Posts by Mebaqqer2

7

Willing to part with the Kingdom Interlinear (1985)?

by Mebaqqer2 in

i was just wondering if anyone had a copy of the kingdom interlinear of the christian greek scriptures (1985) that they would be willing to part with (either don't need it or have an extra copy).

i think the price on amazon is excessive ($49.99 used.

older, 1969 edition is cheaper at $28.00 used!!!).

Mebaqqer2

I am researching the translation technique of the New World Translation and am interesting in seeing all they have written on the Greek and Hebrew languages.

Mebaqqer

7

Willing to part with the Kingdom Interlinear (1985)?

by Mebaqqer2 in

i was just wondering if anyone had a copy of the kingdom interlinear of the christian greek scriptures (1985) that they would be willing to part with (either don't need it or have an extra copy).

i think the price on amazon is excessive ($49.99 used.

older, 1969 edition is cheaper at $28.00 used!!!).

I am interested in obtaining the 1985 version precisely because there are differences. I already have access to the 1969 version, so I would like to compare them. By the way, you said there are differences. Do you have examples? The only example I know of thus far is in Colossians 2:9 where the 1969 edition reads "godship" in the word-for-word rendering, whereas the 1985 edition reads "divinity."

Mebaqqer

7

Willing to part with the Kingdom Interlinear (1985)?

by Mebaqqer2 in

i was just wondering if anyone had a copy of the kingdom interlinear of the christian greek scriptures (1985) that they would be willing to part with (either don't need it or have an extra copy).

i think the price on amazon is excessive ($49.99 used.

older, 1969 edition is cheaper at $28.00 used!!!).

Mebaqqer2

I was just wondering if anyone had a copy of the Kingdom Interlinear of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1985) that they would be willing to part with (either don't need it or have an extra copy). I think the price on Amazon is excessive ($49.99 used. Older, 1969 edition is cheaper at $28.00 used!!!). If you do, you should message me to my inbox so we can work something out.

Mebaqqer

12

Kingdom Interlinear

by CHILD in

does anyone have a link to 1969 kingdom interlinear?

if so, please pm.

i have some research to do..

Mebaqqer2

While the Emphatic Diaglott was used in early on by Bible Students, the Kingdom Interlinear does not "come from" it. The Emphatic Diaglott is based on Griesbach's Greek Text. The Kingdom Interlinear, however, is based on Westcott and Hort's Greek text which in turn served as the base text for the New World Translation. Further, the word-for-word rendering in the Emphatic Diaglott was done by Benjamin Wilson, while the word-for-word translation found in the Kingdom Interlinear was done anonymously through the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Thus, the two works should be seen separately against what opr83 suggested. As for your request, it just so happens that Atlantis had provided a searchable version of the 1969 edition that you requested on December 17, 2006 (see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/125803/1.ashx ). It seems, however, that the download is no longer available. Someone might post it again though.

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 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.

Mebaqqer

(edited because the Greek text did not display correctly)

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

I do not have any access to Awake! articles before 1970 so I would be interested in what they had to say in the issue you mentioned.

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

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. Can anyone help me?

Mebaqqer

54

What has everyone done with your literature, now that you've left?

by momzcrazy in

i have boxes of literature upstairs.

i was waiting for bookshelves to get built in our new house, but now i don't want to put them all up.

i have sentimental things, like ones that were my dad's.

Mebaqqer2

I was never officially "in" as I was disassociated while I was still an unbaptized publisher. Still, I continued to collect publications even after that to do further studying to see if I had in fact been in error. I had about 200 publications at one time, mostly newer publications (at that time, late 90's), but I also had some others including "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" and the complete original release of the New World Translation. I also bought the Zion's Watch Tower Reprints from Chicago Bible Students and had one of the original reprint volumes printed by the Watchtower itself. Feeling that I no longer had need of them, I ended up giving them all to my friend who expressed interest in them. Bad move. Now there are a few I want back for some research I am doing. My friend still has them, but he left them at a girl's house for safe keeping (he moves around alot) and no longer has ready access to them.

Mebaqqer