I noticed that the Online Library now shows the basic NWT and the study NWT versions of a scripture side by side in on small box on the screen.
Found a new difference between the old NWT and the new one...
by ILoveTTATT2 12 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Earnest
For those interested to know the basis for the 1984 NWT rendition of Jeremiah 10:13 I provide the note by Edward Kissane in Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 3, 1952, pp. 214-216:
This curious statement ['Who maketh lightnings for the rain'] is found three times in our Hebrew Bible (Jer. 10:13; 51:16; and Ps. 135:7). But as the psalm in which it occurs is largely made up of quotations from earlier poems, we are justified in assuming that the Psalmist has taken the passage from Jeremiah. Its double appearance in Jeremiah is due to the fact that the section in which it occurs was inserted twice in the collection of the prophecies.
According to the normal use of the terms, the clause is capable of two meanings: either that God changes the lightning into rain, i.e. He makes the thunderstorm end in a deluge of rain; or, He sends the lightning in time of rain. The latter is the interpretation of the Targum, and it is also the sense conveyed by the usual German [Blitze schafft er zum Regen (Cornill)] and French [Il fait briller l'eclair au milieu de la pluie (Condamin)] translations. In either case, it would seem that the phenomenon which excites the prophet's wonder, and which he takes as a proof of God's omnipotence, is the coming of the lightning and the rain from the same storm clouds. The translation [Who maketh lightnings for the rain (Revised Version)] seems to imply that God sends the lightning as the necessary prelude to the rain. But there are many reasons for doubting if any of these interpretations expresses the mind of the prophet.
The first difficulty that occurs to one is that these interpretations imply that the prophet assumed a necessary connexion between the lightning and the rain, which does not accord with the facts of experience. For in Palestine rain does not always follow lightning. In fact, the heavy rains of winter are usually unaccompanied by thunder; and on the other hand, thunder and lightning might occur in the dry season, without rain. We might add that, to the Hebrew mind, lightning and rain belonged to two distinct and even opposite categories. For rain was a token of God's blessing, while lightning was the agent of His wrath (cf. Job 36:31; 37:11-13).
A second reason for questioning the current interpretation is presented by the text itself. As the Psalmist gives only an incomplete extract, we have to go to Jeremiah for the full text. It reads as follows:
When he uttereth his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the end of the earth; he maketh the lightnings for the rain and bringeth forth the wind from his treasuries.
According to this text, the four phenomena which prove the power of God are: the thunder, the formation of the clouds, the lightning, and the wind. But is it not strange that the lightning is not placed with the thunder with which it is naturally associated? In similar passages elsewhere, it is the rain that is associated with the formation of the clouds. For example:
He that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out on the face of the earth. (Amos 5:8.)
For he draweth up the drops of water which distilleth in rain for his vapour, which the skies pour down and drop upon man abundantly. (Job 36:27 f.)
I suggest that in the original text of Jeremiah there was the same natural sequence - the formation of the clouds and the downpour of the rain. To obtain this result we have merely to change the word beraqim (lightnings) to bedaqim (breaches). 'He maketh breaches or sluices for the rain' is much more natural in the context. The prophet is using a synonym of the 'windows' ('arubbot) of heaven (Gen. 7:11; 8:2), and the 'conduit' (sinnor) by which God sends down the rain through the firmament (Ps. 42:8).
It is true that the noun bedeq occurs in the Bible only in reference to breaches made in a wall (cf. 2 Kings 12:6 ff.; 22:5-6; Ezek. 27:9, 27). But in Accadian the noun butuqtu is used both of the breach in the river or canal bank and of the stream which flows from it (cf. Delitzsch, Handworterbuch, p. 171). Professor Driver has drawn my attention to a passage in the Ugaritic texts in which the word bdqt (= bedeq) is used as parallel to hln (= hallon, 'window') and 'urbt ('arubbot, 'casement'), in each case referring to an opening or openings in Baal's heavenly palace to let out the rains (Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook, 142-51. v.120 - vii.28).
The passage thus emended recalls the question in the speech of Yahweh in the book of Job: 'Who hath cleft a channel (t'alah) for the waterflood?' (Job 38:25). Indeed, if with the majority of modern critics we accept the Greek reading pachen 'mist' ('ed) instead of 'light' ('or) in the preceding verse, the parallelism with the passage in Jeremiah is quite striking, the same four phenomena being mentioned, though in different order:
By what way is the mist parted, Or the east wind scattered on the earth? Who hath cleft a channel for the waterflood?, Or a way for the lightning of the thunder?
From all these considerations it is reasonable to conclude that Jeremiah also included the rain in the phenomena which prove the omnipotence of God, and that his words were: 'who maketh sluices for the rain'.
-
ILoveTTATT2
So... essentially, saying nonsense (lightning turning into rain) or other nonsense (there being "channels" for the rain).
Either way, it's stupid.
But doubly stupid to go with a rendering that pretty much no other Bible or translator of the "original" considered to be the correct one, and go with supossitions of someone who wrote an article in a theological journal in the 1950's...