Posts by Mebaqqer2

5

Did Man Get Here By Evolution Or By Creation-PDF-BM-S-R!

by Atlantis in

did man get here by evolution or by creation--pdf--1967 bm=bookmarked s=searchable r=reduced from 46 to 24-mb what does the front cover of this book look like?

click here: http://www.imagebam.com/image/40b3ad347198 see reference #12 here:http://seanet.com/~raines/wtgreber.html 12. herle, nelson, the trinity doctrine examined in the light of history and the bible, 1983; penton, m. james, apocalypse delayed, 1985, pp.

174-5. penton also says on pages 196 and 197 that the society's writings on evolution such as did man get here by evolution or creation?

Mebaqqer2

Thanks for providing this publication! I had been looking for this book a little while ago and ended up purchasing it from Amazon. It is nice to have a PDF version though to do word searches and print specific pages.

Mebaqqer

3

Word Changes in the 1961 NWT revision?

by Mebaqqer2 in

beginning at the beginning and making a short story long:.

i tried to purchase vol.

1 of "the new world translation of the hebrew scriptures" (genesis - ruth) [1953] from one of amazon's sub-dealers or whatever they're called.

Mebaqqer2

Thanks for looking that up for me Yknot. In the 1970 revision it is between the Scripture Verses Specifically Commented On and Subjects section and the Important Bible Words for Quick Reference section, it's unfortunate that the 1961 revision doesn't have the same thing. I have found a few for 1961 I wonder why they did it for the 1970 only (the 1971 and 1984 revisions also do not have such a list.)

By the way, and this is to all, can anyone list a specific example of change for the 1984 revision? Further, besides Hebrews 1:6 and the "let...worship" -> "let...do obeisance" stuff, does anyone have an example of change from the 1971 revision?

Just curious,

Mebaqqer

Thanks for the non-smoking support as well.->YKNOT

3

Word Changes in the 1961 NWT revision?

by Mebaqqer2 in

beginning at the beginning and making a short story long:.

i tried to purchase vol.

1 of "the new world translation of the hebrew scriptures" (genesis - ruth) [1953] from one of amazon's sub-dealers or whatever they're called.

Mebaqqer2

Hello all,

Beginning at the beginning and making a short story long:

I tried to purchase Vol. 1 of "The New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures" (Genesis - Ruth) [1953] from one of Amazon's sub-dealers or whatever they're called. The package came, but they sent me "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" [1970 revision, 7th printing; the Green Bible]. I wrote the company telling them they sent me the wrong book. They told me they would be happy to give me a refund. All I would need to do is mail the book back.

Since the book they sent me sells for $3.00 from Amazon and I paid $16.50, what the company should have done was just take the hit and send me the book I had asked for (which was correctly printed on the invoice by the way). I mean, the point of ordering online is so that customers don't have to leave the house, etc. In the interest of customer service, they should have just taken the hit. I am not Jacob. I'm not going to put in more work to get "Rachel" after getting her sister. I know, I know. They got my money and so I have actually paid 5 times more for this book than I should have. So I am stupid; too lazy to mail it back and get my refund. Fine. Sorry to have rambled about that, Amazon's little feedback section didn't give me enough space to vent...

Anyways, looking at Rachel's sister, I noticed that pages 1445, 1446 has "A Listing of Outstanding Word Changes in the 1970 Revised Bible." Since this is the 2nd NWT revision, I was wondering if the 1961 edition has a similar list.

PS: I am on day 5 of not smoking so...

Mebaqqer

24

NWT Oddities

by snowbird in

the nwt rendering of this scripture has always irritated me: psalm 10:4the wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search;.

all his ideas are: there is no god.. why select a 16-letter word when all other english translations use pride/haughtiness of his face/countenance?

i used to cringe whenever this psalm came up for the bible reading because superciliousness was almost always mispronounced.

