a poster wrote to me privately, and brought to my attention the following comment below i made a while back in regards to the 144,00 number of revelation.
i had casually conjectured that this number was likely symbolic in line with the book of revelation being mostly symbolic in kind.
he brought up this juicy source:.
SBF: "Have you come across A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology (2014) by J. Richard Middleton? I was recommended the book by someone and have heard that some JWs are pointing to it as deploying good arguments in favour of JW-style paradise earth as the destiny of obedient humans"
No, but I will look into it. Thanks for the tip!
https://www.jw.org/en/whats-new/books-of-titus-and-philemon-study-edition-now-available-online/.
What? It took a good portion of the year to publish two small Bible books (Titus & Philemon) in their Study Bible Edition.
What will the WT do when they get to the Hebrews book? The Revelation book? How long will that take? The Revelation book might be their biggest challenge yet. How can a translator avoid the many symbolic references found throughout? How can they be explained in a simple manner without sounding too dogmatic?
a poster wrote to me privately, and brought to my attention the following comment below i made a while back in regards to the 144,00 number of revelation.
i had casually conjectured that this number was likely symbolic in line with the book of revelation being mostly symbolic in kind.
he brought up this juicy source:.
Thank you guys for your excellent annotations! I found those of Vanderhoven7 and Slim particularly compelling - one in favor and one against the literalness of the number.
Ding made this very insightful observation, which incidentally is one of my thoughts on the subject:
"I've never gotten a good answer to this question: How can 12 symbolic 12,000s comprise a literal 144,000?
They either have to be all figurative or all literal."
The various comments posted here exemplify that valid points can be made for either viewpoint. If I recall correctly, Raymond Franz, in one of his books, expressed a certain level of uncertainty as to the final destiny of Christian believers. On one hand , he was seemingly inclined to view the heavenly hope as the main avenue for future life, per the many references tied to it in the NT. But then he implied that God had created the earth with purpose, to be inhabited by humans, and that was not likely to change, in lieu of the many biblical passages related to the heavenly hope for Christians.
I find that there might be a potential link between the true Christian hope of future life, whether in heaven or earth, and this other reference of 144,000 to be heirs with Christ in heaven and their subjects. More clarifying information on this matter would clear many a doubt. The question is: Is such information available?
https://www.jw.org/en/whats-new/books-of-titus-and-philemon-study-edition-now-available-online/.
a poster wrote to me privately, and brought to my attention the following comment below i made a while back in regards to the 144,00 number of revelation.
i had casually conjectured that this number was likely symbolic in line with the book of revelation being mostly symbolic in kind.
he brought up this juicy source:.
A poster wrote to me privately, and brought to my attention the following comment below I made a while back in regards to the 144,00 number of Revelation. I had casually conjectured that this number was likely symbolic in line with the book of Revelation being mostly symbolic in kind. He brought up this juicy source:
--at another point you also say the 144,000 would most likely be symbolic, now I'm going to politely disagree, as I think its more likely to be a literal number as its contrasted with "the great crowd" a not very specific number. as was point out by Robert L. Thomas, Jr., professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary in the United States, wrote:
“The case for symbolism is exegetically weak.” He points out: “It is a definite number [at 7:4] in contrast with the indefinite number of 7:9. If it is taken symbolically, no number in the book can be taken literally.”—Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 1, page 474.
As you can see the poster disagrees with my conjecture, but his quote of Robert L. Thomas, Jr. is highly interesting. By reason of this professor's explanation, are any of you guys willing to reconsider your stand on this issue, whether your conclusion of the reference is literal or symbolic in application?
for those of you who still respect the bible, which translation/s are you using now?
why?.
raymond frantz: "Biblehub ,combination of Bibles is the best"
Good website! It should be noted, though, that most of it has an Evangelical slant.
Compare that to this website: https://www.bibliatodo.com/en
This website offers a more broad spectrum. It even offers the NWT 1984 version among its list of versions.
The website is also available in French, Portuguese, and Spanish, for those seeking alternative readings.
for those of you who still respect the bible, which translation/s are you using now?
why?.
Slim,
Your list of useful Bible translations is very similar to mine. To that I may add the TANAKH, the Rotherham Bible, the Jonathan Mitchell NT, the Jewish Heinz W. Cassirer NT, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, and the Interlinear/Concordance by McReynolds. There are so many good reference works out there.
On The Expanded Bible, it is not a must-have. It doesn't excel at anything in particular. The reason I use it has to do with my old-age tendency of laziness in the research department. There was a time that for any-one doctrinal issue that came up along the way, I would scour dozens of Bibles and reference works every time. I got tired of that. So now, more than ever, I value reference works that same me time and effort. This is where The Expanded Bible comes in. And this why I value Study Bibles (like the NIV, CSB & the CEB) all the more. (Incidentally, this may be one reason poster vienne likes the 26 Translations Bible.)
These aids help me understand any biblical passage within its context. They explain Bible customs, seasons, measures, ancient traditions, adding many relevant cross-references. The Expanded Bible has many notes within the main text. so there is no need to take your eyes of your reading spot, unless one chooses to go deeper in the research. That said, there are more comprehensive reference works elsewhere.
for those of you who still respect the bible, which translation/s are you using now?
why?.
vienne: I like elements of the New World Translation. But my "go to" bible is "The Bible from 26 Translations."
