Bookmark and Share

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents

Viewed 2290 times

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:21:00 GMT(7/4/2004)

    Post 15 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    Jesus Christ, Jehovah?s Witnesses,
    and the J-Documents

    The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950, 1951), The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1963), and The Kingdom Interlinear Translation (1969) all contain the introduction that says:

    All together, the appearances of the sacred Tetragrammaton in the 19 Hebrew versions to which we have had access total up to 307 distinct occurrences .

    Actually, in just one J-Document (J 7 ) I found more than 50 [other] occurrences not listed in the NWT. And, I did not have time for a complete check ? this was just a spot check of certain books. For example, in Acts you can add these:

    • 5:14 ? believers in יהוה kept on being added
    • 9:1 ? disciples of יהוה
    • 9:35 ? turned to יהוה (this verse has a note but not on Jehovah!)
    • 9:42 ? believers on יהוה
    • 10:4 ? What is it יהוה ?
    • 10:14 ? Not at all, יהוה
    • 11:16 ? I called to mind the saying of יהוה , how he said, John, baptized with water, but you will be... (but in the Gospels this was Jesus!)
    • 11:21 ? turned to יהוה .
    • 11:23 ? continue in יהוה
    • 11:24 ? crowd was added to יהוה
    • 16:10 ? יהוה had summoned us (but in 13:2 this was HOLY SPIRIT!)
    • 17:27 ? for them to seek יהוה (to a pagan crowd?!)
    • 18:8 ? believer in יהוה
    • 18:9 ? יהוה said to Paul
    • 20:19 ? slaving for יהוה
    • 22:10 ? ?What shall I do Lord?? יהוה said to me,?
    • 22:16 ? calling on the name יהוה
    • 23:11 ? יהוה stood by him and said, ?Witness about me.?

    That?s 18 additional occurrences of יהוה that I found in just one J-Document ? in Acts alone. Oh, yes, I left the best five to last:

    • Acts 9:15 ? יהוה said to me
    • Acts 9:11 ? יהוה said to him
    • Acts 9:10 ? יהוה said to him
    • Acts 9:5 ? ?Who are you יהוה ?? יהוה said, ?I am Jesus.?

    That?s 23 additional occurrences of יהוה in Acts alone. Who knows how many יהוה are in other NT books or other J-Documents?

    After I circulated this info among Jehovah?s Witnesses in 1977 and they wrote the Society, many letters came out saying: ?Although the wording in the forward might suggest that only 307 references were found, in reality others were also found.? Without a word, the 1984 REF and 1985 KIT dropped this sentence about ?altogether ... total 307 distinct occurrences.? However, they left in the one that said:

    There is no benefit in self-deception.

    More Info? Contact: NWT@Cutlip.Org ? 602-438-9202

    Will Power posted Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:45:00 GMT(7/5/2004)

    Post 1205 of 2272
    Joined 11/14/2001

    Thanks for this list, where did you find the J-Documents?

    Are these are the same J-Documents that the WT uses as reference in their NWT in 1 thes 4:16? They use this verse as a proof text that Jesus is Michael, an angel..."and the Lord* will come with the call of the archangel..." The asterisk points to footnote 16 - Jehovah !!

    I haven't checked the newest CD but it is on others and used on & off in WTs dating back to 1974. Maybe someone could check this footnote for me?

    First time I brought this up with an elder - as an honest question - he said he'd get back to me after he checks it out himself - didn't trust my sources I guess - His comeback line 3 days later was "Are you humble enough to accept the truth?" (now would that be truth or Truth TM ?) Either way I was offended.

    In other words - THEY DON'T CARE! if it doesn't support the doctrines they think they are believing at the time - they better ignore it! cause it doesn't matter. Its the same with the "Mediator" thing. sigh

    But I do believe that posting such info does help "newbies" reassure themselves that they have NOT LEFT GOD. Initially that is what they are afraid of most I think. After a little confidence in your own intelligence we realize that God would not have to decieve, manipulate, misquote, or misrepresent anything. And someone that does this in God's name should be ashamed and does not deserve the time of day. So, in other words, it doesn't matter if some of the things they preach "sound" logical or seem believable or are considered bible truths, NOTHING THEY SAY or have said CAN BE TRUSTED. IMO

    wp

    M Earnest posted Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:07:00 GMT(7/6/2004)

    Post 516 of 1122
    Joined 8/22/2001

    The entire paragraph in the foreword to The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950) says:

    From the 14th century A.D. forward, translations of parts or of all the Christian Greek Scriptures have been made into the ancient classical Hebrew. The Shem Tob version of Matthew into Hebrew was made about A.D. 1385. When coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the Name appeared, the translators into Hebrew had no other recourse than to render kyrios or theos back into its original tetragrammaton form. Thus in that early Shem Tob version of Matthew the tetragrammaton occurs 16 times. All together, the appearances of the sacred tetragrammaton in the 19 Hebrew versions to which we have had access total up to 307 distinct occurrences. These have thus restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Scriptures.

