Posts by NWT@Cutlip.Org

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]

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:

I say "even if the W&H Greek text did not omit me" because this is another instance where W&H indicate that there are alternative readings of this verse, both having "a reasonable probability of being true".

[email protected] replied:

Dear Earnest,

As I have already explained, W&H used five markers for degree of certainty. They did not assign percentages! For this time only, and only to make a point, I will. Don't put great stock the percentage number -- make up your own, if you want. I'm trying to refute your both having "a reasonable probability of being true" statement.

In the main text without any marks = 90%-99% sure.

In main text with [single brackets] = 75%-89% sure.

In main text with [[dbl brackets]] = 60%-74% sure

In a footnote only --------------- = 40%-60% sure

In appendix under "rejected" = ??%-39% sure

The UBS Greek text goes one better with five ratings for the main text: None, A, B, C, & D. These are roughly: None = 90%-99%, A=80-89, B=70-79, C=60-69, D=40%-60% and less is rejected.

In Westcott and Hort the reading "ask [me]" is less than certain, but much more than equal to dropping the "me" (according to them). They could have used [[double brackets]] with any real reservations. IF both ha[d] "a reasonable probability of being true", THEN one reading would be in the main text and the other in a footnote. Right or wrong (and, I think they are wrong sometimes), W&H had little doubt that "ME" belonged in the main text. They put it in the main text [to be translated] and NWT ignored them.

Of course, NWT has the right to ignore them ... unless NWT promised to follow them or give a footnote explaining why. Oh, that is exactly what NWT did, wasn't it? Then, I guess they deserve that word, what was it?

The UBS Greek text gives it a "B" rating which is right in line with W&H -- somthing like 75% chance of being correct -- but, as you will no doubt point out, not certain.

[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 in regard to Luke 10:1 --

You complain that "everything would lead an average reader to think W&H must say 'seventy', when in fact, W&H say 'seventy-two.' " As you can see, W&H include both "seventy" and "seventy-two" and leave it to the translator to decide which is more probable. With the footnote the NWT takes that a step further and provides the reader with the critical information to judge that for themselves.

[email protected] replied:

(1) We both know that the majority ("vast majority"--?) of NWT do not have "the footnote" so how are readers of the majority of NWT copies going to "judge for themselves" as you put it?

(2) W&H text has "seventy-[two]" in the main text indicating a small doubt about the "two" in the text. They were convinced it should be present. With a higher degree of doubt they would have used "seventy-[[two]]" in double prackets. With still higher doubt -- to the point of uncertainty -- they would have moved "two" to the bottom of the page (like a few NWT copies do). And if they were confident it did not belong, they would have moved it into the back under "rejected readings."

(3) So, as you say, they did not follow the main text of W&H; they did not supply a footnote in most copies of NWT; and they took matters into their own hands by going "a step further" by removing the information from the main text to a footnote and then (4) dropping the footnotte. Pretty slick deception, huh?

--

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]

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]

Posts by [email protected]