The WTS need to be careful in changin' scriptures into today's language
it could change the meaning of the scripture. I think that's what they really
intend to do, and use todays language as a cover
as cedars said, to insert their JWisms
NWT 2012 Revision - Your Suggestions Please
by cofty 39 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
wasblind
I hope I didn't kill this thread, if I'm wrong in what I posted
corrections are welcome
-
Quirky1
I hope they scribble sumthin' stoopid in it and shoot themselves in da foot..
-
wasblind
hey quirky,
they have already shot themselves wit the stupid things they have scribbled
-
wasblind
gotta go cook see y'all later
-
cedars
wasblind - You didn't kill this thread. I think it's just way too much to think about. I don't know how I would even begin comparing the subtle differences between the current NWT and a revised version. I suppose you would just need to start at the major doctrinal scriptures, and work through from there. For example, they would probably reword Proverbs 4:18 to sound even more like it's describing the concept of increasing light, when we all know it doesn't have anything to do with it.
Obviously, both myself and many others would be ready and waiting to pounce on any subtle changes they make to key doctrines. If it's just an honest endeavor to make the bible easier to read, then fair enough. If it's anything more devious, they will get a major backlash - you can be sure of that.
Maybe I'm getting too ahead of myself, and it won't be a new NWT at all. It just wouldn't surprise me if it was, put it that way. We shall see!!
Cedars
-
AnnOMaly
Needed revisions to the NWT (some have been said already but these are my offerings):
- ditch the interpolated 'Jehovah' in the NT (by all means include it in footnotes when it's thought it's warranted);
- "they took no note" would be better as "they didn't know";
- "taking in knowledge of you ..." would be better as "knowing you ...";
- "conscious of their spiritual need" should be less clumsily and more accurately rendered "poor in spirit";
- reinstitute square brackets for "other" in Col. 1 (weren't they taken out of the paperback Bibles or something?);
- "at Babylon" should be "for Babylon" at Jer. 29.
That's all I can think of for the present.
-
Disillusioned Lost-Lamb
It will hopefully just be a leaflet saying, "sorry folks our bad, it's all bullshit and you can go live normal lives now".
Oh how I would love it if it were true.
-
wantingtruth
"they" are engaged in a fight with no return / "they" have to go all the way to the end - and this , because God predicted it
..
-
steve2
You mean I might have to actually read the new revision to see if it really is revised - and not just a cynical attempt by the Watchtower elite to generate more funds? Double groan.
Besides, what constitutes a revision? In my book, it would have to be significant alterations and/or changes in phrasing - not mere fiddling with the occasional claimed superfluous words and/or phrases. A revision is not a revision if it is printed in a new larger font or has a new cover. To reiterate, it would need to be justified at a substantive level.
As regards a new simplified NWT - where they can unashamedly claim not to be following a literal rendering of Biblical languages - I guess we could expect to see more JW-isms in the text. Perhaps the 'faithful and discreet slave' - an obscure parable if ever there was one - will be literally rendered 'spirit-anointed Governing Body'. I could also find it easy to imagine that the verse in Acts about 'abstain[ing] from blood' would remove all doubt and say 'abstain from blood transfusions'. As for those elastic verses in Corithinians that detail who should be avoided, I can see a verse or two expressly mentioning the shunning of any brother or sister who dares to question the Governing Body about anything at all, with a nifty cross-reference to the newly rendered and simplified text in Matthew about not mistreating the Governing Body.
Yes, a revision may be the best place to produce a simplified Bible. Then perhaps for the very first time, JWs claim that their religion is totally based on the [simplified] Bible will be capable of surviving a child's - or simpleton's - scrutiny.