Patience. It'll get here soon enough because the earth is destined for fire and complete destruction which is made clear by 2 Peter 3:10,11: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire and the earth and everything in it will be found out. ... everything is to be dissolved this way," (NAB; "Total destruction is assumed (11)," notes 3,10). "...the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat" (2 Peter 3:12). "But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (2 Peter 3:7). Peter's warning reemphasized Zephaniah's warning, where the ancient prophet transmitted the Almighty's words, "I will utterly consume all things from off the face of the ground, saith Jehovah. I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumbling blocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the face of the ground, saith Jehovah" (Zephaniah 1:2,3)
Complete destruction of man on earth is intended. " Their blood will be poured out like dust and their entrails like dung. 18 Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the LORD’s wrath.” In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live on the earth (Zephaniah 1:17, 18). The Jehovah's Witnesses theory that they alone, their great crowd, will survive Armageddon and be ruled from heaven by the 144,000 is simply not in accord with Scripture.
jonathan dough
JoinedPosts by jonathan dough
-
8
The End of the World is Nigh - Not and Not Again. JWs make top 10
by MartynAndrew inhttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2072678_2072683_2072697,00.html.
-
-
jonathan dough
-
17
When...JERUSALEM DESTROYED? PART TWO - c.o.Jonsson
by diamondiiz inhttp://kristenfrihet.se/vtsvar/vtsvar2.pdf.
i loved part 1 by jonsson so this one should be great read as well..
-
-
jonathan dough
So the Bible confirms this historical reference by Josephus, that there was a 74-year interval from the fall of Jerusalem down to the 1st of Cryus and that the Jews were still in exile during the 6-year rule of Darius the Mede.
No, neither the Bible nor secular sources confirm this as the exiles were not enslaved to a Babylonian king after the fall in 539. There was no king to serve, and they had been set free. So they could not have been enslaved during the 6-year rule of Darius. Where on earth do you come up with these crazy ideas? You and the JWs are inventing history and scripture.
http://144000.110mb.com/directory/607_bce_586_587_destruction_fall_desolation_jerusalem.html
The seventy years could not have ended when the exiles returned to Judah in 537 B.C.E. because there existed no king of Babylon to serve for two years between 537 B.C.E. and 539 B.C.E., after Persia began its reign in 539 B.C.E.[top]
If there was no longer a king of Babylon once the reign of Persia began, how could the exiles serve him for two more years until they returned to their homeland? It would not be possible. The Jehovah's Witnesses counter that Cyrus the king of Persia was the king of Babylon during those last two years between 539 B.C.E. and 537 B.C.E. so they were still captives serving a king of Babylon, Cyrus. They also claim that at first Cyrus did not alter the policy of the Babylonian Dynasty and therefore the nations continued to serve ‘the king of Babylon’ (thus dipping into the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory for convenience' sake), and that a contemporary clay inscription quotes Cyrus as referring to himself as king of Babylon. Their argument is reproduced here:
Until their release in 537 B.C.E, for the entire duration that the Jewish exiles were held captive in Babylon, it could rightly be said that they were serving the king of Babylon. This is expanded upon in paragraph 10 of an article entitled “The ‘Cup’ That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand” that appeared in the September 15, 1979 issue of The Watchtower, p. 24:“ It is true that he [Cyrus] conquered Gentile Babylon in 539 B.C.E., or about two years before the“ seventy years” of desolation of the land of Judah ran out. He proclaimed himself “king of Babylon” and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty of King Nebuchadnezzar.Thus the nations subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar continued to serve “the king of Babylon” 70 years.”
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses justified in making this claim? Yes, for the Bible tells us that after Cyrus II conquered Babylon, Darius the Mede became “king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans,” (Daniel 5:31, 9:1) and shortly thereafter, Cyrus established his kingship over all of Babylon, even being referred to as “Cyrus the king of Babylon” at Ezra 5:13. A contemporary inscription on a clay barrel confirms the accuracy of the Biblical account: “ All the inhabitants of Babylon as well as the entire country of Sumer and Akkad, princes and governors (included), bowed to him (Cyrus) and kissed his feet, jubilant that he (had received) the kingship . . . I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad.”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, James B. Pritchard, p.316.Four questions present themselves: a) what year was Cyrus crowned king of Babylon, b) if he was crowned king of Babylon before the Jews returned to Judah why was he referred to as king of Persia during this time, and afterwards, c) if he was not crowned king of Babylon immediately in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell but at a later date, allowing for a gap in time, could the exiles legitimately be said to have served him during that gap which would shorten the seventy year time span, and d) even if Cyrus was crowned king of Babylon before the Jews returned, did he change the empire's policy and free the Jews so that they were not serving as captive slaves to Cyrus even before they began the long journey home?
