Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents

by [email protected] 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

[email protected]
Earnest promised:
Then if you particularly want me to explain why I understand the remaining verses (if any) include 'Jehovah' I will do so.

[email protected] replied:
Here are the "remaining verses" (ignore the one I scratched out) for you to explain away. Just start at the top and work down.
Acts of the Apostles
1:24 You, O Jehovah, who know the hearts of all
2:47 Jehovah continued to join to them daily
3:19 refreshing may come from the person of Jehovah
7:60 he cried out with a loud voice, ?Jehovah?
(In the verse before he was praying to Jehovah Jesus.)
10:33 you have been commanded by Jehovah to say
~~11:21 the hand of Jehovah was with them~~
(In the verse before they declare Jehovah Jesus.)
12:17 told them in detail how Jehovah brought him out
13:2 public ministering to Jehovah
13:10 the right ways of Jehovah
13:12 astounded at the teaching of Jehovah
14:3 by the authority of Jehovah (no ?authority? in Greek)
14:23 committed them to Jehovah
15:40 the undeserved kindness of Jehovah
16:14 Jehovah opened her heart wide
16:15 If you men have judged me faithful to Jehovah
18:21 if Jehovah is willing
18:25 the way of Jehovah
21:14 Let the will of Jehovah take place.
Earnest

Earnest : What about "the word of Jehovah" (occurs more than 200 times in the O.T.) ? That is found in ~~a further~~ 8 verses of the 28 you referred to. You get the idea ? Now see how many of the remaining ~~9 verses (11 + 8 + 9 = 28)~~ 17 verses contain expressions from the Old Testament where the divine name occurs.

Sorry, my mistake. I was including "word of Jehovah" a second time and can only explain it as my brain going numb counting the number of times these expressions occur in the O.T.
Earnest : Now see how many of the remaining 17 verses contain expressions from the Old Testament where the divine name occurs. Then if you particularly want me to explain why I understand the remaining verses (if any) include 'Jehovah' I will do so.

Teachers report says "NWTetc could try harder". You are still expecting me to catch your fish for you. Now make a bit of effort and see how many of the remaining 17 verses you can identify which contain expressions from the Old Testament where the divine name occurs.
[email protected]

Earnest: Now make a bit of effort and see how many of the remaining 17 verses you can identify which contain expressions from the Old Testament where the divine name occurs.
None? Zip? Zero? Nada? -- Right?
Earnest

Why am I not surprised you are unwilling to even think outside your box. Because you have consistently shown that your interest is only in finding irregularities in the NWT, not in truth. I have already demonstrated as an example that eleven of the 28 verses you rejected as quotations from the OT were just that, and assure you there are more. If you are unwilling to learn, I am unwilling to teach. So go back to class and do your homework.
Earnest
[email protected]

NWT Use of "Jehovah" Unexplainable by JW Teacher

In July 2004 a JW Bible teacher from England was asked to explain the 52 appearances of "Jehovah" in the Acts of the Apostles as found in the New World Translation. The JW teacher first said they were quotations from the OT. When asked to identify the sources of the quotations the JW teacher quickly went through about a dozen "Jehovahs" that did appear in quotations. When asked to continue the JW teacher pointed out that some quotations were more generalized and were actually "expressions" like prepositional phrases that appeared in the OT. For example, "the word of Jehovah" appears more than 200 times in the OT and 16 times in Acts. When asked to list the 16 places in Acts the JW teacher had to admit to accidentally double counting them; there were only 8 examples of "word of Jehovah" in Acts.
Allowed to use any excuse, no matter how outrageous, when the dust settled, the JW teacher was unable to explain one third (17 of 52) of the appearances of "Jehovah" in the book of Acts. Even when allowed to use prepositional phrases from the OT as an excuse, this JW teacher was baffled by 32% -- one out of three -- of the "Jehovahs" in Acts.
[email protected]
--
[email protected]

Earnest Wrote:
I have sufficient confidence that the translators of the NWT ... I think it is a bit premature to describe the footnote as slipshod and incompetent.

[email protected] Responded:
My second piece of evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 22:17 --
I fell into a trance, א AB; Jehovah's hand was upon me, J 17 ; Jehovah's spirit clothed me, J 18 ; in the name of Jehovah, J 12,13,15,16 . -- 1969 KIT.

I fell into a trance, א AB; Jehovah's hand was upon me, J 13,14,17,22 ; Jehovah's spirit clothed me, J 18 . -- 1985 KIT.

In the late 1940s when Franz put together the original NWT footnotes, he "found" three different readings in the J-Documents. In the early 1980s when the footnotes were revised, those doing the revision could only find two readings.
In the 1940s J 13 had the reading "in the name of Jehovah." -- according to 1969 KIT.

In the 1980s J 13 had the reading "Jehovah's hand was upon me." -- according to 1985 KIT.
Both cannot be factual. Both could be wrong ... but both cannot be right. The document, itself, did not change.

An additional question: Why was J 14 not listed for the reading "Jehovah's hand was upon me" in the original footnote? Either slipshod and incompetent research missed it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted it the second time. The document, itself, did not change.
Many more examples of slipshod and incompetent footnoting can (and will) be presented soon. Tempus Fugit!
May God continue to bless you,
[email protected]
--
[email protected]

Earnest Wrote:
I have sufficient confidence that the translators of the NWT ... I think it is a bit premature to describe the footnote as slipshod and incompetent.

