Bookmark and Share

Viewed 7531 times

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation

    VM44 posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 05:47:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 35 of 6574
    Joined 7/1/2001

    The Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) has been published by the
    Watchtower since 1969. It still is available in it's second editon.

    But how many really use this book? or read it?
    Probably very few, since most people do not know anything at
    all about Biblical greek.

    This being so, why does the Watchtower publish the KIT at all?

    --VM44

    M Skimmer posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 05:58:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 175 of 545
    Joined 3/18/2001

    I used to have a copy of the KIT. As I remember, the back of the book is filled with a good number of rather shaky justifications for the oddball NT translations seen only in the NWT. (Stake vs. cross, no immortal soul, no eternal punishment, no bodily resurrection of Christ, the tetragrammon in the NT, an impersonal Holy Spirit, and, of course, Jesus as a second and lesser God.)

    The WTBTS used the Westcott and Hort text from the late 19th century and I doubt if the text has had any revisions or corrections since then. I suspect that it was employed because the WTBTS could get it for free.

    Flip posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 06:08:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 128 of 659
    Joined 3/24/2001
    I suspect that it (Westcott and Hort text) was employed because the WTBTS could get it for free.

    Since those controlling the WTBTS have always maintained they never “pass the collection plate”…I guess the old saying, “…you get what you pay for” holds true for the WTBTS audience of Jehovah's Witnesses on both counts!

    Flip

    M Thirdson posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 06:16:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 331 of 1265
    Joined 2/5/2001

    I think partly the KIT was made to be an instant best seller. Take a free Greek text add the NT from the NWT to it and you have an interlinear Bible. Make a nice talk at a series of conventions and sell 2 million copies in a few months.

    The people who bought them put on the shelf with the other rainbow colored books and let it gather dust forever. I admit I rarely consulted the KIT unless I was preparing a talk. I read a great deal more of it (one of the few WTS books I have retained) when I started researching the WTS teachings in depth. The KIT is actually pretty damning. Afterall the divine name doesn't appear once in the Greek text and the WTS has to use some lame excuses for inserting it.

    Thirdson

    'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'

    gsark posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 06:56:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 39 of 245
    Joined 6/11/2001

    WT 2/1/98 "It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available"

    THAT is how Dr. Jason BeDuhn describes The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. He explains:

    "I have just completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, [U.S.A.] . . . This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students."

    Why does Dr. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear translation in his college courses? He answers: "Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today."

    The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is published by Jehovah's Witnesses to help lovers of God's Word get acquainted with the original Greek text of the Bible. It contains The New Testament in the Original Greek on the left-hand side of the page (compiled by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort). A literal word-for-word English translation is found under the lines of Greek text. In the narrow right-hand column is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which allows you to compare the interlinear translation with a modern English translation of the Bible

    I'm not EVEN gonna go there.
    WT 99 CD ROM
    THE KINGDOM INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK SCRIPTURES: With this word-for-word translation under the Greek Bible text compiled by Westcott and Hort you can get the literal sense of the words used in the original language. A modern-English rendering is provided in the right-hand column. With footnotes, appendix, maps, hard cover, and gilt-embossed title. 17 × 12 × 2.4 cm (6 3/4 × 4 7/8 × 15/16 in.).

    As for changes:
    This decidedly odd rendering has caused much "tense confusion" to the Watchtower. The footnote in the 1969 purple-cover edition of the KIT states that the "I have been" is "properly rendered in the perfect tense." However, in the l985 Navy-Blue-cover edition, the footnote states that "I have been" is "properly translated by the perfect indicative" (tense).

    Wouldn't true scholars KNOW the correct tense? Here the Watchtower has presented two different tenses for the same words. Which is wrong? Which is right? Actually they made three stabs at choosing a tense. In the 1950 NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures the Watchtower "translators" claimed John 8:58 was in the "perfect indefinite tense". All three tries are WRONG, according to Greek Scholars. The correct tense is the present tense, and the correct translation is "I am", not "I have been". http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/kit.html
    Gret website, by the way.
    here's more:
    http://www.webzonecom.com/ccn/cults/jw-008.txt

    I only have the one edition, 1969. Didn't think the others were different either, but THAT I should've known better, this IS the WT <sigh>

    my big gripe about the KIT is the translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and , 1 Corinthians 14:34b-35 , where the word haivakos pronounced 'gun e' is here translated as 'woman' when it is translated almost a hundred times elsewhere as 'wife'; (big difference in meaning) having authority over as opposed to 'usurping authority over' (another big difference in meaning) and then the word silence which is translated elsewhere as quietness, and so on and so on

    the WT changed so much else, you think they could change these verses. H--L NO!

