NWT & KIT Prove Jesus IS Jehovah!

by PanzerZauberei 72 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PanzerZauberei

  I have not seen this discussed here before so I thought I would share it with the group.

  Romans 10:9 Proves That Jesus IS Jehovah.

  In the jw's Kingdom Interlinear translation of the Greek Scriptures they went to great effort to show that the Tetragrammaton was SUPPOSED to be in the Greek texts. So, every time the Name Jehovah appears they show a footnote directing the reader to see how Ky'ri*os applies always to JEHOVAH in one or more of their J Documents. While it is never acceptable to add or delete words from God's Word, it would be more understandable if they were at least consistent with this misuse of the Divine Name. However they don't. There is a double standard at work here.
  
  If the jw's would check out Romans 10:9 in their Kingdom Interlinear Bible they will see how there is a footnote on LORD. The text reads, "For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord*,..." This shows how they use Ky'ri*os in Greek and Ha' a*dhohn in Hebrew to show how the Tetragrammaton should go there. But at the end of the footnote they just add in, "Not Jehovah" WHAT!! They use this formula to insert YHWH into the Greek text where it does not go, but when it shows us that Jesus IS Jehovah they say the formula should not be used?
  
  How is anything they say supposed to mean anything?
  
  Let's see how long it will be before the Watchtower Society yanks those Interlinears off the shelves!
  
  Scans from the NWT Bible and the Kingdom Interlinear.
  Ha Adon in the 1961 NWT pg 1453 http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq19/Watchtower_Facts/haadon.jpg
  Roman 10:9 in the KIT http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq19/Watchtower_Facts/romans109.jpg
• 

  possible-san

  Romans 10:9 itself does not prove that Jesus is Jehovah.

  For example,
  http://www.eliyah.com/Scripture/books/romans10.htm
  http://www.sacrednamebible.com/B45C010.htm

  Please refer to my website for other translations.
  http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/link/link03.html

  In addition, the view "Jesus is Jehovah" is not related to the Trinity doctrine.

  possible
  http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/
• 

  PanzerZauberei

  I was speaking from the standpoint of using the Watchtower's NWT and KIT Bibles.
• 

  possible-san

  I was speaking from the standpoint of using the Watchtower's NWT and KIT Bibles.

  Then, it is not more proved.
  I think.

  possible
  http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/
• 

  Morgana

  Thanks for pointing it out in the KIT, Panzer.

  The whole confusion the WTS is creating with their idolatrous use of the Tetragrammaton (and then in a corrupted form) becomes obvious from the total mess they make of the beautiful (even to a non-Christian!) christological words in Romans 14 where kyrios (Lord) clearly always (and not only in v9!) is obviously intended to refer to Jesus. Just compare the nonsense text of the NWT with a more reasonable translation (e.g. New Revised Standard Version):

  NWT - Rom 14:5 One [man] judges one day as above another; another [man] judges one day as all others; let each [man] be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day observes it to Jehovah. Also, he who eats, eats to Jehovah, for he gives thanks to God; and he who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, and yet gives thanks to God. 7 None of us, in fact, lives with regard to himself only, and no one dies with regard to himself only; 8 for both if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. Therefore both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah. 9 For to this end Christ died and came to life again, that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living.

  NRSV - Rom 14:5 Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. 6 Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God. 7 We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
• 

  Sad emo

  The 1969 KIT is possibly one of the most incriminating books ever printed by the WTS! I have just got my hands on a copy - at great cost lol!

  Is this the one you're discussing or have they produced an updated version since?

  Ever looked at Hebrews chapter 1 in there?
• 

  Narkissos

  Romans 14 where kyrios (Lord) clearly always (and not only in v9!) is obviously intended to refer to Jesus.

  What is particularly remarkable is that v. 9 (the only place in this passage where the NWT does translate "Lord," in the expression "be Lord of") does not use the noun kurios but the related verb kurieuô -- which of course refers back to the occurrences of kurios in the previous verses (notice the logical connection, "for to this end," eis touto gar, which makes no sense whatsoever in the NWT). A compelling proof that Paul did use kurios in that passage and nothing else.

  As has often been pointed out, this actually doesn't mean that to Paul "Jesus IS Jehovah" (the name "Yhwh" simply plays no part in his theology) but that he identifies Christ with the kurios of the OT; but at the same time he generally distinguishes this kurios from "God" (theos), the Father. Iow (and with some simplification of a complex issue), the one Yhwh character in the Hebrew OT breaks into two distinct characters in Paul: the Father who is theos and the Son who is kurios.
• 

  cabasilas

  For more on the KIT and the name Jehovah, see the file "Hiding the Divine Name" up at Internet Archive:

  http://www.archive.org/details/HidingTheDivineName
• 

  Leolaia

  As has often been pointed out, this actually doesn't mean that to Paul "Jesus IS Jehovah" (the name "Yhwh" simply plays no part in his theology) but that he identifies Christ with the kurios of the OT; but at the same time he generally distinguishes this kurios from "God" (theos), the Father. Iow (and with some simplification of a complex issue), the one Yhwh character in the Hebrew OT breaks into two distinct characters in Paul: the Father who is theos and the Son who is kurios.

  And this is nowhere as striking as in 1 Corinthians 8:6 which sharply distinguishes between the "one God" and "the one Lord Jesus Christ" and yet the language pertaining to both is drawn from the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, which contrasts the single YHWH of Israel against the many gods of the nations (v. 14-15), whereas Paul's purposes is parallel in distinguishing the "one God" and "one Lord" together from the "so-called gods" of the nations. Two chapters later, Paul then goes on to warn his readers not to make the kurios jealous in disrespecting his cup and blood at the Lord's Supper (10:18-22, 11:27-32), reminding them of how the same kurios was put to the test when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness and punished by him (10:8-9). The reference to the Lord being incited to jealousy when Christians disrespect his cup is an allusion to Deuteronomy 6:15, the same chapter as the Shema, and the allusion to the Israelites putting the Lord to the test several verses earlier is similarly an allusion to Deuteronomy 6:16. To complete the connection, the blood drank in the cup of the Lord is typologically compared to the travelling rock that the Israelites drank from in the wilderness, and that rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4). And yet in the next verse, it is ho theos who was not pleased with the Israelites and scattered their bodies across the wilderness.
• 

  PanzerZauberei

  "The 1969 KIT is possibly one of the most incriminating books ever printed by the WTS! I have just got my hands on a copy - at great cost lol!

  Is this the one you're discussing or have they produced an updated version since?

  Ever looked at Hebrews chapter 1 in there?"

  Hi Sad Emo, there is also the updated one from 1985 where they had to revise the quotes from Justus Lipsius' book and admit that he actually confirmed the cross and not the stake was how Jesus died. Of course they never told anyone about the revision...