Kingdom Interlinear question?

by imherczeg 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JCanon
    JCanon

    Thanks, Narkissos for posting this wonderful reference. Indeed, it is quite clear it was a travesty for the WTS to presume to change the Bible.

    Another interesting scripture that I focussed on was when Stephen was stoned. The NWT has to to translate one Lord as "Lord Jesus" because Jesus' name follows it, in which Stephen tells Jesus to "receive his spirit". But the second reference to Lord replaces that reference with "Jehovah". It would seem to me if "Lord" appeared a second time since he is addressing Jesus that it would have been understood as a reference to Jesus as "Lord" and not Jehovah: Here's the verse:

    Acts 7:59 "And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: "LORD Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: "Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them." And after saying this he fell asleep in death."

    Obviously, it's quite distressing for those who understand the insertion of "Jehovah" for every Lord where they could, not understanding for sure if the reference was to Jesus or YHWH is a huge travesty. This is why the GB is called the "Man of Lawlessness" and this would be considered part of the prophesied apostasy of the temple organization leadership.

    God said don't change his word, it's holy, and they did it anyway and made a mess of it.

    Oh well, at least the KIT shows us where we can reinstitute the optional reference to Jesus when the context shows us that is the case.

    JC

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Years ago I was reading 2Pete 3 and noticed the awkward use of Jehovah. Chapts 1-3 seven times uses the titles, "Lord Jesus" or "Lord and Savior Jesus". The immediate context makes clear the writer is discussing the delay of the 'promised presence" (1:16, 3:2-4)of the "Lord Jesus", and that the Lord Jesus patience (3:14,15) is because of underserved kindness (grace) of Jesus (3:18). Jesus ,Jesus ,Jesus. Yet whenever the text allowed them to insert "Jehovah" they did (2:11, 3:8,9,10). Clearly the second century author of 2 Peter regarded Jesus as the God of the OT and the "Lord" to await. The controvertial translating of (1:1,2) is now seen for what it is. A disguising of the author's Christology.

  • XBEHERE
    XBEHERE

    Most disturbing to me is recently finding out that in Philipians 2:10 " ...that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of god the father" If the NWT committee was consistent, that passage should say that Jesus Christ is Jehovah.

    Very disturbing indeed!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit