Liza,
If translational integrity matters to you, I do not think you could find a more direct example of intentionally massaging the text than a close examination of the 237 times "Jehovah" was used in the New Testament. They claim that their support for replacement of the Greek kurios (Lord) with the Anglicanized version of the tetragrammaton (Jehovah) comes from what they call J references. The oldest of these references are from Shem Tob in the late 1300s AD, a work translating some NT books into Hebrew (not into English). The most recent they use for support are from the late 1900s AD and these also are works translating NT books from Greek into Hebrew.
In other words, they have taken the Greek word kurios and intentionally replaced this perfectly serviceable and easily translatable English word with a name that without question does not appear in any extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament canon. If you can translate a word but you choose instead to replace it with something that supports religious dogma then you have ceased to be a translator and begun to propagandize.
Additionally, they did not replace the word with the name in all the places where Shem Tob or any other translator replaced the word for the name. They replaced the word for the name wherever their doctrine indicated first and then scurried to find some semblance of translational support for their having done so.
In short, they use the unmistakably incorrect "translation" by others of Greek into Hebrew as justification for their unmistakably incorrect "translation" of Greek into English.
Putrid deceit at its finest and very intentional. I would like to know whether you can research this point out and come to any conclusion that differs from mine. I would like to see your line of reasoning in reaching a different conclusion.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
ADDED: All of my research sprang from studying out the source information given in the Reference Edition of the NWT for the list of J references. The J references are listed on pages 9 and 10. The topic of the logic used in replacement is found in Appendix 1D. Appendix 1D also breaks down each verse this was done to and whether it was kurios (alt. kyrios) or theos that was changed to Jehovah.
As justification for their exegesis, consider their exculpatory pitch:
"To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures for background. We have looked for agreement from the Hebrew versions to confirm our rendering. Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have no agreement from the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely, 1Co 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support rendering the divine name."
In other words, they are willing to confuse the casual reader as to whether it was the Hebrew SCRIPTURES or the Hebrew VERSIONS of the Bible that served as basis for these errors in translation. They do not even pretend that what occurred in these 237 cases was actual translation. What they pretend is that it was not exegetical of them to copy someone else's clearly manipulative exegesis.
