1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Serious Problems With New World Translation

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by katiemygirl, Feb 11, 2015.

  1. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,421
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    Christian
    1) THE VALUE OF ACTUAL CONTEXT IN DETERMINATION OF MEANING

    Clear claimed : Colwell's rule is contextual. Only the original writers context actually makes the word “God” definite or indefinite in this sentence.
    LegionOnomaMoi responded : “Were this true, it wouldn't be a rule.”

    Legion, your reponse makes no sense. “Definiteness” and “indefiniteness” are always determined by actual context.

    For example : If I say to my wife, “Lets go buy A car!” To someone else hearing this single statement, no “definite” or “specific” car is implied.

    However, if my wife and I had discussed buying a specific car for weeks and had already decided upon buying this very specific car but were merely waiting for payday this changes the context (and meaning) of the statement.

    Given this context, If I then come into the house, holding up my paycheck and say to my wife, “Lets go buy a car!”, then the implication IS a definite and specific car.

    The specificity and meaning relies on the context. Colwell, as a linguist, was not oblivious to the value of context.

    The same can be said for the biblical text. If the writer of John 1:1 actually MEANT the Logos was “a God”, then the original meaning of the writer WAS “a God”. If John actually MEANT that the Logos was “the” God, then the original meaning of the writer WAS “the” God. Johns own intent form the original context (and thus the true meaning of the text). Colwell’s rule does not affect nor change the original context intended by the writer of John 1:1.



    2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT LINGUISTS DID NOT UNDERSTAND "DEFINITENESS" VERSUS "INDEFINITENESS"

    LegionOnomaMoi said : “Those who studied languages were not in a place to be able to even understand notions like definiteness at that time”.

    This is another silly statement.

    In 1933 when Colwell described his pattern, even non-linguists understood the difference between “A house” (i.e. an indefinite and non-specific dwelling) and “THAT house” (i.e. a definite and specific dwelling).



    3 REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE LINGUIST COLWELL DID NOT NOTICE LIMITATIONS TO THE PATTERN HE SAW

    Clear said : In this case Colwell’s rule can just as likely be used to SUPPORT the case that John meant “a God” rather than “the God” and this was the reason he wrote the sentence as it stands (i.e. without the article.
    LegionOnomaMoi said : “Odd that Colwell failed to notice this.”

    This is another strange and silly Statement.

    Colwell DID know this point since he himself described the relative occurrence of BOTH arthrous and anarthous nouns. If you read Colwell’s description, you will see this.



    LegionOnomaMoi : There is no need to argue against the obvious point that the original intent of the original writer of John determine the original meaning of his writings.
    I am not trying to argue what the doctrine IS in this case, merely that the original writer determines his intended meaning. Colwell's rule cannot create, nor determine that original context and the original meaning in this case.



    In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is Good LegionOnomaMoi



    Clear
    δρεισιω
     
    #41 Clear, Feb 26, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  2. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    10,975
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    Then Colwell's rule would be "definiteness and indefiniteness are determined by context", which is blatantly obvious in a language without a definite article to begin with and would never have been published, still less called "Colwell's rule".

    That's because English has a definite and indefinite article. If you said the exact same thing but used "the" instead of "a" the it would be definite.


    No, the use of the definite article would. That's why it exists. If you wish to go beyond simplistic grammar we'd have to move into linguistic theory (presumably cognitive linguistics, as functional linguistics has mostly merged with or fallen under the cognitive linguistics umbrella framework and as in formal or generative frameworks context is ruled out from the start). Discourse grammar(s)and other functional and pragmatic linguistic theories/approaches have increasingly relied upon cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics, so that linguists who whose names are practically synonymous with functionalist linguistics refer to and depend upon research in human cognitive processing:
    "Nearly all studies of definiteness share the same fundamental insight regarding the meaning or function of the definite article in English, which can be summarized in the following way: 'Speakers code a referential nominal as definite if they think that they are entitled to assume that the hearer can- by whatever means- assign it unique reference' (Giv—n 1984:399). Though the terminology in the literature on definiteness varies somewhat, the two most common labels employed to capture this basic insight are 'unique identifiability' and 'familiarity'. Thus, it is generally claimed that speakers use the definite article when they believe that the addressee can 'uniquely identify' the referent of a nominal (see Chafe 1976, Clark & Marshall 1981, Du Bois 1980, Gundel, Hedberg, & Zacharski 1993, Hawkins 1978, 1991, Kadmon 1990, Kleiber 1992, Lambrecht 1994, Lewis 1979, Russell 1905, inter alia) or when they believe that the referent is 'familiar' to the addressee (see Christophersen 1939, Heim 1982, inter alia; also, Birner & Ward 1994 compare the two notions of 'unique identifiability' and 'familiarity'). (emphasis added)
    Epstein, R. (1999). Roles, frames, and definiteness. In K. van Hoek, A. A. Kibrik, & L. Noordman (Eds.) Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Vol. 176). John Benjamins.

