Ok Apognophos, I don't know if you were ever a jw, but they have always taught that the events in chapter 19 were a futuristic event in John's vision from his time of being alive.
Another bible contradiction about Jesus being king or what???
by Crazyguy 19 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Band on the Run
King of Kings, Prince of Peace..... Anyone can rule. Reign conveys monarchy, divine right to me. Their Jesus is so dinky maybe he rules. The JW Jesus might only suggest to the GB. The GB rules.
-
Apognophos
I understand that, Crazyguy, but the question is where in the text Revelation says that it's a vision of the future rather than "John" simply having a vision of the present in heaven. I'm just encouraging you to take the text on its own terms.
The Society has long said that their translation was not made with any doctrinal biases in mind, just a literal reading of the text. While we can dispute this in various ways -- the clearest to my mind is the insertion of all those "Jehovah"s into the NT -- it does in fact hold true that a straightforward reading of NT scriptures, even in the NWT, can often seem to disagree with WT teaching. For instance, the verses about the 144,000 were not altered to make them sound like a literal 144,000 despite the Watchtower teaching that the number is literal before the NWT was made.
If it weren't for the fact that the NWT sometimes actually does diverge from the way the Society tells us to read it, many JWs wouldn't have started to have doubts after doing Bible reading, since most of them were reading from their NWT.
So my point is that you can't take what the Society teaches about Revelation and apply it to the way you read the passage. Read the passage itself and ask yourself if the meaning of the actual words was changed from the way other translations render it. If Revelation, for instance, still can be read in the NWT like it's a vision of the writer's present, then clearly the Society has not altered this particular aspect of the Bible to suit their theology. Since "has begun to rule" works equally well when read both as a vision of the 1st century and as a vision of the 20th century, I just don't see how this passage has been changed to reflect a Watchtower slant.
-
Crazyguy
Ok see what u mean, but the texts has been changed. I have found many of their scriptues read the king James, but when u compare it to other translations and Greek interlinears its not accurate. Rev 5:10 is another good example their bible reads much like the kj but the Greek interlinear shows that they reign only as priests and not over the earth but on it.
-
Bobcat
CrazyGuy:
Check out this reference here. It is the NICNT-Revelation commentary (G. K. Beale). Click on where it says "Front Cover." In the drop down list click on page "972" and then scroll backwards to page 932. There it discusses the OT background to God 'beginning to reign' as a consequence of his subdueing his enemies. There is also a sub-title on "temporal questions" and the Greek in the text of Revelation at 19:6.
Bobcat
-
Band on the Run
Ive been hearing the Hallejah Chorus from Handel's Messiah thanks to this thread.
-
Crazyguy
Thanks for the link Bobcat. I'm of the opinion that the writer of Revelations was thinking that Jesus was King and was very soon in the not to distant future going to come and set up his kingdom on earth. In fact thats what he pretty much says. The writer of Matthew also stated that Jesus said to his followers at chapter 28 after his resurection that he Jesus was granted ALL power and authority. John confirms this at Rev. 1:5 and now that I have found that the verse at 19:6 does not say he is going to "become king" implying in the future, I with confedence can show someone these scriptures to show that Jesus was in fact king according to the writers in the writing of the NT further blowing up 1914 and any other argument that the JW;s will throw my way.
I do not believe the bible is the word of God but its one hell of a book to use as a tool to blow up JW doctrine!!!!!!
-
sarahsmile
Ok Crazyguy, never mind the facts. Indeed!
You've got something there! I find the JWs trying to convince people that for a temporary time period Jehovah allows Jesus to reign making Jah reign past tense. We were brought up with that doctrine.
I think you noticed something!
So from a JW perspective it would be past tense"reigned"! But not in mainstream bibles!
It would not make any sense that Jehovah's reigned was on a temporarily hold!
Therefore, the WT are preaching once again false doctrine of not only 1914 date of Jesus reign,but also that Jehovah stops his reign during this time frame! My head hurts to think about it!
OR, they just manipulated the entire verse!
Good job bringing this out for others JWs to read!
NWT
They said: Praise Jah, you people, because Jehovah our god, the almighty has begun to rule as king ." Then my first thought, what does it acctually say in their greek interlinear because at Rev.
