Wonderment

Joined

• started 95 topics
• posted 769 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Wonderment

• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

  it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

  instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  aqwsed12345:
  

  So if according even to your boss [?], in a biblical context, the firstborn does not mean the first born in the order, but the pre-eminent heir, then why would it mean anything else in Col 1:15? Just because then you would lose your one-liners?

  And the term 'archē' cannot be separated from the connotation it created in the given age, in the given Hellenic world. The Greek philosophers called 'archē' the primordial principle, the source of the created world, the principle from which the world originates.

  Are you not placing an irrational amount of weight into the Greek philosophy department trying to explain John 1.1?

  I quoted: "Gen 1.1 tells us (KJV): 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void.'" The verb 'was' is being linked to 'the beginning.' Was the earth eternal?"

  You said: "Non sequitur. There [at Ge 1.1,2] it is quite clear that 'was" is used after 'creation. So the Earth used to be 'without form, and void'. Your other example of Gen 10:9 is even more stupid."

  (Gen 10:9: "[Nimrod] was a mighty hunter before the LORD.")

  By stating the above, you prove my point. The verb "was" is not necessarily durative or eternal, just like A.T. Robertson acknowledged years ago. Since the purpose of John's Gospel was to have people "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and not to be identified with God Almighty, it follows that Jesus is "the way to the Father," whom Jesus said we should worship. (14.6; 4.23)

  I mentioned John 8.44, where it is said of the Devil: "He was a murderer from the beginning." (KJV) I am aware of the technicality you brought up about the preposition difference. But the point is that his murderous actions go all the way back to the beginning. How far back is that? Again, In Ge 1.1, how far back should we go in time to determine when the heavens and the earth were created?

  In John 15.27, Jesus said to his disciples: "And you, in turn, are to bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning." Preposition difference aside, this verse (just like John 1.1c) has a form of eimi' (have been vs was) leading to "the beginning." How far back is this beginning?

  At John 1.2, we read of the Logos: "This one was in the beginning with God."

  These scriptures point to a point past in time where the said actions are described. Saying "was" in the description does not provide the exact timing of the action being discussed. It is indefinite as to time. Eternity is not a required item of the imperfect "was" either. The time factor for each narrative must be determined from context. And really, there is no explicit statement in John anywhere which states that Jesus is eternal. Can you or anyone come up with just 1 (one) scripture in John's Gospel which states simply that Jesus is eternal?

  However, we do find Jesus' own statement at John 6.57, that 'he lived because of the Father': "Just as the living Father sent me,––and I live by reason of the Father, he also that feedeth upon me, even he, shall live by reason of me." (Rotherham)

  Beginning is normally understood as: 1. the point in time or space at which something begins. 2. the first part or earliest stage of something. 3. the background or origins of a person or organization. (Oxford)

  If John wanted to convey that Jesus was eternal in the opening verse, he could have used another form of expression readily available from the Greek language. Instead he chose an indefinite "was", a past tense to describe Jesus' status in connection with the beginning. Unlike the Greeks, John sought to keep it simple, echoing Ge 1.1 while at it. It is obvious that in the Genesis account, ch 1, the author strove to keep it simple as well, because the minute creation details were considered far too advanced for the human mind.
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

  it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

  instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  aqwsed12345 addressing Earnest: It is quite clear what Arians do, they take one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture.

  Strange, this is the same impression I got from your methodology in your insistence that archē and prōtotokos can only mean "beginner" and "preeminent" correspondingly.

  Yet, when I go to a Greek Concordance to check the customary usage of archē , I find that archē in the genitive construction (of) has a passive meaning of "beginning" about 75% of its total usage, denoting beginning, start, or first part of something. Thus, having Christ as "the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3.14) would indicate that Christ was part of the created acts of God. The creation is of God, not Christ's. Other minority usage of archē do not indicate that Christ is the sole creator of the universe. This indicates that some individuals are opting to use "one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture."

  With prōtotokos in view, I find that the most common meaning of the term is of someone "born first in time" (i.e., temporal priority) used throughout Scripture. (It occurs 130 times in the LXX and 8 times in the NT.) It literally means: “firstborn, earliest born, eldest.” (Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek, Robinson & House) = "first-born" - NASB.

