My interest in this revised NWT (page 4)

Doug Mason

Thank you for your insights. Please keep them coming.

If these are typical of this "revised NWT", it is a non-event. This suggests to me that this could be a cynical revenue-raising exercise.

Your responses suggest to me that the changes could be cosmetic and are probably changes to the NWT rather than the result of any original research. I keenly wait to be able to access it.

I suggest the more interesting aspects will relate to their support material and to the impact this will have on some JWs.

Doug

Apognophos

The most significant change might be one that was in relation to the recent WT study: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/264994/1/Matthew-24-46

Oubliette

NWT: Acts 15:6 - And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair.

NNWT: Acts 15:6 - So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter.

Jeffro

Doug Mason:

1. Does the NT still accept the 27 NT books provided to it by the 4th century Trinitarian Church, including Athanasius and the Roman Emperors?

Yes.

2. Does the OT retain an allegiance to the Hebrew text or to the Septuagint (for example with Jeremiah, especially in regards to the "70 years")?

Yes.

3. Will it say the changes are due to a better understanding, to Lower Criticism, additional information since the last release of the NWT, to recognition that the MSS evidence shows that the text is unreliable and has to be reconstructed by Lower Critics?

No. (With the exception of the alternative conclusions to Mark and John.)

4. Which text(s) does the revised NWT rely on (eg., Westcott-Hort; Textus Receptus; MT; variety of LXX), or had it constructed its own source from a selection from many sources (eclectic)?

Almost certainly the same as before.

5. How will the WTS manage the transition from the previous version to this one?

Publications from January 2014 onwards (including magazines actually printed earlier but dated 2014) will quote from the new translation.

6. Will any JW prefer to refer to the earlier version?

Probably.

If so, what will the WTS's attitude be to those who do not change over?

Public executions for anyone keeping the old version - well... probably not. They might 'suggest' that JWs read from the new one when responding at 'meetings'.

7. Will the over familiarity with the earlier text unnerve any?

Maybe.

Farkel

When their bullshit doesn't match their Bible, they change the Bible to match their bullshit.

This is not rocket-science.

Farkel

DATA-DOG

I don't think much has changed. All this could have been done at a 1 day assembly. This is just a confidence building corporate team building exercise. Why wait for a 1 day when child molestation stories could break at any time? It's time to be proactive for the WTBTS.

suavojr

Here you have some of the verses I have been verifying. In the example below, the first bible is the NIV 1978, the second the 1984 NWT and the third is the RNWT 2013

Genesis 1:2

NVI "Spirit of God" changed to

NWT "God's active force."

RNWT has a footnote indicating the literal meaning is “Spirit of God”

The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit. But now the footnote proves what critics have always stated about this biased translation.

Exodus 3:14

NVI "I am" changed to

NWT "I shall prove to be."

RNWT “I will become” footnote

The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus and to me the new definition in itself is not bad but continues to disconnect Christ from his divine nature.

Numbers 1:52

NVI "Under his own standard"

NWT changed to "by his [three-tribe] division."

RNWT has a Footnote explains “or by his standard (banner)

The Hebrew word degal translated as "standard" literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias.

Isaiah 43:10

NVI"Nor will there be one after me"

NWT changed to "after me there continued to be none."

RNWT “and after me there has been none”

The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a "mighty god" while still being less than Jehovah in nature and the GB will never hand over the power to Christ.

Ecclesiastes 12:7

NVI "The spirit returns"

NWTchanged to "the spirit itself returns."

RNWT “The spirit returns”

In the NWT the passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, "itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit. It is interesting to note that they have returned to how Christendom renders this text

Matthew 2:11

NVI"Bowed down and worshipped him"

NWT changed to "did obeisance to him" with a footnote indicating the word “worshipped him”

RNWT "did obeisance to it" the footnote has changed to “Or bowed down”

The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means "worship." The use of "obeisance" is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Heb. 1:6.)

Matthew 5:19

NVI "Least in the kingdom of heaven"

NWT changed to "least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven."

RNWT "least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven." Still the same

The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.

Matthew 25:46

NVI "Eternal punishment"

NWT changed to "everlasting cutting-off."

RNWT "everlasting cutting-off." Footnote “That is, from life. Lit., “looping off; pruning.”

The Greek word kolasis translated "punishment" indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests "termination," as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilations regarding condemned souls.

Mark 1:4

NVI "Baptism of repentance"

NWT changed to "baptism [in symbol] of repentance."

RNWT "baptism in symbol of repentance." They took the brackets out.

Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of "in symbol." The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.

Luke 12:8

NVI "Acknowledges me"

NWT changed to "confesses union with me."

RNWT "Acknowledges me"

The addition of "union" suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 but now they have gone back to what Christendom has always used.

John 1:1

NVI "Word was God"

NWT changed to "Word was a god."

RNWT "Word was a god." Footnote states “Or was divine”

The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.

John 1:12

NVI "Believe"

NWT changed to "exercise faith."

RNWT “exercising faith”

The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition But they have now rendered John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their coming to know you” with a footnote stating “Or their taking in knowledge of you” They just can’t drop it entirely.

John 6:56

NVI "Remains in me"

NWT changed to "remains in union with me."

RNWT "remains in union with me."

The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring "in" with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus.

John 8:58

NVI "I am"

NWT changed to "I have been."

RNWT "I have been."

Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.

John 14:17

NWT "Beholds him or knows him"

NWT changed to "beholds it or knows it."

RNWT changed to “it neither sees it nor knows it”

The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

John 17:5

NVI "Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you"

NWT changed to "glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you."

RNWT still the same

The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.

John 17:21

NVI "Are in me"

NWT changed to "are in union with me."

RNWT “just as we are one”

The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.

Acts 2:17

NIV "Pour out my Spirit"

NWT changed to "pour out some of my spirit."

RNWT "pour out some of my spirit."

Still the same revision evades recognition of the Holy Spirit and His activity at Pentecost by suggesting an impersonal force activated to a more limited degree by God.

Acts 2:42

NIV "Breaking of bread"

NWT changed to "taking of meals."

RNWT "taking of meals."

The passage demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament among the earliest Christians. The revision is an attempt to disguise this practice as the JWs teach that communion is reserved for only the 144,000 special saints.

Doug Mason

Thanks for your help. From what I have seen so far, I am underwhelmed. These changes could have been addressed by a simple leaflet.

Do these changes achieve anything other than clarify one person's beefs with the way Franz expressed himself at certain points, especially in view of the changes they have made since he went?

Am I being cynical, but can anyone provide a realistic estimate of the gross revenue?

Would they have weighed up the impact on some JWs, or would they have been considered collateral damage for the good of the WTS's coffers?

It's almost Monday in USA, so I look forward to being able to see what's up.

JWs would be staggered if they had the choice of translations that are available to those outside the WTS's grasp.

Doug

My interest in this revised NWT

Share this