Are the translators of the NWT infallible?

[Pegg]

And this is my point: Why translate it "as accurately as possible?" I mean, with the millions of JWs worldwide relying on this important book, why wouldn't Jehovah personally guide/inspire the translators to ensure that they are 100% accurate instead of "as accurate as possible?"

consider this, God has chosen to use imperfect humans to record his message and to deliver his message. He has also chosen to use imperfect humans to translate it well knowing that they might make some errors.

He could have provided the bible for us by having it written by the hands of angels and kept it suspended in a miraculous golden sphere hovering above our heads... but he didnt.

He's chose to use loyal faithful yet imperfect people. Why? Maybe because he has everything under control and knows he can protect what needs protecting.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This has never happened that I am aware of. Also it would not be fiscally reponsible to print new Bibles if the old one needed updating. How many Bibles would need swapping? Many millions.

+


Bibles are regularly up dated.

The NRSV even has editions in British English and American English. work is continuously being done on it, in the light of new discoveries and new insights.
The NRSV is into its second edition.
New scholarship does not negate the value of previous editions but it does add value.

the new revised standard version of the bible is an authorised revision of the revised standard version , published in 1952, which was a version of the American standard version, published in 1901 which in turn, embodied earlier revisions of the king James version, published in 1611.
the British revised version of the bible was publisher in 1881-1885; a translation of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books of the old testament followed in 1957 in 1977 this collection was issued in an expanded edition, containing thee additional texts received by the eastern orthodox communions. there after the revised standard version gained the distinction of being officially authorised for use by all major Christian churches: Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox

from NRSV

 

[JayJayDee]

I am almost certain that there was a revision in/about 1984. I will need to double-check this.

Covered....

It is either you did not read Jason's book or you grossly misunderstood his criticism. Jason's criticism was not simply that the NWT used Jehovah in the New Testament, his criticism is that there were little or no scriptural basis for using it. This is akin to adding to the scriptures - something that the scripture warn not to do.

The NWT translation committee agreed that where the Hebrew Scriptures were quoted by Christian writers, and the Tetragrammaton was clearly contained in the Hebrew writings, the divine name is used where it was originally written.

"No scriptural basis for using it" does not hold water. Jehovah did not change his name to a title....man did that. Jehovah did not tell his people that his name was "too sacred to be uttered"..... Man did that.
Jehovah said that his name was for all generations to come. (Ex 3:15)

Tell me what human author would tolerate the removal of his name from his own published work? His name is his signature...it is a stamp on everything he writes and publishes. Do we think that God would want his precious name unknown? Jesus said otherwise. (John 17:26; Matt 6:9)

 

[JayJayDee]

And this is my point: Why translate it "as accurately as possible?" I mean, with the millions of JWs worldwide relying on this important book, why wouldn't Jehovah personally guide/inspire the translators to ensure that they are 100% accurate instead of "as accurate as possible?"

If God directed the writing of his word, then his message will never be lost, no matter what men do with translation. As long as it isn't a paraphrased version, you can learn the truth from any literal translation.

The Bible is largely the words of the men who wrote down God's message. The men who wrote the gospel accounts for example, did not say word for word what the others did. It was four accounts of the same story, so it was not the "words" that were inspired....it was the message of the words. The essence of the truth is revealed by holy spirit. No one can come to the son, or gain an accurate knowledge of the truth without an invitation from the Father by the operation of his spirit. (John 6:44)

When men wrote their accounts of heavenly visions, it was their own words they were using to describe what they saw. God did not always provide the exact words expressed to be recorded in scripture, except when it was said specifically..."this is what Jehovah has said".

You don't think God would ever allow his message to be lost do you?

I studied the old KJV with JW's over 40 years ago. I learned the truth from what I now consider to be a biased translation. The message was still there...loud and clear.

 

[Big_TJ]

The NWT translation committee agreed that where the Hebrew Scriptures were quoted by Christian writers, and the Tetragrammaton was clearly contained in the Hebrew writings, the divine name is used where it was originally written.

Again, it is clear that you havent read Jason but merely repeating what you might heard. He clearly shows that this could never be a basis JW to use the name, since there were over 50 other ocassions where the writer was quoting the Hebrew writings and the NWT did not insert God's name.

"No scriptural basis for using it" does not hold water. Jehovah did not change his name to a title....man did that. Jehovah did not tell his people that his name was "too sacred to be uttered"..... Man did that.
Jehovah said that his name was for all generations to come. (Ex 3:15)

More evidence that you havent read Jason. The evidence that he presented that theire is no scriptural basis for using it is sound since the original writings had no such name; what do you think?