  In a minority of cases, it has a figurative sense of: ‘foremost’; 'most excellent’; or ‘dearest one,’ as in: Exodus 4:22, Ps 89.27, Jer 31.9. Some add the meaning of 'preeminent‘ to this. But get this: In relation to prōtotokos, everyone listed in the Bible as foremost or dearest one are creatures, not "creators" or "eternal." If Jesus was not created as claimed, he would be the only exception in the Bible on the subject of the Greek term usage. This means that an individual who chooses to use the argument that "first-born of all creation" can only mean "preeminent over all creatures" is falling victim to using "one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture."

  aqwsed12345 addressing Earnest:

  Just read John 1:1a with understanding, "in the beginning was the Word,"... now say it loudly: "in the beginning ... was", and then repeat WAS, WAS, WAS, until the message gets through your mind.

  Aren't you "making a mountain out of a molehill"? Since when does a simple usage of the verb "was" prove unequivocably that Jesus is eternal, just by linking it to the phrase "in the beginning"?

  In John 8.44. we read of the Devil: "He was a murderer from the beginning." (KJV)

  There you have it. "The Devil is eternal," "he wasn't created," that is, if we go by your reasoning from John 1.1.

  Gen 1.1 tells us (KJV): "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void." The verb "was" is being linked to "the beginning." Was the earth eternal?

  Gen 10:9: "[Nimrod] was a mighty hunter before the LORD." Of Nimrod, we are told he was mighty before the Lord in the early days. Was Nimrod without a beginning?

  Should we conclude that the Devil, heaven, earth, and Nimrod were all eternal? It would be immature on my part to make such a case in an effort to convince others of their eternity. Context is King!

  What about the context of the Gospel of John? Was it written to sway others that Christ was God eternal?

  No! The Gospel of John was written "that [we] may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." (20.31) Anything else is just philosophy!
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

  it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

  instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  aqwsed12345
  

  The insertion of the word "other" is unjustifiable because it falsifies the Watchtower's concept into the sacred text, which is a source to be quoted later with authority. This is, by the way, the essence of a sectarian interpretation, not the context of the text. That is, they put their conclusions and elaborations into the apostle's mouth. This is what is unacceptable in a Bible translation.
  

  
  It was the Bible writer (Paul) himself who cautioned his readers that after he went on exhalting Christ to the highest position right next to God in his epistles, to be very mindful of the following exception: For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things [pánta] have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things [pánta] to him. (1 Cor 15.27. In Col 1.16, the same Greek word [pánta] is used as in 1 Cor 15.27. This means that a translator may be justified to add “other” to “all things” in certain contexts to add clarity, as in Colossians.) It is not uncommon for the Greek language to use the concept of “all” loosely, that is, with some exclusions, like we moderns often do. This concept was elaborated and expressed by the “apostle's mouth,” to use your words. The “all things” of Col 1.16 must be understood in harmony with the principle expressed by the author himself at 1 Cor 15.27. No less!
  
  What was the purpose of the letter to the Colossians? Was it to identify Christ with God Almighty? Or, was it rather to refute the Colossian heresy which emphasized the replacement of Christ with hollow human philosophy? The theme of Colossians is the complete adequacy of Christ over the emptiness of mere human philosophy. The Colossian heresy depreciated Christ. Hence, it was vital that Colossians acknowledged the Christ as “the image of God,” the One through whom "all things” were made. Thus, Colossians were urged to be filled with the divine wisdom from above, and to set their hearts on things above, where “the Christ is seated at the right hand of God.” (Col 3.1) If Christ was God supreme and “Creator” as you claim, why was he depicted being situated “at the right hand of God”? If Christ in the heavenly visions is always subordinated in reference to God, doesn’t this itself imply that the God ‘sitting at the center of the throne’ is ultimately the Grand Creator? (Rev 1.1, 3.12)
  
  Colossians also serves as a warning to anyone in our day who prefers human philosophy over the simple teachings of Jesus Christ, who stated, before he died, that ‘the Father was greater than he was.’ (John 14.28)
• 
  76

  Scriptures That Don’t Fit WT Theology

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here’s a couple good ones: a. jesus said, “come to me and i will give you rest”.. why did jesus command us to go to him and not jehovah?.

