Serious Research?

[tigger2]

Hoghead1 wrote in post 148 of “What is a soul?�

FYI: [A] I've done some serious research on the NWT, which is precisely why I say it is bogus. For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were. [C]More importantly, the text, key points, has been unduly corrupted to suit the biases of teh WatchTower Society. For example, in the prologue to JN. the indefinite article "a" is inserted, so that the text is mistranslated as "and the Word was a God." The rules of Greek grammar rule out the use of teh indefinite article here, which is why it is absent in the solid, standard translations. The reason why the WatchTower Society want the "a" in there is that this will support their anti-Trinitarian bias. [D]Also, in passages that speak of Hell and torment, the NWT reads "annihilation." That was done to bludgeon Scripture to fit their bias about the afterlife. It is one thing to disagree with Scripture. I respect that. it is quite another to corrupt the translation so that it agree with your position. [E]Also, "Jehovah" is a serious mistranslation. And that is Hebrew 101 material. So I feel I have very good reason to write off the NWT as bogus and corrupt.

I intend to discuss the individual parts (A-E) of the above.

I’ll save part A for last.

B. You wrote:

“For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh [sic] Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were.�

For the first 30 years at least, the publishers of the NASB kept their translators anonymous:

“The Fourfold Aim of The Lockman Foundation
1.These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable to the masses.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; no work will ever be personalized.� - page v., NASB, Ref. Ed., Lockman Foundation, 1971.

“For many years the names of the NASB translators and editors were withheld by the publisher. But in 1995 this information was finally disclosed.� - http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html

Bible translations of the OT and NT texts should be judged according to their accuracy - not the person(s) who did the translation.

[2timothy316]

So changing “lord� to “Jehovah� does makes a significant change to the meaning of the text.

Not really. Only if a person believes in the man-made Trinity doctrine does it make any difference. JWs used to use the KJV and we understood that were Lord was used we knew when it was referring to Jehovah. So to us it only corrects the fact that the name was removed from from the copies over time. There is a new KJV that has been published and it explains why they are putting the Divine Name back into the Greek Scriptures as well. Feel free to read it here http://www.dnkjb.net/faq_dnkjb_online.htm#why_not_in_nt

There is also 297 references to the OT in the NT where in the OT the Divine Name was known to be there but strangely removed when referenced to in the NT.
http://www.dnkjb.net/1189chapters/scripturalbasis.htm

So you say adding the name changed the meaning...but really it was those that took out the Divine Name that changed it in the first place. But yes we did change it in the way of restoration.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 18 by onewithhim]

Truth in Translation is a great read. The author really breaks it down really well. He even explains at the beginning of the book that he has no bias for one religion or another as he is not a religious person. Doctrine didn't sway his findings as to who he felt had the most accurate translations. The NWT was not the only one he liked either for accuracy.

[2timothy316]

This is a problematic change to the text since, in context, Paul was almost certainly using the term “lord� to refer to Jesus.

Paul wasn't speaking of Jesus in 1 Cor 10:9.
"Neither let us tempt the LORD, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents."

Paul was referring to the following:
Deu 6:16
“You must not put Jehovah your God to the test the way you put him to the test at Masʹsah."

Numbers 21:6
"So Jehovah sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they kept biting the people, so that many Israelites died."

There are a couple of hundred references like this. Would you like to see more?

[JehovahsWitness]

One maintains the original consonants while knowingly using the incorrect vowels.

Firstly as I said, without knowing which vowels were originally in place then there is no way to actually determine if the vowels in place are "incorrect"; you may thus persist labelling them such for your own non academic satisfaction (or for whatever reason you have) but that doesn't make it a provable fact. Since there is a one in 6 chance any vowel placed is correct and nobody knows exactly which were placed where, it would be academically impossible to lable any combination "incorrect" as you seem fixated in doing.

