NWT - revised 1984 vs revised 2013 versions

by Tallon 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Tallon

    In the latest 2013 revision the footnote of John chapter 8 states; A number of ancient and authoritative manuscripts omit vs 53 (of chapter 7) to chapter 8, vs. 11.

    Yet the 1984 revision quotes a similar footnote, however the passage of scripture is included in the text, albeit separately at the bottom.

    This passage of scripture is about the scribes and the Pharisees who brought a woman that was accused of adultery before Jesus to test him on the punishment to be meted out. Then came his famous reply; Let the one of you that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her.

    I just found it interesting that the WTBTS would leave this out in the latest revision. I’m wondering what else has been altered / left out from the previous revision(s).

    What are your thoughts on this?

  • Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho
    Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho

    Ja, apparently too apocryphal for the Silver Sword edition. Which is a shame, really, since that statement about the one being without sin casting the first stone is the essence of Christianity. Not WT's version, though.

  • stuckinarut2

    It's not just what has been left out, but what has been added!

    (didn't revelation condemn those who add or take away from the book?)

    In the section called "outlines of the chapter", for Acts 15 they include the term "letter from the governing body". That term has never appeared in the bible, yet the society now includes it. No doubt in an attempt to manipulate the idea of the current Governing Body.

  • sir82

    I think I heard it explained that "additional research" provided more convincing evidence in 2013, than it did in 1984, that those verses were not in the earliest manuscripts.

    I have no idea what qualifies as "research" in Watchtower-world, but there it is.

  • DesirousOfChange

    I have no idea what qualifies as "research" in Watchtower-world, but there it is.

    "Evidently"(tm), that just means using the WT Library.

  • BluesBrother

    There are a lot of reasons why I keep my old 1984 NWT and always take it to meetings if I go. A lot of them are described in this article that appears in the back of it. They seem to think thhey are improvements , but it is not so accurate, they sacrifice that for readability and ease of translation.


    One of my personal grumbles is that Micah .6 : 8 no longer says to love kindness but stresses loyalty. I guess they need loyal dubs more than kind ones....

  • AverageJoe1

    Actually this is one thing of the few things they actually got right. See this article:


    It is an important point to note that although the story of the woman caught in adultery is found in most of our printed Bibles today, the evidence suggests that the majority of Bibles during the first eight centuries of the Christian faith did not contain the story. Externally, most scholars would say that the evidence for it not being an authentic part of John’s Gospel is rock solid.

    How, then, has this passage made it into modern translations? In a word, there has been a longstanding tradition of timidity among translators. One twentieth-century Bible relegated the passage to the footnotes, but when the sales were rather lackluster, it again found its place in John’s Gospel. Even the NET Bible (available at www.bible.org), for which I am the senior New Testament editor, has put the text in its traditional place. But the NET Bible also has a lengthy footnote, explaining the textual complications and doubts about its authenticity. And the font size is smaller than normal so that it will be harder to read from the pulpit! But we nevertheless made the same concession that other translators have about this text by leaving it in situ.

    I believe it’s time for us to own up to our tradition of timidity and recognize that this has not helped the Church in the long haul. It’s time to close the gap. I am calling for translators to remove this text from the Gospel of John and relegate it to the footnotes. Although this will be painful and will cause initial confusion, it is far better that laypeople hear the truth about scripture from their friends than from their enemies. They need to know that Christ-honoring, Bible-believing scholars also do not think that this text is authentic, and that such a stance has not shaken their faith one iota. No cardinal truth is lost if these verses go bye-bye; no essential doctrine is disturbed if they are cut from the pages of the Word of God.

  • Ray Frankz
    Ray Frankz

    "This passage of scripture is about the scribes and the Pharisees who brought a woman that was accused of adultery before Jesus to test him on the punishment to be meted out. Then came his famous reply; Let the one of you that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her."

    This modification was based in the most recent discoveries on the ancient manuscripts, a positive change, I think, so.

    What bothers me most is that they took out the footnote that showed that "from house to house" could be translated as "in your houses". This of course has been his weakness of the insistence of the GB in forcing the witnesses in to the field service. So, one more time, to back their own rule, they hide information from the witnesses

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    The WT got it right.

    Besides, it is one of the nicest sounding parts of the bible, but it's only make-you-feel-good-BS. If we were to use Jesus' standard for prosecuting someone, it would be impossible to prosecute the worst criminals, let alone an adulterous woman. Also, it is quite inconsistent for Jesus to claim to uphold the law in some parts of the New Testament, but break it so he can be praised for his ridiculous solutions to conflict, such as "turn the other cheek". Pleeeeeeease!

  • ScenicViewer

    Information regarding meeting in small groups was removed.

    Watchtower's go-to scripture on meeting attendance is Heb 10:24, 25. In older NWTs that verse had several cross references listed (in the center column), some of which were removed in the revised NWT.

    In the image below notice that in the previous NWT, after the expression "gathering of ourselves together," there is a reference to the center column which has 4 scriptures noted. Then in the rNWT the same verse, after the words "meeting together," there are only 2 scriptures noted - Mt 18:20 and Acts 20:8 have been removed from the cross references.


    Mt 18:20 is the main one of interest in this post. It says...

    "20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”

    I would be interested in hearing Watchtower's explanation for removing this reference. Of course the official explanation and the real reason are probably two different things. In reality it appears that Watchtower's concept of Organization is being violated by this verse. Can you imagine Watchtower allowing Witnesses to break off into small groups, as small as 2 or 3, to have meetings? Absolutely not. Watchtower organizes all the meetings of JWs and tells you where and when to meet. Even though Jehovah supports it, the Bible supports it, and Jesus Christ supports it, the Governing Body would never allow such a thing.

    So, the cross reference to Mt 18:20 just haaad to go!

    (I suspect Watchtower would say that verse was meant for remote locations where only small groups could be formed, even though I can't find anything to that effect in the scripture.)

    (FYI, the other verse that was eliminated, Acts 20:8, tells of the young man Eutychus that fell asleep at a meeting (in vs 9) and fell out of a window. Maybe that reference was removed because it hits too close to home - Watchtower's meetings tend to be overly boring, putting people to sleep.)

Share this