  why does the bible say that the name of jesus is above every name?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Disillusioned JW:

  "Even more puzzling to me is the statement in the Greek NT Bible that the name of Jesus is above every name, and thus claimed to be above the name of YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah." [Ph. 2:9,10]

  Within the Jewish mindset, they would have understood, according to Paul's reasoning, that Jesus' name was above every OTHER name, just as they would have understood his own statement that, 'EVERY knee should bow before Christ' EXCLUDED YHVH. (1 Cor 15:27)
• 
  76

  Scriptures That Don’t Fit WT Theology

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here’s a couple good ones: a. jesus said, “come to me and i will give you rest”.. why did jesus command us to go to him and not jehovah?.

  why does the bible say that the name of jesus is above every name?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  neat blue dog: Abraham was [@Heb 11.16] "awaiting a city having real foundations, a heavenly one", which is awkwardly mistranslated in the NWT as "a place belonging to heaven", to leave open the option for his earthly resurrection.

  
  

  In saying, "...'a heavenly one', which is awkwardly mistranslated in the NWT as 'a place belonging to heaven,' you could have dropped the prefix "mis" from "awkwardly mistranslated" above for a more accurate description.

  The Greek has a genitive here, literally: "of upon [on] heavenly."

  The 21st Century NT reads:
  "one that was from heaven." And Jonathan Mitchell includes this rendering in his version: "one: this is one belonging to the superior-heaven (or, that is, pertaining to the One upon the atmosphere....)"

  The work, TCBL says: "The emphasis of the term is on the location--not in the sense of 'sky' but as the dwelling place of the divine."
  

  The translation 'a place belonging to heaven' is thus acceptable, albeit, "awkward." It is finally up to the reader how to interpret this.
  
• 
  26

  Has the Governing Body EVER apologized for anything?

  by Wild_Thing in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  geoffrey jackson testified to the arc that the governing body has apologized for things in the past, so an apology to sexual abuse victims is "perceivable".

  what has the governing body ever apologized for?.

  22 q. just on that point, mr jackson, has the governing body23 considered apologising to survivors of child sexual abuse24 at the hands of elders within the organisation?25 a. i haven't been in any discussions with regard to that.26 27 q. is that something that you foresee might happen ‐ in 28 other words, that an apology at least be considered?29 a. the governing body has apologised on other matters, so30 for me to say ‐ i can't speak collectively for everybody, 31 but we have apologised on things in the past, in other32 areas, so it is perceivable.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Long Hair Gal: I cannot see them admitting blame. They are too arrogant and it would detract from their know-it-all holy mystique.

  Sadly true!

  To this day, the GB has not disclosed the real reason for the Donation Arrangement change during the 1990s in a few developed countries (while it took up to 10 years for the rest of the poor world to get this experience), and the halting of food preparation in Convention Cafeterias.
  
• 
  13

  Dalai Lama asking boy to suck his tongue after kissing the child on his lips.

  by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the dalai lama has apologised after footage showed him asking a boy if he wanted to suck the tibetan spiritual leader's tongue.. .

  his office said he wanted to apologise to the child and his family "for the hurt his words may have caused".. .

  the video also shows the dalai lama kissing the child on his lips.. soon after the pope alleged peodo activity .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Simon: Ask yourself: if they do that when surrounded by people, with cameras ... what do they do in private? How many victims?

  
  

  Right on!
  
• 
  18

  Silicon Valley Bank bankruptcy....

  by mikeflood in

  1. social
  2. current

  didn't know silicon valley bank was so important for start-ups....now there's some sort of contagion, people taking their money from regional banks to the big banks.

  .

  system seems pretty resilient and different from 2008. thoughts?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Country leaders ( Including USA) keep telling us that their bank systems are safe and sound. It seems that this is based on the confidence in the bank system that they continually promote. But how could this be? Will banks have the deposits to give back when a majority of depositors rush to pull their monies in a moment of financial panic?

  No. Banks in many countries are only required to keep a small amount of cash for normal daily activities (Ref.: "Bank, or Cash Reserve Ratio"). What happened to SVB in USA can happen again anywhere around the world, including to large banks.