Mebaqqer2

Narkissos:

At the outset I should say that I never doubted that the infinitive absolute has a variety of uses, or that these various nuances are poorly/incorrectly understood at times in the New World Translation. It was in the interest of brevity that I did not discuss all the possible nuances that may be found in the use of the infinitive absolute. I merely wished to discuss those instances which were analogous with Daniel 11:10 in terms of syntax. Unfortunately, I do not have access to Joüon(-Muraoka) to read all he has to say regarding the infinitive absolute. Nevertheless, I will use what I do have, Waltke and O'Connor, and try to review what you wrote:

There are many cases where neither assertion nor irreality is carried by the inf. abs., and this is sometimes (inconsistently) reflected even in the NWT.
For instance, in oppositions (whether adversative or concessive):
Judges 15:13 NWT! "No, but we shall merely tie you".

This example is mentioned in Waltke and O'Connor. Note what they say:

Affirmation is the most straightforward role for an infinitive absolute…The affirmation may form a strong contrast to what precedes [2 Sam. 24:24; Num. 23:1] or follows [Isa. 6:9], or infinitives may be used in both members of a pair [Judg. 15:13].
-Waltke and O'Connor, §35.3.1f [p. 585, 586] Bold mine

Thus for Waltke and O'Connor, this contrastive usage for the infinitive absolute falls under the category of affirmation which in turn is a sub-category of assertion. (see previous post)

This does not mean, however, that ‘asor ne’esarcha…wehamet…nemitecha , should be translated in such a way that the verbal idea is intensified like the New World Translation which has "we shall merely tie you…but we shall by no means put you to death." This is evident in Waltke and O'Connor's own translation:

"We will only tie you up ... ; we will not kill you."

The New World Translation translator(s) probably thought that since such contrastive uses of infinitive absolute occurs at times without paired infinitives, they were justified in intensifying the verbal idea in the second infinitive absolute. However, unlike the New World Translation which overtranslates by putting emphasis on the verbal idea in the second instance of the infinitive absolute as well, Waltke and O'Connor show that the emphasis is in the contrast itself (i.e. a strong contrast), not the verbal idea.

2 Samuel 17:16 "Do not lodge tonight at the fords of the wilderness, but cross over..." (which the NWT renders as "Do not lodge in the desert plains of the wilderness tonight, but you also ought to cross over without fail.")

The pertinent phrase here is ‘abor ta’abor, which once again occurs in a contrast. The New World Translation most certainly is overtranslated here. The reasoning behind this passage may have been as follows: "you also ought to" here is probably linked, not to the infinitive, but to the particle gam which they took as intensive here (probably should not be translated at all). The infinitive, then, is to be connected to "without fail." Following the view above from Waltke and O'Connor, here we should expect a strong contrast by the use of the infinitive. Note that the RSV, ESV here also attempt to bring out the emphasis of the infinitive with "but by all means pass over." JPS85 also tries to bring out this force: "but cross over at once."

Cf. Joüon §123i, "Une opposition quelconque étant suffisante pour motiver un inf. abs., il n'y a pas lieu de chercher, en plus, une autre nuance." (Any kind of opposition being sufficient to warrant an inf. abs., one doesn't need to look for an additional nuance.)

I would be curious to know if Joüon means that there is no emphasis at all because of the oppositional use, or if that since the opposition is itself intensified (strong emphasis), that one should not try to add additional emphatic nuances to the verbal idea. I mean, one doesn't need to use the infinitive absolute to make a contrast. (e.g. There was famine in all lands, but throughout the land of Egypt there was bread. -Gen 41:54) So wouldn't the use of the infinitive absolute add something to the opposition being made? Perhaps I am missing something.

Another interesting case is authorisation:
Genesis 2:16 "You may eat of every tree in the garden," NWT "eat... to satisfaction" (semantically viable, but most likely an overtranslation).
Deuteronomy 17:15 "you may set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose," plainly mistranslated by the NWT as "you should without fail set over yourself a king whom Jehovah your God will choose".