[email protected] Responded:
Further evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 7:33 --
Jehovah, J 11-14,16-18 . -- 1969 KIT.

Jehovah, J 11-18,22,23 . -- 1985 KIT.

J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. Leaving aside J 22,23 as not germane, notice that J 15 has been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted it the second time. The document, itself, did not change. Further evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 7:37 --
Jehovah, J 7,8,11-14,16,17 . -- 1969 KIT.

Jehovah, J 7,8,10-17 . -- 1985 KIT.

Allowing that volume 3 of J 10 (containing Acts-1 Corinthians) may have been unavailable to the original researcher(s), notice that J 15 has been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted it the second time. The document, itself, did not change. Further evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 7:49 --
Jehovah, J 11-14,16-18 . -- 1969 KIT.

Jehovah, J 11-18,20,22-24. -- 1985 KIT.

J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. Leaving aside J 22-24 as not germane, notice that J 15 and J 20 have been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed both of them the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted both of them the second time. The document, itself, did not change.
Many more examples of slipshod and incompetent footnoting can (and will) be presented soon. Tempus Fugit!
May God continue to bless you,
[email protected]
--
Earnest

Well, you really are dredging the bottom to find something to criticise about the NWT. It has already been pointed out to you that these J versions are just translations and so have no more authority than any other translation (with the possible exception of J 2 ).
So if the editors included some additional Hebrew translations which also used the divine name in their second edition of KIT, what of it ? Why do you think they should have been obliged to include those translations in the first edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation ? If these footnotes indicated anything more than the fact that some Hebrew translations of the NT use the divine name, then perhaps it is relevant that only certain versions are cited, but they don't. There is nothing special about them, nowhere in the KIT foreword does it suggest that the translators of these versions were in any way inspired, and the argument for the use of the divine name in the NT would not be affected if they didn't exist. So go blow your horn where it matters.
Now, if you were to suggest that they cited a J document as containing the tetragrammaton, and in fact it does not, then that I agree would be slipshod and incompetent. But to say that in one edition they did not cite all the references they have in a later edition is just so juvenile there is simply no case to answer.
I am currently investigating the point you make about J 13 as reading differently in the early and late editions of KIT. You say :
In the 1940s J 13 had the reading "in the name of Jehovah." -- according to 1969 KIT.

In the 1980s J 13 had the reading "Jehovah's hand was upon me." -- according to 1985 KIT.

Both cannot be factual. Both could be wrong ... but both cannot be right. The document, itself, did not change.

My investigations are not complete but you are not necessarily correct. In the foreword of the 1950 NWT NT it says regarding J 13 :
Greek Scriptures in Hebrew. In 1838 the London Jewish Society published another Hebrew version as translated by A. McCaul, J. C. Reichardt, S. Hoga and M. S. Alexander. (A copy of the edition of 1872 is found in the library of the American Bible Society, New York city.)

It is possible that the first edition of KIT used the 1872 copy from the library of the ABS, while the later edition of KIT used an 1838 version of this translation. Or vice versa. I do not yet know that it is the case but am simply showing your assumption that the footnote is inaccurate is not necessarily the case. I will certainly be letting the forum know.
Earnest
[email protected]

Earnest Wrote:
I have sufficient confidence that the translators of the NWT ... I think it is a bit premature to describe the footnote as slipshod and incompetent.

[email protected] Responded:
Still more evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 8:39 --
Jehovah's, J7, 13,15-18 . -- 1969 KIT.

Jehovah's, J13, 15-18,22-24 . -- 1985 KIT.

J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. Leaving aside J 22-24 as not germane, notice that J7 has been deleted from the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research added it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers deleteded it the second time. The document, itself, did not change. Yet more evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 13:2 --
Jehovah's, J7,8,13, 16-18 . -- 1969 KIT.

Jehovah's, J7,8,10, 13,15-18,22,23. -- 1985 KIT.

Allowing that volume 3 of J 10 (containing Acts-1 Corinthians) may have been unavailable to the original researcher(s), let's bypass addition of J10. And, remembering that J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. We will ignore the insertion of J10 and J 22-24 as not germane. Even so, notice that J15 have been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed it the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted it the second time. The document, itself, did not change. Ever mounting evidence that the footnotes in the NWT are slipshod and incompetent is the KIT note at Acts 13:11 --
Jehovah's, J7, 15,17,18 . -- 1969 KIT.

Jehovah's, J7,8,10, 15-18,20,22-24. -- 1985 KIT.

Allowing that volume 3 of J 10 (containing Acts-1 Corinthians) may have been unavailable to the original researcher(s), let's bypass addition of J10. And, remembering that J-Documents numbered above 21 were added a generation after the original translation was made and thus can be ignored as far as having any bearing on the original translation. We will ignore the insertion of J10 and J 22-24 as not germane. Even so, notice that J8 and J 16 have been added to the second listing. Either slipshod and incompetent research missed them the first time, or slipshod and incompetent revisers inserted them the second time. The document, itself, did not change.
Many more examples of slipshod and incompetent footnoting can (and will) be presented.
May God continue to bless you,
[email protected]
--

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents

NWT Use of "Jehovah" Unexplainable by JW Teacher

Share this