Sea Breeze, you did ask why they traslated it in the way they did. You examine the evidence and decide for yourself what you believe. That's how life works. And that is also my philosophy in life. I respect the opinion of Gesenius/Kautsch as experts in Hebrew. This is one of the reasons why I am not popular amongst the Witnesses. So whatever they say, I will examine carefully and reach my own conclusion according to the evidence.
Posts by Vidqun
-
27Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
-
27
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
Vidqun
Yes, more accurately, one should say he would quote from a Proto-Septuagint text on which Theodotion based his text.
-
27
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
Vidqun
Thanks, No-zombie. You have summarized the gist of it.
Earnest, he probably quoted Greek Theodotion.
Sea Breeze, the answer to your question is in the footnotes of NWT (1960) on Zech. 12:10. It has to do with a single yodh. Here it is, depending on whether the fonts can be tranferred accurately:
Gesenius’ Grammar Hebrew, Section 138 (2) e, p. 446: 1 In Zech. 12:10 also, instead of the unintelligible אלי את אשר, [“to me whom”] we should probably read אֶל־אֲשֶׁר, [“to the one whom”] and refer the passage to this class.
[1] Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley, 2d English ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).In two Hebrew MSS the written text reads [“to me whom”] and the marginal note [“to the one whom”]:
וְשָׁפַכְתִּי֩ עַל־בֵּ֨ית דָּוִ֜יד וְעַ֣ל׀ יֹושֵׁ֣בa יְרוּשָׁלִַ֗ם ר֤וּחַ חֵן֙ וְתַ֣חֲנוּנִ֔ים וְהִבִּ֥יטוּ bאֵלַ֖י אֵ֣תb אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֑רוּ וְסָפְד֣וּ עָלָ֗יו כְּמִסְפֵּד֙ עַל־הַיָּחִ֔יד וְהָמֵ֥רc עָלָ֖יו כְּהָמֵ֥ר עַֽל־הַבְּכֹֽור׃ (full text)
a prb l c mlt Mss Vrs יֹשְׁבֵי
b–b var lect ; l אֶל־ vel אֱלֵי־
K. Elliger, W. Rudolph, and Gérard E. Weil, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, electronic ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003).LXX reads “to me for the reason that.” Latin Vg “to me whom.” Syriac “to me for him whom.” Theodotion “to him whom.” That would also be the reason why E. Kautszch translate "to that one whom" in his German translation.
In addition, they quote John 19:37 as confirmation:
"And, again, a different scripture says, They will look to the One whom they pierced." (John 19:37 NWT).
And again another Scripture says, "They will look on him whom they have pierced." (John 19:37 ESV)
-
30
Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus
by kepler inover a year ago, i engaged in a discussion on a similar topic.
it was titled, "has anyone read thucydides beside the author of daniel?".
since my annotated new jerusalem bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century bce to address events happening in that period ( the seleucid occupation and desecration of the temple), i was aware of a number of arguments for the case.
-
-
Vidqun
Earnest, after the discovery of the Genesis Apocryphon, there's a tendency to date the Aramaic portions much earlier. Here's some of the sources I looked up. Scholars were very careful not to contradict the mainstream beliefs on the dating of Daniel. They could lose their tenure if they tended to swim against the current. Would be interesting to find out what current thought is on the matter:
Most modern scholars prefer a late Maccabean dating (of around 165 BCE) for the book of Daniel in line with Driver’s famous assertion that “the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (BC 332).”[1]
But already in 1965 Kitchen would take issue with Driver when he demonstrated a number of linguistic features that could indicate an earlier date for the stories.[2] Fitzmyer on the Genesis Apocryphon also points to an earlier date for the Aramaic of Daniel.[3] Coxon was cautious in his series of linguistic studies in the late 1970s but allowed that much of the evidence could point to an earlier date for the Aramaic of Daniel.[4] Other work, by such as Yamauchi and Masson, casts doubt on the particular notion that the presence of Greek words in Daniel necessitates a late date.[5] More recently Z. Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel, p. 108, concludes that ‘the search for features in (Daniel Aramaic) of an early date should be pursued more intensively.’[6]
John J. Collins, a staunch defender of a late date Daniel, discredits the work of Stefanovic in no uncertain terms, yet he makes an unusual concession. While acknowledging that a “precise dating on linguistic grounds is not possible,” he concludes that the Aramaic of Daniel is later than that of the Samaria papyri (Wadi Daliyeh, fourth century BCE) but earlier than that of the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20).[7]
E. C. Lucas proposes: “The form of the prophecies of Dan. 8:23-25 and 11 is best explained if they originated in the Babylonian Dispersion and the author was well acquainted with the Babylonian omen literature, someone skilled in the language and letters of the Chaldeans, as the account in Dan. 1 indicates.”[8] However, in line with what Collins said, if the “Men of the Great Synagogue” did indeed edit parts of Daniel, as the Talmud suggests, then a precise dating of the book on linguistic grounds would be impossible.
