Posts by NWT@Cutlip.Org

18

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents

by [email protected] in

jesus christ, jehovah?s witnesses, .

the new world translation of the christian greek scriptures

(1950, 1951), the new world translation of the holy scriptures (1963), and the kingdom interlinear translation (1969) all contain the introduction that says:

[email protected]

Earnest promised:

Then if you particularly want me to explain why I understand the remaining verses (if any) include 'Jehovah' I will do so.

[email protected] replied:

Here are the "remaining verses" (ignore the one I scratched out) for you to explain away. Just start at the top and work down.

Acts of the Apostles
1:24 You, O Jehovah, who know the hearts of all
2:47 Jehovah continued to join to them daily
3:19 refreshing may come from the person of Jehovah
7:60 he cried out with a loud voice, ?Jehovah?
(In the verse before he was praying to Jehovah Jesus.)
10:33 you have been commanded by Jehovah to say
~~11:21 the hand of Jehovah was with them~~
(In the verse before they declare Jehovah Jesus.)
12:17 told them in detail how Jehovah brought him out
13:2 public ministering to Jehovah
13:10 the right ways of Jehovah
13:12 astounded at the teaching of Jehovah
14:3 by the authority of Jehovah (no ?authority? in Greek)
14:23 committed them to Jehovah
15:40 the undeserved kindness of Jehovah
16:14 Jehovah opened her heart wide
16:15 If you men have judged me faithful to Jehovah
18:21 if Jehovah is willing
18:25 the way of Jehovah
21:14 Let the will of Jehovah take place.

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Dear Earnest,

I found the following statement by you very, very interesting. You said:

Anyway, the NWT translators consider that the context and related texts support replacing ho kyrios with 'Jehovah', while J7,8 replace ho theos with the tetragrammaton. As a guess I expect those responsible for the footnotes simply checked which J-Documents used the tetragrammaton in this verse and slipped up in this case .

As it turns out 1 Corinthians (like Acts) was a book I did run through somewhat quickly in J7 while in NYC on the aforementioned research trip. I didn't read every word (my Hebrew skill was far too poor for that), but I did skim through looking for extra tetrragrammaton. As you know the NWT located 15 (or 17 counting those religated to footnotes) instances of the tetragrammaton. Me, well, I located 16 more than they did. But I was working alone -- under time restraints. So I may have missed some. They had a hugh research staff working on a major project (NWT Bible translation) and wanted to be as accurate and careful as possible, so, no doubt they checked and double checked and rechecked their findings!

As I'm sure you can guess many of the 16 extra tetragrammaton I found refer to Jehovah Jesus. I'm also sure you don't want me to list them. So I won't. I will say that my research notes (now 27+ years old) tell me that I checked 1 Corinthians 7:17 and it did contain a tetragrammaton in place of kurios (at the beginning) and did not contain a tetragrammaton in place of theos (at the end) as you asserted. So, according to my notes, the WT got it right the first time. Maybe I "slipped up" as you claim they did. I can't recall that detail now. I can only rely on my notes. However, I hope to have a microfiche copy of J7 in the next month. So, I can check it again.

Which brings me around to why I found your explanation very, very interesting. My guess is that you have never seen a J-Docuement. So, someone else fed you that paragraph. What was your source? I want to know this very, very much.

I'm far from perfect, but when I am hunting for the WT to mess up (as I was in 1 Corinthians of J7), I usually look pretty close. So, if my notes say they got that one right, they probably did. I was expecting to finds mistakes, and I did not spot that one (if you are right). So please inform me of your source. I'm going to learn something (I hope).

Praying you remain Earnest, [email protected]

61

New World Translation and the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort

by Dogpatch in

according to the title page of the kingdom interlinear translation of the greek scriptures, 1969 edition.. history of the new world translation.

only the greek text is said to be ?westcott and hort?

first: does the watchtower society claim that nwt is a translation of w&h?

[email protected]

What does your silence on this one mean? (1) You overlooked it? (2)You will get back to it? (3) You are unable to answer it and save face at the same time? I will take "no answer" as the last option.

Dear Earnest,

Apparently I missed this information in WT publications:

W&H text published by S.C.E.Legg with a critical apparatus showing the textual support for the various readings (which was also considered by the NWT Translation Committee).

Please advise me where the claim is made that the original NWT considered Legg. If it is in NWT, I missed it. I suppose it could be in another publication. Show me!

