prologos: "That " in" captured my attention, the creator would not be in, but be external, prior to the universe, whether it is relevant, is another matter."
Interesting!
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
59
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment incontinued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.
the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.
the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.
-
-
Wonderment
-
59
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment incontinued from part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):.
the nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.
the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.
-
-
Wonderment
Continued from Part 1 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5097191899136000/john-1-1-colossians-1-16-all-other-things):
The NW Translation and some of its unique renderings, like John 1.1- "a god," and Colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.
The anger felt by detractors of the NWT rendering of John 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably if compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s. I remember very well those years being a JW back then of the prevalent feeling people had of JWs being some sort of translation "lunatics" by their infamous Bible renderings. It was the general feeling back then, that only the Witnesses could come up with such ludicrous translations. It was kind of "the talk of the town" in religious circles.
But a strange thing happened after the 1970s: Various scholars have come out publicly addressing that the rendering "a god" was a grammatically permissible literal rendering, even when they still held that the interpretation was wrong. Harner's study in 1973 on anarthrous nouns was greatly responsible for this change, convincingly taking the wind out of Colwell's argument of definiteness of such nouns. He was not alone. Even William Barclay who previously denounced JWs as ‘intellectually dishonest’ morons, admitted afterwards that the "a god" rendering was ‘a grammatical possibility’ from the Greek text, but an interpretation error in his view. In top of that, various individuals have published articles on the internet showing how dozens of other translators have deviated from the traditional rendering ("the Word was God") at John 1.1, which according to scholar Murray J. Harris, "cannot stand without explanation." The sum of all these statements have somewhat diminished the heat and the quantity of the criticisms leveled against the NWT reading "a god" at John 1:1. So I am not going to elaborate further on this text at this time.
Instead, I will look at another hot topic which seems to be more prevalent (in this forum) than is the scripture mentioned above. It's the one at Colossians 1.16 ("all other things"). Here's one scripture which clearly shows ‘the stupidity’ of the NW translators, or so is the claim. The NW translators added the word "other" to "all things" at Col. 1.16 to imply that Christ was created before everything else. The problem was aggravated with the NWT revision in 2013 which omitted the brackets, which until the said year were shown printed in the verse. This of course hurts some ex-JWs who have adopted the majority view that the Trinity is a biblical teaching.I will start with the premise that the main objection here is likely to be the "trinity" doctrine. Trinitarians for the most part have no problem doing away with the divine name "Jehovah" in the Bible, and many show a clear aversion to the sound of the English name. Even when they insist that "Jehovah" is wrong, and "Yahweh" is more likely right, they use neither. Their hate for Jehovah's Witnesses is so great that it overshadows any faithful adherence they profess to the Hebrew original. Some ex-JWs too have that inclination, it seems. Thus, one example mentioned here, removing God's name, is depicted as not being equal in badness as is adding the obnoxious "other" to Col 1.16. Adding to Scripture is not that bad either when mainstream translations do so, right? Various examples have been pointed out to members here. One example is adding the word "true" to "the true God" in the Hebrew portion of the Bible. If a JW does it (as in the NWT) it must be "error." But when a Baptist scholar does it (like Watts), it is admissible. He has a Ph.D, right? Such inconsistency is not fair to one of the parties under attack. I don't hear much noise when others translators do the same thing as the NWT does, but perhaps in different contexts. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the problem lies. It is not grammar the issue, it comes down to interpretation: "My religion (or belief) is better than yours," seems to be the general mantra.
And so it is with the word "other." The addition of "other" at Col. 1.16 is recognized as "blatant error" by traditionalists. Let's look at some facts:
The word "other" is added by some translators as a personal choice to clear matters up in various scriptures. In another post, Exodus 18:11 was mentioned: Ex 18:11. This link ( http://biblehub.com/exodus/18-11.htm ) shows that four versions in the list added the word "other" to the hebrew expression "than all the gods" (mikkol-ha'elohim) when the biblical language was seen as not explicit enough to where it now reads: "the Lord Yahweh is greater than all the [other] gods." Brackets indicate the addition.
