Something Is Screwy With WT's New Bible!

by JW GoneBad 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad

    Not sure if this has already been brought up.

    It appears that the verses in Matthew 21:29 and Matthew 21:30 have been transposed from one translation to the other.

    The 'old' NWT in vs 29 & 30 states:

    'In answer this one said, "I will sir, but did not go out"'. Verse 30 reads: 'Approaching the second, he said the same. In reply this one said, "I will not' Afterwards he felt regret and went out."'

    The 'new' NWT in vs 29 & 30 states:

    'In answer this one said, "I will not," but afteward, he felt regret and went out.' Verse 30 reads: 'Approaching the second, he said the same. This one replied, "I will, Sir, but did not go out.'"

    All of "Christendom's" translations read the way that the 'new' NWT now reads. Apparently this is an error contained in the 'old' NWT. Christendom had it right all along. I don't remember any of the GB making mention of this correction at the AGM!

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad

    I noticed also that the word 'Gaza' had been mis-spelled' in the 'old' NWT some 22 times. For example @ Acts 8:26 it is spelled Ga'za.

    Whereas, now in the 'new' NWT it is spelled Gaz'a through out. In cross checking, again it appears that 'Christendoms' Bible Translations have had it correct all along.

    True, these are minor corrections. But it makes one wonder how many other 'minor' corrections have been made.

    Seems to me that 'Holy Spirit' has been screwing around with the 'New World Bible Translation Committee' of the WTBTS!

    I remember one of the GB saying something to the effect that WT's Translation Committee was far more superior than any worldly Bible Translation Committee.......What a stretch and an exaggeration!

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    The following comes from "The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible", Vol 4, pages 594-595, edited by G.A. Buttrick. This is a respected publication and is relied on 32 times in the WTS's 2 volumes: "Insight on the Scriptures". The following excerpt from "The Interpreter's Dictionary" is speaking of the earliest times of Christianity:

    -------------------------------

    The NT is now known, in whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS alone. Every one of these handwritten copies differs from every other one. In addition to these Greek MSS, the NT has been preserved in more than ten thousand MSS of the early versions and in thousands of quotations of the Church Fathers. These MSS of the versions and quotations of the Church Fathers differ from one another just as widely as do the Greek MSS. Only a fraction of this great mass of material has been fully collated and carefully studied. Until this task is completed, the uncertainty regarding the text of the NT will remain.

    It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings. It is true, of course, that the addition of the readings from another 150 MSS of Luke would not add another 30,000 readings to the list. But each MS studied does add substantially to the list of variants. It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.

    Many thousands of these different readings are variants in orthography or grammar or style and have no effect upon the meaning of the text. But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma. It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally. …

    It has been said that the great majority of the variant readings in the text of the NT arose before the books of the NT were canonized and that after those books were canonized, they were very carefully copied because they were scripture. This, however, is far from being the case.

    It is true, of course, that many variants arose in the very earliest period. There is no reason to suppose, e.g., that the first person who ever made a copy of the autograph of the Gospel of Luke did not change his copy to conform to the particular tradition with which he was familiar. But he was under no compulsion to do so. Once the Gospel of Luke had become scripture, however, the picture was changed completely. Then the copyist was under compulsion to change his copy, to correct it. Because it was scripture, it had to be right.

    Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately.

    They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the "original reading" but in the "true reading." This is precisely the attitude toward the NT which prevailed from the earliest times to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the invention of printing.

  • itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat
  • whathappened
    whathappened

    This information is nice to know. Very interesting!

  • Wonderment
    Wonderment

    JW GoneBad said: "All of "Christendom's" translations read the way that the 'new' NWT now reads. Apparently this is an error contained in the 'old' NWT. Christendom had it right all along."

    Before jumping to wrong conclusions, check: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp 44-46 where it gives the details of this, to use their words, "perplexing passage," and of "the confusion that marks the transmission of 21.29-31." It starts the section by saying: "The textual transmission of the parable of the two sons is very much confused..."

    Christendom is also confused, and to this day, no one can be 100% certain of the correct reading in those few verses. The NWT based their translation on the WH Greek Text, but the Revised Edition took in consideration, more recent Greek Texts, which offers some other variants. Offering a new reading in the NWT Revised Edition is no guarantee that the new reading order is correct and the older one is wrong. It's a difficult choice to make for the translator when there are a few options available and not one of them is definite.

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad

    Like I said earlier Wonderment:

    'Seems to me that 'Holy Spirit' has been screwing around with the 'New World Bible Translation Committee' of the WTBTS!'

    If anyone, WT should have it right if its' true that they have 'Holy Spirit' in their back pocket!

  • transhuman68
    transhuman68

    LOL, it gets even weirder... if that's possible... verse 31 in the 1984 NWT says 'the latter': and in the Catholic RSV it says 'the first'- but there is no alternate manuscript mentioned in the footnotes of either Bible, so someone has really screwed with the Bible somewhere... but I think the Bible is completely screwy anyway... but it is interesting...

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    This link ties to the other thread on this subject.

  • Narcissistic Supply
    Narcissistic Supply

    Something Is Screwy With WT's New Bible!

    It was inspired by shit for brains.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit