Posts by Wonderment

49

A deeper examination of The New World Translation

by Terry in

shorturl.at/ouakr.

Wonderment

Hey guys, don't be so hard on scholar. A theological viewpoint cannot be solved solely on a Ph.D.

For instance, the NASB, a translation well-respected among Evangelicals presents Jesus at John 8.58 saying, "I am." On the other hand, James Moffatt translates these very words as, "I have been." No one will dispute the academical background of either the NASB Committee, or Moffatt's. The translators of both have Ph. D degrees. Who is right?

Look at the clause in Jn 8.58 again: "BEFORE Abraham was born, I am." Who of us would say in proper English, "Before my son was born, I study parenting."

Interestingly, the NASB early versions had a marginal note for the text conceding that "I have been" was a valid rendering. Did the scholar in the video reveal this? Why did he hide this information from his viewers? It is not only Moffatt who saw a problem in the traditional translation of this verse. More recently, The Eastern / Greek Orthodox New Testament rendered this verse as "I am." The translator believes in the Trinity, so he sets out to make a connection between Jn. 8.58 and Isaiah 41.4 & 46.4. He believes that the name YHWH is applied to Jesus in various places. Nevertheless, he concludes his footnote with these words:

"Apart from these theological considerations, this construction is also fairly idiomatic (John 14:9; 15:27) and could be properly translated as ‘I have been [in existence] before Abraham was [even] born.’ -- See also 9:9 and compare with Micah 5:2," (Brackets his. Emphasis mine.)

We can see then, that theology drove this translator to render the verse as "I am," since he himself acknowledged that there in the text is the presence of an idiomatic clause... a present tense used with a past expression. Other translators have done the same thing here. Not disclosing this fact is dishonest.

The same thing can be said of the other points of discussion in the video. It is up to us to decide which interpretation makes more sense. I respect both scholar, and the guy of the video. But the video scholar kept a lot of things to himself.

99

Cite one scripture in the N.T. that chargers Christians to be witnesses of / for Jehovah.....Not one.using K.I ./ WTB&TS

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

i think the wtb&ts publication titled "the kingdom interlinear of the christian greek scriptures" speaks for itself.. the word for word translation of the greek into english.. that publication does not even contain the name or word jehovah either in hebrew letters or greek letters anywhere in the word for word texts.. their is not one scripture in the n.t.

where christians ,followers of jesus christ are instructed to be witnesses of jehovah ,however there are something like twenty scriptures that explicitly state followers of jesus christ are to be witnesses of, for, and about jesus...

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7: "I would say that the focus of the New Testament is essentially on Jesus Christ."

Essentially, yes, but there are numerous NT statements (as SBF indicated) that would never make sense unless we accept the Jewish background pointing to the Messiah. These point to Jesus being sent by the almighty Jewish God to save the world. (John 3.16) Jesus was to become the "mediator" between God and humankind, not to replace God. (1 Tim. 2.5) Even when Jesus birth was announced, the message was: "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David." (Luke 1.32, ESV) Although Jesus was bound to receive the utmost attention, he still would not be "the Most High." People of the nations would follow his steps in the name of the Father. All this focus on Jesus Christ happened to the ultimate glory of his Father. (Phl. 2.11)

Vanderhoven7: "I believe that not only is the New Testament Christocentric, but so is the Old Testament."

Sorry, I can not agree with this statement. A few hundred prophecies in the OT pointing to Jesus as the world savior, the Messiah, sent by God, does not result in him receiving more importance than YHWH, whose name appears nearly 7.000 times. (Ps. 83.18) "The nations shall know that I am Jehovah"... over 60x in Ezequiel alone. In the book of Psalms, thousands of references lead us to the almighty God, Jehovah. Christ is addressed in the book prophetically dozens of times, compared to the rest pointing to the universal Father.

Vanderhoven 7: It is not a matter of where we put the emphasis...but where God puts the emphasis.