    The many examples that you give from J 7 (Polyglott New Testament, Elias Hutter, 1599 [including a Hebrew version]) are very interesting but the context of the 307 occurrences mentioned above is particularly referring to "quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the Name appeared" and where "the translators into Hebrew had no other recourse than to render [it] back into its original tetragrammaton form". None of the examples that you cite are quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures, although there is a possible allusion to Joel in Acts 22:16, and so you should not expect them to be included.

    What must be remembered about these J versions is that they are just translations and so have no more authority than any other translation*. In fact, one of the J versions (J 21 ) is an English translation of 1864. I do think it was misjudged if not misleading to include these J versions as footnotes together with references to ancient manuscripts, as it is natural to give them the same weight if the reader does not check what each symbol represents. But the fact that these versions use the tetragrammaton where the context (i.e. quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures) does not require it is no reason that the NWT should follow suit.

    Earnest

    * J 2 (Matthew, in Hebrew by ben Shaprut) is a possible exception as it seems to predate the time of ben Shaprut (1385) and has traces of an earlier tradition.

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:50:00 GMT(7/7/2004)

    Post 16 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    Earnest said:

    The many examples that you give from J 7 (Polyglott New Testament, Elias Hutter, 1599 [including a Hebrew version]) are very interesting but the context of the 307 occurrences mentioned above is particularly referring to "quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the Name appeared" and where "the translators into Hebrew had no other recourse than to render [it] back into its original tetragrammaton form". None of the examples that you cite are quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures, although there is a possible allusion to Joel in Acts 22:16, and so you should not expect them to be included.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org responded:

    In the NWT ?Jehovah? is insinuated into the Acts of the Apostles 52 times. Of these 52 times only a handful are quotations from the OT where The Name occurs in the original:

    • 12 ? according to scholars Westcott and Hort,
    • 11 ? according to Christian commentator Lynn Lundquist,
    • 9 ? according to NWT critic Jason David BeDuhn, and
    • 8 ? according to Watchtower defender Greg Stafford.

    Depending on which numbers are the most accurate, only 15%-23% (about 1 in 5) occurrences of ?Jehovah? in the NWT of Acts are in quotations from the OT. Roughly eighty percent (80%) of the NWT insinuations of ?Jehovah? into Acts are not in quotations from the OT.

    In addition to his 9 quotations, Watchtower defender Greg Stafford allows another 9 passages might vaguely be considered allusions to the OT. Even then, Stafford admits that 34 (about 2/3) of the 52 ?Jehovahs? have absolutely no ?justification? (except the J-Documents). Christian commentator Lundquist is less strict. In addition to his 11 quotations, he allows that, another 13 passages might vaguely be considered allusions to the OT. That still leaves him with 28 passages (54% -- well over half) where ?Jehovah? has been ?interwoven into the translations to color the thought. In support of a preferred religious view, an inconsistency and unreasonableness have been insinuated into the teachings of the inspired writings? [ KIT page 7].

    Please explain why ?Jehovah? appears in these 28 verses in the NWT of Acts.

    Acts of the Apostles

    • 1:24 You, O Jehovah, who know the hearts of all
    • 2:47 Jehovah continued to join to them daily
    • 3:19 refreshing may come from the person of Jehovah
    • 7:60 he cried out with a loud voice, ?Jehovah?
      (In the verse before he was praying to Jehovah Jesus.)
    • 8:25 they ... had spoken the word of Jehovah
    • 8:26 Jehovah's angel spoke to Phillip
    • 10:33 you have been commanded by Jehovah to say
    • 11:21 the hand of Jehovah was with them
      (In the verse before they declare Jehovah Jesus.)
    • 12:17 told them in detail how Jehovah brought him out
    • 12:24 the word of Jehovah went on growing
    • 13:2 public ministering to Jehovah
    • 13:10 the right ways of Jehovah
    • 13:11 Jehovah?s hand is upon you
    • 13:12 astounded at the teaching of Jehovah
    • 13:44 to hear the word of Jehovah
    • 13:49 the word of Jehovah went on
    • 14:3 by the authority of Jehovah (no ?authority? in Greek)
    • 14:23 committed them to Jehovah
    • 15:35 the good news of the word of Jehovah
    • 15:36 published the word of Jehovah
    • 15:40 the undeserved kindness of Jehovah
    • 16:14 Jehovah opened her heart wide
    • 16:15 If you men have judged me faithful to Jehovah
    • 16:32 spoke the word of Jehovah
    • 18:21 if Jehovah is willing
    • 18:25 the way of Jehovah
    • 19:20 the word of Jehovah kept growing
    • 21:14 Let the will of Jehovah take place.