    "'My fiancé bought the wedding rings and may also buy a necklace'...By choosing the definite article the with the participant wedding rings, the speaker assumes that the hearer is familiar with the ‘marriage’ frame and the custom of buying rings long before the wedding day. In choosing the indefinite article a with necklace, on the other hand, the speaker reveals that neither she herself nor the hearer can as yet identify the necklace. All these grounding elements, which serve to indicate whether the things talked about are or are not identifiable in the current discourse, are determiners. Determiners are function words such as the, this, every, etc. which ground the thing described by the noun in the current discourse. Their function is to make the things talked about accessible to the hearer as referents." (emphases & italics in original)
    Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics in Practice Vol. 2). John Benjamins Publishing.

    Definitenes is not only a functional property of an utterance but conveys conceptual information about the nature of referent. Thus *"The time flows on (forever)" is ungrammatical, because the lexical concept- or, to use Evans' (2009) term from How Word's Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction (Oxford Linguistics) - the MATRIX lexical concept for "time" does not sanction the definite article, while "During the dinner date, the time seemed to fly" is sanctioned by DURATION.

    If we stick to the kind of grammar biblical scholars, classicists, and most who can read ancient Greek learn, then it becomes completely meaningless to say that Colwell's rule is simply that "definitness" is contextual, as this isn't a rule but an assertion that can only be analyzed from a functional/cognitive perspective that wasn't around in 1933. Modern linguistics wasn't developed until the 50s. Before that language was analyzed via logic, philology, structuralism, etc. (excepting comparative/historical linguistics, which was limited mostly to Indo-European linguistics).


    Thanks for the tautology. Moving on...

    Clearly, whatever anybody ever means when they write is determined by what they mean. However, they communicate what they mean (particularly in writing, where tone, inflection, volume, etc., can't be encoded) using constructions (put simply, units of language that range from the atomic to the wholly schematic). Colwell's rule, like all attempts to capture the grammar of a language, concerns the mechanisms speaker's used to communicate definiteness in the Greek language.


    You will have to forgive me for not taking seriously on what those who studied language could or could not analyze when you just reduced all possible analyses of language to a single and tautologous claim that "when people mean X, the mean X."

    It's still debated. For one thing, as I said, generative linguistic paradigms do not admit context but rather grammaticality as determined by syntax and lexical meaning (and a lot of bracketing or tree diagrams).


    I quoted from Colwell's paper, whence comes "Colwell's rule."
     
    #42 LegionOnomaMoi, Feb 26, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
  3. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    Yes my dear Pegg, I have noticed. By the way, it's nice to see you again.

    It looks like the same word "echad" is used in both verses below.

    "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one (echad)!" Deuteronomy 6:4

    "the two shall become one (echad) flesh" (Genesis 2:24)

    Both verses use the same word (echad) for one. From what I can gather, the Hebrew word, "echad" is used most often as a unified one between individuals, and sometimes as numeric oneness.

    There is a word for solitary oneness in the Hebrew, and it is yachid. It is never used in reference to God.

    So with that said, I think we should leave this particular debate to the Hebrew language experts, otherwise, you and I will just be spitting out what others have to say on the subject.

    Of course, our other option would to start another thread and truly dig into the various Hebrew and Greek words, which are translated as "one." It would probably require most of our time, but no doubt, we would both learn a lot, and who knows where that would lead us. :)

    It's not about what you would rather do. It's about what our heavenly Father would have us do. He made it pretty clear that we not add or take away from His word. What you wrote above suggests that all Bibles are bad. Yet, I proved with my OP how the NWT has added and taken away from God's word. I don't think you can dispute that. Are you saying you cannot find the true identity of the Father and of His Christ in any other Bible?
     
    #43 katiemygirl, Feb 26, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
  4. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,421
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    Christian
    THE VALUE OF ACTUAL CONTEXT IN DETERMINATION OF MEANING .... (YET AGAIN)


    LegionOnomaMoi
    admits : “...definiteness and indefiniteness are determined by context", which is blatantly obvious in a language without a definite article...”