Concerning the use of infinitive absolutes in this way, Waltke and O'Connor says:

The intensifying effect of the infinitive absolute is found in a variety of non-affirming (i.e. irreal) contexts. In impassioned questions the prepositive infinitive shows doubt or the improbability of an affirmative answer [Gen 37:8; 2Sam 19:43; Isa 50:2]. A preposed infinitive may also be used in a conditional clause [Num 12:14; 1Kgs 30:39; 1Sam 20:21] or a counterfactual expression ('O that ... , if only ... '; 1Sam 14:30; Job 6;2). Various modal nuances are also associated with preposed infinitives absolute [Gen 43:7; Job 13:5].
-Waltke and O'Connor, 35.3.1g [p. 587]

What you concretely term "authorization" falls under the rather vague "various modal nuances" in Waltke and O'Connor. This category itself falls under the irreal category in Waltke and O'Connor. The passages you cited fit this category and indeed rendering with modal value (here, may) is the best way to translate. Notice too that the New World Translation has a double reading in Deuteronomy 17:15 by translating modally -should- and emphatically -without fail- It is, as you say, "plainly mistranslated." I will have to look into this usage of the infinitive absolute a bit more.

As regards Daniel 11:10,13, it is questionable whether any semantic nuance is meant. Joüon 123l, 3°, mentions a possible nuance of duration but considers it "très douteuse" (very dubious).

I, however, do see emphasis here mainly because it does not fall into any of the categories that shift the focus away from the verbal idea. We do not have here an opposition or authorization. Daniel 11:10, 13 are simple, affirmative contexts so I take the infinitive absolute here as one of emphasis. Perhaps the best commentary available on Daniel, John J. Collins' Daniel: a commentary on the book of Daniel from the Hermeneia series (just my opinion?), agrees with this understanding with its translation "he will surely come" (10) and "he will surely come" (13).

In the end what is important is that when we approach the text, we come to it with the possible ways the grammar can be understood and try to narrow those possibilies down based on the context, etc. I am sure you would not view my understanding of the infinitive absolute in Daniel 11:10, 13 as outside that realm of possibilites. Further, I think that we can both agree that a rendering such as "And in coming he will certainly come" shows definite problems in the New World Translation's ability to formulate realistic possibilities to reach that realm.

Mebaqqer

24

NWT Oddities

by snowbird in

the nwt rendering of this scripture has always irritated me: psalm 10:4the wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search;.

all his ideas are: there is no god.. why select a 16-letter word when all other english translations use pride/haughtiness of his face/countenance?

i used to cringe whenever this psalm came up for the bible reading because superciliousness was almost always mispronounced.

Mebaqqer2

I agree that the infinitive absolute when used in conjunction with a verb of the same root does have other uses besides. In line with Joüon-Muraoka, (your reading it in French, thus just Joüon for you ), Waltke and O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax states:

Because in this use the infinitive absolute shares the verbal root and (usually) stem of the accompanying finite verb, the use is said to be paronomastic, that is, based in word play, or to exhibit the schema etymologicum. By bracketing the paronomastic infinitive with the verb, the verbal idea is intensified. The effect of the infinitive refers to the entire clause, whence comes the term absolute complement. When the verb makes an assertion, whatever its aspect, the notion of certainty is reinforced by the infinitive (e.g., with affirmation, contrast, concession, or climax). By contrast, if the verb in context is irreal, the sense of irreality (e.g., dubiety, supposition, modality, or volition) becomes more forceful. Both verbal conjugations may express either assertion or irreality. Usually the intensifying infinitive with the perfective conjugation forcefully presents the certainty of a completed event…With the non-perfective conjugation the infinitive absolute often emphasizes that a situation was, or is, or will take place. Since the non-perfective is used for irreality and volition, the infinitive absolute can intensify the sense of irreality in connection with that conjugation. There is, however, no precise match between the infinitive's force and the finite verb's conjugation. Both conjugations may represent a situation as real or irreal and therefore the infinitive may emphasize either sense with either conjugation.
-Waltke and O'Connor, §35.3.1b [p. 584]

