NWT Hebrews 1:6 Bible change Revised 1970 and 1984 editions. Any others?

by hubert 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  DD,

  There is no French equivalent to the KJV. Down to the end of the 19th-century there were Vulgate-based Catholic translations on the one hand, frequent revisions (or imitations) of the original Protestant translation by Olivétan (a relative of Calvin) which have been gradually integrating textual criticism on the other hand.

  Of course the TR fashion has reached a handful of Evangelicals here too, so now there are some TR-based translations, either new ones of "resurrection" of long-forgotten Protestant translations (such ad the 18th-century David Martin's). But none of them is popular. The TR-folks are a tiny minority in the Evangelical minority of the Protestant minority...
• 

  Narkissos

  Sorry Atlantis,

  I should have written "the list you posted"...
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  There is no French equivalent to the KJV.

  I found that out a couple of years ago, and realized the joke was on me. We English speakers think the world revolves around us. I was looking for a bible to give my mother as a gift (she is French Canadian).

  Now I ask the "King James only people", What is the inspired French version? Or what translation should I give my mom?

  I find it amazing that so many think that the English bible is inspired. I believe only the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were.

  I guess some of the French think the TR is the inspired manuscript?

  D Dog
• 

  blondie

  When I was still an active JW, I was surprised at all the revisions

  1961 - original complete copy of NWT

  1970 - revision

  1971 - revision (large-print)

  1981 - revision

  1984 - revision

  Yet the WTS does not list the changes made from each revision to the next. It was interesting a few times when someone had an original 1961 Bible in the book study group and someone else was using the 1984 version. It is interesting that in the 1930-1985 WT Publications these are listed as revisions, and in the 1986-2004 WT Publications merely as editions (though under abbreviations, "revision" is used)

  Are there any lists of the changes, "updates," the WTS has made over the years in the NWT from one year to the next?

  ***

  w81 12/15 pp. 11-12 Your Bible—How It Was Produced ***

  EXAMINING

  THE 1981 "NEW WORLD TRANSLATION"

  The 1981 edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is the culmination of 35 years of studious translation and careful revision. The translating project was initiated back in 1946, and by 1960 both the Hebrew and the Greek portions of God’s Word had been rendered into English directly from the original languages. During those years of translation a great deal of careful research was done by the New World Bible Translation Committee to assure that the translation was internally consistent in word choice and that the best possible readings of various manuscripts were used in the text. Jehovah’s Witnesses, who use the New World Translation as their primary Scriptural reference, have greatly appreciated and benefited from this scholarly work.

  However, the work of the translation committee (whose members remain anonymous at their request) was not finished in 1960. The New World Translation was first issued as a single volume in 1961, and this edition incorporated a careful revision of all the previous work. Since the 1961 edition contained no footnotes, a number of footnote readings from the earlier editions were put in the main text to conform more closely to the literal meaning of the original languages. A second revision, in 1970, took note of changes both in English usage and in the understanding of the ancient languages being translated. Over 100 words or expressions used in the 1961 edition were therefore altered. In 1971, the New World Translation was issued in a larger-print format with footnotes, and another revision of the text was made.
• 

  Atlantis

  Narkissos:

  Sorry Atlantis,

  I should have written "the list you posted"...

  Not to worry Narkissos! In my digging on JWD I have come across your research before and feel that some of your posts are unmatched! Some of the information you have posted here is of scholar quality in my opinion. I can only hope that I will be able to some day be as wise! You are surely due respect, and certainly have mine!
• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks Atlantis

  DD,

  The last "Protestant" Study Bible is the Nouvelle Bible Segond (UBS, 2002) which is a thorough revision of the 19th-century translation by Louis Segond (the latter became THE French Protestant Bible in its posthumous 1910 revision). Perhaps your mom would enjoy it if she has no sight problems (the footnotes are in very small print). I am in the best and worst possible position to recommend the 2002 ed. since I worked on it... lol.

  Soon afterwards the Evangelical Geneva Bible Society (which is not a member of the UBS) produced its own Segond revision, with heavy emphasis on the TR.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  You know what? I think that is the one I got for her. LOL
• 

  mdb

  HEB 1:6 Jesus worshiped (Jesus is NOT an angel)

  The 1961 edition of the NWT translates the Greek word proskuneo as worship, but in the 1971 edition changes the translation to read obeisance (to honor, give homage).

  If Jesus is a created being that should not be worshiped, then the Father sinned (which is impossible) by commanding the angels to worship a mere creature. If Jesus was an angel, then the angels were commanded to worship one of their own.

  Worship is to God alone. (Ex 34:14; Matt 4:10)

  **NOTE: read Rev 22:8,9 in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (NWT) where proskuneo is used in the original Greek. An angel told John not to worship (proskuneo) him. This worship the angel refused is the same worship the Father commanded to be given to Jesus.

  Unclean spirits bowed down to Jesus and addressed him as the “Son of God.”

  The Son is not an angel.