First, while it is true that at Ezra 5:13 Cyrus was referred to as king of Babylon, it should be noted that it was not the Jews who referred to Cyrus as the king of Babylon, but the Jews' enemies who were attemping to thwart the rebuilding effort who paraphrased the Jewish response. Their enemies claimed the Jews referred to Cyrus as king of Babylon, which is heresay. The Jewish defense was restated in a letter from the Jews' enemies Tattenai, the governor beyond the river, to King Darius years after their return. The letter was written long after the exiles returned while the task of re-building was underway. It does not provide any evidence that Cyrus was king of Babylon from October 539 B.C.E. to 537 B.C.E. See generally chapter 5 of the book of Ezra.
Secondly, as a matter of fact Cyrus is referred to as king of Persia six times in verses preceding Ezra 5:13; four instances covering the time period before the exiles departed Babylon (Ezra 1:1, 2, 8), and twice in connection with the Jews’ attempts at rebuilding the temple at Ezra 4:3,5. Before the Jews returned, and even after they returned, they considered Cyrus king of Persia.
Third, the Jehovah's Witnesses find support for their theory that the Jews served Cyrus the king of Babylon from 539 B.C.E. to 537 B.C.E. by reference to the above highlighted undated ‘contemporary’ cuneiform inscription on a clay barrel. As it turns out, this clay barrel is no ordinary clay barrel. It is considered to be the first charter of human rights and a very important historical artifact. In addition, it is the document, or charter, by which captives of the Babylonian Empire were freed, including the Jews. And that date, was the first day of spring 538 B.C.E., a mere 6 months or less after Babylon fell:"The charter of Cyrus the Great, a baked-clay Aryan language (Old Persian) cuneiform cylinder, was discovered in 1878 in excavation of the site of Babylon. In it, Cyrus the Great described his human treatment of the inhabitants of Babylonia after its conquest by the Iranians.
The document has been hailed as the first charter of human rights, and in 1971 the United Nations was published translation of it in all the official U.N. languages. "May Ahura Mazda protect this land, this nation, from rancor, from foes, from falsehood, and from drought". Selected from the book "The Eternal Land".
This is a confirmation that the Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day in Babylon could be considered superior to the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly. The Human Rights Manifesto looks very interesting in its kind regarding the expressions and composition, but the Charter of Freedom issued twenty three centuries before that by the Iranian monarch sounds more spiritual.
Comparing the Human Rights Manifesto of the French National Assembly and the Charter approved by the United Nations with the Charter of Freedom of Cyrus, the latter appears more valuable considering its age, explicitness, and rejection of the superstitions of the ancient world.
Cyrus the Great entered the city of Babylon in 539 BCE, and after the winter, on the first day of spring, he was officially crowned: My numerous troops moved about undisturbed in the midst of Babylon. I did not allow anyone to terrorise the land of Sumer and Akkad. I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well being. The citizens of Babylon ................. I lifted their unbecoming yoke. Their dilapidated dwellings I restored. I put an end to their misfortunes.
The description of the coronation of Cyrus is the most elaborate one in the world written by the Greek philosopher, politician, and historian Xenephon (Cyropaedia of Xenophon, The Life of Cyrus The Great).
On the day of coronation, Cyrus read the Charter of Freedom out after he put on the crown with his hand in Marduk Temple.
Uncertain and the full text of the Charter was unavailable until an inscription was found during the excavation works in the old city of Ur in Mesopotamia. After the translation of the words, it was found out that the document was the same Charter. It is now kept in the British Museum and it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the most precious historical records of the world.