    I continue mentioning you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, may give you the spirit wisdom and revelation in the accurate knowledge of him.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:51:00 GMT(7/7/2004)

    Post 17 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    All together, the appearances of the sacred tetragrammaton in the 19 Hebrew versions to which we have had access total up to 307 distinct occurrences. These have thus restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Scriptures.

    ========================================

    The 307 "total" appearances of the tetragrammaton in the 19 Hebrew versions ... have thus restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Scriptures. Got it? "These [307 "total" distinct occurrences] have thus restored the divine name."

    ========================================

    I don't know what they do total up to -- I know it's a lot more than 307. Almost surely, they total up to more than 400 and possibly more than 500. Dozens of these refer to Jesus as L ORD . Some of them are even quotations from the OT.

    Jason David BeDuhn zeros in on just three of these key passages -- 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Peter 2:3, and 1 Peter 3:15 -- which "present a serious problem for the NW translators and their principle of using "Jehovah" based on Old Testament passages with YHWH. The fact that they do not, and apparently, cannot, [his emphasis] have "Jehovah" in these three passages underscores the problem with the whole idea of using "Jehvoah" in the New Testament." -- Truth in Translation, page 175.

    As far as I can determine at the moment: Greg Stafford compiled 650 pages defending the Watchtower while he assiduously avoided and adroitly sidestepped these three verses entirely.

    Every knee shall bow ...
    Every tongue confess ...
    Jesus is L ORD !
    And in this way glorify God the Father.

    -- Also compare Wm. F. Beck's Translation

    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:29:00 GMT(7/7/2004)

    Post 18 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    Hello Will Power,

    You said:

    Thanks for this list, where did you find the J-Documents?

    You said you would never trust anything said by the Watchtower. Generally speaking, that's a good approach. However, they do mix in some truth with all the lies. Sometimes it's deliberate, and sometimes it's accidental. I found the J-Documents by reading the NWT.

    I started reading the Bible seriously in 1958. In 1959 I became vaguely aware of the New World Translation. In 1960 I made a friend who had a copy, and I talked him out of it. He grew up a JW and became a lover of the Lord Jesus in high school. When I met him he still had some of the WT stuff lying around. So, after warning me of some of the pitfalls to watch for, John gave me his CGS. I read it cover to cover and made notes on funny stuff. After I finished it I obtained the five volumes of Hebrew Scriptures and read each of them cover to cover.

    After that they remained mostly on the shelf. I bought and read a new Bible translation every year for quite some time. When KIT came out I really liked that and started using it quite a bit. I had learned Greek and so I was not as concerned about being mislead by the NWT when I could just read the Greek for myself. It was fun to make notations of all the pretzel translation I found as serendipity.

    Some of it was little stuff that didn't seem to make a great deal of difference. For example, "home" in Matthew 1:24. "Home" is nowhere in the Greek (I've even seen this in other translations). Interestingly, the verb here is the same one found in John 1:11. If Franz was up to something nefarious in Matthew, it was too subtle for me.

    Other things like "some" in Acts 2:17 were as attention getting as a stake in the eye. Scripture tells us God does not measure out his Spirit. He doesn't give you 100 pounds and me 30. He doesn't divide up the Spirit (like a pie) so that we get equal "portions" of Spirit. She gets "some" ... you get "some" and I get "some." NO WAY. When God pours out his Spirit every recipient gets 100% ["all"] of the Spirit. And neither God nor the Spirit is diminished, being infinite.