If we take the common assumption that the NWT added "other" at Col 1.16 for mischievous reasons, where would that leave the four versions listed above in the link? But someone will reply: "These translators are justified, the NW translators are not." Really? A Greek authority brings up a little matter which Trinitarians would rather ignore in reference to Col. 1.16.
A Greek Grammar wrote: “ἄλλος [állos] is sometimes omitted where we would add ‘other.’” (Blass, Debrunner and Funk, Ibid, p. 160.)
This means that Trinitarians who endorse Christ as the equal of Jehovah are overlooking a common Greek practice of not using "other" when the context is already clear enough. Christ was never looked upon by Jews as the equal of Yahweh. It was later when Christendom's traditions began to set the trend away from Scriptural tradition that "Christians" confused Christ with God.
If we make judicious use of concordances we will find that many biblical expressions are freely and customarily rendered into modern languages by usually adding several words throughout to complete the sense in our language. The translator has the job to decide where, and where not, to do that. In the case of "other," it is a matter of exegesis. In both Hebrew and Greek, as well as many of our modern languages, the word "all" is not all-encompassing or all-exclusive. In English, for example, one could say of one who is serving in the office as "President" of a certain country, that he or she is more "aggressive" in its policies than "all" the "presidents" in his/her party. Would this statement rule out the politician himself as being one of the presidents? Of course, not! What is meant in the statement is that the President in consideration is more aggressive in his political agenda than "all" the [other] presidents before him. If I were to translate that to another language, I could as well add "other" to the statement to make it explicit in the receptor language without distorting the intended meaning. The thought of "other" is implied. The same applies to biblical languages.
Sometimes we also use "all" or "everyone" to exaggerate a statement: "Everyone in America drink sodas." Or: "All" the French people drink wine." That's an exaggeration, because not "all" or "everyone" in America drink sodas, but the majority do. Likewise, a majority of French people may drink wine, but not literally every person living within the French borders. And so on. The same principle applies to the biblical "all." "All" in the Bible is used frequently as a hyperbole. Three examples of usage:
1 Kings 10:23 (ESV), “Thus King Solomon excelled all [Hebrew: kōl; Greek (LXX): pántas] the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom.” We might as well translate: “Thus King Solomon excelled all the [other] kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom.” Solomon was himself a king.
Esther 2:17 (ESV), “The king [Ahasuerus] loved Esther more than all [Hebrew: kōl; Greek (LXX): pásas] the women.” We could translate: “The king [Ahasuerus] loved Esther more than all the other women.” Esther was a female.
Acts 2:4 (ESV) says: “And they were all [Hebrew: kulam' (kōl); Greek, pántes, UBS] filled with the Holy Spirit.” Was “all” of Jerusalem or Judea included in this ‘filling’? No, the "all" here applies to only those disciples who were present at the Jerusalem gathering.
Charles H. Spurgeon rightly observed: “...‘The whole world is gone after him.’ Did all the world go after Christ? ‘Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.’ Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? ‘Ye are of God, little children,’ and ‘the whole world lieth in the wicked one.’ Does ‘the whole world’ there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were ‘of God?’ The words ‘world’ and ‘all’ are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that ‘all’ means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile.” (Particular Redemption).
Okay then, the Greek word for "all" can include or exclude others within some contexts. What about Christ? Was he excluded by the "all" in Col 1.16? That's where interpretation comes in.
First-century Christians were not trinitarians. They were simply monotheists to their Jewish core. Thus, the Christian authors could not view Christ as the second member (Or: person) of a so-called "trinity." (1 Cor. 8:5,6) That language came after the 1st-century. Hence, there was no need at that point to make clarifying declarations in Scripture to the effect that Jesus was not the same individual as Yahweh, because Jews only believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Yahweh). They already believed that Yahweh was "the" Creator. What they needed to believe now was that Jesus was sent as God's representative to save the dying world. Jesus was the closest person to God, and thus endowed with divine authority and power -- fit to represent God in every way. (John 1.18; Col. 2.9; Hebrews 1.3) Jesus now holds a position so great in the Universe, that Paul had to mention that it was through Jesus that God made everything.
Hence, when the Jewish people saw Jesus, in a way it could be said that they were "seeing" God. (John 14.9) However, that did not make Jesus the same as the "Almighty" God, "the one true God" of Hebrew Writings. Many Bible readers tuned to the "Trinity" believe that Christ created "everything," excluding him from creation.