In the Charter, after introducing himself and mentioning the names of his father, first, second, and third ancestors, Cyrus says that he is the monarch of Iran, Babylon, and the four continents:
I am Kourosh (Cyrus), King of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters, son of Camboujiyah (Cambyases), great king, king of Anshân, grandson of Kourosh (Cyrus), great king, king of Anshân, descendant of Chaish-Pesh (Teispes), great king, king of Anshân, progeny of an unending royal line, whose rule Bel and Nabu cherish, whose kingship they desire for their hearts, pleasure. When I well -disposed, entered Babylon, I set up a seat of domination in the royal palace amidst jubilation and rejoicing. Marduk the great god, caused the big-hearted inhabitations of Babylon to .................. me, I sought daily to worship him.
He continues:
At my deeds Marduk, the great lord, rejoiced and to me, Kourosh (Cyrus), the king who worshipped him, and to Camboujiyah (Cambyases), my son, the offspring of (my) loins, and to all my troops he graciously gave his blessing, and in good sprit before him we glorified exceedingly his high divinity. All the kings who sat in throne rooms, throughout the four quarters, from the Upper to the Lower Sea, those who dwelt in ..................., all the kings of the West Country, who dwelt in tents, brought me their heavy tribute and kissed my feet in Babylon. From ... to the cities of Ashur, Susa, Agade and Eshnuna, the cities of Zamban, Meurnu, Der as far as the region of the land of Gutium, the holy cities beyond the Tigris whose sanctuaries had been in ruins over a long period, the gods whose abode is in the midst of them, I returned to their places and housed them in lasting abodes.I gathered together all their inhabitations and restored (to them) their dwellings. The gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabounids had, to the anger of the lord of the gods, brought into Babylon. I, at the bidding of Marduk, the great lord, made to dwell in peace in their habitations, delightful abodes.
May all the gods whom I have placed within their sanctuaries address a daily prayer in my favour before Bel and Nabu, that my days may be long, and may they say to Marduk my lord, "May Kourosh (Cyrus) the King, who reveres thee, and Camboujiyah (Cambyases) his son ..."
And:
Now that I put the crown of kingdom of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions on the head with the help of (Ahura) Mazda, I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them until I am alive. From now on, till (Ahura) Mazda grants me the kingdom favor, I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it , and if any one of them rejects it , I never resolve on war to reign. Until I am the king of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions, I never let anyone oppress any others, and if it occurs , I will take his or her right back and penalize the oppressor.And until I am the monarch, I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. Until I am alive, I prevent unpaid, forced labor. To day, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion. People are free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights.
No one could be penalized for his or her relatives' faults. I prevent slavery and my governors and subordinates are obliged to prohibit exchanging men and women as slaves within their own ruling domains. Such a traditions should be exterminated the world over.
I implore to (Ahura) Mazda to make me succeed in fulfilling my obligations to the nations of Iran (Persia), Babylon, and the ones of the four directions." (www.IranChamber.com).
So, even though the "contemporary" barrel may have been undated, within it one finds key dates and policy changes which completely undermine the the Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding. The most glaring oversight by Jehovah's Witnesses is the date Cyrus was crowned king of Babylon, the first day of spring 538 B.C.E., roughly six months or less after Babylon fell to the Persians. So, for those six months there was no "king of Babylon" for the Jews to serve and their servitude amounts to around 69 1/2 years, not seventy. And if he was crowned a year later, in the spring of 537 B.C.E., as the Jehovah's Witnesses imply, that amounts to a year and a half gap of the Jews not serving any king of Babylon.
Yet, even if Cyrus was crowned king of Babylon, from the first day of spring 538 B.C.E. he set the Jews and all the other Babylonian captives free. He imposed his monarchy (kingship) on no people unless they wished it, which the Jews did not. He outlawed unpaid forced labor (slavery), people were free to live in all regions, and displaced inhabitants were restored to their dwellings. The Jehovah's Witnesses' lack of basic understanding of this is incredulous. A little common sense, coupled with this "clay barrel" go a long way. Were the Jews still captive slaves after Cyrus set them free? No. Were they still captive slaves until they actually picked up their things and started walking home? Of course not. The Jews were not captive servants to any king of Babylon once Persia ruled. Again, the Jehovah's Witnesses come up short of seventy years.
Fourth, the Jehovah's Witnesses further argue, as stated above, that Cyrus proclaimed himself king of Babylon and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty or Nebuchadnezzar and therefore the Jews continued to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. The problem of course is that the authors of the Watchtower magazine failed to cite any authority for their self-serving statement that “at first [Cyrus] did not alter the policy ….” That statement is false, they offer no proof, and as just shown, Cyrus' Charter of Freedom above disproves any such notion. Cyrus did, in fact, alter the policy and set the Jews free early in his reign, within six months of his numerous years of ruling Babylon. There could not be a more profound policy change affecting the captive Jews, and other captives, than this.
