on their website in the video "organizational accomplishments" watchtower devotes this segment to praising the superiority of the new world translation.
about half way through, david splane relates the reason for a change in wording from the old 1984 nwt reference bible to the 2013 revised nwt.
he said this was because of the recent discovery of an older manuscript that contained the greek word for overseer that was unavailable when the reference bible was being compiled.
The 1950 NWT used the Westcott and Hort Greet text that does not contain the word “overseer” in the verse.
The older manuscript that Splane was referring to was probably P72, a papyrus that was discovered in 1952, that includes the word for “overseer” in the text.
The 2013 revision of the NWT used updated Greek texts NA28 and UBS4 that include the word for “overseer” partly on the basis of P72.
sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?
' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?
' what do you folks say?.
Wherever I go, there I am
original reddit post (removed).
Wow such self righteousness in such a nasty person. What an endearing combination.
i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
Thanks, Earnest, I wonder if Jehovah’s Witnesses in Israel pronounce the divine name when they are speaking Hebrew? I can’t imagine they would avoid it. At the same time you’d think it would get them in trouble. Would they say Yahweh? Does modern Hebrew even have an agreed pronunciation for the divine name? Seems like a bit of a dilemma, I wonder how they deal with it.
i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
Good point Wonderment
I think it’s probably worth pointing out that there likely wasn’t just one ancient pronunciation either. Jews in different periods (pre-exilic, post-exilic, Hellenistic) and in different regions (Judah, Samaria, the diaspora) likely had different pronunciations of the divine name. Which one are we calling “original”?
German Jehovah’s Witnesses say the name so it sounds like “yehofa”, which is possibly quite close to an ancient pronunciation of the name. So maybe Jehovah’s Witnesses have got the pronunciation right, just not the English speaking Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why be so English-centric to make the English pronunciation the be all and end all?
I think in some languages they even use forms closer to Yahweh (can anyone confirm that?), which is currently the preferred pronunciation by scholars. So one way or another, Jehovah’s Witnesses have probably got close approximations to ancient pronunciations in some languages at least.
breaking news....there is hope for good hearted non-jws!!!.
according to sergio:.
are jehovah's witnesses the only ones to be saved during the end time?.
You may SURVIVE ARMAGEDDON into God’s New World
breaking news....there is hope for good hearted non-jws!!!.
according to sergio:.
are jehovah's witnesses the only ones to be saved during the end time?.
Ooops wring thread
how much of the preaching hours in yearly report you think are real?
they always have high numbers preaching hours.
probably increase every decade.
All the hours were real, even if many of them were in our hearts 1 Peter 3:15
breaking news....there is hope for good hearted non-jws!!!.
according to sergio:.
are jehovah's witnesses the only ones to be saved during the end time?.
All the hours were real, even if many of them were in our hearts 1 Peter 3:15
first of all, hi, i go by blotty on this website :) i am someone who has a passion for the bible and like to get a as balanced view as i can from the trinitarian and the jw (or unitarian) side - even though i come off as leaning towards one or the other at times, in my opinion they both have merits in certain cases..if this is in the wrong section i apologise - this is just something i found interesting.iv seen online a lot that say the watchtower and tract society "invented" the link between proverbs 8:22 - 30 and jesus (the word).
yet interestingly some "mainstream" "trinitarian- aimed" translations are cross referencing the following:source:https://www.biblegateway.comprov 8:22 cr rev 3:14niv, gnt,esv, nasb, nasb1995, nasbre, cevprov 8:30 cr john 1:1,2 esv nasbprov 8:30 cr john 1:3esvnasb1995nasb(this list is by no means complete)if this is simply wisdom, why is it referenced with jesus (or the word)?.
When the spirit is personified it is a way of speaking about God and his actions in the world. It doesn’t mean the spirit itself is a person, but it points to God (who is a person) and his action in the world.
When wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8:22ff it is a way of speaking about Jesus and his life with God before coming to earth. It doesn’t mean that wisdom itself is a person, but it points to Jesus as God’s first creation, who became a human and dwelt with mankind.
So it is correct to say that personification doesn’t make either the spirit or wisdom into persons. But on some occasions when the spirit and wisdom are personified then it is a way of speaking about God and his Son respectively.
I think that attempting to argue that Prov 8:22ff is not referring to Jesus is a difficult road to go down from a Christian perspective, because NT authors draw upon wisdom and take it for granted as a way of talking about Jesus, implicitly (John 1:1–18; Col 1:15; Rev 3:14) and explicitly (1 Cor 1:30). Early Christian authors identified Prov 8:22ff as referring to Jesus on all sides of the debate over Christology. In fact it was one of the most often quoted passages in the entire OT as applying to Jesus. Verses 30 and 31 of Proverbs 8 are so apt as description of Jesus that, if you believe in Jesus and believe in the Bible, then it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is meant (inspired) to be taken as a reference to Jesus.
30 then I was beside him, like a master worker; (or little child)
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the human race.