    Thank you. This point, (which you admit to), has always been my point on this issue. Actual, historical, Context determines John's meaning of his writing in this example in John 1:1. The historical meaning was never going to be determined by a rule describing the relative occurrence of the article.

    Whether John meant to say that the Logos was “a” God or that the Logos was “the” God, is determined by historical context (i.e. John's historical intent, context, and meaning). No amount of irrelevant jargon can trump the actual historical context. What John himself believed and was trying to communicate (i.e. the historical context) determines the actual meaning of what he wrote.

    LegionOnomaMoi, I didn’t see anything else in your last post or the cutting and pasting that was relevant in affecting my claim regarding this historical point.

    Now that we agree that CONTEXT determines definiteness and indefiniteness, I hope it makes sense to you that CONTEXT trumps relative occurrence of the article. Context even trumps correct grammar itself in determining what a sentence meant to the writer (since the grammar of many ancient writers often contains errors....)

    Good journey LegionOnomaMoi.

    Clear
    δρσενεω
     
    #44 Clear, Feb 26, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
  5. Pegg

    Pegg Jehovah our God is One

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,450
    Ratings:
    +786
    Religion:
    Jehovah's Witness
    yes. And the reason is because they have taken his name out of the bible. I think that says everything.
     
  6. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    They've added Jehovah into the NWT 287 times where it does not exist in any extant Greek manuscript. Why doesn't that bother you?
     
  7. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,421
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    Christian
    Just a comment about the NWT.

    I have also criticized the NWT in the past, (as evidenced by my threads in the J.W. forums). However, I felt my own criticisms were unbalanced since they didn’t reveal positive aspects of NWT that I found. Though I do not generally like the NWT, (especially additions in text which are artificially added to support the movements theology), there are, on the other hand some discrete bits of correction to the text which have been long known to translators and historians, which the NWT corrects, but which the creators of other versions of Bibles have not yet repaired. I see ANY correction or movement toward correction as a good thing.

    If one looks at a few random references from the lists of changes the Jewish soferim made to the Massoretic Hebrew text, the NWT corrects some important errors. However, it then, strangely, leaves other errors uncorrected. In other instances, it creates some unusual changes to yet other known errors which are clumsy and confusing.

    For examples of anthropomorphic type corrections:

    The New World Translation does a wonderful job in it’s correction of Gen 18:22 where it has the Lord standing before abraham (rather than abraham standing before the Lord...). The NWT corrects the known errors in 2 sam 16:12 and 1 sam 3:13 (where the NWT uses the septuagint version of this text and avoids the incorrect massoretic text). The NWT corrects 2 Sam XX:1, and Jer 2:11 and Ezek VIII:17. There are others, these are simply examples.

    However, the NWT misses many intervening obvious and known errors. For examples, the NWT shuns the repair of num 11:15, num 12:12 (even the KJV's corrupt text (based on the massoretic error) is better than the NWT's clumsy rendering). The NWT does not repair Hosea IV:7, nor Mal 1:13. Again, there are others, and these are simply examples.

    Other repairs are only partly or poorly done. For example, Hab 1:12, is only given a “half-hearted” treatment of it’s known error. Job 32:3 is left without any change at all. The “repair” of Ps 10:3 in the NWT is worse than the known error. There are certain textual errors I cannot fault the creators of the NWT for not correcting. For example, what translator wants the fall-out from repairing Gen 1:31?

    Obviously this is a very short sampling of the hundreds of known emendations of the Sopherim, and only a sampling from one type of known errors the Jews introduced to the text (anthropomorphic references), and only a very few of that sampling from only one list.

    I assume that Franz and the NWT committee knew of these lists of errors (since I simply followed a list to check on which errors were corrected...) and that they knew of other errors in the lists which they did not correct. I also assume they did not correct certain errors due to the controversy it would cause (e.g. Gen 1:31.....). BUT, curiously, other, doctrinally “neutral” repairs were not made. Thus, because the NWT it is so inconsistent in their repairs, this bible has little extra value in looking for corrections of the sopherimic lists.

    Thus, I feel the creators of this text did want to improve known historical textual errors, but they were spotty in their efforts and thus,ended up with no "added value" on this specific point. IF the creators of this bible had been consistent in their repairs of the emendations of the Jewish sopherim, then the Old Testament portion of this book might have had value as a reference. Since they were inconsistent in this effort, then it cannot be used as such.

    For me, the NWT is an interesting mix and it’s creators were, I think, concentrating on certain priorities early in the creation of the NTW but that later versions may actually improve as they are created and released.

