by sparky1 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
Okay then, Mr. Expert, have it your way. This is a matter of opinion so I see no point in spending the time on a rebuttal. However...
Merriam-Webster produces one of the most comprehensive and authoritative dictionaries
You missed my joke despite my generous use of quote marks to help you out, which doesn't say a lot for your reading comprehension.
a more politically correct Jehovah--talk about butchering the bible!
Apognophos, please don't demean me personally by calling me "Mr. Expert" or contending that I have poor reading comprehension just because I didn't understand your use of quotation marks in identifying a joke known only to you. Behavior like that is childish at best and rude at its worst. If you can deconstruct any of my contentions with logic or scholarly reference works I welcome the constructive criticism because if I am wrong and admit it I add to my pool of knowledge. Argumentation was originally for the purpose of sharing knowledge and helping both parties come to a correct conclusion. Thanks for your interest in my post, I just wish you had something of substance to add to the discussion.
I was wondering why you were accusing them of intellectual dishonesty by saying the same thing in clearer phrasing. That's the whole point of the new revision.
WT has always claimed the NWT was the ultimate Bible translation on the planet- the most accurate, blah, blah, blah (after all, didn't Jehovah guide the GB through the whole "translation" process?)
A revision seems absurdly contradictory if the claims were even remotely true.
I'm with sparky...I guess I missed the joke too.
Sigh. Okay. First off, the "joke" was really just a passing reference to the fact that sparky1 was playing expert by quoting the dictionary, but he spelled its name wrong, so the link he created points to a landing page.
Secondly, I don't live in a black-and-white world where I have to agree with every negative opinion about the Society, regardless of how I feel about their teachings and harmfulness. Shock!, gasp!, I don't agree that the new Bible is problematic. I must be a WT apologist! Get the pitchforks!
It's true that I've been consistent in saying since October that I agree with the changes they made to the body of the text (though that "or, sphere" footnote is troubling). Well, my mind was "made up" by reading the new revision, not from any external factor. You haven't given me a reason here to change my mind. So your slightly creepy research into my posting history was a waste of time.
Thirdly, your dictionary excursion actually argues against the point you are trying to make. Look at how many definitions with different shades of meaning are assigned to this one word "jealous". The word "jealous" is of course more literally correct as a translation, but the goal of translation is to render the sense of something, not the most literal reading (this was a big problem with the old NWT).
Fourthly, the new translation is not softer than the old. If the old translation "jealous" actually conveyed a sense of anger and hatred as steve2 said, then this would be a softening. The text in this particular place does not convey such emotions, nor does the surrounding text. Instead, what we have in the revision is a honing of the actual intent of the verse. Unless you disagree that God is saying here that he requires exclusive devotion, that is. But the context is obviously referring to worship of other gods being unacceptable.
As stated at the AGM where the Bible was introduced, many changes in wording were prompted by difficulties that translators in foreign fields were having with the old NWT, and this is likely one of those problem areas. The closest analogue to "jealous" in some languages might always convey, for instance, greed or some other tangential emotion. To prevent any further confusion, they used a more explicit phrasing as to what God requires, leaving no room for error in translation or understanding. It's as simple as that.
I agree with Sparky that changing it from 'jealous' to 'requiring exclusive devotion' makes no sense whatsoever and is unjustified. Clearly it's been done either because they think it's insulting to brand Jehovah as 'jealous' (even though that's what the inspired Bible writer said) or because they want to put an emphasis on organisational exclusive devotion, ie, you must be 100% devoted to the Watchtower Society.
Just more of the same old ancient priestcraft since time immemorial of telling little porkies and fiddling with things to command fear and obedience from the manipulated minds of the gullible masses of religious devotees.
sparky1 was playing expert by quoting the dictionary
Show us where sparky claimed to be an "expert".
He asked some questions, then added if he's wrong in his thinking he'll correct himself.
As stated at the AGM where the Bible was introduced, many changes in wording were prompted by difficulties that translators in foreign fields were having with the old NWT...To prevent any further confusion, they used a more explicit phrasing as to what God requires, leaving no room for error in translation or understanding. It's as simple as that.
You'd think Jehovah would have anticipated this problem with the NWT 1.0 and done it right the first time. Why is it that Jehovah doesn't make any changes until after "worldly" scholars have done all the heavy lifting?
If it was so "simple", why didn't WT figure it for over 60 years?
Show us where sparky claimed to be an "expert".
