vt_disney_fan
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 294
The word you refer to as "Jehovah" in your NWT is, in the original Hebrew, "YHWH" (also known as the tetragrammaton), and is translated in most English versions as "LORD" (all caps). This is routinely done to distinguish it from the word "Adonai", also typically rendered "lord" (lower case, to distinguish). Wherever the 2 names stand together in the OT as a compound name of God, they are typically rendered "Sovereign Lord."
A little history. Devout Jews began to sustitute this word very early for the proper name of "YHWH" when reading Scripture aloud. Later, when the Masoretes (from where we get the Masoretic text) inserted vowels into the consonantal Hebrew text, they left the original tetragrammaton (YHWH), but ADDED the vowels for "adonai" as a signal for the reader to substitute what they considered to be a more reverent word INSTEAD of the actual personal name of God. This phenomenon occurs almost 7,000 times in the Hebrew Bible. However, this would NOT mean that Jehovah is a proper translation o the original language, b/c that word does NOT appear in the original language (see explanation above - it's a contrived word made by adding vowels to an existing, consonantal, unpronounceable word). Most English Bibles translate YHWH with the traditional capital letters "LORD", and distinguish it from its use as "lord" when referring to men. In fact, NO ONE knows precisely how the divine name was pronounced. As such, the JW use of "Jehovah" is technically NOT correct, when it comes to translation.
In other words, Rich, you've taken the Watchtower's word for it. Perhaps the most dangerous position to take. Let me explain.
The Watchtower Society first published the New World Translation of the New Testament in 1950 (complete OT/NT Bible came in 1961, with revisions in '70 and '84). The Watchtower has typically been pretty secretive as to the identity of the translators, but former members of the Society revealed the identities of the translation committee members as Frederick W. Franz, Nathan H. Knorr, George D. Gangas, Albert D. Schroeder, Milton G. Henschel, and Karl Klein. Let's look at their particular qualifications, as it might relate to Biblical translation:
Frederick Franz
Qualifications - May have been the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati. Had 21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin. Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year. Was self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic.
Gangas, George
Qualifications - No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek. Translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.
Henschel, Milton
Qualifications - No training in biblical languages.
Klein, Karl
Qualifications - No training in biblical languages.
Knorr, Nathan
Qualifications - No training in biblical languages
Schroeder, Albert
Qualificaions - No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.
Now don't take MY word for it (anymore than you should take the Watchtower's word for it, by the way). Franz's primary training was in Classical Greek, not biblical Greek. He dropped out of a survey course on that topic. He was self-taught in biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, which is commendable, but does it qualify him as a Bible translator? I also have a very limited knowledge of New Testament Greek attained through private study (no formal training). But that certainly doesn't qualify me to be on any Bible translation committee. Additionally, in a court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1954, Mr. Franz failed a simple test on his Hebrew language skills. On cross-examination, Franz was asked to translate a particular verse from Genesis into Hebrew. He was unable to do so. Why is that? If he was qualified to translate the ENTIRE BIBLE out of its original languages into English, yet could not translate even a single particular verse when pressed on the matter, what does that REALLY say about his abilities to translate? At the very least, this calls into question the use of the word translation in the New World Translation.
Let me also make an important note. Some legitimate translations (such as the King James Version, for example) make use of brackets or italics to indicate words inserted for proper flow, but which are not found in the original language manuscripts. In legitimate translations, this tool is only used for proper flow in English, or to indicate words that are found in some ancient manuscripts but not in others. However, you will find the NWT goes further - MUCH further! Not only do the NWT brackets show words included for flow, but also words NOT found in the manuscripts which, when included, result in a MATERIAL change of meaning in the verse. For example:
Genesis 1:1-2
NWT: In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
NIV: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
NASB: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
KJV: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Here's a game we can play, that some played when they were younger - which of these verses is not like the other? Here's a note: the Jehovahs Witnesses reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They believe in a non-triune God named Jehovah, they believe Jesus is a god subordinate to Jehovah, and they reject the notion that the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. They believe that the Holy Spirit is an extension of Jehovah an active force He sends out. The Hebrew words here are "ruwach elohim", which are accurately translated as Spirit of God. "Ruwach" can be translated as wind also, but when joined in context with God, it is a reference to the Spirit of God (as Strongs Hebrew Lexicon states, Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son). This is just one example, among countless others, of the NWT forcing its doctrinal bias into the text of Scripture.
Again, Rich, don't take my word for it, investigate it for yourself. But on the same hand, don't just take the Watchtower's word for it, either, as they want you to do. You owe it to your eternal soul to investigate it.
Rich, why do you ignore all the verses in Scripture that say we will be in Heaven, though, with Christ? John 14, Rev 19-21 among many others? You take Psalm 37.29 literally when it says "the righteous wil inherit the land and dwell in it forever." Do you take the rest of Psalm 37 literally? How about v. 2 - will evil men ACTUALLY wither like grass? That's what it says. What about v. 20 - will enemies ACTUALLY vanish like smoke? That's what it says. Do you take these literally as well, or just the parts of the Psalm that support what the Watchtower has told you it means?
I don't fight hard to stay alive here on Earth. God has a purpose for my life - I work to find and fulfill that purpose. What you're trying to get at is that we're somehow "attached" to this Earth - not at all. As Paul says, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." I have no fear of death, as I know I'll be in Heaven when I die. You, too, could say the same, Rich, but not as a JW.
Yes, the common misinterpretations of the Watchtower. These verses in Ecclesiastes have no "proof" that there is no hell at all! Further, explain them in light of Matthew 25:46 or Jude 7.
Further, let me pose it to you this way, Rich. You believe in eternal life either in Heaven (for 144k) or on Earth, or annihilation (no hell, just cease to exist). I believe in Heaven for those who are saved, and hell for those who aren't.
Let's assume, for a second, that you're right, and I'm wrong. If that's the case, you'll be on Earth, and so will I. So compared to where you think you'll end up now, you're the same, and compared to where I think I'll end up now, I live on an eternal Earth, ruled by God and the 144k, yet still happiness for eternity. Not bad either way.
But let's assume I'm right, and you're wrong. If that's the case, I'll be in Heaven, and you'll be in hell. So compared to where I think I'll end up now, I'll be in the same place, but compared to where you think you'll be now, you'll end up in hell, a place of eternal real punishment. Same for me, but bad for you.
I have no downside (eternity with or near God, either way for me), and all the upside (Heaven). You have no upside (no possibility of Heaven), and all the downside (hell). I'm comfortable with my position. You should be feeling the heat, Rich.
All I'm saying, is look into what I've said. If you take the WT's word for it, you've done yourself the greatest disservice possible. You need to investigate the veracity of what they say, and the origins of where your own "version" comes from. It's not true, and you can find it out. The WT doesn't want you to, but you can.
Praying for you, Rich.