  Wikipedia defines "Reserve Ratio" thus: "Reserve requirements are central bank regulations that set the minimum amount that a commercial bank must hold in liquid assets. This minimum amount, commonly referred to as the commercial bank's reserve, is generally determined by the central bank on the basis of a specified proportion of deposit liabilities of the bank. This rate is commonly referred to as the reserve ratio."

  Reserve requirements by country

  The reserve ratios set in each country and district vary.[18] The following list is non-exhaustive:

  Country or district	Reserve ratio (%)	Notes
  Australia	None	. Statutory reserve deposits abolished in 1988, replaced with 1% non-callable deposits[16]
  Bangladesh	6.00	Raised from 5.50, effective from 15 December 2010
  Brazil	21.00	Term deposits have a 33% RRR and savings accounts a 20% ratio.[19]
  Bulgaria	10.00	Banks shall maintain minimum required reserves to the amount of 10% of the deposit base (effective from 1 December 2008) with two exceptions (effective from 1 January 2009): 1. on funds attracted by banks from abroad: 5%; 2. on funds attracted from state and local government budgets: 0%.[20]
  Burundi	8.50
  Chile	4.50
  China	17.00	China cut bank reserves again to counter slowdown as of 29 February 2016.[21]
  Costa Rica	15.00
  Croatia	9.00	Down from 12%, from 10 April 2020[22]
  Czech Republic	2.00	Since 7 October 2009
  Eurozone	1.00	Effective 18 January 2012.[23] Down from 2% between January 1999 and January 2012.
  Ghana	9.00
  Hong Kong	None	[13]
  Hungary	2.00	Since November 2008
  Iceland	2.00	[24]
  India	3.00	27 March 2020, as per RBI.[25]
  Israel	6.00	set by the Monetary Committee of the Bank of Israel.[26]
  Jordan	8.00
  Latvia	3.00	Just after the Parex Bank bailout (24.12.2008), Latvian Central Bank decreased the RRR from 7% (?) down to 3%[27]
  Lebanon	30.00	[28]
  Lithuania	6.00
  Malawi	15.00
  Mexico	10.50
  Nepal	6.00	From 20 July 2014 (for commercial banks)[29]
  New Zealand	None	1985[30]
  Nigeria	27.50	Raised from 22.50, effective from January 2020[31]
  Pakistan	5.00	Since 1 November 2008
  Poland	3.50	Since 31 March 2022[32]
  Romania	8.00	As of 24 May 2015 for lei. 10% for foreign currency as of 24 October 2016.[33]
  Russia	4.00	Effective 1 April 2011, up from 2.5% in January 2011.[34]
  South Africa	2.50
  Sri Lanka	8.00	With effect from 29 April 2011. 8% of total rupee deposit liabilities.
  Suriname	25.00	Down from 27%, effective 1 January 2007[35]
  Sweden	None	Effective 1 April 1994[36]
  Switzerland	2.50
  Taiwan	7.00	[37]
  Tajikistan	20.00
  Turkey	8.50	Since 19 February 2013
  United States	None	The Federal Reserve reduced reserve requirement ratios to 0% effective on March 26, 2020.[38]
  Zambia	8.00

  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement

  Also: https://www.centralbanknews.info/p/reserve-ratios.html
  
• 
  16

  My favorite Cooking Pot

  by Wonderment in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  although cooking pots are not directly "religious" subject, perhaps not many will deny that a happy belly can lead to wholesome religious thoughts and peaceful spiritual discussions.. that said, through the years i have tried most major brands of cooking pots - all the way from all-clad to cast-iron skilets - including some with the most extraordinary claims in between.. however, the one we have used the most in our kitchen is one brand from denmark, specifically, the 5 quart pot called "scanpan.

  " it is now approaching 40 years of daily use, and it has held-up surprisingly well.

  the handles are as tight as day one when we bought it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  Although Cooking Pots are not directly "religious" subject, perhaps not many will deny that a happy belly can lead to wholesome religious thoughts and peaceful spiritual discussions.

  That said, through the years I have tried most major brands of cooking pots - all the way from All-Clad to Cast-Iron Skilets - including some with the most extraordinary claims in between.

  However, the one we have used the most in our kitchen is one brand from Denmark, specifically, the 5 quart pot called "Scanpan." It is now approaching 40 years of daily use, and it has held-up surprisingly well. The handles are as tight as day one when we bought it. It cooks well overall.
  