Thus there are two basic categories: assertion and irreality. One example of the infinitive absolute used in an irreal context found in Waltke and O'Connor is Genesis 37:8. Note how the New World Translation handles the passage:

And his brothers began to say to him: "Are you going to be king over us for certain? or, Are you going to dominate over us for certain?" So they found fresh reason to hate him over his dreams and over his words.
-Genesis 37:8

Here both hamalok timlok (qal infinitive absolute + qal imperfect 2ms) and mashol timshol (qal infinitive absolute + qal imperfect 2ms) are translated "Are you going to be king…for certain?" and "Are you going to dominate…for certain?" respectively. This rendering puts more of the focus on certainty of "being king" or "dominating." In this context, however, a translation such as "Will you actually reign/rule…" would have been better to show the "doubt or the improbability of an affirmative answer," as Waltke and O'Connor put it, because the emphasis is not on the act of "reigning/ruling" but on the doubt of of the speaker. Thus your statement that "[T]he NWT systematic rendering of the infinitive absolute as intensive (‘surely’ etc.) ignores…the variety of nuances its residual semantic force can carry (besides emphatic, adversative or concessive, for instance)" is surely warranted.

The context of Daniel 11:10, however, favors the understanding of "and he will surely come" because here "the verb makes an assertion" so "the notion of certainty is reinforced by the infinitive (e.g., with affirmation, contrast, concession, or climax)." The only idea here that works is affirmation. But as already mentioned, The New World Translation's denial of the waw-consecutive coupled with their understanding of the perfect in future contexts means that they have to assign a notion of certainty apart from the notion of certainty found in the infinitive absolute. Using the translator's own logic, it should read something like "and he will absolutely, positively come without fail" to express this excessive emphasis on certainty. But we can all see that this doesn't work. Thus I would agree that the the New World Translation's handling of the prefix conjugation (with waw-consective) is flawed as well. Verses like Daniel 11:10 demonstrate why.

Mebaqqer

24

NWT Oddities

by snowbird in

the nwt rendering of this scripture has always irritated me: psalm 10:4the wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search;.

all his ideas are: there is no god.. why select a 16-letter word when all other english translations use pride/haughtiness of his face/countenance?

i used to cringe whenever this psalm came up for the bible reading because superciliousness was almost always mispronounced.

Mebaqqer2

Leolaia, Here are just a few examples of the infinitive absolute with another verb of the same root:

mot tamot (qal infinitive absolute + qal imperfect 2ms) – “you will surely die”
Gen. 2:17; 20:7; 1 Sam. 14:44; 22:16; 1 Ki. 2:37, 42; 2 Ki. 1:4, 6, 16; Jer. 26:8; Ezek. 3:18; 33:8, 14

shob ‘ashub (qal infinitive absolute + qal imperfect 1cs) – “I will surely return”
Gen. 18:10 (NWT: I am surely going to return)

barek ‘abarekcha (piel infinitive absolute + piel imperfect 1cs w/2ms suffix) – “I will surely bless you”
Gen 22:17 (NWT: I shall surely bless you)

harbah ‘arbeh (hiphil infinitive absolute + hiphil imperfect 1cs) – “I will surely multiply”
Gen. 3:16 (NWT: I shall greatly increase); 16:10 (NWT: I shall greatly multiply); 22:17 (NWT: I shall surely multiply)

There are many more examples, however, the above examples should adequately show that the New World Translation understands quite well the use of the infinitive absolute with another verb of the same root.

Examples of the use of the perfect with waw-consecutive (6,138) is not nearly as numerous as the imperfect with waw-consecutive (15,033). In a search for other examples of the perfect with waw-consecutive used in conjunction with an infinitive absolute other than Daniel 11:10, I have found nothing that is conclusive. For example:

One who strikes a man so that he actually dies is to be put to death without fail. (wamet mot yumat)
-Exodus 21:12 (NWT)

Here the perfect with waw-consecutive (wamet) occurs in a passage with an infinitive absolute (mot). However, the infinitive absolute here is working in conjunction with the hophal imperfect 3ms (yumat) that follows it rather than the waw-consecutive perfect. This is proved by numerous passages where the phrase mot yumot occurs. (Gen. 26:11; Exod. 19:12; 21:12, 15ff; 22:18; 31:14f; Lev. 20:2, 9f, 15; 24:16f; 27:29; Num. 15:35; 35:16ff, 21, 31; Jdg. 21:5; Ezek. 18:13) Thus, this passage should be translated something like “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies, he must be put to death.