    Clear
    φιειακω
     
    #47 Clear, Feb 27, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  8. Pegg

    Pegg Jehovah our God is One

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,450
    Ratings:
    +786
    Religion:
    Jehovah's Witness
    The Greek scriptures are full of quotes from the Hebrew scriptures from the very verses where Gods name appears.

    Do you really believe that Jesus and his Apostles would scratch out Gods name when they were quoting from those scriptures? The NWT has put the name Jehovah into all the quoted scriptures where Gods name appears in the original hebrew manuscripts.
     
  9. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,059
    Ratings:
    +1,266
    Religion:
    Christian
    I beleive the new NWT is so much better than the abomination they had in the past but there is no doubt that JW's add there own views when translating.

    I believe for the purposes of debate with JW's it is difficult to avoid.
     
  10. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,059
    Ratings:
    +1,266
    Religion:
    Christian
    Pegg said: "The NWT has put the name Jehovah into all the quoted scriptures where Gods name appears in the original hebrew manuscripts."

    I believe historically the Jw's just stuck in a Jehovah wherever it saw the word Lord whether it made sense or not.
     
  11. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    There was actually a rule that was kept. There are actually only 237 instances of Jehovah in the Christian Greek Scriptures in the NWT. Every single one of them, except one, is collaborated by prior translations to Hebrew over the centuries.The exception was 1 Cor 7:17. (I elaborated on this more in post 34.)

    All of this is carefully documented in the Reference Edition of the NWT here:


    Following is a list of the 237 places where the name “Jehovah” occurs in the main text of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Supporting the rendering are various sources listed by their respective symbols. For an explanation of the symbols (“J” references), see the Introduction under “Textual Symbols.”

    The following list also indicates the Greek word to be found at these locations in the Westcott and Hort Greek text. Ky′ri·os, “Lord,” and its various forms are designated by Ky. Similarly, The′os, “God,” and its various forms are designated by Th. An asterisk (*) preceding either of these symbols indicates that the Greek word is accompanied by the definite article in the Greek text. A plus sign (+) following the verse citation indicates that there is additional information to be found in a footnote on that verse.

    MATTHEW

    1:20+ Ky; J3,4,7-14,16-18,22-24
    . . .
    REVELATION
    . . .
    22:6 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,24
    - 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

    and here:

    J1 Matthew, Heb., edited by J. du Tillet, with a Lat. translation by J. Mercier, Paris, 1555.
    J2 Matthew, Heb., incorporated as a separate chapter in ʼE′ven bo′chan [“Tried Stone”], by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385. Mss of 16th and 17th cent., Jewish Theological Seminary, New York.
    J3 Matthew and Hebrews, Heb. and Lat., by Sebastian Münster, Basel, 1537 and 1557 respectively.
    J4 Matthew, Heb., by J. Quinquarboreus, Paris, 1551.
    J5 Liturgical Gospels, Heb., by F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1573.
    J6 Liturgical Gospels, German, Lat., Gr. and Heb., by Johann Clajus, Leipzig, 1576.
    J7 Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.
    J8 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Robertson, London, 1661.
    J9 Gospels, Heb. and Lat., by Giovanni Battista Jona, Rome, 1668.
    J10 The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vol. I-III, containing Matthew—1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805.
    J11 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Thomas Fry and others, London, 1817.
    J12 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Greenfield, London, 1831.
    J13 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by A. McCaul, M. S. Alexander, J. C. Reichardt and S. Hoga, London, 1838.
    J14 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt, London, 1846.
    J15 Luke, Acts, Romans and Hebrews, Heb., by J. H. R. Biesenthal, Berlin, 1855, 1867, 1853 and 1858 respectively.
    J16 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt and J. H. R. Biesenthal, London, 1866.
    J17 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Franz Delitzsch, London, 1981 ed.
    J18 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London.
    J19 John, Heb., by Moshe I. Ben Maeir, Denver, Colorado, 1957.
    J20 A Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, fourth ed., Edinburgh, 1963.
    J21 The Emphatic Diaglott (Greek-English interlinear), by Benjamin Wilson, New York, 1864, reprint by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1942.
    J22 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by United Bible Societies, Jerusalem, 1979.
    J23 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. Bauchet, Rome, 1975.
    J24 A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter, London, 1863.
    J25 St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford, London, 1900.
    J26 Psalms and Matthew 1:1-3:6, Heb., by Anton Margaritha, Leipzig, 1533.
    - Introduction — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
     
    #51 Kolibri, Feb 28, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  12. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Why do the proven spurious parts of the NKJV not bother you?
    Why be bothered with one and not the other?
    Why be bothered with the NWT at all regarding the NWT as it relates to the divine name with all the reasons for it to be seen as a limited restoration?