  **You might find the following quotations interresting as well...

  1879 "His position is contrasted with men and angels, as he is Lord of both, having 'all power in heaven and earth'. Hence it is said, 'Let all of the angels of God worship him' [that must included Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because he has 'by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."' (C.T. Russell, Watchtower Nov. 1879, bracketed comment in the original)

  1880 "He was the object of unreproved worship even when a babe, by the wise men who came to see the new-born king... He never reproved any for acts of worship offered to Himself... Had Christ not been more than man the same reason would have prevented Him from receiving worship." (Watchtower Reprints, 1, Oct., 1880, p. 144).

  1898 "Question... Was he really worshipped, or is the translation faulty? Answer. Yes, we believe our Lord while on earth was really worshipped, and properly so... It was proper for our Lord to receive worship... " (Watchtower Reprints, 111, July 15, 1898, p. 2337).

  1915 "As the special messenger of the Covenant, whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world to redeem the world, and whom the Father honored in every manner, testifying, ‘This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased' - it was eminently proper that all who beheld his glory, as the glory of an Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, should reverence him, hear him, obey him, and worship him - do him homage - as the representative of the Father." (At-One-Ment Between God And Man, 1899; 1915 ed.; p. 134)

  1945 "Since Jehovah God now reigns as King by means of his capital organization Zion, then whosoever would worship him must also bow down to Jehovah's Chief One in that organization, namely Christ Jesus, his co-regent on the throne of The Theocracy." (Watchtower, Oct 15, 1945)

  1945 "The purposes of this Society are:... public Christian worship of Almighty God and Jesus Christ; to arrange for and hold local and world-wide assemblies for such worship... " (Charter of the Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Article II, Feb 27, 1945 [the 1969 Yearbook quotes Article II of the Charter, "and for public Christian worship of Almighty God ..." leaving off the original requirement to worship Jesus])

  1970 "But when He again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all

  God's angels worship him' Hebrews 1:6." (New World Translation, 1950, 196 1, 1970 editions, [The NWT revised 1971 edition was changed to read, "do obeisance to" rather than "worship"])

  "Question: The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Answer: Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so... It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father, and his agent in the creation of all things, including man." (The Watchtower, 7/15/1898, page 216.)

  New Heavens and a New Earth, on pages 27-28, published in 1953 , "For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'? And again: 'I shall be a Father to him, and he will be a Son to me'? But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him."'
• 

  Little Bo Peep

  I read your post with great interest. We have been doing extensive research for about four years, and although we'd rather put this all behind us, our children are now asking a lot of questions, so the "search" goes on. I spent all of last evening comparing all of your references in the Kingdom Interlinear (KIT), which the NWT uses; the Emphatic Diaglott, and the Hebrew-Greek-English Interlinear by Jay P. Green. All three are different in a number of instances, and I will follow with a few in just a moment. The KIT, according to the forward, is drawn from Westcott and Hort of 1881. The Emphatic Diaglott is from the Vatican 1209. I found the Westcott and Hort interlinear online at "Online Greek Interlinear", which may be of use to you. I did find that when there was a "deletion", it was because the original manuscripts usually did not have that text, and most modern translations also delete them. The following is what I found on some of your references.

  John 1:1= WH says "god was the word", as does the KIT, although in the english translation, it adds "a god". It's interesting, in the forward of the KIT, it acknowledges the Greek had no "a" or "an", but would be added at the translators discresion.

  John 8:58= WH reads "I am", just like the KJV.

  Rom 14:10= WH says "of the God". ED says the "seat of the anointed".

  1 Tim 3:16= WH says "God was manifest in the flesh".

  Rev 5:14= WH adds "lives forever and ever" in the English translation, but in the literal Greek, it ends as does the KIT.

  Acts 7:59,60= WH reads nearly the same as the KJV.

  1 Cor 10:9= WH reads like the KJV.

  1 John 3:16= WH reads like the KJV, but has [of God] bracketed.

  Col 2:9= WH says it is "dwelling entire the complement of the diety bodily".

  2 Tim 2:19= WH reads like the KJV.

  Col 1:16= WH reads like the KJV.

  John 1:3= WH reads like the KJV.

  Acts 2:30= WH reads like the KJV.

  Rom 8:34= WH reads like the KJV.

  2 Cor 13:14= WH reads like the KJV.

  Mt 24:36= WH reads like the KJV.

  I was surprised by many of the differences between the KIT, ED, and our Hebrew-Greek-English Interlinear, but was shocked when I read from Westcott and Hort. It was different from the KIT (NWT), even though the KIT says "the main material will be found the original koine Greek text as revised (in 1881 C.E.) by the renowned Greek scholars B.F.Westcott and F.J.A. Hort". My research has shown the NWT to be dishonest in many scriptures, adding many words or changes, without any [brackets].

  Thank you for your research. Your work is appreciated.

  Little Bo Peep
• 

  hubert

  Thank you for your research. ; Your work is appreciated.

  Little Bo Peep, I hope you are not saying this to me, as most of my research especially Bible stuff comes from other more knowledgeable Bible posters from this forum. The credit belongs to them.

  Thanks for the extra changes, too. I also have the KIT, along with the 1970 and 1984 NWT's, plus the 'Reasoning from the Scriptures" section (canned answers), and also a copy of the KJV.

  Hubert