Thanks for your help, [email protected]

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

[email protected] : For example, for forty years (one generation) the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of John (listed as J19) was in the footnotes as support for "Jehovah" in Luke 4:8, Luke 4:12, Luke 4:18 and Luke 4:19.

Earnest: That is because for "forty years" J 19 referred to John in Hebrew (1930, British Jews Society of Haifa) arranged by T.C. Horton. In the NWT revised edition of 1984, which included "a complete updating and revision of the footnote apparatus", J 19 referred to John in Hebrew (1957, Denver, Colorado) by Moshe I. Ben Maeir. I am surprised it did not occur to you to simply check the references in the front of the Bible.

[email protected] :

I am surprised how you can totally miss a point in discussion. J19 is the Gospel of John -- only the Gospel of John -- Luke is no part of it. Because Luke is no part of it, J19 could not offer support for four passages in Luke. Yet the footnotes say it does. Can't you see this? If every word in J19 (the Gospel of John) was a tetragrammaton, it would not prove Luke used the tetragrammaton.

About the kindest thing that can be said about the WT use of the J-Documents is to call it "slipshod." That would only apply if one assumes (as I do not) they were not intentionally deceptive but merely incompetent researchers. Which is it?

--

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Earnest : For example, the J 7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts. - 08-Jul-04 03:42 GMT

[email protected] : Is that the original count or the revised count? - 08-Jul-04 21:53 GMT

Earnest: Does it matter ? It was just an example to show that the J-Documents are not always in agreement. There are some differences in the list of J-Documents in various NWT editions but J 7 consistently refers to the Polyglott New Testament, 1599, by Elias Hutter, and so there is no "revised count" in my example.

[email protected] :

Does it matter? Yes, it does. At least, the WTS and average JW thinks it does. "These [307 distincnt occurrences of the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew versions] have thus restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Scriptures." KIT 69 p. 19. This WT argument is one of the links in their chain of evidence. A broken link.

You said, "J7 ... supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts." You did not give a list as Firpo Carr does on p.92 of The Divine Name Controversy. But his list has 49 of 52 supported. Did someone chance the text of J7 between 1949 and 1984? Or, is it just that the WT can't get it's story straight? First they say one thing; then they say another. What's the name for that? Bearing false Witness?

Shall we start a pool on the number of "Jehovahs" the next revision of NWT will claim for Acts? How is Joe Average to know? Obviously, we can't take the Watchtower's word for it.

Tell us straight out. Are you saying that these J-Documents are worthless as proof that the divine name should be in the NT?

--

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Earnest wrote:

For example, the J7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts.

[email protected] replied:

Is that the original count or the revised count? Undoubtedly, you know that a major rework of the footnotes was done in 1984. For example, for forty years (one generation) the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of John (listed as J19) was in the footnotes as support for "Jehovah" in Luke 4:8, Luke 4:12, Luke 4:18 and Luke 4:19.

Interestingly:

Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our version, there are only two instances where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in these two instances, namely Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:13, we feel strongly supported by the context and by related texts in rendering the divine name. -- 1969 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p.19.

Thus, out of the 237 times that we have restored Jehovah's name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely at 1 Corinthians 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support restoring the divine name. -- 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p.12.

Too bad they misplaced the support they used to have for 1 Corinthians 7:17!

--

18

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents

by [email protected] in

jesus christ, jehovah?s witnesses, .

the new world translation of the christian greek scriptures

(1950, 1951), the new world translation of the holy scriptures (1963), and the kingdom interlinear translation (1969) all contain the introduction that says:

[email protected]

Earnest wrote:

For example, the J7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts.

[email protected] replied:

Is that the original count or the revised count? Undoubtedly, you know that a major rework of the footnotes was done in 1984. For example, for forty years (one generation) the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of John (listed as J19) was in the footnotes as support for "Jehovah" in Luke 4:8, Luke 4:12, Luke 4:18 and Luke 4:19.

Interestingly:

Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our version, there are only two instances where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in these two instances, namely Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:13, we feel strongly supported by the context and by related texts in rendering the divine name. -- 1969 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p.19.

Thus, out of the 237 times that we have restored Jehovah's name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely at 1 Corinthians 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support restoring the divine name. -- 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p.12.