Tell me what human author would tolerate the removal of his name from his own published work? His name is his signature...it is a stamp on everything he writes and publishes. Do we think that God would want his precious name unknown? Jesus said otherwise. (John 17:26; Matt 6:9)

You keep missing the point; there is not a question of the removal of the name - that would only be the case in the Old Testament. The discussion by Jason is that the NWT ADDED the name where it never existed in the Greek text. Furthermore, the NWT ADDED the name when even the KIT (another JW publication) hadnt added it. Perhaps you should become a bit more familiar before the topic before commenting - sound reasonable?

 

[kjw47]

Again, it is clear that you havent read Jason but merely repeating what you might heard. He clearly shows that this could never be a basis JW to use the name, since there were over 50 other ocassions where the writer was quoting the Hebrew writings and the NWT did not insert God's name.

More evidence that you havent read Jason. The evidence that he presented that theire is no scriptural basis for using it is sound since the original writings had no such name; what do you think?



You keep missing the point; there is not a question of the removal of the name - that would only be the case in the Old Testament. The discussion by Jason is that the NWT ADDED the name where it never existed in the Greek text. Furthermore, the NWT ADDED the name when even the KIT (another JW publication) hadnt added it. Perhaps you should become a bit more familiar before the topic before commenting - sound reasonable?

Did you ever think that there is a possibility that the HS advised them to put the name in those places-- I am not saying its a fact--but a possibility--- one can reason for the JW translators because the JW teachers are the only teachers on earth who actually teach what Jesus taught--how can that be explained when 33,000 different religions who claim to serve Jesus don't teach his truths? So who should a JW listen to? the ones who teach Jesus truths or the ones who do not?

 

[JayJayDee]

Again, it is clear that you havent read Jason but merely repeating what you might heard. He clearly shows that this could never be a basis JW to use the name, since there were over 50 other ocassions where the writer was quoting the Hebrew writings and the NWT did not insert God's name.

Can you think of a reason why using God's personal name in the Bible would ever be inappropriate? Since Jesus said he came to make his Farher's name known to his disciples, why could its use ever be considered "wrong"?

More evidence that you havent read Jason. The evidence that he presented that theire is no scriptural basis for using it is sound since the original writings had no such name; what do you think?

I think Jesus said "hallowed be thy name" for a very good reason. What do you think? If a Jewish superstition resulted in the disuse of the precious name of the "Most High", do you think that this had God's approval, considering that he proclaimed to Moses that this was his 'memorial name' for all generations to come? (Ex 3:15) The "LORD God" is Jehovah, substituted in the KJV in a scripture where its use was most meaningful. And yet in Psalm 83:18 Jehovah's name is there. Go figure....

You keep missing the point; there is not a question of the removal of the name - that would only be the case in the Old Testament. The discussion by Jason is that the NWT ADDED the name where it never existed in the Greek text. Furthermore, the NWT ADDED the name when even the KIT (another JW publication) hadnt added it. Perhaps you should become a bit more familiar before the topic before commenting - sound reasonable?

What is 'reasonable' is that the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has a name that is used extensively throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. (Almost 7,000 time) Since Jehovah stated that his name was to be used forever, why would anyone quibble about its use in the Greek scriptures as if God somehow just turned it off? Does that sound reasonable? Men change...God does not. Men left out the divine name because men thought it was "too sacred to be uttered". God never said that. (Ex 3:15) There is no command to substitute his name with a title.

So I too believe that God wanted it there, especially in this "time of the end" when "knowledge was to become abundant". (Dan 12:4, 9, 19) it was time to put God's name back into his word and his worship.

Many scriptures are ambiguous as to whom is being spoken about, "The Sovereign Lord Jehovah", or "The Lord Jesus Christ". Since Christendom promotes the trinity, they have no problem with this ambiguity because it appears to support their doctrine. When you see a clear differentiation in the Christian scriptures between God and his son by the use of the divine name, it highlights just how misleading those translations are.

 

[savagewind]

Since Jehovah stated that his name was to be used forever

I do not know that there exists any scripture which says God's Name is "to be used".

There is scripture that warns about misusing it.

 

[Big_TJ]

preach, preach, preach ...

JayJayDee, I have a quick question for you: Which is worst biblically: Adding God's name where it wasn't or taking God's name from where it was? Or is it equally as bad since both would be a breach of Deuteronomy 4:2? What do you think?