[1] S. R. Driver, Daniel, p. lxiii. See also A. A. Bevan, Daniel, pp. 41, 42.
[2] See his conclusions in K. A. Kitchen, ‘The Aramaic of Daniel,’ in D. J. Wiseman et al., Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (London: Tyndale Press, 1965), pp. 77–79. A much earlier move in the same direction was taken by H. H. Schaeder, Iranische Beiträge (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1930), I, pp. 199, 120, as cited by P. A. David, ‘The Composition and Structure of the Book of Daniel: A Synchronic and Diachronic Reading,’ under ‘Composition and Structure,’ p. 50.
[3] J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘Some Observations on the Genesis Apocryphon,’ CBQ 22 (1960), p. 279; and Genesis Apocryphon, pp. 19–23. See also G. L. Archer, ‘The Aramaic of the “Genesis Apocryphon” Compared with the Aramaic of Daniel,’ in J. B. Payne (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970), pp. 161–169, whose polemical tone should not distract the reader from his argument for Daniel Aramaic as an early eastern form of the language.
[4] For example P. W. Coxon, ‘A Morphological Study of the h-Prefix in Biblical Aramaic,’ JAOS 98 (1978), p. 416; ‘The Problem of Consonantal Mutations in Biblical Aramaic,’ ZDMG 129 (1979), p. 22; ‘The Distribution of Synonyms in Biblical Aramaic in the Light of Official Aramaic and the Aramaic of Qumran,’ RevQ 19 (1978), p. 512; and ‘The Syntax of the Aramaic of Daniel: A Dialectical Study,’ HUCA 48 (1977), p. 122.
[5] E. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1967), pp. 113, 14; and E.M. Yamauchi, ‘Daniel and Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East before Alexander,’ EvQ 53 (1981), p. 47, who concludes his essay with the hope that ‘future commentaries will come to recognize that the Greek words in Daniel cannot be used to date the book to the Hellenistic age.’
[6] T. J. Meadowcroft, (1995). Vol. 198: Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, pp. 277–278. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
[7] John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia-series, pp. 16 [footnote 156], 17, and R. J. Korner, “The “Exilic” Prophecy of Daniel 7: Does It Reflect Late Pre-Maccabean or Early Hellenistic Historiography?” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography [ed. M. J. Boda and L. M. Wray Beal; Leiden: Brill, 2013], p. 348.
[8] E. C. Lucas, “Daniel: Resolving the Enigma,” Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 50, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 2000), p. 76. -
21
WT AUGUST 2025: NEW LIGHT ON HAILSTONE MESSAGE : IS IT BIBLICAL OR JUST CONVENIENT?
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/n_fttvylm-m?si=l44406ohysubkajr.
so today we are considering, the watchtower's new take on the "hailstone message", and if you don't know what that is , they used to believe that according to revelation 16:21 they would be preaching a hard hitting message during the time of the end.
now, let's read the verse first from the new world translation: "then great hailstones, each about the weight of a talent, fell from heaven on the people, and the people blasphemed god because of the plague of hail, for the plague was unusually great" now this is their new understanding as it appears from the 3rd paragraph from their new watchtower study edition for august 2025 and their article:when will the preaching work end, has this to say: "our clarified understanding of matthew 24:14 also adjusts our understanding of the hailstonelike message foretold at revelation 16:21. further examination has revealed that the two scriptures complement each other.
-
-
Vidqun
Perhaps it's not as complicated as all that. If the ten plagues of Exodus were literal, the ten Revelation plagues might just be the real thing. Those that survived the deadly hailstones, would then blaspheme God.
-
24
The Good News Is: The Great-Crowd-Of-Other-Sheep Do Not Exist
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower conflates two different groups into one fictional church-age group that according to the watchtower, are saved by works and faith/membership in the jehovah witness organization.
according to watchtower, only the now mostly dead 144k receive the promises of god regarding justification .
everbody else missed the boat and must work for their justification for a thousand years.
-
-
Vidqun
The Republic of Israel, with its Prime Minister and President, and member of the UN, is a far cry from the theocracy of old. They are led by Ultra-Nationalist Talmudic Zionists, intent in committing genocide. A long shot to compare them to the Israel of old, won't you say?
While we are on spiritual interpretation: All Israel (olive tree) = Gentile Christians (wild branches) + Remnant of Jews (natural branches). The olive tree is the equivalent of the temple, built with living stones, as discussed previously.
-
24
The Good News Is: The Great-Crowd-Of-Other-Sheep Do Not Exist
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower conflates two different groups into one fictional church-age group that according to the watchtower, are saved by works and faith/membership in the jehovah witness organization.
according to watchtower, only the now mostly dead 144k receive the promises of god regarding justification .
everbody else missed the boat and must work for their justification for a thousand years.