Too bad they misplaced the support they used to have for 1 Corinthians 7:17!

--

18

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents

by [email protected] in

jesus christ, jehovah?s witnesses, .

the new world translation of the christian greek scriptures

(1950, 1951), the new world translation of the holy scriptures (1963), and the kingdom interlinear translation (1969) all contain the introduction that says:

[email protected]

Earnest wrote:

So, for example, "the angel of Jehovah", "the hand of Jehovah", "the word of Jehovah" are all expressions in the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name occurs. And if you think that is somewhat arbitrary then consider how often "angel of the Lord", "hand of the Lord" or "word of the Lord" occur in the O.T. Despite our familiarity with them in English, they do not occur in the Hebrew. So it would be quite unnatural to substitute 'Lord' for 'Jehovah' when using such well-known expressions. You may care to review your list of 28 verses in Acts and see how many are left after removing those with expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name occurs.

[email protected] replied:

Why should I have to review the list? I asked you to explain [away] the Watchtower's arbitrariness. Oh, I get it, you are afraid. After you discount eight (8) "word of Jehovah," one (1) "hand of Jehovah," and one (1) "Angel of Jehovah" as "expressions" from the OT, you are still left with 18 places you can't explain as "quotations." P-B7 Check. Your move.

--

61

New World Translation and the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort

by Dogpatch in

according to the title page of the kingdom interlinear translation of the greek scriptures, 1969 edition.. history of the new world translation.

only the greek text is said to be ?westcott and hort?

first: does the watchtower society claim that nwt is a translation of w&h?

[email protected]

Earnest wrote:

In your example of 2 Corinthians 5:5 you say "The Token of ? insert any six words you want here ? the Spirit", and suggest that the Greek word arrabona should be translated as "earnest", instead of "the token of what is to come".

[email protected] responded:

Absolutely untrue. You read something I did not write! I have no big problem with "token," although it is a bit anemic, palid. No one asked my opinion, but I kinda like "down payment" as a contemporary translation. For a well-educated reader I'd go with something like, "down payment (i.e. the Spirit)." For a less sophisticated group, "down payment [which is] the Spirit." I think "token" is probably OK except that tokens usually have little intrinsic value. As you correctly point out "earnest" probably no longer conveys (to most people) what Paul intended -- up front partial payment. A token (like an engagement ring) may have great value or little value. What God grants to his own is of utmost value: his Holy Spirit. That's a BIG down payment! If you have that down payment already, praise God. If you don't I would like you to. [email protected]

--

61

New World Translation and the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort

by Dogpatch in

according to the title page of the kingdom interlinear translation of the greek scriptures, 1969 edition.. history of the new world translation.

only the greek text is said to be ?westcott and hort?

first: does the watchtower society claim that nwt is a translation of w&h?

[email protected]

Earnest wrote:

The remaining examples were all included in alternative readings which W&H considered to have "a reasonable probability of being true" and found it "impossible to decide" which of the two variant readings is certainly right. As the KIT only shows the main text of W&H it is an understandable mistake for someone to think that the translation was not following the Greek text, especially in those editions which did not show footnotes,

[email protected] wrote:

Please don't mention "impossible to decide" again. I have already shown it does not apply to John 14:14 and Luke 10:1. You are intelligent enough to know I was right. If you can't resist, throw it up on Matthew 12:47 -- but not on the other two. Be honest.

NWT took a minority view on John 14:14 and Luke 10:1. I take a minority view on some passages. I see nothing inherently wrong with taking a minority view. However, when you take a minority view and try to trick others into thinking it is a majority view, that's another story. Why didn't the WT admit they were translating a slightly revised (by the WT) version of W&H? Even if the KIT Greek text is 99.9% W&H, it is not (exactly) W&H. (Plug: Watch for "Hiding the Name" about covering up the Divine Name in W&H.)

In the yellow highlighted area above you tacitly agree with me that the WT does deceive people in KIT. In your heart you know you will never trust it fully again. When you have a serious question about "the Greek" you will look in KIT and then (just to be sure) you will check W&H to make sure the WT did not monkey with W&H. You know it. I know it.

Hang onto that W&H, you will need it! [email protected]

Posts by [email protected]

What does your silence on this one mean? (1) You overlooked it? (2)You will get back to it? (3) You are unable to answer it and save face at the same time? I will take "no answer" as the last option.