 

[JayJayDee]

JayJayDee, I have a quick question for you: Which is worst biblically: Adding God's name where it wasn't or taking God's name from where it was? Or is it equally as bad since both would be a breach of Deuteronomy 4:2? What do you think?

Let's analyse that question in the light of that scripture then....

Here it is from The Complete Jewish Bible....

"In order to obey the mitzvot of Adonai your God which I am giving you, do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract from it. "

Since the Hebrew scriptures plainly contained the tetragrammaton it was obvious that no Jewish superstition existed when David and Moses penned their contribution, nor do any of the prophets show any sign of shying away from using the divine name, why then would we ever think it inappropriate to use it in places where it was originally found in the Hebrew scriptures that are quoted by Christian writers?

"You are not to use lightly the name of Adonai your God, because Adonai will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly." (Ex 20:7)

This is the scripture that created the problem apparently.

Do you see anything in that scripture that might suggest that the use of the divine name must cease altogether? I don't.

Using God's name "lightly" would mean what?

The Israelites who were privileged to bear Jehovah’s name as his witnesses and who became apostate were in effect taking up and carrying about Jehovah’s name in a worthless way, treating it "lightly". (Isa 43:10; Eze 36:20, 21) In their reckoning, it was better to not use the name than bring reproach on it. That was human reasoning however.

Jesus said in prayer, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name". Do we see anything there that might indicate that God's name should be dropped from usage?
When Jesus got up in the synagogue to read the scroll of Isaiah where the tetragrammaton was mentioned twice, do we imagine he adopted the Jewish practice of avoiding the pronouncing of his Father's name? (Isa 61:1; Luke 4:17-21) I think not.

So getting back to the verse in Deuteronomy, was it "adding" to scripture to place the divine name back into a quote from the Hebrew scriptures where the tetragrammaton was clearly written in the original text?

Was it "subtracting" to eliminate the divine name and substitute a title without express permission from the to whom the name belonged?....the Bible's author?

In view of the scripture in Ex 3:15, what do you think is reasonable?

"Then God said once more to Moses:
“This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘JEHOVAH the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation."

Does this sound like God wanted his most sacred name to be lost to his worshippers?

What do you think?

 

[Big_TJ]

JayJayDee,

I appreciate the effort you put in your response. However, I could not find the answer to my question in it all: I simply ask if there was a difference between inserting Jehovah's name where it didn't appear and taking out his name when it appeared. I also stated that I think both cases would be doing what Deuteronomy 4:2 advise us not to do. I still would like to know what you think about this.

So getting back to the verse in Deuteronomy, was it "adding" to scripture to place the divine name back into a quote from the Hebrew scriptures where the tetragrammaton was clearly written in the original text?

No it wouldn't. However, we are not talking about the Hebrew scriptures; we are talking about the Greek Scriptures. Would it not be "adding" to the scripture if you place the divine name where it clearly did not exist in the Greek Scripture?

Was it "subtracting" to eliminate the divine name and substitute a title without express permission from the to whom the name belonged?....the Bible's author?

Yes it would be "subtracting." So let me ask you this: Scripturally, why would it be wrong to subtract the divine name without the expressed permission from the "bible's author?"

 

[Pegg]

Yes it would be "subtracting." So let me ask you this: Scripturally, why would it be wrong to subtract the divine name without the expressed permission from the "bible's author?"

If you wrote an important letter and signed your name at the bottom, would it be wrong for me to remove your name and insert someone elses name?

 

[JayJayDee]

JayJayDee,

I appreciate the effort you put in your response. However, I could not find the answer to my question in it all: I simply ask if there was a difference between inserting Jehovah's name where it didn't appear and taking out his name when it appeared. I also stated that I think both cases would be doing what Deuteronomy 4:2 advise us not to do. I still would like to know what you think about this.

So what you are suggesting is that both are "scripturally" wrong according to Deut 4:2?

Wouldn't you have to ask what Jehovah himself would say about this? (Ex 3:15)

If the Hebrew writers had no hesitation in using Jehovah's name and it is found almost 7,000 times in their contributions to the Hebrew canon, what makes us believe that a technicality (which is what this is) should leave the Bible's author nameless in the second part of his own book?

If we see "the LORD" written in the Greek scriptures in large and small capitals, we know that this is a substitution for the divine name. How is it 'unscriptural' to put the correct name in the passage where it was originally written in the Hebrew text?

If you have a problem with using God's name in scriptures where it clearly belongs, then don't use a Bible where Jehovah's name is restored to its rightful place.