One thing that people often overlook is that the Jewish people ALREADY were worshipers of God YHWH. They did not need convincing in NT times that God the Father was the Almighty. They were plenty aware of that. But what was the thing missing from the Jewish culture? Assimilating Jesus Christ in their worship schedules under the new arrangement. That's what! Jews of the 1st century did not accept Jesus as their Christ because they were too busy looking for someone to free them from the claws of the Roman empire. Jesus did not solve their problem right away. Actually, Jesus showed no interest in Roman politics. He only talked about God's promises though Him into the FUTURE. So they concluded that Jesus was not their Messiah.

Out of keeping with God's promise to Abraham, there was an urgent need for Jews to open their minds and souls so they could now appreciate what God was doing for them by means of Jesus Christ. If they failed to accept Jesus as God's agent and savior in this new arrangement, they were doomed for destruction. So God put their Jewish lives on the pendant of Jesus' sacrifice. The emphasis was now to bring out the importance to embrace Jesus Christ, and doing so would please the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Repetition was necessary, since Jews were not accustomed to worship their God through a mediator. (John 14.6) In all, we need to look at the New Testament, not through later trinitarian philosophy, but through the OT prophecies leading to God's envoy to save the world.

99

Cite one scripture in the N.T. that chargers Christians to be witnesses of / for Jehovah.....Not one.using K.I ./ WTB&TS

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

i think the wtb&ts publication titled "the kingdom interlinear of the christian greek scriptures" speaks for itself.. the word for word translation of the greek into english.. that publication does not even contain the name or word jehovah either in hebrew letters or greek letters anywhere in the word for word texts.. their is not one scripture in the n.t.

where christians ,followers of jesus christ are instructed to be witnesses of jehovah ,however there are something like twenty scriptures that explicitly state followers of jesus christ are to be witnesses of, for, and about jesus...

Wonderment

The name of God appears nearly 7.000 times in the Hebrew canon. The name of Jesus appears much less than that in the NT. So, numerically, the name of God is of no less importance than the name of Jesus.

Tradition has it that because the exact pronunciation of the name of God (YHWH) is unknown, the name has lost its original importance within the Jewish world. The name of Jesus has taken over the Hebrew tetragramaton in relevance, so it seems.

Now, have you ever wondered if we can be certain how Jesus' name was pronounced 2.000 years ago? I don't think we can say with certainty how Jesus' name was pronounced in Ancient Greek, even though the Greek text SHOWS the vowels used in his name originally. There is even uncertainty how those vowels were originally accented.

Modern Greek is pronounced somewhat differently than Ancient Greek, which means that Greek Christians today may pronounce Jesus' name not EXACTLY as ancients did. Greeks talk about the "reconstruction" of Attic Greek (The Reuchlinian and Erasmian efforts come to mind).

Further, Christians of Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and a host of other countries don't even bother to do a search in order to ascertain the original pronunciation of Jesus' name. If they did, they will find, that everybody pronounces Jesus' name differently. In fact it is also a futile effort to make everyone pronounce the Hebrew name for Jesus for the majority of Christians today, even if we were certain of the 1st Century Hebrew pronunciation.

What this simply means is that all this NOISE about whether YHWH stands for Jehovah, Yahweh, IAOE, etc. is nonsensical. You will grow gray hairs before you find the true pronunciation of YHWH, or even Jesus name. Oh, you may say, "Wait, we have an idea of how Jesus' name was pronounced because vowels were used in the name."

It does not matter. In the real world, EVERYONE pronounces the name of Jehovah, Jesus and a host of other biblical names differently. If salvation depended on this, none of us had a chance.

What is important is to use the most common pronunciation for these names in our language, exactly as Bible translator Steven T. Byington stated in the Foreword of his version. We may lose favor before Jehovah or Jesus if we fail to acknowledge that Jesus is the way to the Father. (John 14.6) Accepting Jesus is not enough. We have to accept his Father equally as well. (John 5.23) Interestingly, almost every religion gets the simple message of John 3.16 wrong. Some worship only Jehovah and ignore Jesus in their lives. Others focus entirely on Jesus, and dismiss the fact that Jesus said that his Father was GREATER than him. And that his Father was his God. (John 20.17) As stated by a few others, by accepting the NT invitation for Christians to become Jesus' Witnesses, we become Witnesses of Jesus' Father as well. One cannot separate one thing from the other. It was the Father who sent Jesus, his Son, to do the Father's wil as his representative. This concept is repeated time and again throughout the Gospel of John, yet some surfers here seem to ignore this altogether.

