gift's [in] men

by darth frosty 6 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • darth frosty
    darth frosty

    This has been posted before but I just was thinking about eph 4:8 Where the NWT renders it gifts [in] men while most other bible render it gift's to men. I just looked this scripture up in the kindom interlinear and sure enough, it renders the greek as 'gifts to the men'.


    You have got to love the balls that this cult has. I mean its not like the words 'to' and 'in' are synonymous, how can they jutify such a change that radically alters the meaning of scripture and thus open the way for false interpretation.

  • Junction-Guy
    Junction-Guy

    Wow, I knew they manipulated scriptures, but this is the first I have heard about this particular one. I have seen lots of scriptures that the NWT mistranslated, I wonder how many more are out there that we havent discovered yet?

  • Apostate Kate
    Apostate Kate

    There are so many blatant mistakes I quit counting. Here are Barnes notes on that passage in case you'd like an elaboration it's kinda long but very interesting;

    Eph 4:8
    Verse 8. Wherefore he saith. The word "he" is not in the original;
    and it may mean "the Scripture saith," or "God saith." The point of
    the argument here is, that Christ, when he ascended to heaven,
    obtained certain gifts for men, and that those gifts are bestowed
    upon his people in accordance with this. To prove that, he adduces
    this passage from Ps 68:18. Much perplexity has been felt in regard
    to the principle on which Paul quotes this Psalm, and applies it to
    the ascension of the Redeemer. The Psalm seems to have been
    composed on the occasion of removing the ark of the covenant from
    Kirjath-jearim to Mount Zion, 2Sa 6:1, seq. It is a song of triumph,
    celebrating the victories of, JEHOVAH, and particularly the victories
    which had been achieved when the ark was at the head of the army.
    It appears to have no relation to the Messiah; nor would it probably
    occur to any one, on reading it, that it referred to his ascension,
    unless it had been so quoted by the apostle. Great difficulty has
    been felt, therefore, in determining on what principle Paul applied it
    to the ascension of the Redeemer. Some have supposed that the
    Psalm had a primary reference to the Messiah; some that it referred
    to him in only a secondary sense; some that it is applied to him by
    way of "accommodation;" and some that he merely uses the words
    as adapted to express him idea, as a man adopts words which are
    familiar to him, and which will express his thoughts, though not
    meaning to say that the words had any such reference originally.
    Storr supposes that the words were used by the Ephesian
    Christians in their hymns, and that Paul quoted them as containing a
    sentiment which was admitted among them. This is possible; but it
    is mere conjecture. It has been also supposed that the tabernacle
    was a type of Christ; and that the whole Psalm, therefore, having
    original reference to the tabernacle, might be applied to Christ as the
    antitype. But this both conjectural and fanciful. On the various
    modes adopted to account for the difficulty, the reader may consult
    Rosenmuller, in loc. To me it seems plain that the Psalm had
    original reference to the bringing up the ark to Mount Zion, and is a
    triumphal song. In the song or psalm, the poet shows why God was
    to be praised--on account of his greatness, and his benignity to
    men, Eph 4:1-6. He then recounts the doings of God in former
    times--particularly his conducting his people through the wilderness,
    and the fact that his enemies were discomfited before him, Eph
    4:7-12. All this refers to the God, the symbols of whose presence
    were on the tabernacle, and accompanying the ark. He then speaks
    of the various fortunes that had befallen the ark of the covenant. It
    had lain among the pots, Eph 4:13, yet it had formerly been white as
    snow when God scattered kings by it, Eph 4:14. He then speaks of
    the hill of God--the Mount Zion to which the ark was about to be
    removed, and says that it is an "high hill"--" high as the hills of
    Bashan," the hill where God desired to dwell for ever, Eph 4:16. God
    is then introduced as ascending that hill, encompassed with
    thousands of angels, as in Mount Sinai; and the poet says that, in
    doing it, he had triumphed over his enemies, and had led captivity
    captive, Eph 4:18. The fact that the ark of God thus ascended the
    hill of Zion, the place of rest; that it was to remain there as its
    permanent abode, no more to be carried about at the head of
    armies, was the proof of its triumph. It had made everything captive;
    it had subdued every foe; and its ascent there would be the means
    of obtaining invaluable gifts for men. Mercy and truth would go forth
    from that mountain; and the true religion would spread abroad, even
    to the rebellious, as the results of the triumph of God, whose symbol
    was over the tabernacle and the ark. The placing the ark there was
    the proof of permanent victory, and would be connected with most
    important benefits to men. The "ascending on high," therefore, in the
    Psalm, refers, as it seems to me, to the ascent of the symbol of the
    Divine Presence accompanying the ark on Mount Zion, or to the
    placing it "on high" above all its foes. The remainder of the Psalm
    corresponds with this view. This ascent of the ark on Mount Zion;
    this evidence of its triumph over all the foes of God; this permanent
    residence of the ark there; and this fact that its being established
    there would be followed with the bestowment of invaluable gifts to
    men, might be regarded as a BEAUTIFUL EMBLEM Of the
    ascension of the Redeemer to heaven. There were strong points of
    resemblance. He also ascended on high. His ascent was the proof
    of victory over his foes. He went there for a permanent abode. And
    his ascension was connected with the bestowment of important
    blessings to men. It is as such emblematic language, I suppose,
    that the apostle makes the quotation. It did not originally refer to
    this; but the events were so similar in many points that the one
    would suggest the other, and the same language would describe
    both. It was language familiar to the apostle; language that would
    aptly express his thoughts, and language that was not improbably
    applied to the ascension of the Redeemer by Christians at that time.
    The phrase, therefore, "he saith"--legei-or "it saith," or "the
    Scripture saith," means, "it is said;" or, "this language will properly
    express the fact under consideration, to wit, that there is grace given
    to each one of us, or that the means are furnished by the Redeemer
    for us to lead holy lives."

  • Carmel
    Carmel

    Intentional misinterpretation of scripture is nothing new. By the time Muhmmed was dictating the Koran, He condemned the Christian leadership for intentionally misleading the unlettered followers who had no way of confirming whether or not their renderings were correct. Want of leadership will corrupt equally with unchecked power. Machevillie (sp) diagnosed political and religious leaders alike! Carmel

  • darth frosty
    darth frosty

    carmel, I appreciate your reference to machivelli. I have recently begun to delveinto his writing and you are on point to note that he group's political and religious leaders in the same boat.

  • moggy lover
    moggy lover

    The intentional misinterpretation defends a certain WT agenda. In that sentence, the word "men" is in the "dative" case, ie, it is an indirect object.

    Now if you say "gifts [IN] men, you are implying that the various men [in this case, according to the WTS the local elders] get all the gifts equally. The "distributive" quality of the dative is shifted to "Men" In other words not all men get gifts, only some, ie the elders in each congregation And each elder gets all the gifts.

    However if you say "Gifts [TO] men" you then are implying that all the men get various gifts. They do not each get all the gifts. The "distributive" quality then is placed on the object of the sentence which is "Gifts"

    Does this make any difference? Sure does. If each elder gets only some of the gifts, then every elder will claim that he was'nt given the gift of "evangelism" If that is the case then why go out and flog the WT literature? Can you imagine what that would do to the sales figures?

    So every elder, as a model for the rest of the congregation, must be made to realize that ALL of them get the gift of evangelism.

    So up and at 'em tiger - its Saturdee mornin' and time to excercise yer gift.Keep those presses busy [and profitable]

    Incidently the word "men" here could have a generic meaning, ie "people" [including women] So that everyone - men and women as believers - gets at least one gift which can benefit the local community of believers.

    Cheers

  • darth frosty

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit