NWT 1984 vs NWT 2013
This is simply an example if the JW Org using its Mind Control technique.
The average JW drone will think subconsciously of loyalty to the Org.
Micah was writing to show that Jehovah's Organization at the time (the Temple) was not the be-all and end-all, reading v. 6 to 9 it is plain that he is simply advocating righteous living as all that is required by God, if Chesed is translated "loyalty" here it puts a spanner in the works of his argument, "Loyalty to what ?" his readers would have asked, they surely understood him to mean "Mercy" or "Kindness".
I can just picture the NWT translating committee.
"Some translations say 'kindness' some say ''loyalty.'"
"What do you think Jehovah was trying to say?"
"Well, which quality is more important?"
"Loyalty to His Organization, of course."
"Loyalty it is, then!"
You could see the motive of the Translation Committee. Situation is now different because this is modification on their own existing translation. Replacing kindness with loyalty towards organization is deliberate deviation. This is like what the postal department has done:
"Save him, not hang him" was the original message from the Highest Authority.
But the postal department has sent the telegram which read:
"Save him not, hang him".
The jail authorities promptly acted on it and hanged the person.
Q- When does the bible stop being the bible?
A- When you place NWT before the word bible
John 7:53 to 8:11; AKA the pericope adulterae (The story of the woman caught in adultery)
The evidence is pretty clear that this passage is a later addition. Not only is the writing style and terminology different; it breaks the flow of the main narrative.
Older Bibles generally include it, while more modern translations either bracket the text with an explanation or omit it.
It is funny in a way though. JW's (and kindred groups) on one hand, seem to hate higher (source) criticism, while on the other and they're perfectly willing to accept its conclusions when it suits them.
Thanks for your posts folks.
I'll definitely have to research this further.
TD18 hours ago18 hours ago
"John 7:53 to 8:11; AKA the pericope adulterae (The story of the woman caught in adultery)
The evidence is pretty clear that this passage is a later addition."
This is so at present, it is not in the oldest fragment that we have of John 7&8. John itself shows evidence of being redacted/edited and so the contents, it would seem, are a little muddled compared to the original (which we don not have).
There is evidence that the Pericope de adulterae was read in the Meetings of the early Christians, on St Pelagias day if memory serves. So it was not a section rejected by the very early Church. This rather puts the Manuscript evidence in the shade. In the future an older version of John may well be found containing these disputed verses, that will put the cat amongst the pigeons !
I suspect this is probably a vestige of the real words of Jesus, and would really have made him unpopular with the Jewish religious leaders.
I suspect too, that the objections from St Augustine down to JW Org are that Jesus simply told the woman to "go away and sin no more", he did not advocate any punishment.
This is so at present, it is not in the oldest fragment...
Manuscript evidence is important too, but I was speaking more of the linguistic end of source criticism. Writing styles in Ancient Greek are very, very distinctive and a sudden break in that fingerprint indicates another author.