The New World Translation translators similarly connected the infinitive absolute with the hophal imperfect to make “is to be put to death without fail.” This is yet another example that shows the New World Translation understands how this construction is used. Why then does it translate wamet as “so that he actually dies”? This is no doubt due to the understanding of the perfect with waw-consecutive as a perfect in a context that is future. As explained in my previous post, the New World Translation ignores the waw-consecutive and takes the use of the perfects in future contexts to show “future certainty” thus yielding the translation “so that he actually dies” here. This example, then, is not parallel with Daniel 11:10. Another example is Joel 2:26:

And YOU will certainly eat, eating and becoming satisfied…(wa‘akaltem ‘akol)
-Joel 2:26 (NWT)

The sense of this passage seems to be “And you shall surely eat and be satisfied…” with the infinitive absolute (‘akol) working in conjuction with the waw-consecutive perfect (wa’akaltem). The New World Translation, however, connects ‘akol with the infinitive absolute that follows (wesaboa’). Then, once again ignoring the waw-consecutive, renders the perfect as showing “future certainty” giving the translation “and YOU will certainly eat.”

Thus, Daniel 11:10 seems to be the only example I can find with an infinitive absolute used in conjunction with a perfect with waw-consecutive. But the main point is not the waw-consecutive. If one were to find a perfect, even without being waw-consecutive, that is used in a future context with the infinitive absolute, they might be able to find an analogous example with Daniel 11:10. I am not sure if one would find such examples however.

Mebaqqer

24

NWT Oddities

by snowbird in

the nwt rendering of this scripture has always irritated me: psalm 10:4the wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search;.

all his ideas are: there is no god.. why select a 16-letter word when all other english translations use pride/haughtiness of his face/countenance?

i used to cringe whenever this psalm came up for the bible reading because superciliousness was almost always mispronounced.

Mebaqqer2

Maybe it's just me, but I thought that this verse sounds funny:

Daniel 11:10, NWT: "Now as for his sons, they will excite themselves and actually gather together a crowd of large military forces. And in coming he will certainly come and flood over and pass through. But he will go back, and he will excite himself all the way to his fortress."

Compare this to the RSV:

Daniel 11:10, RSV: "His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

The Hebrew word in question is garah in the Hitpael which Holliday's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament lists as meaning: 1. stir onesf. up (against), oppose; 2. venture into struggle, plunge into misfortune; 3. abs. get ready. Since meaning "excite oneself" is close to "stir oneself," I can't really say that the translation is wrong. Maybe it's my own mind that reads into "excites oneself" more than it should.

Also strange in this verse is "And in coming he will certainly come." which in Hebrew is uba'bo'. This is a very common use of the verb in Hebrew where two verbs of the same root appear together with one in the infinitive. Waltke and O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax says the following concerning such a construction: "Usually the intensifying infinitive with the perfective conjugation forcefully presents the certainty of a completed event...With the non-perfective conjugation the infinitive absolute often emphasizes that a situation was, or is, or will take place." (p. 584) Thus, a better translation would be "and he will surely come."

The New World Translationdoes understand how this type of construction should be rendered. This can be seen in Genesis 2:17 which says "you will positively die" (mot tamot) and not "dying you will die," though this is given in the footnote as the "literal" reading. Actually, "And in coming he will certainly come" is a double reading where two possible ways of rendering the text have been fused together in the body of the translation. A literal reading, like "dying you will die," for uba'bo' would be "coming he will come". But since the New World Translation knows that the two verbs are functioning together to intensify the verbal idea, then they have inserted "certainly" in the middle of the "literal" reading. In actually it should either read "And coming he will come" (hyperliteral, deserving at the very most a footnote) or "And he will certainly come" (best for the body of the translation).