If the original sentence is “This is Peirre� then one has us writing, “This is Paorru�

Since we have the original four letters of the tetragrammaton, the rules of Hebrew (which many scholars conclude provides overwhelming evidence for a tri-syllable pronunciation) , as well as the knowledge of various theophoric names, a more fitting analogy would be taking the name:

Jonathan [yehonathan Yeho= YHWH + nathan=gives]
JoNaThaN
and using ...
JoNeThuN ... instead

In other words the knowledge we do have limits how much one can actually deviate from the original when it comes to the Hebrew. But we are not going to quibble over such negligible differences, any more than it would be constructive to do so over Jonathan, Jonethan, Jonutin, Jonithun, etc. I don't expect you to come back further on this point as "this is not that big of a deal to [you]" either.

What we can note however is there would be no legitimate basis for suggesting "Heziekiah" or "Petulia" or to imply that "any" space filler with any number of syllables consonants or vowels is probable. The exact pronunciation of the name has been lost; the name itself has not.

[JehovahsWitness]

If the original sentence is “This is Peirre� then one has us writing, ... “This is my FRIEND.�

Firstly, the substitution for a personal name for a title can never be considered equivalent to the retaining of the Personal name no matter what pronunciation is adopted.

Further, the generic title LORD is not the equivalent of "friend" because friend (which is not usually used as a title) is overwhelmingly positive, while LORD is neutral. The word LORD means "owner" "master" and is applied to both humans and gods (Baal the canannite god for example simply means LORD"). So while the substituting of one personal name for another might be viewed as equivalent (in the absense of the existence of indicatives of the what the actual name is) the substituting of a personal name for LORD is, much closer to the substituting of "Pierre" for the neutral terms "Man", "Mister" or even "Husband".

[JehovahsWitness]

I will point out that the NWT does repeatedly add the term “Jehovah� where it is not found in the text. [...] every single Greek manuscript of the verse uses the word kurio (or kurion in the last use of the term). Kurio (like kurion) is a form of the Greek word for “lord.�

Firstly it should be pointed out that the Greek texts we have available today are not the originals. There is convincing evidence that early translators actually removed the Tetragrammaton from where it appeared in the Christian Scriptures and substituted it for the title LORD (Gr Kurios) sometime during the second or third century C.E.



SOURCE
http://lhim.org/gladtidings/articles/Se ... ue_102.pdf

“Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, יהוה (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate κς [abbreviation for Kyʹri·os, “Lord�]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.� - George Howard of the University of Georgia, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63

CONCLUSION: The NWT (and other translations) have simply restored the Divine name to its rightful place in the Christian Scriptures where evidently is was in the original texts.

[JehovahsWitness]

On the general topic, I will point out that the NWT does repeatedly add the term “Jehovah� where it is not found in the text.

As pointed out above (see post 24) , there is convincing evidence that the original texts of the Christian Greek scriptures did indeed contain the Divine name which was subsequently removed and replaced with "Kurio" (LORD) or "theos" (GOD) in the later copies we have today.

Concerning the 237 places where the name “Jehovah� occurs in the main text of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the NWT Translation Committee makes the following statement:

"To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from the Hebrew versions to confirm our rendering."
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060076#h=12

George Howard of the University of Georgia, suggests that {quote} "quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament]" in the Christian bible, originally contained the Tetragrammaton, and available evidence supports this idea. For example, the divine name appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament� that was widely used in the first century C.E. (some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today).

Since the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original Hebrew text that was being quoted by the first-century Bible writers, numerous Bible translators have concluded that the Christian writers would not have substituted the Divine Name in their own writings and would have used the Divine Name when alluding to specific passages in the Hebrew bible. This, it has been deemed, is the case for Romans 14:8

The NWT translates Romans 14:8 as, “For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah.�

Paul seems to be alluding to YHWH as indicated in Psalm 146:2 Which reads "I will praise Jehovah all my life. I will sing praises to my God as long as I live." This conclusion is supported by a number of other bible translators, referenced below.

J7 Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.

J8 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Robertson, London, 1661.

J10 The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vol. I-III, containing Matthew—1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805.

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.

J18 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London.

CONCLUSION: Far from being an arbitary and baseless "substitution", the inclusion of the Divine name in the Christian Greek scritpures and specfically in Romans 14:8 is based on a studied analysis of contextual, cultural and historical evidence that indicate the Name was indeed in the passage.

[dakoski]

This is a problematic change to the text since, in context, Paul was almost certainly using the term “lord� to refer to Jesus.