Anything less or more is downright lack of basic factual knowledge of language differences, or hypocrisy.

Take your pick!

37

How Long Did It Take To Finally Leave The Organization Once You Realized It Was Really Not The Truth?

by minimus in

jw
friends

it actually took me a few years to finally leave the organization so i was mentally out for a while before i simply stopped all meetings altogether.. how long did it take you to finally make the break?

?.

Wonderment

blondie: "I left the same day and never went back. Right in the middle of the first day of a circuit assembly. No meetings, assemblies, conventions, memorials, weddings, receptions, funerals, visitation, special events, etc. I have never regretted it. That was 20 years ago."

Was there any particular issue that affected you the most right before your exit?

99

Cite one scripture in the N.T. that chargers Christians to be witnesses of / for Jehovah.....Not one.using K.I ./ WTB&TS

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

i think the wtb&ts publication titled "the kingdom interlinear of the christian greek scriptures" speaks for itself.. the word for word translation of the greek into english.. that publication does not even contain the name or word jehovah either in hebrew letters or greek letters anywhere in the word for word texts.. their is not one scripture in the n.t.

where christians ,followers of jesus christ are instructed to be witnesses of jehovah ,however there are something like twenty scriptures that explicitly state followers of jesus christ are to be witnesses of, for, and about jesus...

Wonderment

The tendency for centuries has been to read Scriptures through modern trinitarian spectacles. Why bring this up?

Well, most people see Christ being emphasized throughout the New Testament, including those Scriptures which show his followers were to be his Witnesses. There is no denying that. Jehovah's Witnesses should be made aware of this.

On the other hand, the Christian Scriptures are a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures, not a replacement of it.

The Old Testament extolled the name of "Jehovah" over all others, and this was fitting under the Jewish concept. Nonetheless, the OT mentioned prophecies that in due time there would be a ‘Sent One’ from God to bring prosperity to all of earth's inhabitants, such as this one in Ge. 22:18. "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth
will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’” Hundreds of such prophecies made their way into Scriptures foretelling of the time where ‘the Savior of the world’ would show up. After nearly two thousand years after God's promise to Abraham, the Messiah thus appeared. The Jewish people were monotheists, and were accustomed for centuries to the practice of worshiping the one God of the universe, YHWH.

Would it be easy for them to now incorporate Jesus the Messiah in their lives? Not really. The Jews had difficulty dropping the old customs of worship in a physical temple, circumcision, Jewish feasts, the Sabbath, and many other Jewish practices. The book of Romans, Galatians. Ephesians, Hebrews, etc. give testimony to this fact.

Hence, it was necessary to repeat time and again how important was Christ now in their lives. Salvation depended upon such acceptance. No easy task for traditional Jews. Jesus thus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Since the Trinity became established in people's mind, traditional believers ignore the Father, and focus almost entirely on the Son. The many differences found in hundreds of manuscripts reveal the struggle people of that time had between the old Jewish belief of the Father as God, and the philosophical trinitarian belief (usually with Jesus at the top in relevance) of later times.

Thus, it was expected that Christ would receive the spotlight for God's followers. John 3.16 shows that belief in Christ is essential for a Christian. The thing is that the Father was never far away when Christ was to be honored. This is so because the Son was sent as God's representative. The Son was never to replace the Father altogether. The God and Jesus worship pattern was now the new norm. The Jews were already ‘Jehovah's witnesses’ in a sense (not in the WT sense), but now they needed to be ‘Jesus' witnesses’ (but not in the trinitarian sense). To reject Jesus is to reject his Father who sent him.

John chapter eight shows that Jesus was fully dependent on the Father. A Christian has to accept and honor both the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, equally within the new Christian concept. The Trinity didn't help the people at all, it made matters worse by pushing Greek concepts within the Christian's mold of thinking.