-
-
Vidqun
Sea Breeze, if one examines the word heikal, you'll see it can mean: house, palace sanctuary or temple. Solomon used “temple” and “house” interchangeably: “And the porch in front of the temple of the house was twenty cubits in its length, in front of the width of the house. Ten cubits it was in its depth, in front of the house.” (1 Ki. 6:3 NWT) Rev. 21:22 rules out temple.
According to Revelation, what is described in heaven is a symbolic tabernacle: "After this I looked, and the sanctuary of the tent of witness in heaven was opened" (Rev. 15:5 ESV). Now one can understand why God says: “The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples” and “the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them” (Rev. 7:15; 21:3).
The temple vision of Ezekiel I view as symbolic, mainly because of the animal sacrifices. Jesus sacrificed himself once and for all. Animal sacrifices would have no purpose in the future dispensation.
God's wrath is aimed at His enemies. But God's judgment will involve everyone: “This judgment involves everyone: all who live on the face of the whole earth. No one will escape this evaluation” (Luke 21:35, see NET footnote).
-
24
The Good News Is: The Great-Crowd-Of-Other-Sheep Do Not Exist
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower conflates two different groups into one fictional church-age group that according to the watchtower, are saved by works and faith/membership in the jehovah witness organization.
according to watchtower, only the now mostly dead 144k receive the promises of god regarding justification .
everbody else missed the boat and must work for their justification for a thousand years.
-
-
Vidqun
Sea Breeze, first thing, there is no temple in heaven: "And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb." (Rev. 21:22, 23 ESV)
Second point, there is not going to be a literal third (stone and mortar) temple on earth either. The following scriptures indicate the meaning of the earthly temple. If you understand this, many things will start making sense:
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. (1 Cor. 3:16, 17 ESV)
What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (2 Cor. 6:16 ESV)
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Eph. 2:19-22 ESV)
So what is the new focus for Christians, since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE: "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." (Heb. 12:22-24 ESV)
Third point, there is no Pre-tribulation rapture:
29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matt. 24:29-31 ESV) -
62
Probability of Earth and life being how it is
by ballistic inthere are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.
but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.
the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.
-
-
Vidqun
I was hopeless in Maths and Statistics so I prefer to break it down to basics (without resorting to stats and probabilities). A grounding for me is the principle of cause and effect. As a scientific rule: "For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force" (Newton's third law). The chances are slight that perfect conditions for life as described above could come to be by accident. Even for those that believe we live in a simulation, "cause and effect" needs to apply. I see evolutionaty scientists are also grappling with this.
-
13
Loyalty to the Governing Body? Timeline to Change
by blondie inhttps://jwfacts.com/watchtower/governing-body.php .
here is an example how the wts has "adjusted" scripture.
the governing body has gone as far as to change the text of micah 6:8 in their 2013 new world translation of the holy scriptures (nwt) in order to be able to demand loyalty.
-
-
Vidqun
Blondie, interesting observation. As above translations quoted and the aforementioned thread indicate, it is a complicated Hebrew concept, not readily translated by English. This is what a few dictionaries bring out:
The active nature of ḥeseḏ is underlined by the use of the verb ʿāśâ in Zec. 7:9 and Ps. 109:16. Similarly, the pl. ḥasāḏîm in 2 Ch. 32:32; 35:26; Neh. 13:14 refers to the “good deeds” of Hezekiah, Josiah, and Nehemiah; in Neh. 13:14, this phrase is reinforced by the explanatory clause “that I have done for (ʿāśâ + be) the house of God and its furnishings.” In the broader context of ḥeseḏ we also encounter the verbs gāmal, “render” (Prov. 11:17), ḥāraš, “devise” (Prov. 14:22), rāḏap̱, “pursue” (Prov. 21:21), and the hiphil of yṭb, “make good” (Ruth 3:10); in the opposite sense we find mûš + min, “refuse” (Job 6:14 conj. For ms). The ʾahaḇaṯ ḥeseḏ of Mic. 6:8 also belongs here, on account of the parallel ʿaśôṯ mišpāṭ. On the basis of these observations, we can draw the general conclusion that the concept ḥeseḏ includes an element of action.
Hans-Jürgen Zobel, “חֶסֶד,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 48–49. Most recently G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob. KAT, XVI (1963), 161.
—1. joint obligation between relatives, friends, host and guest, master and servant; closeness, solidarity, loyalty.
—2. ח׳ in God’s relationship with the people or an individual, faithfulness, goodness, graciousness (HALOT).Conclusion: Mic. 6:8 points to our relationship with God, thus faithfulness, goodness, graciousness, are to be preferred. Joint obligation, thus loyalty would be used for human relationships. TDOT also brings out that the word hhesed requires an action: "love kindness," in parallel with "exercise justice." Therefore I would stick with the meaning of NW84.