Where has the the society changed the bible to reflect their teachings? (page 2)

Leolaia

Putting "Samuel" in scare-quotes in the Saul En-Dor narrative is a pretty clear example.

Leolaia

The Watchtower of April 15th, 1970, p.255:
"In considering this matter it is well to note that Bible writers often took for granted that certain things would be understood, just as writers in our day do. For example, the apostle Paul states, as we read at Colossians 1:16, that by means of Jesus Christ all things were created in the heavens and on earth. But since we know from Revelation 3:14 that Jesus himself was also created, the New World Translation adds the word "other," which clearly is what the apostle had in mind. But even here, it might be added, that, were it not for the prevalence of the trinitarian teaching that Jesus was not created, it would not have been necessary for us to add the word "other."

I would have to disagree with this statement....(1) It is not a "trinitarian" teaching per se that Jesus was begotten rather than created....this is an idea that antedates (and does not depend upon) trinitarian thinking, (2) It is not the prevelance of "trinitarian teaching" that leads one to to read the text in a way contrary to inserting "[other]", it is the grammar of the immediate context that conflicts with this rendering, (3) The immediate context takes precedence in exegetical reading, postulated outside parallels (such as the passage from Revelation cited here) are of secondary importance.

Some contextual arguments against the NWT rendering:

(1) The chief problem is the presence of hoti "because" at the beginning of v. 16. A clause marked with causal hoti "because, for the reason that" semantically explains the preceding clause, i.e. John 5:27 "He gave authority to him to render judgment because (hoti) he is the Son of Man." X has AUTHORITY because HE IS THE SON OF MAN. X is FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION because ALL THINGS WERE CREATED IN HIM. It is Jesus' role in creation that makes him the "firstborn of all creation". The NWT interpretation is rather nonsensical: Jesus was the first creature because all other things were created in him?? (He would still be the first creature if he had no role in the creation of others) (2) The second problem is the scope of the quantifier pas "all". In v. 15 of the NWT pasès (gen. sing.) includes Jesus within the set of "all creation" but panta (nom. pl.) excludes him from that same set (individuated via the pl.) in v. 16-18. It is certainly more parsimonious that pas has the same scope throughout v. 15-18. (3) The insertion of "[other]" is justified in the NWT by pointing to examples like Luke 11:42: "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue, and all [other] garden herbs (pan lakhanon) but you neglect justice and the love of God". But this is not a parallel to Colossians 1:15 because here mint and rue are included in the set of garden herbs and pas occurs to complete the set, whereas in Colossians 1:16-18 where the NWT adds "[other]" in brackets, pas "all" does not complete a set that includes the Son but rather excludes him from that set.

Killa

Christ Alone,

It's interesting the Watchtower society would say that. I was trying to find that article in both the CD-Rom and old Watchtower volumes, but under April 15, 1970 pg 255 I didn't see anything related to Colossians 1:16.

mP

ask them why they refuse to translate all the words in job 38:31-32 where it says the zodiac controls our lives and is governed by Jehovah.

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/job/38

Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki′mah constellation, Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke′sil constellation?

32 Can you bring forth the Maz′za?roth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them?

Fernando

According to Watchtower theology their followers can be "in the truth" and the truth can be in them.

However they cannot be "in Christ" nor can Christ be in them.

According to this approach Christ is not "the truth" as he plainly stated in John 14:6.

This "this little vignette of deceit and villainy" has been enabled by spuriously inserting the word "union" more than 100 times so as to deprecate the intimate spiritual relationship between Christ and his followers.

Any Watchtower follower who starts speaking of being "in union with the truth" is liable to be invited to a star chamber Judging Committee session.

wt lib search exactly as follows:

“in union“ (Jesus/Christ)

...then select "Bible" as the only results to display.

maccauk11

The letter J did not exist until the 15th century

loosie

Wow I learn something here everytime I post or read a topic. Who needs a college education when you got JWD. ( just joking) but thank you everyone for your input.

Turns arguing with that jw was like teaching a pig to sing.... he just didn't want to get the obvious that I pointed out to him. Claiming that the society only changed things to make it clearer to us... I guess the society thinks their flock is dumb.

sd-7

Revelation 20:4, 5 (NIV): I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God

Revelation 20:4, 5 (NWT): And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God

--One word was changed in this verse, and it changes the entire meaning of the verse, making the ones who have authority to judge and sit on thrones the same as those who were martyred. It puts the anointed in the position of judging themselves! No possible basis in the Greek text can be found for changing the word "And" to the word "Yes". The change clearly reflects their need to give a position to the anointed that doesn't exist at least in the context of these verses.

I learned that from a website myself, was surprised when I verified it and checked the Greek text. Subtle changes like that really get overlooked, but after seeing that one, I stopped using the New World Translation and realized it just can't be trusted.

--sd-7

Iron Rod

I like this one:

Hebrews 1:8
New International Version (NIV)
8 But about the Son he says,

"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Here it is from the NWT:

"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'"

The writer of Hebrews 1:8 was quoting from Psalms 45:6, which says:

Psalm 45:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

While the sentence construction allows for translating the verse as it is in the NWT, it seems to me to be a pretty safe bet that their decision to render it that way (contrary to almost all other Bible translations) was doctrinally motivated.

DATA-DOG

Ok, since I cannot go to the WT CD-library for the answer, I will ask all of you. In the oldest of the old extant manuscripts of the Greek NT, was YHWH included at all? As simply as possible please explain why the NWT says " Jehovah " should have been restored. Besides the obvious convenience of having a publishing empire that has the name Jehovah in it. Is there any validity to the JW argument that it should be in the NT, and that religious leaders removed it because of superstition? Trying to look this up can get confusing.

Where has the the society changed the bible to reflect their teachings?

Share this