    At least the NWT documented reasons for each case, not limited to but including quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures where we can still clearly see the Divine Name.
     
    #52 Kolibri, Feb 28, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  13. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    I appreciated both editions. Both editions are dynamic, in that they were translated as literal as possible where the thought transference would not be ruined. The older edition was more woodenly word for word then Revision but it served a valid purpose of separating spirit from soul and Hades/Sheol from Gehenna/lake of fire. And it did a wonderful job of restoring verb tenses so we could see that belief was not enough, but exercising faith was important. Now that the groundwork of the older edition has been around for decades, I very much value this Revision for it's ease of expression of the thought.

    When the Revision was announced and released, one of the speakers present at the annual meeting mentioned that there is a file of 1000s for questions about textual tranmission that still need answered, but it was felt better to release the improvements that could be made now then to hold off indefinitely. (This is fuzzy memory from the 2013 annual meeting.)
     
  14. Unification

    Unification Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    3,040
    Ratings:
    +341
    There is a difference between seeing and reading "about" the divine name written and knowing and experiencing the divine name written within.
     
  15. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    You piqued my interest in the controversy over Ge 1:31 in particular. Would you mind elaborating on that one verse? Is it based of the Waw Consecutive, or its more ancient forebear Waw Conversive? I am aware the the New World Translation has not followed the theory of Waw Consecutive when translating Hebrew verbs, but I have no idea if that is at the heart of what you are discussing, or if it something else. Rather than asking for a lot of your time, I am mostly interested in Ge 1:31 because of your quoted statement.

    Thank-you.
     
  16. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,421
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi Kolibri :

    I think that there is an obvious reason that very few religious historians and true historical scriptorians engage in forums and the reason is that historical Christianity and Sunday school Christianity are so very different. (I'm no great scholar, but I've hung out with a few...) These two variations of Christianity have so many incompatibilities that they can hardly even share terms and “facts”. That is, even certain basic words mean different things to the two groups. The basic biblical stories are often materially different between the two groups since the historians’/scriptorians’ bible is different as well.

    For example, in 2 Kings chapter 22, when Hilkiah finds the “book of the law in the house of the LORD.” (kjv) and he delivers this Book to Josiah who then (in Chapter 23) reads to the inhabitants of Jerusalem “all the words of the book of the covenants” .

    However, the Jerusalem Talmud itself tells us that Hilkiah actually found THREE pentateuchs in the temple (codices Meon, Zaatute and Hi). The three texts disagreed in their readings and so the priests used a rule of majority and produced a fourth version based on the two that agreed against the version that did not agree. (the new version is the one Josiah read publically)

    Thus, the Jewish texts were already corrupted in certain ways by this early time period (just as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Textual Restorationists have claimed). Whiston tells us Josephus used yet another different version for his histories which vespasian gave him from the spoils of the Jerusalem temple. (These very simple histories describe at least five versions of the Pentateuch (there were many more) at early periods and corruptions in each version....)

    Can you see that these two versions of 2 Kings are incompatible with each other?

    The “Sunday school Christian” who believes that there are no errors in nor believe in multiple incompatible Jewish bibles may find even this historical incompatibility immensely disturbing since it may undermine their current religious model of a bible having only "one version" or one with no errors", etc. This dissonance between versions makes discussion difficult since the religious historian, the religious linguist and the translator-creator of a bible all deal with multiple versions of ancient biblical source texts on a daily basis, all of which have error and few of which agree with one another, while the typical "sunday school christian" may not even believe that such texts exist.

    Since the Jehovahs witnesses often run into this same sort of dissonance as they discuss specific changes that have taken place in Old Testament text, I will assume that you understand the difficulty if one then multiplies the types of dissonance and incompatibilities that one is trying to discuss.

    The bible which the Massorites created, and which later became the Textus Receptus biblical text for later “orthodox” jews underwent many, many, many changes. However, many of the hundreds of changes were described by the Massorites in the various Massorah . The massorites and sopherim, etc, themselves describe their motives for changing the text and described their rules of change.

    One of the major principles underlying the changes they made was to protect and enhance the honor and glory of God. Again, the Jehovahs Witnesses will understand this logic and justification since it is also the very motivation and justification which underlies the changes they are making to the biblical text.