But the "all" or "everything" in Scripture has exceptions. Paul, the author of both Colossians and the letters to the Corinthians did not believe that Jesus was God Yahweh . He describes Jesus as being in subjection to God both in heaven and earth. He wrote that "God is the head of [the risen] Christ." (1 Cor. 11.3 ) And toward the end of his first letter to Gentile Christians, he endeavored to emphasize that Christ was above "all" things (pan'ta) in heaven and earth. Yet, it was at this point of argumentation, that Paul used a moment to define the Greek word pan'ta in the universal scheme. The Greek word for "all" did not mean Christ is above or equal to God, but that Christ himself had to submit to God to sum it all up to God's glory. (cf., Phil. 2.11)
In 1 Corinthians 15.27 Paul states according to a Jewish translation (CJB): “For ‘He put everything in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says that ‘everything’ has been subjected, obviously the word [pánta] does not include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah.”
Now, the question is: Does the principle expounded by Paul defining pan'ta ("all things") at 1 Cor. 15.27 apply to Col. 1.16? Apparently so, because he in Colossians spoke very highly of Christ to the point of nearly equating him to God, but never reached the point of placing Christ in first place: "God is the Father of Christ," he says. ‘God raised Christ from the dead.’ "Christ is seated at the right hand of God" he adds. And so on! Even when Paul addresses the subject of creation, he is plain at declaring that "Christ is the firstborn of all creation." (Col. 1.15) It was through Christ that God made the Universe. Observe how a Bible translator (J. B. Phillips) dealt with this verse:
“Now Christ is the visible expression of the invisible God. He was born before creation began, for it was through him that everything was made.” (The New Testament in Modern English, Revised Student Edition, 1972)
Similarly, the Good News Bible renders Col 1:16 this way:
“For through him [Christ] God created everything in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen things, including spiritual powers, lords, rulers, and authorities. God created the whole universe through him and for him.”
Therefore, those who think Trinitarians are right in this matter should revisit the letter to the Colossians to see if the letter specifically expresses anywhere, unequivocably, that Christ was eternal, uncreated. If Jesus is second after God, then the use of "other" in "all things" is justified in translation to clear things up in the present trinitarian-inclined world (within "Christians" that is.)
Scholar Jason BeDuhn in his book Truth in Translation, brought up some interesting questions about the addition of "other" to the NWT rendering ("all other things") in this regard:
“Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these four translations [NIV; NRSV; TEV (Today's English Version); and LB] is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the N[ew] W[orld Translation] is attacked for adding the innocuous ‘other’ in a way that clearly indicates its character as an addition of the translators. Why is that so? The reason is that many readers apparently want the passage to mean what the NIV and TEV try to make it mean. That is, they don't want to accept the obvious and clear sense of ‘first-born of creation’ as identifying Jesus as ‘of creation.’ ‘Other’ is obnoxious to them because it draws attention to the fact the Jesus is ‘of creation’ and so when Jesus acts with respect to ‘all things’ he is actually acting with respect to ‘all other things.’ But the NW is correct.” (p. 84)
BeDuhn adds: “So what exactly are objectors to ‘other’ arguing for as the meaning of the phrase ‘all things’? That Christ created himself (v. 16)? That Christ is before God and that God was made to exist by means of Christ (v. 17)? That Christ, too, needs to be reconciled to God (v. 20)? When we spell out what is denied by the use of ‘other’ we can see clearly how absurd the objection is.” (p. 85)
He goes on: “‘Other’ is implied in ‘all’ and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit. You can argue whether it is necessary or not to do this. But I think the objections that have been raised to it show that it is, in fact, necessary, because those who object want to negate the meaning of the phrase ‘firstborn of creation.’ If adding ‘other’ prevents this misreading of the Biblical text, then it is useful to have it there.” (p. 85)
-
2
John 1.1 and Colossians 1.16 - "all other things"
by Wonderment inthe nw translation and some of its unique renderings, like john 1.1- "a god," and colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.
the anger felt by detractors of the nwt rendering of john 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably when compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s.
it was the general feeling back then, that only the witnesses could come up with such ludicrous translations.