    Well, in 1973 or 1974 I started passing on interesting things I found in their Bible to Jehovah's Witnesses. With the world ending in 1975 many of them were doing almost anything to get their field service hours up so they could trick Jehovah into thinking they had been diligent all along! So I just set up Bible studies with one after the other. Most ducked out after one session. A few had the grit for more than one. After some modest success in converting a few to Biblical Christianity, I was encouraged to really dig into their Bible. The ones willing to go more than one round with me frequently had a high regard for the Word and actually believed they could (anyone could) understand the Bible without the WT to tell them what it meant. When they found out that was contrary to what the WT actually taught, they were chagrined. One big-wig in a local circuit here actually wrote a resignation letter and had me proofread it for him. He freely admitted to me (and a few other non-witnesses) that he would never believe or teach that t he WTS was the "faithful and discreet slave." He even got sick once when that was a topic in a WT and he was the WT study overseer! After the first month meeting with me he stopped counting the hours on his time sheet. He was a scrupulous guy. He was not making headway with me, and I was with him, so how could he count it as witnessing time? After several months he decided he had too much to loose. His kids would never speak to him again. His wife might divorce him. It turned out sad. He began teaching his Bible study students directly from the Bible without WT literature. He could not honestly encourage them to be baptized and commit themselves to an organization he knew was not God's Organization.

    Let me drop that there, except to say that one real irony was that I also wound up studying with his first convert (neither one ever knew I was working with the other one). By that time the convert was an elder and married to the daughter of another circuit big-shot. She told him flat out that if he even thought of leaving that "open-minded" religion he would never see her of the kids again. I spent much less time with him. However, he once saw an elder club me unconscious from behind because I was passing out free literature at an assembly. Maybe that impressed him a little. He was a sales rep and could get free time during the day by arranging his schedule. He began praying to Jesus, "calling on the name of the Lord," and was soon sharing with me (and others) wonderful discoveries he was making from the Bible. He even found a Trinitarian JW in his Kingdom Hall that he could fellowship with from time to time.

    Sounds like I've gone to telling war stories. I guess I was. Some didn't have the courage to act on the truth they knew. Others did. One former elder is now a pastor in a church in Riverside, CA. A former Bethelite is a minister in his new congregation. (Took him almost 20 years to convert his third-generation JW wife.) Of course, there were your regular publishers. I helped other Christians set up outreaches in more than 30 cities. Exciting times.

    In 1977 I realized I needed to take a close look at these "J-Documents." After all, since the NT refers to Jesus as having inherited the most excellent name, the name above every name. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that no name is above the name above every name. Many scriptures call Jesus God and many scriptures spoken of the LORD in the OT are applied to Jesus in the NT. So, the J-Documents would have to reflect these facts. I just had to locate them!

    Thanks, Fred Franz! On pages 28 to 30 of the 1969 KIT Freddie gave a listing of where he found most of the J-Documents (in New York City!). Yep, his extensive research was done by taking the subway to a few libraries in NYC. Then he took the subway home.

    In Phoenix, I was almost on the opposite coast. And, I was pretty poor -- making about $2.00 per hour selling auto parts as a counterman. However, I took some time off work and hitchhiked to NYC where a single brother in the Lord let me sleep on the floor in his studio apartment at night. During the day I took the bus to the same libraries Franz had visited. I held in my hands many of the very same books he did. I did not find other copies. I had the exact same copies in my hands that he had in his hands. I only had a few days, and I was ill organized. (I usually am.)

    Sometimes the discoveries I made were petty. For example, in KIT 1969 on page 24 is a picture that purports to be the 1902 version in the "Gabun" language. Well, there ain't no "Gabun" language. I had several librarians looking for me -- Franz should have tried that! One of them discovered a "Gabon" dialect of (I think it was) the Fang language. We got it off the shelf. Bingo! 1902 edition! On the front inside cover was written in handwriting, "NT in Gabon" but the "o" was not all the way closed at the top! Franz had misread it as "Gabun" when it said "Gabon."

    Likewise, on page 25 is a picture of the "1816 version in the Hawaiian language" -- according to Franz. Actually, the first translation into Hawaiian was made in 1886. How did he goof that one? It seems that 1816 is the founding of the American Bible Society. He mistook the notation on the title page about the founding of the ABS in 1816 for the year of the translation. All he had to do was turn the page and look on the back! Great researcher!

    And, just to round out the pictures, on page 24 is a picture of a Malagasy version. I have a xerox of Hebrews 1 in this Bible where Jesus is called "Jehovah" in Hebrews 1:10 by his Father. These "many non-Hebrew missionary sources" may call Jesus by THE NAME in more places than the J-Documents do.

    Page 22 of 1969 KIT gives a chart listing "38 Languages other than English or Hebrew using a vernacular form of the Tetragrammaton." What a hoot! Number one is Choctaw. When I figure out how to upload images, I'll give you a mind blower: Chan 1 in Choctaw. Here's a hint: In Chan 20:28 Toma calls Jesu "My Lord and my Chihowa!" But you will get to verify all this for yourself when I learn more about the operation of this board.

    After a few days research at the great centers of learning in NYC I headed back to the wonderful Sonoran Desert -- God's country. I think it took me four days to hitch-hike back. And, I went back to selling auto parts over the counter for $2.00 per hour.

    These days I got more money. Lately, I've been buying J-Documents over the internet. Recently, I passed up one (I think it was J7 - Elias Hutter's Nuremberg Polyglott) for $15,000.00 -- tad outta my range! I also passed up one for $1,700.00 and another for 600.00 Euros in Vienna. Right now, I'm buying mostly in the $100 to $250 range -- mostly in Europe (bet I shouldn't give that away). Surprisingly, if you know where and how to look, something seems to come on the market every month or so. Currently, I have J4 and J10 on the way. Lately I'm being deluged with data. I can't get to it all.

    So, that's the short version of how I found the J-Documents. Got another question?

    More Power to Ya -- NWT@Cutlip.Org

    M Earnest posted Thu, 08 Jul 2004 02:42:00 GMT(7/8/2004)

    Post 517 of 1122
    Joined 8/22/2001

    The issue that you raised in the first post of this thread is that although the Introduction to NWT (1950, 1963) and KIT (1969) refers to 307 distinct occurrences of the tetragrammaton in the J-Documents, there are many more including some that clearly refer to Jesus.

    I reprinted what the foreword said about these 307 occurrences, namely that they were specifically occurrences which were "quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the Name appeared". You demonstrated in your post of 07-Jul-04 07:50 GMT that only about 20% of the occurrences of 'Jehovah' in Acts are quotations from passages in the O.T. But the foreword uses a broad brush in what it quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures :

    ...the modern translator is warranted in using the divine name as an equivalent of [kyrios and theos], that is, at places where Matthew, etc., quote verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX where the divine name occurs. - Foreword of NWT (1950), p.19.

    So, for example, "the angel of Jehovah", "the hand of Jehovah", "the word of Jehovah" are all expressions in the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name occurs. And if you think that is somewhat arbitrary then consider how often "angel of the Lord", "hand of the Lord" or "word of the Lord" occur in the O.T. Despite our familiarity with them in English, they do not occur in the Hebrew. So it would be quite unnatural to substitute 'Lord' for 'Jehovah' when using such well-known expressions. You may care to review your list of 28 verses in Acts and see how many are left after removing those with expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name occurs.

    You mention again, in your post of 07-Jul-04 09:51 GMT, that there are many more than 307 occurrences of the tetragrammaton in the J-Documents. You don't seem to realise that these J-Documents are simply translations, and so they have used their own principles of translation to determine when to use the tetragrammaton. They are not always in agreement. For example, the J 7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts. The reason that the 307 occurrences are cited is because in those cases the NWT translators agreed that the use of 'Jehovah' was justified. Clearly there were many instances when they did not consider it justified, according to their principles of translation. In fact, they limited 71 of the 307 occurrences to the footnotes only as they did not consider there were sufficient grounds for including them in the main text.

    And that is just as true regarding the "problem" Jason BeDuhn has with the use of 'Lord' in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Peter 2:3, and 1 Peter 3:15. The primary translation principle for the use of 'Jehovah' is that it is a quotation of a verse, passage or expression from the Hebrew Scriptures where the tetragrammaton occurs. But they also considered the context and related texts. If the context is clearly not referring to Jehovah then there is no justification to use the divine name. However, Professor BeDuhn is right to point out that there could be other passages (e.g. Romans 10:13) where the reference of the verse is uncertain and that interpretation rather than translation is the deciding factor in those cases.

    Earnest

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Thu, 08 Jul 2004 19:55:00 GMT(7/8/2004)

    Post 26 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    Earnest wrote:

    So, for example, "the angel of Jehovah", "the hand of Jehovah", "the word of Jehovah" are all expressions in the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name occurs. And if you think that is somewhat arbitrary then consider how often "angel of the Lord", "hand of the Lord" or "word of the Lord" occur in the O.T. Despite our familiarity with them in English, they do not occur in the Hebrew. So it would be quite unnatural to substitute 'Lord' for 'Jehovah' when using such well-known expressions. You may care to review your list of 28 verses in Acts and see how many are left after removing those with expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name occurs.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org replied:

    Why should I have to review the list? I asked you to explain [away] the Watchtower's arbitrariness. Oh, I get it, you are afraid. After you discount eight (8) "word of Jehovah," one (1) "hand of Jehovah," and one (1) "Angel of Jehovah" as "expressions" from the OT, you are still left with 18 places you can't explain as "quotations." P-B7 Check. Your move.