52

Ruin those Ruining th Earth

by peacefulpete in

it has been mentioned before but since we have been discussing environmental issues on another thread, i thought it might be timely to discuss rev 11:18 which has recently become a popular text for those christians concerned about environmental threats of pollution and climate change.

is this passage being interpreted correctly?

did the writer somehow anticipate the modern environmental situation, or did he intend something more in keeping with the bible's general concerns of morality and sin?.

Wonderment

Matijevic: "About rev 11:18 διαφθείραι=aorist infinitive active, means past tense!"

Please recheck your favorite resource for this statement.

In .... infinitives... the aorist does not tell us the time at which the action happened." (Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek, p. 61. Bold letters added. )

Thus, the context must decide translation. The Greek-English Interlinear ESV New Testament gives the following gloss for διαφθείραι: "to destroy thoroughly."

16

New World Translation - Variants

by Wonderment in

new world translation - variantstentative translations below.

you native language experts can probably do better than me.

if so, help yourself.. matthew 24.3, english edition: “what will be the sign of... the conclusion of the system of things?”french, 1987: “quel sera le signe de… la conclusion du système de choses” (...the system of things)french revised: “quel sera le signe de… la période finale du monde?” (…the final period of the world)german revised: “und den abschluss des weltsystems erkennen?” (the conclusion of the world system)spanish revised: “qué señal habrá... de la conclusión del sistema?” (…conclusion of the system)matthew 24.45, "the faithful and discreet slave":italian revised: “lo schiavo fedele e saggio” = “the faithful and wise slave”portuguese revised: “o escravo fiel e prudente” = “the faithful and prudent slave”spanish revised, “el esclavo fiel y prudente” = “the faithful and prudent slave”matthew 25.46,(english edition), “cutting-off” contrasted with “everlasting life” in the same verse.

Wonderment

First, I want to thank Doug Mason for providing photocopies of the NWT Danish and Swedish editions where they read "for Babylon" at Jeremiah 29.10.

Secondly, I want to also thank Earnest for his research on differences between the WH and NA28 Greek Text editions, particularly in Matthew. I noticed most of these changes are not of doctrinal import.

Hence, it would be interesting to determine the actual differences between the WH, NA28 and the Received Text, which I suspect we will find more doctrinally related differences, or discrepancies between the use of Jesus, God, Lord, Christ, etc., throughout the New Testament.

16

New World Translation - Variants

by Wonderment in

new world translation - variantstentative translations below.

you native language experts can probably do better than me.

if so, help yourself.. matthew 24.3, english edition: “what will be the sign of... the conclusion of the system of things?”french, 1987: “quel sera le signe de… la conclusion du système de choses” (...the system of things)french revised: “quel sera le signe de… la période finale du monde?” (…the final period of the world)german revised: “und den abschluss des weltsystems erkennen?” (the conclusion of the world system)spanish revised: “qué señal habrá... de la conclusión del sistema?” (…conclusion of the system)matthew 24.45, "the faithful and discreet slave":italian revised: “lo schiavo fedele e saggio” = “the faithful and wise slave”portuguese revised: “o escravo fiel e prudente” = “the faithful and prudent slave”spanish revised, “el esclavo fiel y prudente” = “the faithful and prudent slave”matthew 25.46,(english edition), “cutting-off” contrasted with “everlasting life” in the same verse.

Wonderment

BluesBrother:
I recall hearing an audio from one of Ray Franz's associates , a Chris Sanches who had been involved in the original translation of The NWT into Spanish. He maintained that the [Foreword] contained "a lie", when it said this Bible has been translated from the original languages. In fact it was taken from the English NWT of the time.

This is what the 1963 Spanish New Testament of the Watchtower claimed in its inside title page: "The Christian Greek Scriptures were "translated from the English version of 1961, but faithfully consulting the ancient Greek text."

Also, I have compared the Spanish WT NT in numerous places with both the English and the Greek Text, and I find that overall they followed the English version faithfully as they claimed. However, occasionally, they chose to deviate from the English version in favor of the Greek Text reading. In all, I believe Chris Sanchez did not give all the details. This does not necessarily mean that he lied, but it is possible that some unnamed editor went over the translated New Testament and made some changes to it. This is something they have also claimed, by the way.