Their Interlinear in greek:
stated at Rev. 19:6 "And I heard as voice of crowd much and as voice of waters many and as voice of thunders strong of ones saying, Hallelujah because reigned Lord the God of us the almighty.
Other bibles on Gateway:
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Halleluyah!
Adonai, God of heaven’s armies, [a]
has begun his reign!Or maybe they are covering other doctrines up that they do not want JWs to believe! :-)
Maybe that verse is not expressing JAH Almighty,But God Jesus! "God of heavens army" Just a thought!
No wonder I have problem when people in churches sing this song "Halleluyah" then they sing about Jesus! Nice song!
Also
Yes they've manipulated their Interliner! Just find an older version and compare it to the newer one.
My friend had a newer Diaglott and I had an older one. So,when we got together and talked about the Diaglott we did not know what the other was referring. It was show me that one.
Sure enough we compared them and they were different. Anyhow,I started with God and highlighted each one then cross it to English! Lol what was I thinking! But there were some mistakes!
Good job!
-
Wonderment
The aorist tense (in Rev 19.6) is the most peculiar to Greek idiom. It is the indefinite tense (aóristos, unlimited, undefined). It has no essential temporal significance, only in the indicative does it have a time relation, usually indicating a past action, but not always. The aorist views an action as a single whole, but may contemplate it from different angles. The aorist states the fact of an occurring action with little or no emphasis on time or duration. This means, that trying to put the blame on a translator for relying on his interpretation in rendering the tense would be like trying to define the indefinite aorist with a fixed meaning to be applied at all times, an impossibility.
Grammarians Dana and Mantey wrote: "Robertson [notable grammarian] calls attention to the difficulty of obtaining an accurate translation of the aorist. To attempt to translate it invariably by the simple past of the English would, in the majority of cases, do violence to the real shade of meaning intended to be conveyed. We should take into consideration the significance of the tense, find its relation to the context, consider the nature of the verbal idea, decide upon the resultant meaning, and select the English idiom which will most nearly represent the meaning. Probably in no point have translators made more blunders than they have in rendering the aorist."
Bart Belteshassur said: "It is interesting to note that JW.Org changed the meaning of Luke 10:18." At that he said to them, ‘I began to behold Satan already fallen like lightening from heaven’ (old NWT) and ‘ ........I see Satan already fallen......from heaven.’" (new NWT). Both of these translations are wrong for the same reason and in this case the action of falling from heaven is complete not ongoing."
The ESV Study Bible comments on this verse: "It is not clear whether Jesus is speaking of a vision by which he saw something in the spiritual realm or if this simply a graphic declaration of what has been happening, but in either case Jesus indicates that Satan's authority and power over people has been decisively broken."
Although the imperfect tense used here ("I was watching Satan fall") is normally associated with the past, context has to be taken into consideration for the final rendering choice, as the ESV Committee suggested that the passage was not all that clear. Allowing the possibility of a vision here can justify the NWT translation reading. Jesus' reply that he saw Satan fall has been viewed several ways. One explanation of various given, is that Jesus may have been saying he saw the casting out of demons by the Seventy as the beginning of the ultimate defeat of Satan himself.
One use of the imperfect was used by the early editions of the NWT, where, in relation to the past, placed emphasis in the beginning of the action (which grammarians call - ingressive, inceptive). One feature of the imperfect denotes an incomplete action, as ongoing, that is, it excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained. This does not mean that the NWT is correct in their interpretation, but they present one option of various explanations. In Greek, the principal tense to express completeness is the perfect tense. This is the reason that a perfect was not used at John 8.58, rather a Greek present tense was used to indicate Jesus' existence from an undefined past to the present ("I have been"). Hence, the action was not completed at the time of Jesus speaking, it was still going on.
We should keep in mind that the Greek language does not place emphasis on temporal significance, but in the kind of action. This is its fundamental significance.
-
Bobcat
Good post. I reposted some of your comment here for reference.
The aorist views an action as a single whole, but may contemplate it from different angles . The aorist states the fact of an occurring action with little or no emphasis on time or duration.
This is the reason that the NAC commentary quoted in this post (see the "footnote" quote) did not view "they are saying peace and security" as an end time event, but rather, as an ongoing attitude. In this case (1 Th 5:3), the aorist is lacking.
Enjoyed your post.
Bobcat