Fifth, citing no verifiable authority they attempt to avoid this dilemma by asserting that the official decree freeing the exiled captives occurred in late 538 B.C.E. or early 537 B.C.E. in a last-ditch effort to push the date of captivity as close to 537 B.C.E. as possible. However, as shown above, it has been solidly established by archeologists and historians the world over that Cyrus’ decree was issued in 538 B.C.E.
Sixth, even assuming for the sake of argument that the roughly 50,000 exiles set free by Cyrus were not technically free until they began walking home after lengthy preparations, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Return theory still falls four months short of seventy years because that is how long it took them to complete the journey according to The Watchtower of May 1, 1952, pp. 271-2:In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September 29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30, 537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning of the desolation of the land must have officially begun to be counted after September 21-22, 607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of the 2,520 years.
Setting the Record Straight at pp. 4-5 is in accord with this position and clarifies that the seventy years was exactly seventy years to the month.
At 2 Kings 25:25, 26, the Bible reports that by the seventh month even those left behind, “all the people, from small to great,” fled to Egypt, leaving the land completely desolate, “ without an inhabitant.” As this factor was necessary for fulfillment (Isaiah 6:11, 12; Jeremiah 4:23, 25; 4:27,
29; 6:7, 8; 9:11; 24:8, 10), Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize that the seventy years of desolation could not officially begin to be counted until after the first of the seventh Jewish month.
Ezra 1:1 shows that it was “in the first year of Cyrus, the king of Persia,” or 538/7 B.C.E., that Cyrus issued the decree releasing the Jews from captivity.
The Bible notes that the Jews arrived back in their homeland by the seventh month, Tishri, which would be September 29-30, 537 B.C.E. (Ezra 3:1-3). From this date, Jehovah’s Witnesses count back seventy years to 607 B.C.E. as the year for Jerusalem’s destruction. Thus, the “ devastations of Jerusalem, [namely], seventy years,” spoken of by Daniel the prophet, were exactly seventy years in duration, running from the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. to the seventh month of 537 B.C.E.Accordingly, if the Jews' seventy-year period of captivity ran exactly seventy years from the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. to the seventh month of 537 B.C.E., but they were set free and were not captive during the four months it took them to travel home, their seventy-year Return theory fails because they were captive for only sixty-nine years and eight months. They could not have ‘served’ the king of Babylon, even if it was Cyrus, for the full seventy years.
Seventh, the entire argument that Cyrus the Persian, the anointed of Jehovah, who rescued the Jews and freed them was on equal footing with the previous Babylonian kings who slaughtered, captured and enslaved the Jews in the first place contradicts a literal reading of Jehovah’s prophecy to all the nations which was very sweeping in scope. Which of these nations of Jeremiah 25:11 were to serve the king of Babylon seventy years? According to Jeremiah 25:26 they included “... all the kings of the Medes ... all the kings of the north who are near and far away, one after the other, and all the [other] kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground; ….” This includes Persia and the Medes who conquered Babylon. As such the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory would result in an incompatible irony - during the last two years of the Jews' seventy-year Return theory the kings of Persia and the Medes would have had to serve itself.
Ultimately, the Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments supporting their Return theory - that the seventy years ended when the exiles returned to their homeland - are moot and irrelevant because as established above and in accordance with clear, unambiguous Scripture, the seventy years of servitude applied to all nations dominated by the Babylonian Empire, and that dominance, and the nations’ corresponding servitude to the kings(s) of Babylon ended in October 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell.
The seventy-year prophecy ended while the Jews were in Babylon and only later did they return home. There is no viable Return theory. And because there is no Return theory, because it is an unscriptural and impossible concept to implement due to its many failures and inconsistencies the Jehovah's Witnesses incorrectly render Jeremiah 29:10 ‘at Babylon,’ rather than ‘for Babylon’. But the latter is what Jehovah through the mouth of Jeremiah intended.10 “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years for Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.'"
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
Now that my nice NIV is evangelical, can someone suggest a good scholarly Bible.