    --

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Thu, 08 Jul 2004 20:42:00 GMT(7/8/2004)

    Post 27 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    Earnest wrote:

    For example, the J7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org replied:

    Is that the original count or the revised count? Undoubtedly, you know that a major rework of the footnotes was done in 1984. For example, for forty years (one generation) the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of John (listed as J19) was in the footnotes as support for "Jehovah" in Luke 4:8, Luke 4:12, Luke 4:18 and Luke 4:19.

    Interestingly:

    Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our version, there are only two instances where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in these two instances, namely Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:13, we feel strongly supported by the context and by related texts in rendering the divine name. -- 1969 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p.19.
    Thus, out of the 237 times that we have restored Jehovah's name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely at 1 Corinthians 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support restoring the divine name. -- 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p.12.

    Too bad they misplaced the support they used to have for 1 Corinthians 7:17!

    --

    M Earnest posted Sat, 10 Jul 2004 00:04:00 GMT(7/10/2004)

    Post 520 of 1122
    Joined 8/22/2001
    Earnest : You may care to review your list of 28 verses in Acts and see how many are left after removing those with expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name occurs.
    NWT@Cutlip.Org : Why should I have to review the list? I asked you to explain [away] the Watchtower's arbitrariness. Oh, I get it, you are afraid.

    There is a proverb that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Now that I have shown you that the quotations from the OT include expressions as well as verses and passages, it should not be necessary to spell out for you what those expressions are. It really isn't too difficult if you have any familiarity with the Old Testament.

    I gave "the angel of Jehovah", "the hand of Jehovah" and "the word of Jehovah" as examples of such OT expressions, and that dispensed with eleven ("hand of Jehovah" occurs twice) of the 28 verses in Acts which you did not consider to be quotations from the O.T. What other O.T. expressions are there ? What about "the word of Jehovah" (occurs more than 200 times in the O.T.) ? That is found in a further 8 verses of the 28 you referred to. You get the idea ? Now see how many of the remaining 9 verses (11 + 8 + 9 = 28) contain expressions from the Old Testament where the divine name occurs. Then if you particularly want me to explain why I understand the remaining verses (if any) include 'Jehovah' I will do so.

    Earnest

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:45:00 GMT(7/10/2004)

    Post 33 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    Earnest promised:

    Then if you particularly want me to explain why I understand the remaining verses (if any) include 'Jehovah' I will do so.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org replied:

    Here are the "remaining verses" (ignore the one I scratched out) for you to explain away. Just start at the top and work down.

    Acts of the Apostles

    • 1:24 You, O Jehovah, who know the hearts of all
    • 2:47 Jehovah continued to join to them daily
    • 3:19 refreshing may come from the person of Jehovah
    • 7:60 he cried out with a loud voice, ?Jehovah?
      (In the verse before he was praying to Jehovah Jesus.)
    • 10:33 you have been commanded by Jehovah to say
    • 11:21 the hand of Jehovah was with them
      (In the verse before they declare Jehovah Jesus.)
    • 12:17 told them in detail how Jehovah brought him out
    • 13:2 public ministering to Jehovah
    • 13:10 the right ways of Jehovah
    • 13:12 astounded at the teaching of Jehovah
    • 14:3 by the authority of Jehovah (no ?authority? in Greek)
    • 14:23 committed them to Jehovah
    • 15:40 the undeserved kindness of Jehovah
    • 16:14 Jehovah opened her heart wide
    • 16:15 If you men have judged me faithful to Jehovah
    • 18:21 if Jehovah is willing
    • 18:25 the way of Jehovah
    • 21:14 Let the will of Jehovah take place.

    M Earnest posted Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:42:00 GMT(7/10/2004)

    Post 523 of 1122
    Joined 8/22/2001
    Earnest : What about "the word of Jehovah" (occurs more than 200 times in the O.T.) ? That is found in a further 8 verses of the 28 you referred to. You get the idea ? Now see how many of the remaining 9 verses (11 + 8 + 9 = 28) 17 verses contain expressions from the Old Testament where the divine name occurs.

    Sorry, my mistake. I was including "word of Jehovah" a second time and can only explain it as my brain going numb counting the number of times these expressions occur in the O.T.

    Earnest : Now see how many of the remaining 17 verses contain expressions from the Old Testament where the divine name occurs. Then if you particularly want me to explain why I understand the remaining verses (if any) include 'Jehovah' I will do so.