    For example, the Sopherim tell us they changed Genesis 18. The text tells us that the LORD came to visit Abraham in gen 18 when three men came to see him . The sopherim tell us that they changed the text to read that “Abraham stood yet before the Lord”, while multiple textual codices witness the earlier reading that “The Lord stood yet before Abraham” (one of the phrases that reads correctly in the NWT).

    The symbolism of “standing before” another person was considered derogatory to Deity (especially in a legal context) and avoiding any demeaning or insultory statement was the motive behind their changing of in the text.

    One can see their motives were not at all evil, but the result was an improper contamination of and introduction of error into the text. This is partly why I do not believe the Jehovah's Witnesses should make changes and additions to the New Testament using the same sort of logic and justification by which errors were introduced into the Old Testament text. The logic and justification sound good, but the result is increased contamination.

    Such distinctly good motives underlies the hundreds of changes in the biblical text described in the ancient lists of the sopherim and massorites and others.

    I assume that those who are historically oriented will already know of these sorts of ancient lists and will either know of such changes and are already sufficiently steeped in historical principles so as not to be offended by the concept of change, while the typical “Sunday school Christian” of whom I spoke, may be better off not delving into such points until they can understand the context and see that these matters do not change the base principles underlying the existence of God and the truth that Jesus is his son and the Christ and the only savior to whom mankind may look for salvation.

    Kolibri, I will PM you with specific information on Genesis 1:31. Others with sufficient background will find it described in historical sources such as the Midrash Rabba, in C. Severus, or, those who can read Rashi can look to his writings for such data.


    In any case, I wish you a wonderful spiritual Journey in this Life Kolibri

    Clear
    φιακτωω

    p.s. (added later) I forgot to say that it has nothing to do with the hebrew vav.
     
    #56 Clear, Mar 1, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2015
  17. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    This reminds me of another change made by the Sopherim in Lamentations 3:20. They evidently thought it was unfitting to attribute to God such a humble act as bowing low over Jeremiah.

    "You (or "Your soul.") will surely remember and bow low over me."

    And yet this rendering fits with Ps 113:5-7

    Who is like Jehovah our God,
    The one who dwells (or "sits enthroned.") on high?
    He stoops down to look on heaven and earth,
    Raising the lowly from the dust.
    He lifts up the poor from the ash heap. (or possibly, "garbage dump.")

    It really is a beautiful thing to know that the very Creator of all things is willing to stoop down, as if at eye level, and care for me.
     
  18. Nietzsche

    Nietzsche The Last Prussian
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    6,669
    Ratings:
    +6,911
    Religion:
    Heathen King
    I'm 99.9% sure that's reference to the angel Michael.
     
  19. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    Let's look at the Psalm in it's entirety then. This sacred song is not very long.

    Praise Jah! (Or "Hallelujah!", "Jah is a shortened form of the name Jehovah.)
    Offer praise, you servants of Jehovah,
    Praise the name of Jehovah.
    May Jehovah's name be praised
    From now on and forever.
    From the rising of the sun to its setting,
    Let Jehovah's name be praised.
    Jehovah is high above all the nations;
    His glory is above the heavens.
    Who is like Jehovah our God,
    The one who dwells (or "sits enthroned.") on high?
    He stoops down to look on heaven and earth,
    Raising the lowly from the dust.
    He lifts up the poor from the ash heap (or possibly, "garbage dump.")
    In order to make him sit with nobles,
    With the nobles of his people.
    He gives the barren woman a home
    As a happy mother with children. (Lit., "sons.")
    Praise Jah!


    While it is true that Michael means "Who is like God?", I see no connection between this and the archangel. Besides the definition of a name, what connection is there?
     
  20. Kolibri

    Kolibri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,925
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    One of Jehovah's Witnesses
    I do not wish to obstinate, and yet my initial response is to the Talmud is uncertainty. Jesus spoke so negatively about the oral law, and the way Christendom has created her own historical myths, I am inherently skeptical. However, I do not know if I should be. Were there 3 Pentateuch found by Hilkiah? Maybe, maybe not. I honestly admit that I have not explored the Talmud my lack of confidence regarding it's histories in it is partly prejudicial.

    As regards to the different descriptions given to the book however, I do not see any discrepancy in one part of the account calling it "the book of the law" and the other part calling it the "book of the covenant", as both seem to be valid descriptions of the same writings. But I have not explored contextual variances to nearly the extent that you have..
     
Loading...