The Catholic New American Bible. Packed with notes, and addresses alternative renderings, put together with the help of non-Catholics. Good stuff.
http://www.144000.110mb.com/directory/jehovahs_witnesses_directory_beliefs.html
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
How will fixing a word here or there in the New Testament even begin to address the slaughter and enslavement of the hundres of millions of humans caused by this horrendous piece of literature.
When will the Age of Christian Tyranny end.
Jesus never tyrannized anyone.
"No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
Here is another discrepancy. The JWs misstate the relationship between Isaac and Abraham, referring to him as the "only-begotten son" in a procreative sense in attempting to prove that the Word was created, not unoriginated. But because of Ishmael, that term must mean that it applied to Isaac in a religious, legalistic and figurative connotation as he was a legitimate son; it refers to a non-biological, non-procreative relationship just as Trinitarians teach with respect to the Word.
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was “begotten” in the sense that he was created or born, which is not a Christian Trinitarian teaching. The Jehovah's Witnesses write:
Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is to “procreate as the father.” (Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary) They say that in Jesus’ case it means “the sense of unoriginated relationship,” a sort of only son relationship without the begetting. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him?
Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son.” There can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father. (Should You Believe, Chapter 6)
Actually, Strong and Vine’s does in fact explain why the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (monogeneses) is used to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham, and how “only-begotten” is used with respect to Isaac at Hebrews 11:17 as subsequently explained in this article.
One major weakness in the Jehovah's Witnesses’ argument lies in the fact that Isaac was not an "only-begotten" son in the natural procreative sense since Abraham actually had another son, Ishmael, (and others after Ishmael) who was born before Isaac (Genesis 16:15), so the Jehovah's Witnesses’ reliance on that verse is unfounded. Because Abraham had no less than two sons, “only-begotten” cannot be applied to Isaac as an “only-begotten son,” in the procreative sense because he wasn’t. It applied to him in a religious, legalistic and figurative connotation as he was the only legitimate son; it refers to a non-biological relationship just as Trinitarians teach with respect to the Word.
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
Good eye, SD-7.
Those who reign at Revelation 20:4-6, the souls of those beheaded, are not the same as those on thrones entrusted with judgment, as the Jehovah‘s Witnesses propose; so they can’t be “judging” the resurrected under these provisions as the claim.
Then I saw thrones; those who sat on them were entrusted with judgment. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the world of God and who had not worshipped the beast or its image nor had accepted its mark on their foreheads or lands. They came to life and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over these; they will be priests of God and Christ, and they will reign with him [for] the thousand years. (Rev. 20:4-6 NAB) (also: I saw, ESV; And I saw the souls, NASB; I also saw the souls, CEV)
A literal translation does not read “Yes, I saw the soul …” at Revelation 20:4 as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have interpreted it in order to associate these two groups of people as being the same, and place the 144,000 on judgment seats.
Furthermore, the 144,000 would have to share the reign with the Great Crowd who, like those who reign, have “not worshiped the beast or its image nor accepted its mark on their foreheads or hands.” This places the Great Crowd up in heaven, not on earth.Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the twelve tribes of Israel at Revelation 7:1-8 are the anointed 144,000 and they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel pursuant to Luke 22:28-30 and Matthew 19:28, they end up judging themselves.
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
jonathan- 'Interpret' is the key word needed by the Christians, you still haven't consulted a Rabbi but you'll get Westminster Seminary and Dallas Seminary to agree with you all day long
You must have skipped over the first sentence of that post. I'll reprint it for you.
Barnes' Notes are illuminating re Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6. "God is your throne" is an improper translation. It just doesn't make sense.
And this is how the Complete Jewish Bible translates Psalm 45:6
Your throne, God, will last forever and ever; you rule your kingdom with a scepter of equity.
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
Barnes' Notes are illuminating re Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6. "God is your throne" is an improper translation. It just doesn't make sense.
"Thy throne." A throne is the seat on which a monarch sits, and is here the symbol of dominion, because kings when acting as rulers sit on thrones. Thus, a throne becomes the emblem of authority or empire. Here it means, that his "rule" or "dominion" would be perpetual - "forever and ever" - which assuredly could not be applied to Solomon. "O God." This certainly could not be applied to Solomon; but applied to the Messiah it proves what the apostle is aiming to prove - that he is above the angels. The argument is, that a name is given to "him" which is never given to "them." They are not called "God" in any strict and proper sense. The "argument" here requires us to understand this word, as used in a sense more exalted than any name which is ever given to angels, and though it may be maintained that the name ????? 'elohiym, is given to magistrates or to angels, yet here the argument requires us to understand it as used in a sense superior to what it ever is when applied to an angel - or of course to any creature, since it was the express design of the argument to prove that the Messiah was superior to the angels.