I too have the '26 Translations Bible,' but I hardly ever use it. It is helpful if one does not have many versions at hand. Even so, I find the authors were not that good with the limited selections they chose to publish. It appears to be doctrinally slanted, no less. However, I see others appreciate it more than I do.
jhine: I use the NIV as well. It's our " pew Bible " as in the one available for folk to use during services to follow the readings if they wish to.
I do like the NIV! It has a good balance between the highly literal and idiomatic versions.
Vidqun: I like the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), English Standard Version (ESV) and New English Translation (NET) - all with footnotes.
Nice versions to have (Evangelical)! But why leave out the Catholic or Jewish version?
Slim: New Revised Standard Version.
The go-to academic version.
truth_b_known: I have the NIV and the Douay-Rheims translations. I would like a Jerusalem Bible.
The Douay-Rheims and the JB are definitely useful to have.
dropoffyourkeylee: I found the J B Phillips NT, though a paraphrase, to be an eye opener in understanding what the letters of Paul were all about.
Nice readable version! J.B. Phillips surely made a mark during the last century.
___________________
One version of the Bible I have found more useful than I initially realized is this one: The [expanded] Bible, by Thomas Nelson, Inc. (Brackets theirs.) This version surprised me, since the first time I saw it I was not impressed at all. Nonetheless, I bought it, and as time went by, it has proven surprisingly helpful. I find it more useful than the Amplified Bible.
What makes it unique?
"The base text is a modified version of the New Century Version. This is a meaning-based (functional-equivalent) Bible version. The Expanded Bible incorporates within each line the information one would find in a variety of Bible reference works, making it possible to read and study the Bible at the same time." -End of Quote.
The Expanded Bible has been developed to make God’s Word easier to understand and more relevant for today’s Christian with innovative expansions in the text itself that exhibit the complete meaning of each passage in its context.
Explore the Depths of the Scriptures While You Read
Expect understanding! Experience the full meaning of God’s Word. The Expanded Bible
has been developed by a respected team of skilled Bible translators to
make God’s Word easier to understand—and more relevant and real
for today’s Christian—with innovative expansions in the text itself that
exhibit the complete meaning of each passage in its context—while you
read.
for those of you who still respect the bible, which translation/s are you using now?
why?.
There is this axiomatic principle that when someone quotes a literary source, one must not replace names appearing in such works with surrogates or titles by the author's whim.
Can you imagine the uproar if leading news websites did so in a customary way? We would quickly lose any respect toward them. (In modern times some exceptions are made when victims of crimes are involved.)
Let's say we decided to remove the most common names in the Bible, like Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus, Jehovah, etc, we'll end up, not only with a heavily tampered version, but with a highly inaccurate and confusing narrative.
I get that adding Jehovah to the New Testament requires some faith, however, it is not incongruous to do so. In fact, I am amazed at the number of scholars (trinitarian at that) who find it necessary in their works to use the Divine Name in their explanations of many NT passages. It is like there is no way to clarify certain Scriptures unless the Name is brought up into the discussion. These scholars find that adding Jehovah (or, Yahweh) in their arguments is an asset in the understanding of certain Scriptures.
On the other hand, we find some posters here mocking God's name (like saying Geehovah for Jehovah), or get all worked up every time someone here uses it. They say there is no evidence whatsoever that the Divine Name appeared in the NT. Some even say with 100% certainty that it never was there, as if they were alive back in NT times. Others prefer to dwell on the mispronunciation of Jehovah's name, oblivious to the fact that almost all Bible names are pronounced differently today than when originally written. I see no effort from them trying to pronounce Jesus' name as it was pronounced through Greek-land during the first few centuries, nor in Hebrew. In fact, we can't be 100% certain how ancient Bible names were accurately pronounced back then.
The thing is that these same posters do not shriek at all when the Divine Name is REMOVED from the Old Testament where there IS evidence. By such actions they expose themselves for who they really are...individuals who harbor no desire to have their names written in God's "book of remembrance."
Mal 3.16 says: At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.
thesis: when someone who is given a responsibility mistakes that responsibility for authority, bullying is very likely to occur.. jesus spoke an illustration recorded at matthew 24: 45-51 which well illustrates this thesis.. jesus asked, “who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over all his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?
happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so.
truly i say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.
BoogerMan: "The NWT copied the wording of the KJV which says "kings" at Revelation 5:10, whereas other translations such as the NIV say "kingdom." But of course, it's common knowledge that the NWT perverted their own Kingdom Interlinear Translation twice in that one verse - kings instead of kingdom, and over the earth instead of upon it. (see Psalm 45:16)"
I checked the 1969 and 1985 Kingdom Interlinear editions, and they both show "kingdom" in Rev. 5.10 instead of "kings."
As for the alleged "perversion" of this text, it should be noted that the KI has "upon the earth" as translation for the preposition "epí," whereas the NWT on the right margin shows "over the earth."
Now, a preposition can have many meanings, and translators use a wide range of renderings for these, including "epí" in the genitive case as we have in Rev 5.10. Grammarian J. Harold Greenlee* explains that one basic meaning of "epí" is "upon" followed by 'over' (of authority), which he follows with two genitive examples: Acts 8.27 & Luke 12.42. Check them out! (*A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, pp. 64-65)
As for the interpretation of Rev 5.10, I will say that just as you have the independent right to have your own, as you have shown us, the NWT translators have the same prerrogative. There is no 'perversion' here in regards to the the readings found in both the KIT and NWT editions.