In his first post when he started lecturing on ancient Hebrew, and in his second post where he abused a dictionary with a tone of authority. His third post resorted to a stalker-esque ad hominem attack. He didn't admit to the possibility of error until his fifth post in the thread. You can't blame me for being annoyed at self-appointed Internet Language Scholars. They're rife in this forum and sometimes I lose my patience.
If it was so "simple", why didn't WT figure it for over 60 years?
Once again, check your black-and-white thinking at the door. Do you really take me for a WT apologist, knowing so little about my stance after I've made 3000 posts here?
Answer me this Apognophos. The NWT revised 2013 uses the same expression, "requires exclusive devotion" in both EXODUS 34:14 and JOSHUA 24:19; however the Hebrew word used in EXODUS is kan-naw' which is translated simply as jealous by STRONGS EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE and the Hebrew word used in JOSHUA is kan-no' and is translated by STRONGS CONCORDANCE as jealous or angry-jealous. How can two separate words with their own nuanced meaning be given the EXACT SAME interpretation? It is poor scholarship,period. You may swallow the Watchtower societies puffery and self promotion on the NWT 2013 revision but I do not.
First, I have no intention of 'playing the expert' which is again a childish ad hominum attack. I use the dictionary and other reliable, expert sources to make sure that my assertions are correct. I would be a fool and a jackass if I just shot my mouth off without checking some reference material to see if my thoughts have some credence and basis in reality. Interestly enough I saw my spelling mistake and tried to correct it. For some reason the mistake would not correct and I had to live with my error. I hope you can forgive me.
Secondly, I don't care if you don't live in a black or white world or whether you are an apologist or not. I never made such claims about you and that viewpoint is a fiction of your own mind. In regards to you considering my reading of your previous posts as 'slightly creepy research' that is hubris of the highest order. Every time you read a passage in the Bible you are researching the words of another person or of God himself to learn their viewpoint on many different matters. Do you consider yourself a 'slightly creepy researcher' when you do this?
Thirdly, my so-called 'dictionary excursion' strengthens my argument rather than weakens it. The only direct synonym for the word jealous according to Merriam-Websters dictionary is possessive. Possessive as a word is a far cry from the phrase "requires exclusive devotion". Again, it seems to me that you are not really reading my posts. The list of words that I quoted are considered RELATED to but not replacements for the word jealous by Merriam-Webster.
Fourthly, my question to you about EXODUS and JOSHUA should help you with your thinking on the NWT 2013 revision. Where you see honing of scripture, I see homogenizing and bastardizing of intent.
I was not at the AGM and so I cannot refute your claim that one of the reasons for the NWT 2013 revision was because 'many changes in wording were prompted by difficulties that translators in foreign fields were having with the old NWT, and this is likely one of those problem areas'. However, I can quote to you from the introduction of the NWT 2013 revision.: "This revised edition has built on the fine foundation laid in previous editions of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a bible that was first released more than 60 years ago. However, the English language has changed during the past half century. Such change prompted current members of the New World Bible Translation Committee to initiate this comprehensive revision. Our goal has been to produce a translation that is not only faithful to the original texts but also clear and easy to read." No mention of translation difficulties at all, just a concern with the change in the English language. Actually, I am 59 years old and the word jealousy means the same thing today as it did when I was a little boy. So in this one, singular instance your argument about the word jealousy does not hold water because its meaning has not changed over my lifetime.
Good luck in growing in your ability to do Bible research. Did you notice that in refuting me you never appealed to logic or quoted any outside references to prove or support your argument? Remember,an opinion is still just an opinion. You are welcome to your opinion and I respect that. But please don't try to shove your opinion down my throat without any facts to back you up. It's as simple as that.
No more cheap shots Apognophos! Stick with the facts and the argument at hand. Stop introducing 'red herrings' into the discussion. I have never made ad hominum attacks against you, ever. NOT ONE. Nor am I lecturing anyone but presenting an idea and backing up my ideas with reference material. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever have I presented myself as an EXPERT. Have I given any credentials that might lead you to think that I am an expert? I never made that claim and it is a fiction of your own mind interpreting what I have written as having come from a self professed expert. You my friend are not as intelligent as you may think. That is not an ad hominum attack but my opinion after having read the mindless, hollow, myopic replies to all my posts in regard to this subject. And I too am entitled to my opinion and in this instance I do not need to back up my claims with any outside reference material. Your posts are all the reference material that I need to see that. Reply like a man and stop rubbing my face in the dirt because I don't happen to agree with you.
