Posts by slimboyfat

14

2013 New World Translation

by Jerome56 in

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.

slimboyfat

Thanks for the detailed explanation Earnest. 👍

A related, and perhaps more significant change between the 1950 and 2013 versions, was the complete removal of the word “elder” in 1950 (apart from the instances of elders in heaven in Revelation) and its reintroduction in 2013 revision.

It’s ironic that Splane says Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t change the Bible to suit their beliefs because, when the NWT was first released in 1950 Jehovah’s Witnesses had abandoned congregation “elders”, and more specifically “elective elders”, a term and arrangement that Rutherford had undermined as being anti-Theocratic. So when the 1950 NWT uniformly replaced of the word “elder” with the descriptor “older man”, it was reflecting JW practice at the time which had no position of “elder” in the congregations. Jehovah’s Witnesses reintroduced the “elder arrangement” (this time minus democracy) in the 1970s, so it made sense to restore the word “elder” back again in the 2013 revised NWT in favour of the idiosyncratic 1950 NWT rendering “older man”.

For example the 1950 NWT at Titis 1:5 read:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I gave you orders.

Whereas the 2013 NWT reads:

I left you in Crete so that you would correct the things that were defective and make appointments of elders in city after city, as I instructed you

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

The signing the name at the end thing … I think there was a time when the forum allowed you to choose a sign-off name thing for the end of your posts that added automatically, so it might be an echo of that. Some of us used to style ourselves as being of a certain “class” the way that Watchtower had “anointed class”, “John class”, “other sheep class”, and so on. Some would declare themselves of “the evil slave class”, a term Watchtower has since demoted. Or we would make up our own: “slimboyfat of the ‘my Watchtower is always underlined’ class”, and so on.

14

2013 New World Translation

by Jerome56 in

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.

slimboyfat

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_72

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

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?.

slimboyfat

Wherever I go, there I am

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Wow such self righteousness in such a nasty person. What an endearing combination.

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

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.

slimboyfat

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.

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

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.

slimboyfat

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.

66