Further thought: Or, maybe the WT's translators of the NWT were thinking those referred to (in Romans 6:7) as those who have "died" referred to those who died in Christ rather than all (other than Jesus) who have died, but that other WT literature instead used the interpretation off every human (other than Jesus) who died.
New Light, New Light!
by BoogerMan 36 Replies latest watchtower bible
Wow, I found something in a parallel Bible which agrees with the NWT's rendering of "acquitted" at Romans 6:7! It is an edition of "Today's Parallel Bible" (copyright 2000) which includes the 1995 revision of the NASB. In that Bible though the main text of the NASB says "freed" the translators' note says "Or acquitted'! The same parallel Bible for the Cambridge Paragraph Bible edition of the KJV (of 1873) has the translators' note of "Gr. justified".
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible was edited by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener and one of objectives in the making of that edition was "to create the most thorough standardization of the text ever attempted." I consider that edition to be the definitive edition of the text of the KJV.
The NKJV gives in the translators' note gives an alternate rendering of "cleared" for the word which the main text translates as "freed". The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha (REB) translates verse 7 as "because death cancels the claims of sin." The New American Bible (NAB) in its 1991 revision, a Catholic Bible, translates verse 7 as "For a dead person has been absolved from sin." Similarly The New Testament In Modern Speech, An Idiomatic Translation Into Everyday English From The Text of The Resultant Greek Texament - Fifth Edition (as reprinted in 1937), by Weymouth and revised by Robertson, translates verse 7 as "for he who has died is absolved from his sin."
The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HSCB) in the revision of 2003, though saying "freed" in the main text of Romans 6:7, in the translators' note says "Lit acquitted, or justified". That note agrees with the Emphatic Diaglott, for both in its interlinear translation and its 'modern' English translation it says "justified" at that verse.
The Twentieth Century New Testament, A Translation Into MODERN ENGLISH; Made from the original Greek (Westcott & Hort's Text) by a company of about twenty scholars representing the various sections of the Christian Church; REVISED EDITION (of 1904) translates the verse as follows. "For the man who has died has been pronounced righteous and released from sin." That rendering conveys both the idea of "acquitted" and the idea of "freed". In that NT translation verse 6 clarifies that the dead "man" of verse 7 who is "pronounced righteous" are those who metaphorically were "crucified with Christ".
As a result of those renderings and of quotes of translators' notes I posted in my prior post, I am now convinced that the NWT thus has a scholarly reasonable basis for saying "acquitted" in Romans 6:7 instead of "freed".
Here are 3 commentaries on Romans 6:7
Is freed - Greek, Is justified. The word here is used clearly in the sense of setting at liberty, or destroying the power or dominion. The word is often used in this sense; compare Act_13:38-39; compare a similar expression in 1Pe_4:1, “He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.” The design of the apostle is not to say that the Christian is perfect, but that sin has ceased to have dominion over him, as a master ceases to have power over a slave when he is dead. That dominion may be broken, so that the Christian may not be a slave to sin, and yet he may be conscious of many failings and of much imperfection; see Rom. 7.
He that is dead is freed from sin - Δεδικαιωται, literally, is justified from sin; or, is freed or delivered from it. Does not this simply mean, that the man who has received Christ Jesus by faith, and has been, through believing, made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, has had his old man, all his evil propensities destroyed; so that he is not only justified freely from all sin, but wholly sanctified unto God? The context shows that this is the meaning. Every instance of violence is done to the whole scope and design of the apostle, by the opinion, that “this text is a proof that believers are not fully saved from sin in this life, because only he that is dead is freed from sin.” Then death is his justifier and deliverer! Base and abominable insinuation, highly derogatory to the glory of Christ!
For he that is dead, is freed from sin. This is not to be understood of a natural or a corporeal death; for this is the effect of sin, and is inflicted by way of punishment for it, on Christless persons; so far is it from being an atonement for sin, as the Jews (t) fancy; besides, there are many persons, who as they die in their sins, they will rise in them; though a natural death is alluded to, when persons are free from those laws and obligations to service and duty they are under whilst living: but here it is to be understood of a spiritual or mystical death, and of persons who are dead to the law, by the body of Christ; dead to sin by the sacrifice and grace of Christ; who are baptized into the death of Christ, and in imitation of him: such are "freed from sin"; not from the being of it; nor from the burden of it; nor from a continual war with it; nor from slips and falls into it; no, not even freed from it, in the most solemn services and acts of religion; but they are freed from the dominion of it, from servitude to it, and also from the guilt of it, and from obligation to punishment on account of it: they are, as it is in the Greek text, and as the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions read, "justified from sin".