    Life is a roller coaster. Get in, sit down, shut up and hang on!

    Scorpion posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 07:19:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 583 of 908
    Joined 5/17/2000

    I own one copy of the 1969 version and two copies of the 1985. I never used them while I was an active JW. I have used them as an exjw on rare occasions when dealing with active JWs.

    They are collector items as far as I am concerned.

    gsark posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 07:29:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 40 of 245
    Joined 6/11/2001

    good point, scorpion! In 25 years in and around the org, not only did I never use the KIT, I never even HAD one. not untill I became an ex-jw. LOL

    Life is a roller coaster. Get in, sit down, shut up and hang on!

    tergiversator posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:19:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 129 of 136
    Joined 3/5/2001

    Somehow, as a kid, I got the impression that people who got KIT's and studied them thoroughly were dangerous doubters already on their way out of the organization. Maybe this is because I have vague recollections of my dad reading through it heavily in his last few months (he was only in less than a year) before he was forcibly DA'd. Anyhow, he took the family copy when my parents got divorced, and it was another decade before I got one for myself.

    I'm not real sure why I wanted one; I think it was mainly because I was collecting foreign language material and thought I should have something in ancient Greek too. I suppose there was also the lure of finding out about whatever it was in there that drove people out of the truth, 'cause I was doubting. I didn't find anything myself, though; I didn't know where to look and barely glanced at it after I got it.

    But lo and behold here I am. Maybe just owning an interlinear translation is the ticket out.

    -T.

    M MacHislopp posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:31:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 487 of 1694
    Joined 2/27/2001

    Hello VM44,

    a good topic indeed.
    Btw i do also have the KIT, (2 different versions)
    and I have used sometimes for the greek words.
    I do find very interesting Thirdson answer and the
    research from Gsark. Thanks for the information.

    Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

    scholar posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:04:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 7 of 2030
    Joined 1/7/2001

    Hello VM44
    The answer to your question is found under the heading 'BY WAY OF EXPLANATION', paragraph 2 in KIT, 1985 edition: "Sincere searchers for eternal, life-giving truth desire an accurate understanding of the faith-inspiring Greek Scriptures, an understanding that is fortified by the knowledge of what the original language says and means. The purpose behind the publishing of the KIT is to aid such seekers of truth and life. Its literal interlinear English translation is specially designed to open up to the student of the Sacred Scriptures what the original koine Greek basically or literally says".

    The KIT fulfills this noble objective brilliantly. I can only add my testimony which is in full agreement with Jason de Buhn. If any person wishes to engage in deep theological study of the NT then this is a superb instrument to engage in such pure research. I give the KIT 10 out 10 for its lexicography, morphology, syntax and textual criticism. Proof of this observation can be realized if one uses advanced commentaries of the New Testament as well as the scholarly journals. I urge to use it and you will be wiser for it.

    scholar

    terraly posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:08:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 99 of 102
    Joined 2/23/2001
    I urge to use it and you will be wiser for it.

    This is true. As Tergi is getting at above- the serious changes the translators make going from what the actual Greek says to what they wish to make it say are readily apparent in the KIT.

    You will become wiser in how these men twist their translation to make it support their dogma.

    Yadirf posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:14:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 219 of 1352
    Joined 3/17/2001

    I've made use of the KIT, diaglott, and other interlinears on numerous occasions. The KIT was helpful in a way that the others weren't by re-enforcing what I had already suspected about the word seismos in Matthew 24:7. All but the KIT translated the word as "earthquakes". Underneath the Greek word in the KIT was "[earth]quakes". In other words, the KIT, by enclosing the word "earth" in brackets, honestly called attention to the fact that the word "earth" is an unauthorized addition to the translation of the word seismos.

    In other words, Jesus didn't include earthquakes as part of the "sign" that his disciples had inquired about in the 24th chapter of Matthew. Jesus said that there would be "shakings", not earthquakes. As to what he meant by "shakings", that's a discussion for another time. I must go to bed!

    Friday

    M Thirdson posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:46:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 332 of 1265
    Joined 2/5/2001

    Good morning Friday,

    Nice to see you have been spending more time with us the past week.

