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]

Dear Earnest,

Your fourth Scripture, 1 Peter 3:14-15, needs to be viewed in the context of 1 Peter as a whole. Get out your W&H -- the real one, not the KIT. Look at 1 Peter 2:3 where W&H clearly marks this OT quotation from Psalm 34:8. They also list it in the back. Likewise you can check J20 which is Moulton's concordance available at a library near you. It will have both the Hebrew MT and the Greek LXX (numbering is 33:9 in LXX). Another interesting source is Old Testament Quotaitons in the New Testament: A Complete Survey by Gleason L. Archer & C.C. Chirichigno (Moody Bible Institute: Chicago, 1983) ISBN: 0-8024-0236-4, which on page 66-67 lists this as quotation #150 giving the MT, LXX, Gk NT, and English comments in a handy form for comparison. The WT relies on W&H and J20 al the time. So, if they agree this is a quotation and they are further supported by another book specializing in just that one thing, it's very likely a quotation. Even WT champion, Furuli admits, "[I]t is indiputable that the one referred to in 1 Peter 2:3 and 3:15 is Jesus Christ" page 197.

No only is 1 Peter 2:3 a quotation, I, myself, with my own eyes, saw the tetragram in this verse in J7, J8, J13, J14, and J20.(As a rule J9 agrees with J7 and J8, but I didn't list it because I neglected to consult it.) For sure, five J-Documents have a tetragram here. Interestingly, the marvelous research staff from the WTS missed each and every one of them. No hint of any footnote appears at 1 Peter 2:3. Why? You know why! This is but another of the many NT verses that call Jesus Christ L ORD (or if you prefer, "Jehovah"). The L ORD of 2:3 is the Stone of 2:4 which is Jesus Christ. In an attempt at obfuscation, the WT introduced a paragraph break here which does not occur in W&H (of course, in KIT it does!) or any of the dozen English translations I spot checked (some enterprising young JW may be able to locate one if they look hard enough). In W&H, UBS, and NA Greek texts and most English translations no paragraph break appears and the thought flows right into frrom 2:3 to 2:4 -- the L ORD is the Stone.

In 1 Peter 2:7 the Stone metaphor continues with more OT quotations: "the Stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner." To use Furuli's language, "it is indisputable" that this Stone is Jesus Christ. Yet, in 2:8 this "identical Stone" is "a Stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense" -- a quotation speaking of none other than the L ORD of the OT in Isaiah 8:12-14 but spoke of the L ORD Jesus Christ twice in 1 Peter. (See W&H page 607.) So, the L ORD is the Stone and the Stone is the L ORD .

Twice? Twice! Now look at 1 Peter 3:14-15. Again Peter quotes from Isaiah 8:12-14 to call Jesus Christ L ORD (or "Jehovah").

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But sanctify the Christ as Jehovah in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.

Isaiah wrote:

However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But Jehovah, himself, you must sanctify.

Peter took up his quill and copied this line word for word from the LXX as it appears above. Then, to make sure his point was not missed, he took up his quill again and replaced one word.

However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But Jehovah, ~~himself~~, you must sanctify.

However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But Jehovah (Christ) you must sanctify.
J7 and J8 clearly say, "You must sanctify Christ as Jehovah God in your hearts." (Other J-Documents my as well.) The KIT note chops the full quotation.

May good things come from God to you, [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]

Dear Earnest,

Your third Scripture, 1 Corinthians 2:16 , needs to be viewed in the context of 1 Corinthians 2 as a whole. In keeping with his usual practice of calling the Father "God" and and calling the Son "Lord" (1 Corinthians 8:6), it is probably wisest to understand all references in 1 Corinthians 2 to "Lord" as references to the Son. Despite the fact that people like George Howard speak of "two Lords" Paul affirms, "To us ... there is One L ORD ."

