Posts by Wonderment

7

Books-of-Titus-and-Philemon-Study-Edition-Now-Available-Online

by Wonderment in

https://www.jw.org/en/whats-new/books-of-titus-and-philemon-study-edition-now-available-online/.

Wonderment

https://www.jw.org/en/whats-new/Books-of-Titus-and-Philemon-Study-Edition-Now-Available-Online/

37

114,000, Literal, or Symbolic?

by Wonderment in

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?

45

which Translation Now?

by enoughisenough in

for those of you who still respect the bible, which translation/s are you using now?

why?.

Wonderment

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.

45

which Translation Now?

by enoughisenough in

for those of you who still respect the bible, which translation/s are you using now?

why?.

Wonderment

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.

45

which Translation Now?

by enoughisenough in

for those of you who still respect the bible, which translation/s are you using now?

why?.

Wonderment

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.

Book Summary

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.

Quote: About the Book

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.

Perceive what God is saying in language that’s easy to understand
Discover the significance of each passage with helpful expansions in the text
Comprehend full meaning with alternative, literal, and traditional wordings
Understand the Bible’s culture and setting with descriptive comments where needed
Compare scripture with scripture using key cross-references
Add your own expansions and observations in wide margins on every page. - End of Quote.
See Link below:
https://preview.aer.io/The_Expanded_Bible-MTY0NTc0?social=1&retail=1&emailcap=0&imprint=thomasnelson

45

which Translation Now?

by enoughisenough in

for those of you who still respect the bible, which translation/s are you using now?

why?.

Wonderment

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.

75

Is the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses REALLY the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matt. 24:45-47?

by Roger Kirkpatrick in

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.

Wonderment

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.

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Wonderment

Disillusioned JW:

First, I will present a brief variety of versions of the Isaiah 9:6 expression of "Wonderful Counselor" (NWT 1984, "And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Bold letters are mine):

Byington: "and he is named Wonder-Counselor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace,"

LXX, “The Angel of Grand Counsel”

Syriac Peshitta, “Wonder and Counselor.”

The Chaldee, "The God of wonderful counsel"

JPS, 1917: And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom".

Tanakh (v5, 1988): "He has been named 'The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal

Father, a peaceable ruler'--"

On Isaiah 9.6, scholars are not in agreement on the number of names/titles assigned to the born child in question, in particular, where the first title is involved: the Wonderful-Counselor one - it showing the greatest divergency.

Some believe that 4 names or titles should comprise the description of "the child," not five (Wonderful Counserlor as one title, not two). Here is a sample:

The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition, Barker & Kohlenberger III): "The KJV has a comma after 'Wonderful,' but it seems likely that the prophet intends us to understand that the child has four names, not five."

The Believer's Study Bible: "'Wonderful, Counselor' is actually one name instead of two."

A sample of those who think we should have 5 names in Is 9.6:

Pulpit Commentary: "Wonderful, Counselor. It has been proposed to unite these two expressions and translate, "Wondrous Counselor" (compare "wonderful in counsel," Isaiah 28:29). But Dr. Kay is probably right in saying that, if this had been the meaning, it would have been expressed differently. Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Delitzsch, and Vance Smith agree with Dr. Kay in taking the words separately."

TCBL: "The names given indicate his essential characteristics. 'Wonderful' and 'Counselor' are not joined by ancient Hebrew scholars."

Why the divergency?

The next two reference works explain it very well:

Cambridge Bible: "Wonderful, Counseller] Since each of the other names is compounded of two words, these expressions are also to be taken together as forming a single designation—Wonder-Counseller. The construction is either construct followed by genitive—“a wonder of a Counseller” (cf. Genesis 16:12), or acc. governed by participle—“one who counsels wonderful things.” Cf. “wonderful in counsel” (of Jehovah) in ch. Isaiah 28:29. On counsel as the function of a king, see Micah 4:9."

NET Bible: Or “Extraordinary Strategist,” “a wonder of a counselor,” or “one who plans a miraculous thing” (HALOT 928 s.v. פֶּלֶא). Some have seen two titles here (“Wonderful” and “Counselor,” cf. KJV, ASV). However, the pattern of the following three titles (each contains two elements) and the use of the roots פָּלַא (palaʾ) and יָעַץ (yaʿats) together in Isa 25:1 (cf. כִּי עָשִׂיתָ פֶּלֶא עֵצוֹת מֵרָחוֹק אֱמוּנָה אֹמֶן) and 28:29 (cf. הִפְלִיא עֵצָה) suggest otherwise. The term יוֹעֵץ (yoʿets) could be taken as appositional (genitive or otherwise) of species (“a wonder, i.e., a wonder as a counselor,” cf. NAB “Wonder-Counselor”) or as a substantival participle for which פָּלַא provides the direct object (“one who counsels wonders”). יוֹעֵץ is used as a royal title elsewhere (cf. Mic 4:9). Here it probably refers to the king’s ability to devise military strategy, as suggested by the context (cf. vv. 3-4 and the following title אֵל גִּבּוֹר, ʾel gibbor)."

On Judges 14:2,3, you compared the reading of Isaac Leeser's Translation of these two verses with those of the NWT.