Paul wasn't speaking of Jesus in 1 Cor 10:9.
"Neither let us tempt the LORD, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents."

Paul was referring to the following:
Deu 6:16
“You must not put Jehovah your God to the test the way you put him to the test at Masʹsah."

Numbers 21:6
"So Jehovah sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they kept biting the people, so that many Israelites died."

There are a couple of hundred references like this. Would you like to see more?

There are some textual variations in the Greek for v9 - some do say Lord but the majority use the Greek word for Christ. Either way the context of 1 Corinthians 10 is clear Paul is refering to Jesus. Paul is saying Jehovah who accompanies his people through the wanderings in the desert is Christ see particularly verses 1-4.
v1-10 (NWT):
Now I want you to know, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud+ and all passed through the sea+ 2 and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food+ 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink.+ For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant* the Christ.+ 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, for they were struck down in the wilderness.+
6 Now these things became examples for us, in order for us not to desire injurious things, as they desired them.+ 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink. Then they got up to have a good time.�+ 8 Neither let us practice sexual immorality,* as some of them committed sexual immorality,* only to fall, 23,000 of them in one day.+ 9 Neither let us put Jehovah* to the test,+ as some of them put him to the test, only to perish by the serpents.+ 10 Neither be murmurers, as some of them murmured,+ only to perish by the destroyer.+ 11 Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us+ upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 18 by onewithhim]

Truth in Translation is a great read. The author really breaks it down really well. He even explains at the beginning of the book that he has no bias for one religion or another as he is not a religious person. Doctrine didn't sway his findings as to who he felt had the most accurate translations. The NWT was not the only one he liked either for accuracy.

Yes, he said that the New American Bible was the second-best, and that the Today's English Version and the New Revised Standard Version have good comments about some verses in their footnotes. (E.g., Hebrews 1:8 and Philippians 2:6.)

It is an excellent book, and surely will be examined by any serious student of the Bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

There are some textual variations in the Greek for v9 - some do say Lord but the majority use the Greek word for Christ.

The majority of the early respected manuscripts that contain this passage do NOT have the Greek word for Christ in 1 Cor 10:9 (see below)

LORD
� (ʼAleph) Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
B Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S
C Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., Paris, H.S., G.S.

GOD
A Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.

CHRIST
P46 Papyrus Chester Beatty 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Dublin, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A., G.S
D Bezae Codices, Gr. and Lat., fifth and sixth cent. C.E., Cambridge, England, G.S.

Indeed Adam Clarke Commentary states: Instead of Χ�ιστον, Christ, several MSS and a few versions have Κυ�ιον, the LORD, and some few Θεον, GOD [...] some respectable MSS have the LORD instead of Christ.
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/1 ... /10-9.html

OTHER COMMENTARIES

Pulpit Commentary
Another reading is "the LORD" "Christ" may have come in from a marginal gloss.

Vincent's Word Studies
For Christ read Κυ��ιον the LORD

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
the Alexandrian copy reads, "neither let us tempt GOD

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
It is not certain that the apostle meant to say that the Israelites tempted Christ.

Further, there can be no doubt that Paul is alluding in 1 Cor 10:9 to Deuteronomy 6:16 and Numbers 21:6. In both scriptures, God (YHWH)/The LORD are mentioned rather than Christ in the original Hebrew (see below all CAPs mine)

Nor let us try the LORD, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents - 1 Cor 10:9 New American Standard Bible

DEUTERONOMY 6:16

Ye do not try JEHOVAH your God as ye tried in Massah - Young's Literal Translation
Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah. - Webster's Bible Translation
You shall not tempt YAHWEH your God, as you tempted him in Massah. - World English Bible

NUMBERS 21:6

Then JEHOVAH sent fiery serpents among the people - Darby Bible Translation
And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people - English Revised Version
YAHWEH sent fiery serpents among the people - World English Bible

CONCLUSION: Although the word "christ" does appear in some early greek manuscripts, the most respected of them read LORD or GOD. The reference in the Hebrew scriptures which most bible commentaries agree Paul is alluding to, make no mention of Christ and universally state it was The Lord GOD (YHWH) Jehovah that struck the Israelites with serpents.