The "Glorious L ORD " of 2:8 is the same L ORD whose mind we have in 2:16 and in whom we boast in 1:31. No problem exists as long as you don't come to the Scripture with a prejudice and bias that Jesus can't be called L ORD . If you start with that notion, then you have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics like the WT does. If you just let the Scriptures speak for themselves, you will probably not go too far wrong.

Different NT authors have different vocabularies. John likes to talk about Father and Son. Paul prefers God and Lord. Other NT writers have other ways of expressing themselves. Don't expect Paul to talk like John, or John to talk like Paul. In the Gospels, "Lord" probably means the Father a huge majority of the time. Notice Paul's vocabulary: "gifts ... Same Spirit -/- ministries ... Same Lord -/- operations... Same God." That's Paul's way of expressing what you wish he didn't believe. John's way of expressing the same thing is different. See John 14--16.

[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]

Dear Earnest,

Your second Scripture, Romans 14:10-11, needs to be viewed in the context of Romans 14 as a whole. In keeping with his usual practice of calling the Father "God" and and calling the Son "Lord" (1 Corinthians 8:6), it is probably wisest to understand all references in Romans 14 to "Lord" as references to the Son. Despite the fact that people like George Howard speak of "two Lords" Paul affirms, "To us ... there is One L ORD ."

Thologically, this should give you no real problem, except, of course, where Paul applies an OT quotation about the L ORD to the L ORD Jesus Christ. As you are fully aware, in Philippians 2:9 Paul say Christ was raised to the ultimate position and given the Name Above Every Name. In our culture, father's pass their name on to their children; our heavenly Father is no exception. He passed on his Name to his Son.That is why Paul again quotes this same passage in the words:

Every knee shall bow ...
Every tongue confess ...
Jesus is L ORD -- or, if you prefer -- יהוה
And glorify God the Father by doing so.

--

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,

Your first Scripture, Romans 10:16-17, needs to be viewed in the context of Romans 10 as a whole. In keeping with his usual practice of calling the Father "God" and and calling the Son "Lord" (1 Corinthians 8:6), it is probably wisest to understand all references in Romans 10 to "Lord" as references to the Son. Despite the fact that people like George Howard speak of "two Lords" Paul affirms, "To us ... there is One L ORD ."

Romans 10:9 says that salvation is predicated on the confession that Jesus is L ORD . Notice the WT footnote and what it tells you by not telling you. See the footnote to Romans 10:13 where they list J7 and J8 in support of "Jehovah" in the text. However, at Romans 10:9 they say nothing about J7, J8, (and J9). Do you suppose that they know those J-Documents say "Jesus is Jehovah," and they don't want you to know it? Also, J23 is conspicuous by it's absence. I have not checked it, but knowing WT footnotes the way I do, it's a safe bet it also says "Jesus is Jehvoah." Why else would they go to the trouble to list all the ones that do not say "Jehovah" -- except to cover up those that do.

Romans 10:11 quotes the OT refering to "faith in him" -- who is that? In Isaiah 28:16, "him" is the Stone of the Lord יהוה -- Jesus Christ [more about this Stone will be said at 1 Peter 3:15]. The main topic in Romans 10:9 is Jesus Christ. The main topic of Romans 10:11 is Jesus Christ. Likewise, the main topic of Roamns 10:13 is Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:13 is yet another OT quotation referring the divine name to Jesus Christ. As Romans 10:11 urges faith in the L ORD Jesus Christ, Romans 10:13 urges calling on the Name of the L ORD (Jesus Christ) -- the same L ORD believed on in 10:11 and confessed in 10:9. Then comes Romans 10:16.

Romans 10:16 quotes Isaiah (one more time) calling on the Name (as per 10:13) of the L ORD Jesus. So, the "Lord" throughout Romans 10 is the same "One Lord" all Christians worship and call on in prayer -- the L ORD Jesus Christ.

--

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 a JW) you have a lotta guts to say this in public. Good for you! Keep thinking!