Leeser: [v.2] And he went up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnathah of the daughters of the Philistines; and now take her to me for wife.

p, li { white-space: pre-wrap[v.3] Then said unto him his father and his mother, Is there not among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, a woman, that thou art going to take a wife from the Philistines, the uncircumcised? And Samson said unto his father, This one take for me; for she pleaseth me well.

NWT 1984: " [v.2] So he went up and told his father and his mother and said: “There is a woman that I have seen in Timʹnah of the daughters of the Phi·lisʹtines, and now get her for me as a wife.” [v.3] But his father and his mother said to him: “Is there not among the daughters of your brothers and among all my people a woman, so that you are going to take a wife from the uncircumcised Phi·lisʹtines?” Still Samson said to his father: “Get just her for me [1953 ed., Her get for me], because she is the one just right in my eyes.”

NWT 2013 (final part of v.3): But Samson said to his father: “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.”

I don't think 'infringement of a copyright' applies here, since it is common practice for translators to duplicate or rehash phrasing from previous translations. There is, however, sufficient grounds at times for a translator to come up with an alternate reading to fit prose, context or grammar requirements.

For instance, in verse two, in the Hebrew, a conjunctive waw/adverb (and now) and a verb (get) precede the direct object marker (her), whereas in verse 3, the direct object "her" is before the verb. Doing so in the later (v.3) is surely more emphatic than the previous wording in v. 2. Also, the Hebrew word for "she" needs more decided stress in the reading. Of course, this is not readily observable in traditional versions when they read: "Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well." (KJV)

Now, let's place the NWT 1953 version in contrast with the KJV: "Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes." "Her" is placed first in the declaration, thus being made prominent. Samson didn't want another woman from among 'their people' as his parents had requested. In Samson's eyes, it had to be "her." She must have been a very beautiful or delightful woman! And the "she" in the second phrase is given its rightful stress...she is the one.

The translator was obviously aware of this construction. This may explain why Robert Alter in his translation did the same thing in the first part of the declaration, but failed to do so on the later. As to why Leeser translated, "This one take for me," I'm not sure, but he may have noted the presence in v. 3 of the imperative verb "get" in the masculine singular in the Hebrew - in combination with the "her" in the feminine singular. (There is no neuter gender in Hebrew. Inanimate things and abstract ideas are either masculine or feminine.) Or Leeser perhaps felt that having "this one" in the narrative is more emphatic than just saying "her." I am inclined to think that this last account is the more plausible one.

I hope you may find this information helpful to you.

16

A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment in

a look at robert alter’s translation: the hebrew biblethree volumes labeled as, "the five books of moses"; "the writings"; and "prophets.

"verse numbers appear in the margins.

my take: some view this as a plus, since this allows for continuous, undistracted reading.

Wonderment

Disilllusioned JW:

I just noticed your message, since I usually don't check on this forum daily.

First of all, I should mention I have no Jewish background (per your suggestion), so I cannot offer you the Hebrew expertise or perspective you may be seeking from a Jewish national.

That said, I will briefly answer one of your questions.

"...when I read certain passages of the OT, especially when I compare Jewish translations of certain passages with Christian translations of the same passages I get the impression that the biblical Hebrew language is less precise and more ambiguous than Greek and English."

"I also get the idea biblical Hebrew does not have a word which means 'of' and the meaning has to be inferred by the context. Are these impressions of mine correct?"

Your assumption on the first statement sounds correct.

On the second one, you are right in concluding that biblical Hebrew does not have a word which means "of." Besides the usual consideration of context in any given narrative, it is also advantageous to consider the grammatical angle when there is a possessive relationship expressed between two or more nouns.

I have seen a number of lists of Hebrew prepositions from various sources, and the "of" is absent among them. In contrast, Modern Hebrew does have "shel" used as an equivalent for "of," but biblical Hebrew does not."

In the literal Hebrew statement (king the land), the construct chain is formed by linking two nouns, that is, the first noun "king" is called the "construct noun" and the second noun (the land) is called the "absolute noun." We thus read this as definite, by the presence of the article in the absolute: "(the) king of the land." Alternatively, these are often called the construct state and the absolute state. It should be stated that they can be indefinite if the context and a grammatical indicator dictates so.

This is how Hebrew expresses the “of” (possessive) relationship between two nouns. The example you provided illustrates this as well. This may remind us of the Greek genitive construction too.

Hopefully, I will address the other questions on Is 9.6 and Jg 14.3 soon.

72

20 Things I Don't Understand about Jehovah's Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

i don’t understand how jehovah’s witnesses can rightly claim:.

that less than 150,000 faithful christians existed prior to the 20th century....when allegedly millions were martyred during the first 3 centuries of the common era alone.

unique ability to interpret scripture...when interpretation of prophecy has been 100% wrong for over 130 years.. .

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7,

My friend, I will like to make a proposal to you. You obviously put in quite a bit of effort and time to bring up old quotes from WT publications, many which clearly show how some humans in the name of religion can end up making 'an ass of themselves' (an expression heard from the mouths of WT leaders).

My proposal is as follows:

Since you are good at doing this, what about doing for us a '2 Column List' of WT statements from the past compared to the "present truth," a sort of "Before" & "Now." Such a display can be helpful for future reference, and may help others see for themselves what they are facing from this high-control group. There is no need to do it right away, but at your own time and convenience.

What do you say?