The word "God" should be taken in its natural and obvious sense, unless there is some necessary reason for limiting it. If applied to magistrates Psalm 82:6, it must be so limited. If applied to the Messiah, there is no such necessity, John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6; 1 John 5:20; Philippians 2:6, and it should be taken in its natural and proper sense. The "form" here - ο? Θεο`ς ho Theos - is in the vocative case and not the nominative. It is the usual form of the vocative in the Septuagint, and nearly the only form of it - Stuart. This then is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God; and I see not why it is not to be used in the usual and proper sense of the word. Unitarians proposed to translate this, "God is thy throne;" but how can God be "a throne" of a creature? What is the meaning of such an expression? Where is there one parallel? And what must be the nature of that cause which renders such an argument necessary? - This refers, as it seems to me, to the Messiah "as king."
Clark's Commentary is likewise in accord, and confirms the deity of Christ.
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever - If this be said of the Son of God, i.e., Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ must be God; and indeed the design of the apostle is to prove this. The words here quoted are taken from Psalm 45:6, Psalm 45:7, which the ancient Chaldee paraphrast, and the most intelligent rabbins, refer to the Messiah. On the third verse of this Psalm, 'Thou art fairer than the children of men,' the Targum says: 'Thy beauty, ???? ????? malca Meshicha, O King Messiah, is greater than the children of men.' Aben Ezra says: 'This Psalm speaks of David, or rather of his Son the Messiah, for this is his name, Ezekiel 34:24 : And David my servant shall be a prince over them for ever.' Other rabbins confirm this opinion.
"This verse is very properly considered a proof, and indeed a strong one, of the divinity of Christ; but some late versions of the New Testament have endeavored to avoid the evidence of this proof by translating the word thus: 'God is thy throne for ever and ever;' and if this version be correct, it is certain that the text can be no proof of the doctrine. Mr. Wakefield vindicates this translation at large in his History of Opinions; and ο? Θεος being the nominative case is supposed to be sufficient justification of this version. In answer to this it may be stated that the nominative case is often used for the vocative, particularly by the Attics, and the whole scope of the place requires it should be so used here; and with due deference to all of a contrary opinion, the original Hebrew cannot be consistently translated any other way; ???? ????? ???? ??? kisacha Elohim olam vaed, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and to eternity.' It is in both worlds, and extends over all time, and will exist through all endless duration.
To this our Lord seems to refer, Matthew 28:18 : 'All power is given unto me, both in Heaven and Earth.' My throne, i.e., my dominion, extends from the creation to the consummation of all things. These I have made, and these I uphold; and from the end of the world, throughout eternity, I shall have the same glory - sovereign unlimited power and authority, which I had with the Father before the world began; John 17:5. I may add that none of the ancient Versions has understood it in the way contended for by those who deny the Godhead of Christ, either in the Psalm from which it is taken, or in this place where it is quoted. Aquila translates ????? Elohim, by Θεε, O God, in the vocative case; and the Arabic adds the sign of the vocative ya, reading the place thus: korsee yallaho ila abadilabada, the same as in our Version.
And even allowing that ο? Θεος here is to be used as the nominative case, it will not make the sense contended for without adding εστι to it, a reading which is not countenanced by any Version, nor by any MS. yet discovered. Wiclif, Coverdale, and others, understood it as the nominative, and translated it so; and yet it is evident that this nominative has the power of the vocative: Forsothe to the sone God thi troone into the world of worlde: a gerde of equite the gerde of thi reume. I give this, pointing and all, as it stands in my old MS. Bible. Wiclif is nearly the same, but is evidently of a more modern cast: But to the sone he seith, God thy trone is unto the world of world, a gherd of equyte is the gherd of thi rewme. Coverdale translates it thus: 'But unto the sonne he sayeth: God, thi seate endureth for ever and ever: the cepter of thy kyngdome is a right cepter.' Tindal and others follow in the same way, all reading it in the nominative case, with the force of the vocative; for none of them has inserted the word εστι is, because not authorized by the original; a word which the opposers of the Divinity of our Lord are obliged to beg, in order to support their interpretation.
