Posts by Mebaqqer2

11

Awake! September 8, 1955 (p. 21-3)?

by Mebaqqer2 in

i am in need of an article found in the september 8, 1955 awake!

(p. 21-3) as it seems to be the only place jehovah's witnesses have directly discussed the hebrew word "min" (kind).

i have been doing a thorough examination of the concept of "kinds" as part of a larger examination of the jehovah's witnesses' creation model and would very much like to see what they had to say about the hebrew word itself.

Mebaqqer2

Thank you sf and AlphaOmega for bringing abebooks to my attention.

Mebaqqer

11

Awake! September 8, 1955 (p. 21-3)?

by Mebaqqer2 in

i am in need of an article found in the september 8, 1955 awake!

(p. 21-3) as it seems to be the only place jehovah's witnesses have directly discussed the hebrew word "min" (kind).

i have been doing a thorough examination of the concept of "kinds" as part of a larger examination of the jehovah's witnesses' creation model and would very much like to see what they had to say about the hebrew word itself.

Mebaqqer2

Thank you for positing that bit of information. It seems, however, that most of what they said there can be found in their New World Translation with references. Their statement about the Greek word genos has some merit, but not in the way they think.

The beginning of categorizing organisms probably began with Aristotle. What is interesting in Aristotle's usage is that genos was a broad category while eidos was used as a more limited category within a genos. It is interesting to note that this usage of genos and eidos is reflected in the writings of the first century Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria as well when he turns to interpret Genesis 1 and 2. For him, Genesis 1 shows the creation of animals according to genos, but Genesis 2 shows their creation according to eidos. Thus, he writes, "what had been previously created were genos is plain from what he says, "Let the earth bring forth living souls," not according to eidos but according to genos. And this is found to be the course taken by God in all cases; for before making the eidos he completes the genos, as he did in the case of man: for having first modelled the generic man, in whom they say that the male and female sexes are contained, he afterwards created the specific man Adam." (Legum allegoriarum 2.13) Thus, the Greek word genos most naturally refers to "genus," while eidos most naturally refers to "species."

What this means is that those Jews who translated the Septuagint in the 3rd century BCE did not see the Hebrew word min as constituting a very narrow category and so used the broader category genos. However, the term "kind" as used by Jehovah's Witnesses is highly restrictive and groups together only those organisms who are interfertile. Had Jews reading min thought this word referred to such narrow classification, they would have used eidos not genos. Incidently, genos is not the only translation offered for min in the Septuagint. Genesis 1:12 actually contains a double translation and so reads "according to genos and according to likeness (omoioteta)." Similarly, throughout the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy min is translated as "its like" (ta omoia auto). What all this combined shows is that for those who translated the Septuagint, min constituted a broad category whose members were included on the basis of appearence.

There is more on this I could go into, but that will have to wait until another day.

Mebaqqer

8

New world transmutation

by jacethespace in

searching the new world translation transmutation and examining it with the king james has opened my eyes to a few things not that i didnt notice and wonder about these before, i did i just ignored it and trusted the faithfull and discreet slave driver at the time.. in john 5:4 of the king james bible it says- for an angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled the water whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.. in john 5:4 of the n.w.t it says 4-- absolutley nothing?

they left it blank probably because this doesnt fit in with the usual traditional bullcrud beliefs.. john 20:25 says- consequently the other disciples would say to him " we have seen the lord" but he said to them unless i see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side i will certainly not believe [ although centuries later we expect you all to believe without sticking anything anywhere- made up bit .

main point there though is wasnt jesus crucified on a torture stake.. thats funny i thought jesus had one nail put through his wrists.not two nails.. does anyone have any more evidence of alterations in the new world translation?

Mebaqqer2

The reason that the New World Translation omits John 5:4 is that the Greek text used for the translation here, Westcott and Hort (1881), omits the passage as a secondary addition. This verse is also omitted in more recent editions of the Greek New Testament such as UBS3 and Nestle-Aland 27th. The reason? Many manuscripts omit this verse. Among them are the 2nd century papyrus P66 and the early 3rd century papyrus P75. The best evidence then is that the verse is a later addition. Thus, your reason, "They left it blank probably because this doesnt fit in with the usual traditional ~~bullcrud~~ beliefs," is not the actual reason they did not include the passage.

You second point, however, about the print of "nails" is much better. The Greek text here literally reads "in the hands of him the print of the nails" (Gk. en tais cherin autou ton tupon ton helon). The New World Translation correctly translates as "in his hands the print of the nails." So the problem here is not with the New World Translation's translation of the Greek. Their teaching about the word stauros (NWT: torture stake), however, is what colors their interpretation of the passage here. For those who are interested in seeing how Jehovah's Witnesses explain this passage, see Watchtower, April 1, 1984 p. 31 and Watchtower October 15, 1969 p. 639.

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