Imagine though, the Father, or the Son having all the ugly traits of sinners in their memory so as to resurrect them as the same person, in order that way they will not get away scot free for past misdeeds.
If we take the bible books as real/true and inspired, then we see that death is a punishment. We all still die, though it seems Jesus paid for our sins and removed Adam's sin. Unfortunately none of us have benefitted from that deed as we all still die.
Life is precious. It is given by the creator. Jesus is positioned as THE judge and can give life. Then why do so many believers think they need religion or a religious organisation to tell them how the judgement will take place and on what grounds?
Is or will there be a resurrection? Paul said that if there is no resurrection, our work is useless. Just let 's have fun (my wording..) That same Paul never gave proof of a resurrection. It was his belief. Like many believers, it is just a belief. They justify their belief by saying that life has no meaning if there is no resurrection. For those who think like that, think about Adam and Eve. Why were they created? I dare to say that you will not find the reason in your bible. Why were animals created? You will not find the reason. In other words, there is nothing in the books, scriptures or in the creation that explains why humans, plant, animals were created. All ideas around this come from humans. People that need to find a purpose and will make one up to satisfy their search for reason/purpose.
If the creator had a purpose with human or animal life, he would have protected it. Like we would. If we have something of value, we protect it. Do we have proof that human life is protected?
If the creator wanted all creatures to know what the purpose is of their lives, would he not just made it clear somehow, clear and crisp for everyone? If governments can make it clear that all humans have to pay taxes or companies that provide same and equal instructions to buyers on how to use their products, would you not expect from a super powerful and smart creator to achieve the same thing?
If all creatures have been created, could it not be that the creator just enjoyed creating this, without any specific purpose? Just "for the fun of it" because he could do it?
On page 3 of this topic thread I wrote the following. "Well the WT's new interpretation of John 5:27 (as described in the first post of this topic thread) is now in harmony with Daniel 12:2, and the Bible's stated time frame for the fulfillment of that is revealed in Daniel 12:1." I notice that in "STUDY ARTICLE 40" of the same WT issue that the WT confirms what I said about Daniel 12:2, for there it says the following in paragraph 6.
'Read Daniel 12:2. What happens after the great crowd survive this time of distress? This prophecy is not referring to a symbolic resurrection, a spiritual revival of God’s servants that occurs during the last days, as we previously understood. * Rather, these words refer to the resurrection of the dead that takes place in the coming new world. Why can we draw that conclusion? The expression “the dust” is also used at Job 17:16 as a parallel of the expression “the Grave.” This fact indicates that Daniel 12:2 is referring to the literal resurrection that will occur after the last days have ended and after the battle of Armageddon.'
I am surprised though that the WT says that previously they (and other JWs) thought Daniel 12:2 was referring to a symbolic resurrection rather than a literal resurrection during the new world. For several years, from my independent study of the Bible, I had deduced that verse was about a literal resurrection under the reign of the Messiah (which according to the book of Revelation, is indicated to be during the 1,000 years in which Satan is in the abyss). Furthermore, a number of commentaries of 'Christendom' say that is what it was about. I also had thought (at least for several years) that the WT also taught that, and I also thought I had that view even when I was an active JW serving as a ministerial servant. But the WT now says they didn't have that view in the past. That means that I, and much of Christendom before me, reached the correct biblical meaning of Daniel 12:2 years before the WT did! [Update: Revelation 20:5 says most of the dead do not come to life until the end of the 1,000 years.]
A moment ago I looked through the First Printing of the Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy! book (copyright 1999) and I noticed on pages 290-291. There the WT says the verse does not refer to a general resurrection in the future, but that instead it "refers primarily to another kind of resurrection--one that has already occurred", namely a spiritual resurrection. I am surprised that it says such. It appears they said such in part due to their false teaching that Christ began ruling over the Earth in the year 1914.
Interestingly, paragraph 16 says the following. "But the majority of perfect mankind will pass this final test. Their names will then be written permanently in the book of life." That statement contradicts an earlier teaching of the WT which said that even after passing the test at the end of the 1,000 years some people might sin and thus be killed by Jehovah God.