My two cents' worth re: the revised NWT

by L3G 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  L3G

  I've only posted a new topic twice before here. Mainly I've just commented on others' posts. Because of spending a few years as a lurker (until 7 months ago when I "came out" here), I feel that I have at least some pulse on this forum. I have two points.

  1. I must say how struck I am at the number of posts and the heavy reaction to them regarding the revised NWT. Perhaps some of the long-term members here can answer my question: has there been any other topic in the past that has generated this kind of singular reaction? I am really struck with it... Has anything else the borg has done been so influential here in the matter of less than one week?

  2. Slimboyfat asked in another thread about the increase in the number of uses of "Jehovah" in the revised NWT. For what it's worth, it does not appear that they have added any in the New Testament. I've downloaded the revision and the note on Matt. 1:20 on p. 1307 says that there is still 237 instances in the NT (or Chistian Greek Scriptures, an oddity of Freddie Franz that they have retained), the same number they had in the previous NWT NT. Thus it looks like the increase in uses of "Jehovah" must be in the OT. SBF and others must be right that they are probably based on new ancient manuscripts from the Dead Sea or elsewhere, in other words, all in the Hebrew part of the Bible.
• 

  jgnat

  Responding to 1.,

  The UN disclosure.

  Candace Conti.

  There were a couple others, a blur right now.
• 

  slimboyfat

  You don't remember Sparlock then?

  You are right about the Jehovahs being added to the OT, see the original thread.
• 

  L3G

  jgnat, the UN thing was before I discovered this forum. The Conti thing had an initial impact, but all must wait for the next legal episode, so the reaction must be piecemeal. I suppose it might in the end be equal to the revised Bible.

  Slim, Do you think the Sparlock thing was equivalent to the revised NWT? I don't. This seems far more profound...

  I guess what I'm seeing is that seems so different all this effort by people here (SBF included) to spend serious time with the NWT revision, far more so than other topics.

  Thanks for the input!
• 

  cofty

  I think the fuss about the so-called new bible is much ado about nothing.
• 

  Junebuggie

  My comment on this post is not about the new revised NWT . Infact I didn't know that they revised it. Why would they do that? What has been revised in it? I understand it is grey now? Black, maroon, green, grey ; no matter what color the cover is, the inside story is still "colored with lies".

  I remember going to the Memorial in 2000 and grabbed up my grandmothers KJV Bible, printed by the WTBTS...I was questioned as to why I was using it to look up Scriptures at the Memorial. Good grief,,,, I asked the "sister", "what differance does it make which Bible I use,,,,especially if it was printed by the Borg"? ( Of course I didn't say Borg at that time) She said she guessed it didn't matter & I showed her the printing section in the front of the Bible, to prover to her it was printed and distributed by the org.

  I never went back to the KH after that & that was my last Memorial attendence..

  No matter how many times they revise the NWT, if they don't quit twisting scripture, and rewording to support their ideas & beliefs, they are just painting over old color.... the lies are still there, the twisted scripture usage, the inserting of words, or cutting them out, it is all the same in my opinion.