  I don't believe Scanpan will win a number one prize for Stick-Free cooking, however, in our experience it is not difficult to clean well. Minor scraping may be necessary in some situations.

  I wonder what kind of experiences you guys have had in this space. Anyone willing to share opinions?
• 
  11

  Two Translators Who Restored God’s Name to the NT

  by Wonderment in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the first prayers that many people learn is the lord’s prayer, which jesus taught his followers.

  this prayer is found in what is commonly called the new testament.

  the prayer begins: “our father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified [or hallowed].” (matthew 6:9) yet, god’s name, rendered in english as “jehovah” or sometimes “yahweh,” is rarely found in english translations of the new testament.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Wonderment

  **Article taken from jw.org (11/24/22)**

  Two Translators Who Restored God’s Name to the New Testament

  
  

  One of the first prayers that many people learn is the Lord’s Prayer, which Jesus taught his followers. This prayer is found in what is commonly called the New Testament. The prayer begins: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified [or hallowed].” (Matthew 6:9) Yet, God’s name, rendered in English as “Jehovah” or sometimes “Yahweh,” is rarely found in English translations of the New Testament. These translations do, however, include the names of false gods, such as Zeus, Hermes, and Artemis. So should they not mention the name of the true God and Author of the Bible?—Acts 14:12; 19:35; 2 Timothy 3:16.

  

  The New Testament names several false gods, so would you not expect it to name the true God as well?

  The English Bible translators Lancelot Shadwell and Frederick Parker believed that God’s name should be restored to the New Testament. Why use the word “restored”? Because they concluded that God’s name was there originally but was later taken out. Why did they draw that conclusion?

  Shadwell and Parker knew that existing manuscripts of what is often called the Old Testament, originally written mainly in Hebrew, include God’s personal name thousands of times. So they wondered why the New Testament manuscripts available to them omitted the full form of God’s name. a Also, Shadwell noticed that when New Testament manuscripts use common Old Testament expressions, such as “the angel of Jehovah,” copyists of the Greek New Testament had evidently replaced God’s name with terms like Kyʹri·os, which means “Lord.”—2 Kings 1:3, 15; Acts 12:23.

  

  God’s name in Hebrew

  Even before Shadwell and Parker published their English translations, other translators had restored God’s name to their English translations of the New Testament, but only in relatively few places. b Prior to 1863, when Parker published A Literal Translation of the New Testament, no English translator is known to have restored God’s name extensively in a published New Testament. Who were Lancelot Shadwell and Frederick Parker?

  Lancelot Shadwell

  Lancelot Shadwell (1808-1861) was a barrister and the son of Sir Lancelot Shadwell, the vice-chancellor of England. The son belonged to the Church of England. Although he believed in the Trinity, he showed respect for God’s name, describing it as “the glorious name of JEHOVAH.” In his translation, The Gospels of Matthew, and of Mark, he used “Jehovah” 28 times in the main text and 465 times in the accompanying notes.

  Shadwell may have learned about God’s name by seeing it in the Old Testament in the original Hebrew. He stated that those who had replaced God’s name with the term Kyʹri·os in the Greek translation of the Old Testament “were not honest translators.”

  

  The Gospel according to Matthew rendered into English with notes, by L. Shadwell (1859), provided by the Bodleian Libraries. Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 UK. Modified: Text highlighted

  Shadwell’s translation showing Matthew 1:20

  In his translation, Shadwell first used “Jehovah” at Matthew 1:20. His note for that verse says: “The word [Kyʹri·os] in this, and in many other passages in [the] N.T. means JEHOVAH, the proper name of God: and it is most important to restore this word to the English translation.” He also stated: “The honour of God requires it. He has declared himself by the name of JEHOVAH: and we cannot do better than use that name when we speak of him.” He then said: “In our E.V. [Established, Authorized, or King James Version] of the Bible, the name of JEHOVAH rarely occurs . . . Instead of the proper name of God, we read, The Lord.” Shadwell claimed: “The Lord . . . is a most unworthy title” to use as a substitute for God’s name, adding that even he is called “The Lord” at his manor, or country home.