    Teachers report says "NWTetc could try harder". You are still expecting me to catch your fish for you. Now make a bit of effort and see how many of the remaining 17 verses you can identify which contain expressions from the Old Testament where the divine name occurs.

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:44:00 GMT(7/10/2004)

    Post 42 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004
    Earnest: Now make a bit of effort and see how many of the remaining 17 verses you can identify which contain expressions from the Old Testament where the divine name occurs.

    None? Zip? Zero? Nada? -- Right?

    M Earnest posted Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:58:00 GMT(7/11/2004)

    Post 527 of 1122
    Joined 8/22/2001

    Why am I not surprised you are unwilling to even think outside your box. Because you have consistently shown that your interest is only in finding irregularities in the NWT, not in truth. I have already demonstrated as an example that eleven of the 28 verses you rejected as quotations from the OT were just that, and assure you there are more. If you are unwilling to learn, I am unwilling to teach. So go back to class and do your homework.

    Earnest

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:10:00 GMT(7/11/2004)

    Post 43 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    NWT Use of "Jehovah" Unexplainable by JW Teacher

    In July 2004 a JW Bible teacher from England was asked to explain the 52 appearances of "Jehovah" in the Acts of the Apostles as found in the New World Translation. The JW teacher first said they were quotations from the OT. When asked to identify the sources of the quotations the JW teacher quickly went through about a dozen "Jehovahs" that did appear in quotations. When asked to continue the JW teacher pointed out that some quotations were more generalized and were actually "expressions" like prepositional phrases that appeared in the OT. For example, "the word of Jehovah" appears more than 200 times in the OT and 16 times in Acts. When asked to list the 16 places in Acts the JW teacher had to admit to accidentally double counting them; there were only 8 examples of "word of Jehovah" in Acts.

    Allowed to use any excuse, no matter how outrageous, when the dust settled, the JW teacher was unable to explain one third (17 of 52) of the appearances of "Jehovah" in the book of Acts. Even when allowed to use prepositional phrases from the OT as an excuse, this JW teacher was baffled by 32% -- one out of three -- of the "Jehovahs" in Acts.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    --

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:42:00 GMT(7/16/2004)

    Post 56 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    Earnest Wrote:

    I have sufficient confidence that the translators of the NWT ... I think it is a bit premature to describe the footnote as slipshod and incompetent.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org Responded:

    My second piece of evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 22:17 --

    I fell into a trance, א AB; Jehovah's hand was upon me, J 17 ; Jehovah's spirit clothed me, J 18 ; in the name of Jehovah, J 12,13,15,16 . -- 1969 KIT.
    I fell into a trance, א AB; Jehovah's hand was upon me, J 13,14,17,22 ; Jehovah's spirit clothed me, J 18 . -- 1985 KIT.

    In the late 1940s when Franz put together the original NWT footnotes, he "found" three different readings in the J-Documents. In the early 1980s when the footnotes were revised, those doing the revision could only find two readings.

    In the 1940s J 13 had the reading "in the name of Jehovah." -- according to 1969 KIT.
    In the 1980s J 13 had the reading "Jehovah's hand was upon me." -- according to 1985 KIT.
    Both cannot be factual. Both could be wrong ... but both cannot be right. The document, itself, did not change.

    An additional question: Why was J 14 not listed for the reading "Jehovah's hand was upon me" in the original footnote? Either slipshod and incompetent research missed it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted it the second time. The document, itself, did not change.

    Many more examples of slipshod and incompetent footnoting can (and will) be presented soon. Tempus Fugit!

    May God continue to bless you,

    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    --

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:30:00 GMT(7/21/2004)

    Post 77 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    Earnest Wrote:

    I have sufficient confidence that the translators of the NWT ... I think it is a bit premature to describe the footnote as slipshod and incompetent.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org Responded:

    Further evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 7:33 --

    Jehovah, J 11-14,16-18 . -- 1969 KIT.
    Jehovah, J 11-18,22,23 . -- 1985 KIT.

    J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. Leaving aside J 22,23 as not germane, notice that J 15 has been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted it the second time. The document, itself, did not change. Further evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 7:37 --

    Jehovah, J 7,8,11-14,16,17 . -- 1969 KIT.
    Jehovah, J 7,8,10-17 . -- 1985 KIT.