16

New World Translation - Variants

by Wonderment in

new world translation - variantstentative translations below.

you native language experts can probably do better than me.

if so, help yourself.. matthew 24.3, english edition: “what will be the sign of... the conclusion of the system of things?”french, 1987: “quel sera le signe de… la conclusion du système de choses” (...the system of things)french revised: “quel sera le signe de… la période finale du monde?” (…the final period of the world)german revised: “und den abschluss des weltsystems erkennen?” (the conclusion of the world system)spanish revised: “qué señal habrá... de la conclusión del sistema?” (…conclusion of the system)matthew 24.45, "the faithful and discreet slave":italian revised: “lo schiavo fedele e saggio” = “the faithful and wise slave”portuguese revised: “o escravo fiel e prudente” = “the faithful and prudent slave”spanish revised, “el esclavo fiel y prudente” = “the faithful and prudent slave”matthew 25.46,(english edition), “cutting-off” contrasted with “everlasting life” in the same verse.

Wonderment

slimboyfat: I wonder if the other languages have followed (or preceded) English in getting rid of “impaled” and restoring “elders” instead of “older men”. Have they eliminated “mentally diseased” as well?

Mark 15.13, 1951 Edition, “Impale him!” > (Footnote: “Or, Fasten(ed) on a stake or pole.”)
2013 Edition: “To the stake with him!”
Modern Greek, 1993 & 2018: “Κρέμασέ τον στο ξύλο!” = “Hang him on the wood”

French, 1987: “Attache-le sur un poteau!” = “Fix [attach] him to a post”
French, 2018: “Au poteau!” = “To the pole [post]!”
German, 1986 & 2018: “An den Pfahl mit ihm!” = “To the stake with him!”
Italian, 1987 & 2017: “Al palo!” = “To the pole!”
Portuguese, 1986 & 2015: “Para a estaca com ele!” = “To the stake with him!”
Spanish, 1963 & 2019: “¡Al madero con él!” = “To the stake with him!”

1 Timothy 6.4, NWT 1951: “mentally diseased.” 2013 Edition: “obsessed.”
French, 2018: “passion maladive” = “unhealthy passion”
German, 1986: “geistig krank” = “mentally ill [deseased]”
German 2018: “besessen” = “obsessed”
Modern Greek, 1997: “ασθενεί διανοητικά” = “mentally ill [deseased]”
Modern Greek 2017: “εμμονή” = “obsessed”
Italian, 1987: “mentalmente malato” = “mentally ill”
Italian, 2017: “ossessionato” = “obsessed”
Portuguese, 1986: “mania” = “mania [craze, habit]”
Portuguese 2015: “obcecado” = “obsessed”
Spanish, 1963: “mentalmente enfermo” = “mentally diseased”
Spanish, 2019: “obsesionado” = “obsessed”

Acts 15.4, NWT 1951: “the older men [Greek, presbytéron].” 2013 Edition: “the elders.”
French, 1987 & 2018: “et les anciens” = “and the elders”
German, 1986: “und den älteren Männern” = “an the older men”
German, 2018: “und den Ältesten” = “and the elders”
Greek, 1997 & 2017: “και οι πρεσβύτεροι” = “and the elders”
Italian, 1987 & 2017: “gli anziani” = “the elders”
Portuguese, 1986 & 2015: “anciãos” = “the elders”
Spanish, 1963: “los hombres de mayor edad” = “the older men”
Spanish, 2019: “los ancianos” = “the elders”

69

Don't count on witnessing Watchtower's demise anytime soon.

by Roger Kirkpatrick in

jw
friends

the fact that there are pomi ex-jws who have been disfellowshiped or inactive for years who still live in constant fear of armageddon indicates that watchtower will manage to exist in one way or another for years, if not decades, to come.

watchtower, like all other religious cults, operate on the premise that "you can fool some of the people all of the time...and that's enough!

".

Wonderment

ScenicViewer:

The name of the book by Robert H. Countess: The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (2nd. ed. 1987, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.). This book is critical of the NWT. The discussion of the divine name is a chapter of the book or so.