  “[God] has declared himself by the name of JEHOVAH: and we cannot do better than use that name when we speak of him.”—Lancelot Shadwell

  Shadwell published his translation of Matthew in 1859 and his combined version of Matthew and Mark in 1861. But then his work came to an end. He died on January 11, 1861, at the age of 52. Nevertheless, his efforts were not in vain.

  Frederick Parker

  Shadwell’s translation of Matthew came to the attention of a wealthy London businessman named Frederick Parker (1804-1888), who set out to translate the New Testament when he was about 20 years of age. Unlike Shadwell, Parker rejected the teaching of the Trinity. He wrote: “[May] the whole Church of [God’s] dear Son . . . heartily embrace the truth . . . and worship the one Almighty Jehovah.” Parker also felt that New Testament manuscripts that use Kyʹri·os for both the Lord God and the Lord Jesus obscured the distinction between the two. So he was intrigued to see that in certain contexts Shadwell rendered Kyʹri·os as “Jehovah.”

  How did Parker understand such matters? He studied Greek and wrote several books and tracts on Greek grammar. He also became a member of the Anglo-Biblical Institute, which promoted research into Bible manuscripts with a view to producing better English Bibles. In 1842, Parker began publishing his first translation of the New Testament in several parts and editions. c

  

  A translation of the New Testament by Parker (Heinfetter)

  Parker’s Efforts to Restore God’s Name

  For some years Parker had written regarding such questions as: “When does Kyʹri·os refer to the Lord Jesus, and when does it refer to the Lord God?” “Why is Kyʹri·os often used grammatically as a name and not as a title?”

  When Parker saw Shadwell’s 1859 translation of Matthew with its comments on Kyʹri·os, he became convinced that in certain contexts, Kyʹri·os “should be translated Jehovah.” So he revised his entire translation of the New Testament to include “Jehovah” wherever he believed that the context or grammar of the Greek text indicated it. Thus, Parker’s one-volume 1863 edition of A Literal Translation of the New Testament contains God’s name 187 times in the main text. As far as is known, this is the first published English version to use the divine name throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. d

  

  Title page of Parker’s 1864 translation of the New Testament

  In 1864, Parker also released A Collation of an English Version of the New Testament . . . With the Authorized English Version. His reason for combining the two New Testaments into one volume was to show where and how his version differed from the other. e

  To illustrate the value of restoring God’s name, Parker pointed to a number of verses in the Authorized Version, including Romans 10:13, which reads: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Parker asked: “[Who] ever gathered from the Authorized English Version of these Verses, that it was Jehovah, and not The Son Jesus Christ our Lord, . . . referred to in them”?

  

  Romans 10:13 in the King James Version (top) and Parker’s 1864 translation

  Parker spent thousands of pounds—a fortune back then—on publishing and advertising his tracts, papers, and other writings. In fact, in just one year, he spent 800 pounds, which is equivalent to over 100,000 British pounds ($132,000 U.S.) today. He also sent complimentary copies of many of his publications to acquaintances and high-ranking clergy for their review.

  Parker’s writings and his translations of the New Testament, which had a very limited printing, were ridiculed by some scholars. In doing so, however, they drew attention away from the sincere effort that he, as well as Shadwell and others, had made to restore God’s personal name to the English New Testament.

  

  You may also like to watch the informative ten-minute video: Warwick Museum Tours: “The Bible and the Divine Name.”

  The translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures also have deep respect for God’s name. If you would like to learn more about why the divine name should be included in the entire Bible, read Appendixes A4, A5, and C1 in The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition).

  a “Jah,” a shortened form of “Jehovah,” is found at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6 in the expression “Hallelujah,” which means “Praise Jah, you people!”

  b Shadwell did not translate the complete New Testament. The other translators include Philip Doddridge, Edward Harwood, William Newcome, Edgar Taylor, and Gilbert Wakefield.

  c In order to separate his business interests from his Biblical scholarship, Parker used the pen name Herman Heinfetter in his religious writings and Bible translations. This name appears a number of times in the appendixes of The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

  d In 1864, Parker released An English Version of the New Testament that uses God’s name 186 times.

  e Prior to Parker’s translations, many Hebrew translations of the New Testament included God’s name in various verses. Also, in 1795, Johann Jakob Stolz published a German translation that uses God’s name more than 90 times from Matthew to Jude.

  **Article taken from jw.org (11/24/22)**