-
-
Wonderment
The NW Translation and some of its unique renderings, like John 1.1- "a god," and Colossians 1.16 - "all other things," have been consistently at the top of the most debated topics here in this forum and elsewhere from the beginning.
The anger felt by detractors of the NWT rendering of John 1.1 (a god) has diminished considerably when compared to the furious debates surrounding the verse that raged on during the 1950 thru 1970s. I remember very well those years being a JW back then, and the prevalent feeling people had of JWs being some sort of translation "lunatics" by their infamous bible renderings. It was the general feeling back then, that only the Witnesses could come up with such ludicrous translations. It was kind of "the talk of the town" in religious circles.
But a strange thing happened after the 1970s: Various scholars have come out publicly announcing that the rendering "a god" was a grammatically permissible literal rendering, even when they still held that the interpretation was wrong. Harner's study in 1973 on anarthrous nouns was greatly responsible for this change, convincingly taking the wind out of Colwell's argument of definiteness of such nouns. He was not alone. Even William Barclay who previously denounced JWs as ‘intellectually dishonest’ morons, admitted afterwards that the "a god" rendering was ‘a grammatical possibility’ from the Greek text, but an interpretation error. In top of that, various individuals have published articles on the internet showing how dozens of other translators have deviated from the traditional rendering ("the Word was God"), which according to scholar Murray J. Harris, "cannot stand without explanation." The sum of all these statements have somewhat diminished the heat and the quantity of the criticisms against the NWT reading "a god" at John 1:1. So I am not going to elaborate further on this text at this time.
Instead, I will look at another hot topic which seems to be more prevalent (in this forum) than is the scripture mentioned above. Is the one of Colossians 1.16 ("all other things"). Here's one scripture which clearly shows ‘the stupidity’ of the NW translators, or so is the claim. The NW translators added the word "other" to "all things" at Col. 1.16 to imply that Christ was created before everything else. The problem was aggravated with the NWT revision in 2013 which omitted the brackets, which until that year were shown printed in the verse. This of course hurts some ex-JWs who have adopted the majority view that the Trinity is a biblical teaching.I will start with the premise that the main objection here is likely to be the "trinity" doctrine. Trinitarians for the most part have no problem doing away with the divine name "Jehovah" in the Bible, and many show a clear aversion to the sound of the English name. Even when they insist that "Jehovah" is wrong, and "Yahweh" is more likely right, they use neither. Their hate for Jehovah's Witnesses is so great that it overshadows any faithful adherence they profess to the Hebrew original. Ex-JWs too have that inclination, it seems. Thus, one example mentioned here, removing God's name, is portrayed as not equal in badness as is adding "other" to Col 1.16. Adding to Scripture is not that bad either when mainstream translations do so. Various examples have been pointed out to members here. One example is adding the word "true" to "the true God" in the Hebrew portion of the Bible. If a JW does it (as in the NWT) it is "error." But when a Baptist scholar does it (like Watts), it is admissible. He has a Ph.D, right? Such inconsistency is not fairness to one of the parties. I don't hear much noise when others translators do exactly the same thing as the NWT does, but perhaps in different contexts. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the problem lies. It is not grammar the issue, it comes down to interpretation: "My religion is better than yours," seems to be the general mantra.
And so it is with the word "other." The addition of "other" at Col. 1.16 is recognized as "blatant error" by traditionalists. Let's look at some facts:
The word "other" is added by some translators as a personal choice to clear matters up in various scriptures. In another post, Exodus 18:11 was mentioned: Ex 18:11. This link ( http://biblehub.com/exodus/18-11.htm ) shows that four versions in the list added the word "other" to the hebrew expression "than all the gods" (mikkol-ha'elohim) when the biblical language was not explicit:
(To be continued... I hit the "Save" button by mistake too soon)
-
9
NWT 2013
by truthlover inthe old nwt contained a byline that indicated westcott and hort was used in the translation of this bible.
(they are not mentioned in the 2013 release) but you and i both know that their wordings in scripture remain in the new release.. if you check their background, you will find some serious issues with these translators which the society used.
has anyone googled wh for their spiritual qualifications to include them in the nwt??