    Allowing that volume 3 of J 10 (containing Acts-1 Corinthians) may have been unavailable to the original researcher(s), notice that J 15 has been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted it the second time. The document, itself, did not change. Further evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 7:49 --

    Jehovah, J 11-14,16-18 . -- 1969 KIT.
    Jehovah, J 11-18,20,22-24. -- 1985 KIT.

    J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. Leaving aside J 22-24 as not germane, notice that J 15 and J 20 have been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed both of them the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted both of them the second time. The document, itself, did not change.

    Many more examples of slipshod and incompetent footnoting can (and will) be presented soon. Tempus Fugit!

    May God continue to bless you,

    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    --

    M Earnest posted Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:50:00 GMT(7/22/2004)

    Post 541 of 1122
    Joined 8/22/2001

    Well, you really are dredging the bottom to find something to criticise about the NWT. It has already been pointed out to you that these J versions are just translations and so have no more authority than any other translation (with the possible exception of J 2 ).

    So if the editors included some additional Hebrew translations which also used the divine name in their second edition of KIT, what of it ? Why do you think they should have been obliged to include those translations in the first edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation ? If these footnotes indicated anything more than the fact that some Hebrew translations of the NT use the divine name, then perhaps it is relevant that only certain versions are cited, but they don't. There is nothing special about them, nowhere in the KIT foreword does it suggest that the translators of these versions were in any way inspired, and the argument for the use of the divine name in the NT would not be affected if they didn't exist. So go blow your horn where it matters.

    Now, if you were to suggest that they cited a J document as containing the tetragrammaton, and in fact it does not, then that I agree would be slipshod and incompetent. But to say that in one edition they did not cite all the references they have in a later edition is just so juvenile there is simply no case to answer.

    I am currently investigating the point you make about J 13 as reading differently in the early and late editions of KIT. You say :

    In the 1940s J 13 had the reading "in the name of Jehovah." -- according to 1969 KIT.
    In the 1980s J 13 had the reading "Jehovah's hand was upon me." -- according to 1985 KIT.

    Both cannot be factual. Both could be wrong ... but both cannot be right. The document, itself, did not change.

    My investigations are not complete but you are not necessarily correct. In the foreword of the 1950 NWT NT it says regarding J 13 :

    Greek Scriptures in Hebrew. In 1838 the London Jewish Society published another Hebrew version as translated by A. McCaul, J. C. Reichardt, S. Hoga and M. S. Alexander. (A copy of the edition of 1872 is found in the library of the American Bible Society, New York city.)

    It is possible that the first edition of KIT used the 1872 copy from the library of the ABS, while the later edition of KIT used an 1838 version of this translation. Or vice versa. I do not yet know that it is the case but am simply showing your assumption that the footnote is inaccurate is not necessarily the case. I will certainly be letting the forum know.

    Earnest

    M NWT@Cutlip.Org posted Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:35:00 GMT(7/26/2004)

    Post 80 of 83
    Joined 6/15/2004

    Earnest Wrote:

    I have sufficient confidence that the translators of the NWT ... I think it is a bit premature to describe the footnote as slipshod and incompetent.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org Responded:

    Still more evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 8:39 --

    Jehovah's, J7, 13,15-18 . -- 1969 KIT.
    Jehovah's, J13, 15-18,22-24 . -- 1985 KIT.

    J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. Leaving aside J 22-24 as not germane, notice that J7 has been deleted from the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research added it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers deleteded it the second time. The document, itself, did not change. Yet more evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 13:2 --

    Jehovah's, J7,8,13, 16-18 . -- 1969 KIT.
    Jehovah's, J7,8,10, 13,15-18,22,23. -- 1985 KIT.

    Allowing that volume 3 of J 10 (containing Acts-1 Corinthians) may have been unavailable to the original researcher(s), let's bypass addition of J10. And, remembering that J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. We will ignore the insertion of J10 and J 22-24 as not germane. Even so, notice that J15 have been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted it the second time. The document, itself, did not change. Ever mounting evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 13:11 --

    Jehovah's, J7, 15,17,18 . -- 1969 KIT.
    Jehovah's, J7,8,10, 15-18,20,22-24. -- 1985 KIT.

    Allowing that volume 3 of J 10 (containing Acts-1 Corinthians) may have been unavailable to the original researcher(s), let's bypass addition of J10. And, remembering that J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. We will ignore the insertion of J10 and J 22-24 as not germane. Even so, notice that J8 and J 16 have been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed them the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted them the second time. The document, itself, did not change.

    Many more examples of slipshod and incompetent footnoting can (and will) be presented.

    May God continue to bless you,

    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    --

      Close

      Confirm ...