What is with Jeremiah 5:8 in the NWT (page 2)

mP

Zagor

Isaiah 14:12 is perverted where Christ is the one than sinned and not Lucifer (Satan), where the bright morning star fell from heaven.

mP:

Isa does not mention Christ by name, title or anything.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isa is like everybody else back in those days talking about the planets and stars as individuals or gods. LUcifer means Venus in Latin, look it up. Its dishonest to use a Latin name in a translation of a Hebrew text into English. Jehovah and jesus are the Sun. Venus is the false sun,w hich appears before the Sun comes up and after it goes down.

mP

The NWT like all other translations hide the fact that there is not one god of the israelites behind titles like Lord and so on. God in the OT has many names, because there are many gods.

steve2

My all time favorite verse is the one in which Christ says to Satan:

"Get behind me Satan and remain at the back of the kingdom hall until I see fit to lift any restrictions on your role and restore your privileges within the organization" (Math 16:23).

There in one handy Scripture we have direct inspired reference to kingdom halls, restrictions, privileges and the organization. It is little wonder this is also the witnesses all time favorite verse. I hear that Math 16:23 will one day soon supersede in popularity among the witnesses the verses about the faithful and discreet slave in Math 24. About time too. By the way, I'm still stuck at the back of the kingdom hall...

sarahsmile

Steve2 I had to look this scripture up. LOL Jesus did not stop talking with Peter! He did not shun him! Lol

How about this one

28 Truly I say to ? YOU ? that there are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

fulltimestudent

Yes! Most translations hide the sense of the hebrew. Apparently, they believe that Yahweh would not speak like that. I'm no Hebrew scholar (and have no libidinous (haha) desire to be one). But I think if you consult someone who is, you may well find that the NWT is being more honest than most translations.

I found this extract (below) from Gesenius' Lexicon on the Blue Letter Bible site, where you can find brief commentaries from Strongs etc against most words (if you switch on the Strong's reference system.). It suggests that the author, wishing to stress the immorality of the subjects of the prophecy used strong language, too strong for most modern day Christians to swallow (another joke)- (Compare wonderments posted extract)

I think that if you investigate this all the way through, you'll find the NWT translator made a decision to translate literally, and to try to speak in a way (down to earth) that the writer originally wrote. I see little evidence that the ancient writers of the Bible were as prudish as most modern American Christians seem to be.

Another example is in 1 Kings 18:27. The polemical author wants to make the point that Yahweh is a living God, but that the Baal God is not, so he becames quite sarcastic, and probably uses a word that can be translated 'sh*t,' except that enlightened as we may be, we still cant use this word in "polite" society, though I bet most people use it regularly (hypocrites, aren't we) The NWT translator becomes more coy in this example, translating it as " ... he has excrement and has to go to the privy."

Its interesting that the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ASV, YLT, WEB, and HNV, all choose to hide what Elijah is supposed to have said. Out of the bunch I checked, only the NLT and the ESV choose to translate so as to bring out the sense (a little bit) - "Perhaps, ... (he) is relieving himself."

I bet that in this example, the NWT is the better translation.

The most important point for believers, is this: If this is really God speaking through his prophets, why is it wrong to use the language that God used?

fulltimestudent

Oops! I seem to have infringed somebodies intellectual property - my post of that extract has disappeared.

So here's a link to the process I undertook.

This first link is to the Blue Letter Bible site for Jeremiah 5:8, and with the Strong's referencing system switched on (and that system only works with the KJV as the main translation ):

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&c=5&v=8&t=KJV#8

If you click on the letter V in the cluster of links in the Left hand margin, you can access a number of translations that make comparison of english translations easy.

And, if you click on to the small numbers against many words, you'll access Strong's commentary.

Since the KJV translators did a lousy job, you may regain a sense of the original thought by using that facility. For example - click on the number 9704 just after the word morning- heb. shakal ( to bring up this page: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7904&t=KJV ), and you'll start to wonder what is going on, because the word in Hebrew is given a meaning by Strong's as associated with another word ( hiphil), so that the text (to their thinking) paints a word picture of frisky stallions filled with lust in the morning.

Once again we note the reluctance of the more orthodox translators to convey the original meaning, and their desire to 'sugar-coat' the text to convey respectability.

I no longer give a rat's arse about either the Bible or the Jws, but I do not think that the best way to persuade people of biblical stupidity, is to say that the NWT is always a bad translation. I've pointed out before that my University has a strong, Society for the study of early Christianity, and one of my lecturer's ( http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/department_of_ancient_history/staff/dr_chris_forbes/ ) who specialises in that era, described the NWT as a lively translation. But then, Dr Forbes may understand better than most, that 'truth' is an elusive beast.

fulltimestudent

Here's a sample of Chris Forbes in action. He's easy to listen to. He's had another XJW as a Ph.d student. He asked (when he knew that I was an XJW) if I'd like to meet - but the other person, for some reason, was not eager to have anything to do with Jws - X or not X - haha!

Here's Chris, talking about the Josephus references to Jesus:

https://publicchristianity.org/library/josephs-and-jesus-a-christian-forgery#.Uh6CBhtmhcY

Cold Steel

Zagor:The NWT translation is not a good translation. It has changed the text to suit its own theological bias in many places.

Yes, even when it doesn't have an agenda, the NWT is a pitiful "translation." No one but the JWs take it seriously. Back in the early 70s, I had one. It was green and the ink rubbed off on one's hands. Is it the same version or have newer versions come out? I guess if one were baptized into the Organization, he or she would have to use the NWT. What a frightening thought!

MrFreeze

There are some sexy passages in the Bible.

Julia Orwell

I liked that Chris Forbes video. Very interesting.

What is with Jeremiah 5:8 in the NWT

Share this