-
-
Wonderment
TimDrake1914: If anything, I commend WT for consulting this highly respected work, but I fault them for ignoring some of the bigger questions that arise from the study of textual criticism of the Bible, such as the many contradictions in the Bible that they don't acknowledge. Instead they try to "explain" them away.
This is in line with how wonderful and privileged is "the faithful and discreet slave" from everyone else. They don't want to acknowledge that there are far too many instances of limited information given (if any) in many biblical contexts. Somehow, the WT people claim to have privileged information others don't. Yeah right! Many issues cannot be simply explained in a sentence.
-
32
Undeclared changes to the 2013 NWT
by Doug Mason inin the following from the 2013 edition of the nwt, the watchtower society indicates that when it released its initial 1950 edition, it considered the greek text provided by westcott and hort as its master text.
as a result of these additional masters, the wts made some undeclared changes to the 2013 nwt.
it does not list these changes or give any explanations.. greek text: in the late 19th century, scholars b. f. westcott and f.j.a.
-
-
Wonderment
Other rendering of Psalm 2.12: "Obey the Son completely, or he will be angry. Your way of life will lead to your death." (NIrV) By the way, others make the reference of "he" in the subtext to God, rather than the Son, like the NIrv and ISV do here.
careful: They [the NWT tranlators] are willing to change "Kiss the son, that He may not become incensed" to "Honor the son, or God will become indignant," but not provide a meaningful translation for "perish in the way." Doesn't that seem odd? In hundreds of other passages they opted for the renderings in translations like the NIV, NEB, and so on, so why not here?
You have made a valid observation. There is always a risk of making the translation verbose, as did the original NWT. Obviously, the translators made an effort to simplify the text, and to keep paraphrasings to a minimum in the new edition. Psalm 2.12 is an example of this. We the readers cannot always agree with the translator's choices as to what they decide to clarify or not. Frequently, it is a personal matter for a given clarification. That's why there are so many versions.
-
32
Undeclared changes to the 2013 NWT
by Doug Mason inin the following from the 2013 edition of the nwt, the watchtower society indicates that when it released its initial 1950 edition, it considered the greek text provided by westcott and hort as its master text.
as a result of these additional masters, the wts made some undeclared changes to the 2013 nwt.
it does not list these changes or give any explanations.. greek text: in the late 19th century, scholars b. f. westcott and f.j.a.
-
-
Wonderment
Bobcat:
"Another interesting change in the 2013 NWT:
(1 Corinthians 16:2 Old NWT) . . .Every first day of the week let each of YOU at his own house set something aside in store as he may be prospering, so that when I arrive collections will not take place then.
(1 Corinthians 16:2 rNWT) . . .On the first day of every week, each of you should set something aside according to his own means, so that collections will not take place when I arrive. . .
The bolded, underlined part in the old was removed in the new."
Apparently, the NW translator responsible for this verse attempted to clarify the Greek expression "each one of you beside himself let him be putting treasuring up... "
Interestingly, the Pulpit Commentary made this comment: "The Greek phrase implies that the laying up was done at home, but when the money was accumulated, it was doubtless brought to the assembly and handed over to the presbyters."
And A. T. Robertson wrote: "By himself, in his home." (Word Pictures in the New Testament)
Translator J. N. Darby reflected this same understanding by translating the verse thus: "On [the] first of [the] week let each of you put by at home, laying up [in] whatever [degree] he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come." (Underline added. Brackets his.)
It is amazing how Bible translators by personal whim choose to clarify certain portions of Scripture, but leave other obscure expressions untouched. Hard choices to be made, for sure. In this case, the Greek text does not explicitly say "at his own house," but it is implied, as indicated. Is this over-translation?
At any rate, the 2013 NWT edition did away with a lot of extra wording in some texts.
-
32
Undeclared changes to the 2013 NWT
by Doug Mason inin the following from the 2013 edition of the nwt, the watchtower society indicates that when it released its initial 1950 edition, it considered the greek text provided by westcott and hort as its master text.
as a result of these additional masters, the wts made some undeclared changes to the 2013 nwt.
it does not list these changes or give any explanations.. greek text: in the late 19th century, scholars b. f. westcott and f.j.a.