I personally am very glad to have my God's proper name used where it clearly belongs. I don't personally believe that Jehovah is a God who entertains or supports human superstitions. We are told "not to go beyond what is written". Humans made decisions based upon what 'they' thought, not on what God commanded. Show me where Jehovah gave permission for the substitution..... ?

No it wouldn't. However, we are not talking about the Hebrew scriptures; we are talking about the Greek Scriptures. Would it not be "adding" to the scripture if you place the divine name where it clearly did not exist in the Greek Scripture?

Don't we have to ask why did it not exist in the Greek Scriptures in the first place? Was it because God commanded that it be erased? Or was it because men decided that it should be removed and substituted with a title?

Refer to Pegg's comment. What writer would substitute their personal name on an epic work with the title, "author"? Their name is inextricably tied in with their reputation.

Yes it would be "subtracting." So let me ask you this: Scripturally, why would it be wrong to subtract the divine name without the expressed permission from the "bible's author?"

If the substitution did not have God's permission in the first place, I don't think you have a valid argument.

You are free to believe whatever you wish. But our stance on this issue is not negotiable.

 

[savagewind]

Show me where Jehovah gave permission for the substitution..... ?

Matthew 28:19 Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Matthew 11:27 All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

John 14:5-7 Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" 6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

The Greek scriptures were written for Jesus Christ. They are about him, not about Jehovah.

 

[JayJayDee]

Matthew 28:19 Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Who gave Jesus this authority? See below.

Matthew 11:27 All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Jesus is the king of God's kingdom. It is Jehovah's arrangement to facilitate a reconciliation of himself with mankind...through the agency of the savior God sent.

John 14:5-7 Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" 6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

"No one comes to the Father, but through me"

Read these scriptures again carefully and see what they are actually saying, not what you want them to say.

The Greek scriptures were written for Jesus Christ. They are about him, not about Jehovah.

"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:9, 10)

"And every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11)

"...Jesus said to him "It is written 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship and it is to him alone you must render sacred service" (Luke 4:8; Deut 10:20)

Jehovah is the God, Jesus himself worships...even now. (Rev 3:12)

Do you see it yet? The Greek scriptures were not written 'for' Jesus at all. They were about Jesus and his teachings, which came from the Father, not Jesus. (John 5:19, 30; 8:28; 12:49) Jesus wrote nothing himself, though he said many things, everything he taught was from his Father.

You are very wrong in your assumptions.

 

[savagewind]

"And every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11)

Who is your lord? Who do you obey? Who must we obey for God's glory?

 

[JayJayDee]

"And every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11)

Who is your lord?

"The Sovereign Lord Jehovah". This expression occurs hundreds of times just in the book of Ezekiel alone.

Jehovah is the God and Father of Jesus Christ.(Rev 3:12)

"But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God" (John 20:17)

"For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him." (1 Cor 8:5, 6)

Who do you obey?

"And a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud: “This is my Son, the beloved; listen to him." (Mark 8:7)

Who does God tell us to obey?

"God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." (Heb 1:1-4)

It was God who spoke through his son. The son did not speak a word of his own.

Who must we obey for God's glory?

"And every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11)

The son exists to glorify his Father.

 

[Big_TJ]

If you wrote an important letter and signed your name at the bottom, would it be wrong for me to remove your name and insert someone elses name?

Scripturally no. If you would argue that it would be wrong, then wouldn't it be equally wrong if I wrote a letter and omit a name, but someone else insert my ( or someone elses) name?

 

[Big_TJ]

If the substitution did not have God's permission in the first place, I don't think you have a valid argument.

Jay
What biblical (or otherwise) evidence do you have that there was a substitution in the Greek Scriptures?

Also, do I understand you to be saying that it is OK to add to the scriptures - such as adding Jehovah's name where it was never present (which goes against the teaching of Deuteronomy 4:2)?

Thirdly, why does the KIT (a JW's publication), when translating the Greek Scriptures, does not insert "Jehovah" in the Greek Scriptures as the NWT does?

And finally, would you agree with this statement: "all known manuscripts of the New Testament are incorrect?"

 

[savagewind]

Who must we obey for God's glory?

"And every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"

Yes! I agree. The title lord means who is exercising absolute ownership. No?

LINK Strong's Greek: 2962. ?????? (kurios) -- lord, master

2962 kýrios – properly, a person exercising absolute ownership rights; lord

Who do you say Jesus gave ownership rights to?

Matthew 24:47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.