here's how this verse should read: .
take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
aqwsed12345
The problem, as I see it is that in this verse we have three articles in the Genitive case rendered as 'of the God or Lord' depending on various textual witnesses, 'the blood' and 'of the own'.Thus, in the final analysis, it is theology alone that is the decisive factor.
This is recognized by the Analysis of the Greek New Testament by Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, 1981, p.423, which admits "for doctrinal reasons some would translate of one who was his own.
scholar JW
here's how this verse should read: .
take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
aqwsed12345
Can you provide your translation of Acts 20:28 or nominate which translation of this verse is the most accurate? You seem to favour the following: "The church of God which he purchased with his own blood"
Similarly, the NWT Reference Edition, 1984 renders the latter part of the verse: "the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].This is a literal rendering of the Greek text which in the NWT Kingdom Interlinear, 1969, 1984 renders it thus; "the ecclesia of the God which he reserved for self through the blood of the own (one)".
Notice the definite article 'the' before 'blood' which in your translation is omitted, rendered alternatively as a possessive 'his own blood'?
scholar JW
here's how this verse should read: .
take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
aqwsed12345
Thank you for your opinion on the translation of this most controversial verse. There clearly remains differing views as to the meaning of this verse and no doubt theological views of the translator are dominant thus no doubt there remains much future discussion.
No doubt the forthcoming WBC on Acts by Steve Walton will shed further light on this subject as this commentary series draws upon a wide breadth of scholarship illuminated by extensive bibliographies common to the series.
scholar JW
the watchtower translates this verse like this: .
but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.
Sea Breeze
FYI
The answer to your question is simply explained in the marginal or reference notes in the brilliant and superlative NWT:
God is your throne forever: Jehovah God is Jesus’ throne in the sense that Jehovah is the Source of Jesus’ royal office or authority. Jehovah gave his Son “rulership, honor, and a kingdom.” (Da 7:13, 14; Lu 1:32) At Heb 1:8, 9, Paul quotes Ps 45:6, 7. The Greek text allows for the rendering found in many translations: “Your throne, O God, is forever.” However, there are good reasons to render it as in the New World Translation (and some other translations): “God is your throne forever.” For instance, the context at Heb 1:9 says, “God, your God, anointed you,” showing that the one addressed at Heb 1:8 (or at Ps 45:6) is, not Almighty God, but one of his worshippers. In addition, Ps 45:6, 7 was originally addressed, not to God himself, but to a human king of Israel who was appointed by God. As a prophecy, then, it likewise pointed to a great King whom God appointed—the Messiah.
scholar JW
here's how this verse should read: .
take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
Seabreeze
For your information as discussed in the brilliant NWT Study Edition Matthew-Acts;
with the blood of his own Son: Lit., “through the blood of the own (one).” Grammatically, the Greek expression could be translated “with the blood of his own” or “with his own blood,” so the context has to be taken into consideration. In Greek, the expression ho iʹdi·os (“his own”) could stand alone without a clarifying noun or pronoun, as seen by how it is rendered at Joh 1:11 (“his own home”); at Joh 13:1 (“his own”); at Ac 4:23 (“their own people”); and at Ac 24:23 (“his people”). In non-Biblical Greek papyri, the phrase is used as a term of endearment to refer to close relatives. A reader of this verse would logically understand from the context that a noun in the singular number is implied after the expression “his own” and that the noun referred to God’s only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed. Based on this, quite a number of scholars and translators acknowledge that the word “son” is to be understood here and render the phrase “with the blood of his own Son.”
-
Further, in Craig S. Keene's 4 volume commentary on Acts in his Volume 3, Acts An Exegetical Commentary 15:1 - 23;35, 2014, p.3038 says "More often scholars prefer to read the text as "the blood of his (God's) own" - that is, the blood of Jesus-arguing that the construction appears in the papyri" n 868. This footnote directs the reader to comments made on this verse by Harris, Jesus as God 131-141 and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 481.
Enjoy!!!
scholar JW
here's how this verse should read: .
take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
Sea Breeze
Why did Watchtower add the word "Son" to this verse?
--
The NWT has correctly translated Acts 20:28 with the interpolation of 'Son' in brackets as it appeared since its First Edition in 1950 with an explanation in an Appendix titled 'Acts 20:28 -"with the blood of hos own (Son)" and similarly in the NWT with Refences, 1984 - App.6C 'With the Blood of God's Own Son'. The NWT 2013 edition appropriately now excludes the brackets and renders the latter part as 'which he purchased with the blood of his own Son".