-
-
Wonderment
careful: "What does "perish from the way" mean? If they were looking to make the revision more intelligible, they missed something here!"
The problem here is that the Hebrew text itself is not explicit. It literally says:
"kiss Son lest he-is-angry and-you-perish way." The KJV and the NWT add "[from]" -- following suggestions from ancient versions as shown by Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
"and ye perish from the way; the Syriac version renders it ‘from his way’, the Son's way; and the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions ‘from the righteous way’; and the Arabic version ‘from the way of righteousness’; or ‘as to the way’, as others (m), the good way; all to one sense; meaning that way of righteousness, salvation and eternal life by Jesus Christ, which being missed by persons, they are eternally lost and undone: some render it ‘because of the way’ (n); that is, because of their sinful course of life; for the way of the ungodly shall perish itself, and therefore they that pursue it shall perish also: others render it ‘in the way’ (o); and then the sense is, lest they perish in the midst of their course of sin, in their own evil way, they: have chosen and delighted in, or, to use the words of Christ, ‘die in their sins’, John 8:21, and everlastingly perish; for this perishing is to be understood not of corporeal death, in which sense righteous men perish, but of everlasting destruction: or the word which is rendered ‘from the way’ may be translated ‘suddenly’ (p), ‘immediately’, or ‘straightway’, and our English word ‘directly’ is almost the same; and so may design the swift and sudden destruction of such persons who provoke the Son to wrath and anger; which sense is confirmed by what follows."
Pulpit Commentary simply says:
"‘And ye perish from the way; or, as to the way.’ To anger the Son is to bring destruction on our ‘way,’ or course in life." -
-
-
Wonderment
Something to consider:
http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/five-reasons-why-ill-never-get-a-flu-shot-01122013
-
44
New Generation Understanding
by momzcrazy inhello everyone, i am new here and newly freed from the snare of wtbs.
my sister, also newly freed, said our mom told her at the annual meeting there was a new "understanding" on the generation confusion.
it is now the annointed that will not pass away.. has anyone else heard this?
-
-
Wonderment
WT leaders have no clue how to deal with embarrassing blunders. It takes "humility" to acknowledge one made a mistake. This is what happens when the "reputation" of a group of people is placed above the standards of truth. -
63
Why does the Watchtower leadership slap its own defenders in the face?
by slimboyfat intake the case of rolf furuli.
i don't think there has been a specific thread on the hebrew verbs u-turn in the nwt, and how the society has responded to the work of perhaps their brightest and ablest defender in their history.
so here goes.. rolf furuli has defended jws on multiple fronts in many different settings, on issues ranging from chronology, mental health, doctrines, bible translation and the blood issue.
-
-
Wonderment
"What a shameful article [http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009814] from the so-called Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Is there any other "Bible" society in existence that actively discourages people from learning Bible languages? Truly astonishing."
Good question Slim!
In tone with this, the WT Society wrote some time ago that those who volunteered for translation work of the NWT into other languages didn't need to know the original languages. It is clear from this statement that the Society does not want its members engaging in learning the biblical languages. They want their followers to think that only they have the keys to explaining biblical truths, very much like the Catholic clergymen of the 15 through the 17th century were insisting in preaching in Latin to discourage new ongoing attempts into biblical translation work of other advancing languages.
Furthermore, the WTS want its Bible translation teams to focus on the English text of the NWT as the main base for translation instead of having them getting involved in the many language subtleties encountered in this type of work, and exposing them to the danger of worldly biblical criticisms. So their apparent attitude is this:
We need new volunteers with experience in the translation field, willing to tackle Bible translation into other languages. If you already know Hebrew or Greek, great, but if you don't, that's fine also. We can still use you. We'll equip you with the necessary tools to get the job done. As for the rest of you uneducated congregation publishers, forget it, no need to learn biblical languages. We got all your spiritual bases covered by our wonderful publications published by the hard-working "faithful and discreet slave." Can't get better than that! In fact, you don't need to pray to Jesus at all as the way to God, you got "mother" right here to mediate between you and God! Not only that, you can set the "spirit" of God aside, because we, your leaders and faithful stewards, will do all the dirty work for you. We are truly blessed!