The vast majority, the overwhelming weight of authority, then, understands that the only reasonable interpretation of Psalm 45:6 is "Thy throne, Oh, God." This is strong proof of the deity of Christ, and has been regarded as such for nearly 2,000 years. Here is just a sample of Bibles who interpret the verse Psalm 45:6 properly.
New International Version(©1984)
Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.New Living Translation(©2007)
Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice.English Standard Version(©2001)
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;New American Standard Bible(©1995)
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Your throne, oh God, is to the eternity of eternities. A straight scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.GOD'S WORD® Translation(©1995)
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter in your kingdom is a scepter for justice.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever: the scepter of your kingdom is a righteous scepter.American King James Version
Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of your kingdom is a right scepter.American Standard Version
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Douay-Rheims Bible
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness.Darby Bible Translation
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom:English Revised Version
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Webster's Bible Translation
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of justice.World English Bible
Your throne, God, is forever and ever. A scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.Young's Literal Translation
Thy throne, O God, is age-during, and for ever, A sceptre of uprightness Is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. -
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
Just for the record, here are several verses with the more probable rendering:
New International Version(©1984)
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.New Living Translation(©2007)
But to the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice.English Standard Version(©2001)
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.New American Standard Bible(©1995)
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.International Standard Version(©2008)
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is a righteous scepter.Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But concerning The Son, he said, “Your throne, oh God, is to the eternity of eternities. A straight scepter is the scepter of your Kingdom.”GOD'S WORD® Translation(©1995)
But God said about his Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter in your kingdom is a scepter for justice.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But unto the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.American King James Version
But to the Son he said, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.American Standard Version
but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Douay-Rheims Bible
But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Darby Bible Translation
but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.English Revised Version
but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Webster's Bible Translation
But to the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.Weymouth New Testament
But of His Son, He says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and for ever, and the sceptre of Thy Kingdom is a sceptre of absolute justice.World English Bible
But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your Kingdom.Young's Literal Translation
and unto the Son: 'Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy reign; -
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
As always, well written, Leolaia.
So I don't think adoption of the rendering itself is necessarily due to bias. To demonstrate bias, I think one needs to go a little further. One should show that the particular rendering draws on a preceding JW exegetical tradition of understanding the passage similarly and/or that the rendering is part of a larger general pattern of rendering ambiguous texts in favor of a lower christology.
You're absolutely right. And your statement here seems to agree with what I wrote earlier. While a particular rendering itself is not necessarily due to bias, given what we know of the JWs and their pervasive, repeated renderings throughout the NWT in favor of a non-trinitarian interpretation or translation, it reflects, like you said, a larger general pattern of rendering ambiguous texts, and unambiguous texts, in favor of a lower christology, ie. the Word was merely a created angel. That lower christology treats the Word as created, the archangel Michael, and Jesus as nothing more than a man. After so many years researching and writing on issues pertaining to the deity of Christ and the Watchtower heresy in this regard, the only conclusion I can draw, notwithstanding other experts or so-called experts' rendering 'God is your throne,"is that the Watchtower Society is blatantly biased, especially here. The JWs and NWT reverse and alter every scriptural vestige that supports or lends credence to the idea that the Word is deity. Every single verse in support of Christendom's beliefs that Christ is deity is changed or qualified or rendered null by the JWs, at least that I can find. If that doesn't indicate bias, I don't know what does. The pattern of deception is profound in the NWT. This crazy idea that some put out (not you) that the JW writers are basically nice and merely good people ignorant of their own ignorance is nonsense. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. And if they don't, then they are negligent because they should have known, if they really are experts as they claim to be. Which they aren't.
As you said, "God is your throne" is improbable, which is probably why the overwhelming majority of Bibles render it properly as "Your throne, Oh, God." And while Tyndale and Grotius, etc., might have gone the other way, and they might not have been biased or had a reason to be, in the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses, with their background, their theology and in light of the many changes in the NWT made to reflect that lower christology such that it reflects, as close as possible, their theology as expressed in other publications, you bet, it's biased, and improperly so. That's all I'm saying. But we're still on the same page on this, you and I. Cheers.
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#22
