Missing Books of JW bible

by Wordly Andre 32 Replies latest jw experiences

  • TD

    Can anyone give me a clue why this part of John's Gospel was removed???

    This particular pericope is regarded as "Suspect." (i.e. a forgery) In early manuscripts, it is either not there at all, or it "floats" (Appearing either after John 7:36, 7:44 or Luke 21:38)

    Edited to add: It has not actually been "removed" in the NWT though. It appears in smaller type at the bottom of the page with a note. The NIV (At least my edition) omits it completely. (Also with an explanatory note.) The TEV includes it, but brackets the text in question.

  • the dreamer dreaming
    the dreamer dreaming

    trinitarians often seem deseperate enough when trying to read the lie of the trinity backwards into out of context verses, but when it comes to

    saying anyone who says I AM is referring to YHWH, they are simply insane... it has got to be the most rediculous and silly attempt I have ever seen.

    for one thing, in hebrew it does not say I AM. and in greek it says ego ami ho on with the emphasis on the ho on, or THE ETERNAL not the ego ami as pointing to the meaning of YHWH.

    I am going to the store.... oh $#!+ now someone is going to stone me for claiming to be God --- what a crock of manure !!!!

  • Narkissos


    Of course not every single instance of ego eimi is theologically significant. But the absolute use of this phrase (i.e. when it does not introduce a predicate such as "I am the bread of life," John 6:35) has only one natural meaning, "it's me" (e.g. 4:24; 6:20). Otherwise it strikes a Greek reader as strange, and I believe it is meant to do so.

    As to 8:58, the natural way to express the past tense which the contexts calls for is the imperfect (which is used in 1:1, "the Word was..."). Using the present tense instead is quite remarkable. Other unnatural uses of ego eimi are 8:24 and 13:19 (8:28 is slightly more natural at it can be read as an identification to the "Son of Man"). 18:5ff would be quite natural ("Who are you looking for? -- Jesus -- It's me") were it not for the dramatic effect in v. 6 (when he says ego eimi, they fall down).

    So it seems quite obvious to me that ego eimi is a theologically significant expression in the specific context of the Fourth Gospel.Necessarily so in the above instances, and potentially so in other cases -- in the latter introducing a possible double entendre, which is a characteristic device of the author (cf. the well-known case of "being born again / from above" in chapter 3, where Nicodemus misunderstands "again" when Jesus means "from above").

    As to what it alludes to, I already suggested that it is rather the similarly striking absolute use of ego eimi in Deutero-Isaiah and a couple of other OT texts as a divine self-affirmation (translating the Hebrew 'ani hu') than Exodus 3 (where ho on, not ego eimi, translates the absolute use of 'ehyeh).

    (Editions because of the "error" messages I keep on getting when I try to use italics and the like.

    Hmmm... seems to be one particular letter I use in transliteration. Can't write it of course.)

  • Leolaia

    I can't post to this thread either, I have a post I've been wanting to add but it rejects it each time (and it includes vowels with accents).

  • Leolaia
  • Leolaia

    The only way I was able to post the last message (which contains characters with accents) was by making an image of the post in Photoshop, hosting the image, and hotlinking it here. Had I not copied the message before I posted it the first time, I would have lost it. Could a mod please look into this problem? I use accents a lot to transliterate Greek words, and this could potentially be a big problem for me....

  • Wordly Andre
    Wordly Andre

    Regarding the missing books, what about

    I I Esdras



    Additions to Ester

    The Wisdom of Solomon


    Baruch with the letter of Jeremiah

    I Maccabees

    I I Maccabees

  • blondie

    Worldly Andre, I do believe those books are missing from most Protestant translations.

  • Leolaia

    Canon was something that was determined differently by different communities; it is anachronistic to presume a particular canon a priori as "what the Bible was intended to be" from the start, and then judge other canons as adding or subtracting from it. Even within the Catholic Church, there was a dispute for centuries whether to follow the Hebrew OT canon in putting the deuterocanonicals in a separate category and not accord them full canonical status. One could similarly say why has the Catholic or Protestant Bible omitted the books of 1 Enoch and Jubilees since they are in the Ethiopic canon, or why they have omitted the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs or 3 Corinthians since they are in the Armenian canon, or why they have omitted the Shepherd of Hermas since it was included in some early codices of the Bible, etc.

  • Kristofer

    correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't get stone for saying you've been around for a long time or for being crazy. Was it not understood by the Jews that what Jesus was saying was a claim to diety?

Share this