Thus, WT has fully explained the issue right from the earliest and currently further explanation is contained in the marginal notes for the current NWT -Study Edition which are available in the online NWT at jw.org.
The NWT has always had its criticism right from its first edition in 1950 mainly from Trinitarians and those who affirm the Deity of Christ however despite such controversy the NWT must be considered the most accurate Bible translation ever made and its rendering of Acts 20:28 has stood the test of time within the context of biblical scholarship for it remains supreme.
Interestingly, for Catholics, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary says on this verse, "This reading should be preferred to 'of the Lord' even though it forces us to render the last phrase of the verse, 'the blood of his Own' (Son; cf.Rom. 8:32)", 2007, p.758.
Thus, for the sincere inquirer, the answer to your question is readily available by means of the Appendices etc. And one must keep in mind that this verse has always been controversial amongst translators and scholars. Greg Stafford a former JW Apologist, in his Jehovah's Witnesses Defended An Answer to Scholars and Critics discusses the subject from both sides over 8 pages.
The said scholar awaits the future WBC on Acts in its third volume in its series on Acts, as it will provide an up-to-date bibliography so that one can see what current scholarship has to say on the translation of this contentious phrase.
scholar JW
it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
aqwsed12345
1. “Critics ignore the Jewish exile (‘Exile–Servitude–Desolation’) from 607 to 537 BCE.”
Rebuttal
Reputable scholars and historians accept the reality of the Jewish Exile. Still, WT critics such as COJ and others do not omit any reference or discussion of the Exile, as shown in their various chronologies for the Neo-Babylonian period. WY scholars frame the Jewish Exile as also confirmed by Josephus within two key events: Fall of Jerusalem under Zedeliah and Neb and the Return of the Jews under Cyrus which was a fixed, pre-determined period of 70 years as detailed by the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel and later confirmed by two historians, Ezra and Josephus.
2. “Josephus confirms this 70-year understanding (i.e. 607–537 BCE).”
Rebuttal
Josephus, most plainly in his many 70 years references, proves that this period began with the Fall of Jerusalem and the Return of the Jews; hence nothing to do with Babylon. Hence, Josephus supports 607 BCE and not 586/587 BCE. The focus of Josephus is on the Temple, and even states that within the 70 year period that the Temple lay in obscurity for 50 years, showing his primary concern for the Jewish temple. which is of no interest to COJ and other WT critics.
Further, studies on Josephus' chronology show that he linked the 70 years with the destruction of the temple between the 70 years, referring such to a conflagration of the Temple."23. As to the seventh period, 70 years from the conflagration of the temple to the first of Cyrus". Refer p.688 and Table p.682 in Whiston's translation.
Josephus' historical description of the 70 years conflicts with COJ and other WT critics, thus affirming not 586/587 BCE but 607 BCE as the only date for the Fall of Jerusalem and its Temple.
3. “Scholars cannot resolve whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BCE.”
Rebuttal
This is no minor technicality, for if you are going to do chronology, then you must strive for precision in order to present a credible chronology. An authentic scheme of chronology does provide for some conjecture or uncertainty regarding relevant data and is best expressed by the use of the Latin circa, ca -about. No such signification is used in such chronologies presented by WT critics such as COJ about the date of the fall of Jerusalem.
Such scholars who advocate either 586 or 587 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem simply do not know the precise year in which Jerusalem fell, but WT scholars do know precisely, and that was 607 BCE .
4. “Why can’t scholars precisely determine the start and meaning of the 70 years?”
Rebuttal
The claim that there were multiple contexts for the 70 years is simply utter nonsense. The 70 year texts all reference Jeremiah's seventy years and explain it as s definite historic period of Exile in only one context, and Josephus does exactly the same- only one context of the Jewish Exile.
Scholars and WT critics, including COJ are forced to adopt a fuzzy beginning for the 70 years with either 605 or 609 BCE and an incomplete end with the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE with the jess still in exile.
5. “The Bible never states the 70 years were a period of Babylonian domination.”
Rebuttal
The Bible only and explicitly connects the 70 years with the Jewish Exile, which consisted of a fixed period of servitude to Babylon under Babylonian domination, a fixed period of exile to, for, at Babylon and a fixed period of the Land of Judah' desolation.
In short, the Bible shows that the 70 years were to be a period of severe punishment from God aimed specifically at the people of Judah and Jerusalem who were in a covenant to obey him. Babylon as a world power was the instrument used to bring about this punishment from God - Jer. 25: 4, 5, 8, 9. While nearby nations would also suffer Babylon s wrath, the destruction of Jerusalem and the 70 year exile to follow were called by Jeremiah "the punishment of my people" for Jerusalem has "sinned greatly" -Lam 1:8; 3:42;4:6.