    In other words, Jesus didn't include earthquakes as part of the "sign" that his disciples had inquired about in the 24th chapter of Matthew. Jesus said that there would be "shakings", not earthquakes.

    That's an interesting comment. I checked 4 translations of the Bible and they all render the word earthquake in Matthew 24:7. I think in English we term these "shakings" as earthquakes to differentiate between he various shakings that occur and those we measure on the Richter scale. "Earth" is not a Greek word and what we know and is translated as Earth has several different meanings from soil, ground or the realm of mankind.

    To say that Jesus meant shakings of an unknown kind as opposed to Earthquakes I suspect is a means to remove a rise in seismic (common English usage) activity from "the sign" that this period is the foretold end times. Afterall, if an increase in Earthquakes is a sign then these are not the times of the end of the age.

    Regards,

    Thirdson

    'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'

    M ozziepost posted Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:51:00 GMT(7/14/2001)

    Post 797 of 11624
    Joined 2/5/2001

    I must be the "odd one out" for I used it often in my Witness career. And now? I still use it often, but perhaps for a different reason. Previously I thought I would be PROVING Watchtower doctrine but now I refer to it to DISPROVE the Watchtower teachings.

    Cheers,
    Ozzie

    "So often, the unpolished
    the disjointed
    Is on its way to the truth
    Ahead of the finished
    the polished."

    Ken Walsh, Sometimes I Weep

    M Yerusalyim posted Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:12:00 GMT(7/16/2001)

    Post 365 of 5774
    Joined 4/17/2001

    Friday,

    I'll ask you about siesmos what I ask the JW's about Starous, If siesmos does NOT refer to earthquakes, what greek word IS commonly used for earthquakes? If starous does NOT mean cross, but only an upright stake, what greek word is used to indicate a "T" shaped "orture stake"?
    Yeru

    YERUSALYIM
    "Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
    [Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]

    Yadirf posted Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:47:00 GMT(7/16/2001)

    Post 264 of 1352
    Joined 3/17/2001

    Yeru

    Long time since we've exchanged blows. ;-)

    If siesmos does NOT refer to earthquakes, what greek word IS commonly used for earthquakes?

    Of course there is a word in Greek for “earth” (the Greek characters resembling our yn), and occurrences in which the earth ITSELF was the object affected by a seismos (shaking), it was even so specified. A case in point is Matthew 27:51, which according to the Revised Standard Version says: "...and the earth (yn) shook (seismos), and the rocks were split." Clearly, that which "shook" was indeed the earth. So, if Jesus had earthquakes in mind at Matthew 24:7 then why didn’t he make use of the Greek word for earth, using it in conjunction with the word that translates as “shaking”?

    This, along with much more that I could say, makes it evident that the Greek word seismos, used by Jesus in Matthew 24:7, does not in itself mean “earthquakes”, nor does the context offer the slightest clue to lead us to such conclusion. So, Jesus did not include and foretell earthquakes as a feature of “the sign”. What he did say was: “…and there will be … shakings (seismos) in one place after another.” Therefore, “shakings” were to be among those events which, upon being observed, would alert and inform those anxiously awaiting Jesus’ return that such was close at hand, and that their “deliverance [was] getting near.” -- Luke 21:28; NWT.

    Finally, since seismos simply means shakings, the question becomes: What is it that is due to shake? Of course, the clue is in the context itself. Had not Jesus’ discussion (starting with verse 7 of the 24th chapter of Matthew) revolved around such things as are common to man’s system and its governments. Certainly, nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom, food shortages, and pestilences (Luke’s} are all things linked with man’s system of self-rule. A parallel account to these prophecies of Jesus, recorded in the 6th chapter of Revelation in symbolic terms, verifies that these unprecedented problems would be the fate of man’s system just prior to Jesus’ return. As expected, in scrutinizing Revelation 6 the subject of earthquakes can’t be found -- only in verse 12 where in such instance the word seismos occurs, but which has been mistranslated “earthquake”. J. A. Seiss’ Revised Text became one exception to the rule by rendering seismos there as it properly should be rendered, namely “shaking”.