However, there is a further problem that might explain why the New World Translation inserted "certainly" into the "literal" translation. Jehovah's Witnesses "do not recognize the Hebrew waw as having any conversive power over the verb with which it is ?combined, even when causing that verb to have a certain mark (da•gesh´ for´te) or to change its tone or to shorten ?its form." (see Forward of New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) The first verb, uba' is a perfect waw-consecutive which just about everyone else would understand as being imperfect in aspect. Since the New World Translation rejects this, this verb is must be understood as perfect in aspect in a context that is future. In a case like this, the New World Translation translators have stated: "In Hebrew the perfect verb used to speak of a ?future action or state as if it had already occurred and were past, this to show its future certainty or the obligation of it ?to occur." (Forward, New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) Thus, it is likely that here in Daniel 11:10, the two verbs (which should have been understood as intensifying the verbal idea to show certainty as in Genesis 2:17) was translated literally, then the perfect aspect of the first verb was taken to show "future certainty" so "certainly" was inserted into that translation yielding "And in coming he will certainly come."

Something is obviously wrong in all this for why would the author use two different ways to convey the idea of certainty here? If the above logic is the basis for the translation "And in coming he will certainly come," shouldn't the translation read something like "And he will absolutely, positively come without fail" to convey the excessive emphasis on certainty? I will keep things simple. The perfect waw-consecutive here should be understood as imperfect in aspect in a context that demands a future tense (i.e., and he will come). Further, the use of the two verbs here of the same root with one in the infinitive should be understood as "emphasiz[ing] that [the act of coming]...will take place." Thus, the best translation would be "and he will surely/certainly come"

Anyways, sorry to have gone off on a tangent.

Mebaqqer

20

wow...The Golden Age, September 11, 1935 p.781

by Mebaqqer2 in

*** km 3/05 p. 1 par.

9 more emphasis on the bible!

since its first issue back in 1919, the magazine successively known as the golden age, consolation, and now awake!

Mebaqqer2

Here is a scan...

20

wow...The Golden Age, September 11, 1935 p.781

by Mebaqqer2 in

*** km 3/05 p. 1 par.

9 more emphasis on the bible!

since its first issue back in 1919, the magazine successively known as the golden age, consolation, and now awake!

Mebaqqer2

*** km 3/05 p. 1 par. 9 More Emphasis on the Bible! ***

Since its first issue back in 1919, the magazine successively known as The Golden Age, Consolation, and now Awake! has played a major role in the preaching work. We pray that Jehovah will continue to bless the distribution of the magazine in its revised format and that it will help many more people out of "all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues" to turn to God's Kingdom as their only hope.-Rev. 7:9.

Example...

*** g35 9/11 p. 781 Molasses Smuggled into Australia ***

Clever swindlers obtained possession of 50 or more tins in which opium had been smuggled into Australia. They got the tins out of the country, filled them with molasses, smuggled them back in and sold them to the Chinese at fabulous prices, thus cheating the poor Chinks out of hundreds of dollars, though, in this instance, they gained more than they lost.

Got g55 9/8 21? or perhaps even ev?

by Mebaqqer2 in

i am doing some research and need to get a picture of page 21 of awake!

8 september 1955 (though the whole article would be ideal).

the wtlib does not contain this article unfortunately.

Mebaqqer2

I am doing some research and need to get a picture of page 21 of Awake! 8 September 1955 (Though the whole article would be ideal). The WTLIB does not contain this article unfortunately. Of further help would be a PDF of "Did Man Get Here by Evolution or Creation?" I had this and many other books a long time ago, but I gave them to someone else (Talk about placing literature!). BTW, I had to change my name from Mebaqqer because the mails being sent to me to get my login information were blank in the Username and Password fields. But I don't post enough for anyone to know me so...

Mebaqqer