This one scripture has bothered me for a while. I've asked elders everywhere on this one and just get confused looks...
According to a WT in 1953, the NWT rendering of 1:1 at the time was: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus thru God's will, to the holy ones who are also faithful ones in union with Christ Jesus."
That rendering is pre-1984 now the post-1984 rendering is: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus thru God's will, to the holy ones who are [in Ephesus] and faithful ones in union with Christ Jesus."
My question is, if my JW education is correct then the "Holy ones" also known as:
-> The little flock
-> The Anointed
-> The 144,000
Their the ones that are in union with Christ Jesus. The current rendering is incorrect. The society by putting in [in Ephesus] and changing the word "also" to "and" have completely changed the meaning of this scripture.
"...to the holy ones who are [in Ephesus] AND faithful ones in union with Christ Jesus."
Anyone else got any thoughts on this?
Wouldn't the correct rendering be: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus thru God's will, to the holy ones who are [in Ephesus] who are also faithful ones in union with Christ Jesus."????
If you can find a perfect translation, then go ahead. But nobody cannot change the meaning of the scriptures.
well, apparently the Society did!
Less Religion and more Jesus!
Then prove it RR? More Jesus and less apostates
According to a footnote in the NIV, some of the early manuscripts do not contain “in Ephesus” .
The ASV, KJV, NIV,,and the YLT for example render the scripture similarly to the NWT. However, the NKJV and the NRSV word it “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:” These renderings are closer to your version of how it should be rendered.
The rendering by the NWT (“ Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, to the holy ones who are [in Eph'e·sus] and faithful ones in union with Christ Jesus:”)suggests that Paul’s letter is directed primarily to the ‘saints’ ( a term applied to those taking the lead and a term avoided by the Society in their effort to distance themselves from other religions) but also applicable to the congregation in general. So in this case the 'holy ones' could apply to the 'elders' in the congregation.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
This is taken from WT 53 p127 I was talking about...
Q: Some scholars claim that the letter to the Ephesians was not to those at Ephesus but was the letter to the Laodiceans, mentioned at Colossians 4:16, and some ground for this, they say, is that the words "which are at Ephesus" found in the King James Version of Ephesians 1:1 are an addition to the text. Are they correct in their position?-H. J., Chile.
A: That there actually existed at one time a letter to the Laodiceans seems established by Colossians 4:16. Do we have it today? Or do we have a replica of it? Maybe we do; maybe we do not. It may have been inspired; it may not have been inspired. But if it was not inspired that does not mean it was false, any more than statements that we might make today are necessarily false merely because they are uninspired. A statement can be absolutely true, though uninspired. So if the letter to the Laodiceans was not inspired, that does not make it false. Merely because it was not preserved in the Bible canon does not make it false. It was not included because it doubtless is not necessary for us today; other letters that are included may cover the same points for us. To include it might mean useless duplication.
The suggestion of duplication brings us to a consideration of the letter to the Ephesians. The opening reads: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." (Eph. 1:1) However, many manuscripts omit "at Ephesus" and in the Greek merely read "to the saints which are", without naming any place. The New World Translation renders this verse<G<Þ>G> Eph 1:1<G<Ü>G>: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God's will, to the holy ones who are also faithful ones in union with Christ Jesus." It omits "at Ephesus", the footnote saying "who are" is according to the manuscripts Sinaitic, Vatican 1209 and Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2, symbolized respectively by <H<!>H>, B, P46. However, the expression "who are at Ephesus" is found in the manuscripts known as Alexandrine, Bezae, Vulgate and Peshitta Syriac version.
In view of these facts the explanation that has been given is that the letter to the Ephesians was a form letter and that Paul had several copies of this letter made and left a space after the words "who are------", and the space was to be filled in according to the address to which a particular copy of the letter was to be directed. We know that many organizations today, including the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, use form letters that have an omission or blank space that is to be filled in according to its destination. It may be that one of these form letters by Paul was sent to Ephesus and another to Laodicea, and that since the Laodicean letter was an exact duplicate of the one sent to the Ephesians it was not preserved as a part of the Bible canon. The one addressed to the Ephesians was the one preserved.
The foregoing is quite an ingenious explanation, and accounts for certain things. We can consider it as an interesting possibility. At any rate, we believe the letter to the Ephesians to be just that, and not the one to Laodicea mentioned at Colossians 4:16. The one to the Laodiceans may have been a duplicate form letter, or a repetition of points already adequately covered in other canonical letters, or uninspired, or dealing with material not necessary for us today; and for any one of these reasons may have been left out of the inspired Bible canon.
"But nobody cannot change the meaning of the scriptures."?
Fred, whatinhellareyoutalkingaboutnow? The Jay-Dubs change scripture all the time in order that the book more closely comports with their preferred interpretation. In fact, here's the most egregious one of all in my opinion:
"...the kingdom of heaven is in your midst."
When what Jesus really said was:
"...the kingdom of heaven is within you."
Of course, if the kingdom of heaven is within you, then you don't need the Jay-Dubs and their anti-intellectual, bullshit little cult.
**** More truth and less Fred Hall ****
What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
"Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
Less Religion and more Jesus!
Like you, those greek scholars are entitled to their own stupid opinions.
What is so stupid about what the Greek Scholars said about the NWT in RRs post? Please explain!