    And so, it becomes quite apparent that what is to experience “shakings in one place after another” is none other than man’s system of self-government. Too, understanding what the “death-stroke” truly signifies -- due to come upon the 10-horned 7th head of the 7-headed beast of Revelation 13 -- nails man’s system as being the object of the “shakings” of which Jesus spoke. With the help of such enlightenment it becomes crystal clear that the seismos Jesus had in mind are those which man’s system is to suffer as a consequence of the concentrated influence of Satan (then earth-confined, Re 12:9, 12) upon earth’s inhabitants as he frantically uses every tool at his disposal, particularly the nations, in an attempt to thwart God’s advancing purpose for restoring his own rightful rule over the earth, which, since Adam’s rebellion, had been “delivered” (Luke 4:6) into Satan’s hands.

    Yes, Yeru, the foundation of man’s worldwide system of self-rule is in for a “shaking -- even to the point of collapse* -- such being that which is pictured by the “death” of the beast of Revelation 13. I know that the principles I’ve alluded to here, Yeru, conflict with your idea that God approves of political involvement … but that’s just too bad for you is all I can say. You should get some eye salve.

    *Such collapse, however, does not mean the immediate end of man’s system, since the “death-stroke got healed”. -- Revelation 13:3, 12, 14.

    Friday

    M Yerusalyim posted Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:54:00 GMT(7/16/2001)

    Post 387 of 5774
    Joined 4/17/2001

    Friday ole pal, how ya been. Indeed too long since we've discussed ANYTHING. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm asking the question. You've answered it. Still, the phrase COULD still refer to Earth quakes. "The earth shook" is, at least in English, not always synonomous with earthquakes. "As the elephant walked by the earth shook", is different from saying, "There was an earthquake yesterday". Still, you make a valid arguement which I will investigate more.
    P.S. care to take a stab at the Staruous issue?
    Thanks

    Yeru

    YERUSALYIM
    "Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
    [Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]

    Yadirf posted Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:43:00 GMT(7/16/2001)

    Post 265 of 1352
    Joined 3/17/2001

    Yeru

    Still, the phrase COULD still refer to Earth quakes. "The earth shook" is, at least in English, not always synonomous with earthquakes. "As the elephant walked by the earth shook", is different from saying, "There was an earthquake yesterday".

    You say "at least in English". Of course it must be remembered though that the thought was spoken in the Greek language. It would be nice if we were as familiar with the Greek as we are with the English. Apparently in Greek there was no word specifically to denote what we today commonly refer to as an earthquake. Of course you can appreciate that it's with regards to discussions such as this in which the Greek interlinears come in handy. I wouldn't won't to get caught without having one of some sort or another.

    Many mistakenly think because the instrument that measures the intensity of earthquakes is called a seismograph, that the word seismos refers to earthquakes. The truth is, however, that in the Greek language seismos simply refers to the act of “shaking”, and that alone … having no reference to the thing being shaken insofar as identity … whatever the object might be. Matthew 8:24 is an example in which seismos obviously could not be rendered “earthquake”, forcing translators to comply strictly with the true meaning of the word. There we see that the “seismos” that “arose in the sea” was an “agitation” brought on by high “winds”. No thought, there, of such seismos being an earthquake.

    It's no surprise, however, that the instrument that was invented to measure the intensity of an earthquake would be called a seismograph, because the silly thing does just that ... it measures the amount of shaking that is going on.

    care to take a stab at the Staruous issue?

    Not at the present. That's not my strong point anyway. That subject is not too fresh on my mind, if it ever was that is. I dealt with that a little again about a year or so ago and can't even remember at the moment what I had concluded, or if I had even reached any conclusions. My memory is going kapoot, I guess.

    Friday
    .

    M Francois posted Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:15:00 GMT(7/17/2001)

    Post 663 of 5172
    Joined 3/31/2001

    Actually, I'd rate the Kingdom Interlinear Translation paper as a "pretty good" rolling paper. Low ash, but a little thick.

    The old green "Make Sure," now THAT was some primo rolling stock. Very low ash. Maintained a good curvature. Tore straight and true when scissors weren't available. Thin as rolling paper should, and would if it could. Neutral taste. Negligible ink load. Stuck together along the seam acceptably. It was a humble little rolling paper when compared to a good Job's 1.5, but I was impressed with its presumption. Got all the way to "Mariolatry" before I broke down and purchased a nice brass one-toke.

    Francoix

    Where it is a duty to worship the Sun you can be sure that a study of the laws of heat is a crime.

    M TD posted Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:21:00 GMT(7/17/2001)

    Post 12 of 4672
    Joined 5/14/2001

    Friday,

    ......the word "earth" is an unauthorized addition to the translation of the word seismos.

    How do you account for the Vulgate?

      Close

      Confirm ...