6. “Scholars ignore Josephus’s testimony.”
Rebuttal
There is no mischaracterization of Josephus by WT scholars but simply acceptance of what Josephus says about the 70 years in relation to the city, temple and land..Josephus explicitly states that the Temple lay in obscurity for fifty years and this was in the interval of 70 years.
Josephus makes five references to the 70 years; each reference harmonizes with each other,r and an additional reference to the state of the temple was that it lay obscured for fifty years. Such a composite testimony is also inharmony with other Bible writers such as Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah, who all also provided a holistic description of the 70 years.
In short, Josephus clearly supports 607 BCE as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem, its Temple and Land.
7. “Scholars ignore the ‘missing 7 years’ in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.”
Rebuttal
Daniel, the prophet and historian, clearly refers to Neb's reign and his interaction with the king. He states that Neb would be vacant from the throne for 'seven times' or 7 years. Yet such a regnal vacancy is omitted from the Babylonian history. So, such a vacancy must be accounted for and not ignored.Daniel also states that this was a historical event as it was publicized throughout the empire.Dan 4:34 OG and Josephus also refers to the fact.
8. “Why isn’t Rolf Furuli’s research published in peer-reviewed journals?”
Rebuttal
It would appear that there is no published refutation of Furuli's thesis in any academic journals?
9. “Critics of Furuli don’t use his methodology.”
Rebuttal
Scholars in their research pursue different methodologies, which are set out usually in the introduction to their thesis or in an abstract, so any fair criticism of Furuli's research should either follow the same methodology or at least acknowledge any difference and explain their own methodology for their contrary criticism.
10. “A 20-year gap exists between secular chronology and ‘Bible chronology’.”
Rebuttal
The simple fact of the matter is that when one compares WT Bible Chronology with secular chronologies, there remains a difference of twenty years, which the said scholar refers to as the 'Babylonian Gap' akin to the similar term for the Neo-Babylonian Period referring to the 'Myth of the Empty land' by archaeologists.
The reason for such a 'gap' is that scholars and WT critics including COJ ignore the historical reality of the Jewish Exile of 70 years which began in 607 BCE and ended in 537 BCE.
Thus: 607 BCE - 537 BCE = 70 years
scholar JW
.
it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
aqwsed12345
Can you simply and clearly address the following questions?
Why is it that scholars cannot resolve the 586 or 587 BCE controversy?
Why can scholars not precisely determine the beginning of the 70 years?
Why is it that scholars cannot agree as to an understanding of the 70 years
How is it that nowhere in the Bible does it state that the 70 years was a period of Babylonish domination?
Why do scholars ignore the clear testimony of Josephus' discussion of the 70 years?
Why do scholars ignore the missing 7 years of Neb's reign?
Why is it the case that no peer review of Furuli's analysis is published in academic journals?
Why is it the case that critics of Furuli's research do not use the same methodology that has produced conflicting results?
How do scholars account for the Babylonian gap of 20 years between secular and Bible Chronology?
Short and concise answers.would be most appreciated.
scholar JW
it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
aqwsed12345
Your posts are simply bunkum. You fail to recognize the Jewish exile, falling into the same trap as COJ in his GTR, which you slavishly follow.
The date 607 BCE is based on the bible in the recognition of the biblical 70 years of Jeremiah as a period of Exile- Servitude to Babylon and the Desolation of Judah which began in 607 BCE and ended in 537 BCE. Josephus confirms this understanding of the 70 years, and to date, you have not provided a single line of evidence that clearly refutes 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.
You need to try much harder!
scholar JW
it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
Jeffro
Fallacy of division. Just because not everyone knows something, it doesn’t mean no one does. Most modern scholarship recognises that 587 BCE is the correct year, despite various (mostly religious) sources using faulty appeals to tradition for 586 BCE
---
False. Scholars are divided between 586 or 587 BCE.
--
The precise date is 29 July 587 BCE.
--
False. Tammuz 9 (June- July) 607 BCE in the 11th year of Zedekiah's reign and Nebuchadnezzer's
19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year.
--
Poor doofus doesn’t even seem to know they said it was in 606 BCE until the 1940s. 🤣 When they finally realised there was no ‘year 0’ between 1 BCE and 1 CE, they moved it to 607 BCE to retain their superstitious numerology about 1914.
--
Poor boofhead who does not seem to understand that Chronology like any science is a 'work in progress'.
scholar JW