It's true there's not any concrete evidence, no extant copies of the NT with the tetragram, but until the twentieth century there was no evidence to suggest that the LXX contained the name Yahweh. ... Nevertheless, I must admit I am uncomfortable myself in including 'Jehovah' in the main text without direct textual support. I think it would have been better practice to have kept it as a footnote.

[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]

Earnest wrote:

Likewise, we have textual evidence that the tetragram was in early copies of the LXX and so we would expect that to be true of NT writings in the same period.

[email protected] responded:

(1) "Likewise" refers to nothing and I would have put "..." but you get upset everytime I do that so I left it.

(2) I know of a few scraps of fragments of LXX written long before the NT writings; I know of not written "in the same period."

(3) Interestingly, in the few scraps of fragments of the LXX that you mentioned, the tetragram is written in ancient Hebrew letters inserted in the Greek text. [Please stop and think about this. In the past you have zipped right through things I've written and failed to get my points. No doubt, this is because I'm not a very good communicator. So, take up the slack for me. Ready? Here goes:] Those scraps of pre-NT LXX had the tetragram in them in ancient Hebrew letters. They did not have a "translation" into Greek. Obviously, the original translators did not want the Name spoken aloud. Any Greek reading those texts would come to that spot and see "chicken scratchings." Likewise, why would a translator into English put in "Jehovah" or any other word in modern English typeface? Shouldn't a modern translator put in the tetragram -- a real tetragram in Ancient Hebrew letters -- at those places? That's the way the first translators from Hebrew did it! Don't tell me it can't be done. It already has been done. At least three Bibles are on the market now that do exactly that. One is online as either The Sacred Name King James Bible or The Holy Name King James Bible -- I forget exactly which. You can Google it. Two others sell online, but only give sample pages online, not the whole thing like the Sacred/Holy Name KJV does.

To repeat: Shouldn't a modern translator put in the tetragram -- a real tetragram in Ancient Hebrew letters -- at those places where the name appears in the OT? That way a modern reader can say the chicken scratchings as "Jehovah" "Yahweh" "Yehovah" "L ORD " or "G OD " as the reader understands what God wants done.

--

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:

Furuli gives an example of an ancient aqueduct crossing a valley, in his book Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. He says that even though only half the aqueduct remains we have no doubt that sometime in the past it stretched the width of the valley.

[email protected] responded:

I love this. When I first read it in Furuli's book I couldn't help but think how stupid it was. The world is so full of unfinished major building projects. Some of the pyramids were never finished. Do a little research and you will discover that some of the Roman aqueducts were never finiished. This brought to mind the major intersection of Interstate Highway 10 near my house. This is freeway country. We have some roads with six lanes each way (12 total). Between Indio, California and Phoenix, Arizona the land is so flat and so empty you can pretty much survey the site for a road by laying down a straighedge on a map and drawing a straight line for more than 200 miles.

In the late 1950s when the Interstate was still a dream, construction began at several points. Near my house was to be the major junction of I-10 and I-17. I-10 was to run six or eight lanes out to the west. And it did from about 1960 to 1985 or so. The road coming in from California was supposed to connect to it. In the meantime politics came into play. The original route was empty and cheap. So, the people in power decided to reroute the freeway and in the 1970s built a new intersection two miles north of the original one so the road from California would run through residential areas and cost 20 times the original plan. (Too much detail.)

Had you visited my home from Great Britain during the 25 or 30 years the original intersection was there you would have seen it running off due west across the Valley of the Sun. Not knowing the the true situation you would have no doubt that sometime in the past it stretched the width of the valley. And, you would be wrong. It was never there. It just ran off to the middle of nowhere and ended. Fifteen or twenty years ago several million more tax dollars went into reworking it so it no longer looks so much like an unused intersection. (They called it an "eyesore.") Come on by, I'll show it to you.

In a Logic 101 (beginning) class they would call Furuli's example "false analogy."

--

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]

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.