremiah. Fortunately the world rejected the NWT 1984 translation and its grammar.

It's only recently, and only after the JWs switched to following digital tablets for the law, and not stone tablets, that they too dropped the use of the NWT 1984 translation in favor of a modern upgrade.

Imagine calling the below pictured product a Fruit Sluice cable instead of an Apple Lightning cable.

menrov

Hi, according to this list, all translations have LIGHTNING:

http://studybible.info/compare/Jeremiah%2010:13

tor1500

Hi,

Why couldn't they have just used the word lightning....oh, I know, they wanted to sound more intelligent than they are and show they did their research...

In the revised NWT, they took out a whole story of Jesus in John 8:3-11...the story is an adultery female was brought to Jesus, they wanted to test him....he was walking around preaching love but they wanted to see if he would uphold the law...so, they say the law says when an adulterer female is caught she is to be stoned....what would you do, well, Jesus didn't say a word, he drew in the sand and asked if any one hasn't sinned cross this line...well, one by one, they left...Jesus answered them but didn't what he did was prick the conscience of his audience and since no one in his life has never sinned....Jesus was saying...back up...who are you to judge...This particular passage many bibles say they are not sure if it's a part of the original text...oh yes it is....why they say that, that passage puts an end to all judging...that passage can shut down an excommunication or df;ing...As a matter of fact that passage puts an end to religion all together....I think all witnesses should make copies of this passage and if they ever get called into the back room...hand that around the room to the brothers....what this story is saying if Jesus don't judge who are you...then Jesus tells the woman to stop sinning...he doesn't have elders keep their eye on her...or others in the area tattle on her...he just tells her to stop...the rest is up to her...

So, all that to say this...they re-wrote the bible to fit words like...governing body, territory...words that pertain to them...

Tor

Earnest

Regarding the account in John 7:53 - 8:11, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger, 1971, pp.219, 220 states:

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as p66 (Bodmer 2), p75 (Bodmer 14 15), codex Sinaiticus, codex Vaticanus, [and many later codices]. Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version, as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts...In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts. No Greek Father prior Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

tor1500

Hi,

They can say it absent, but you got to say it's a good story....because it really puts us humans in our places...because no matter how many times we read in the bible not to judge....we humans always put a coma..even though we don't like to be judged but we want to judge...that's why those passages may have been absent...either way, Jesus is saying...if I'm not judging, neither should you.

Tor

Found a new difference between the old NWT and the new one...

Share this