What translation of the Bible to JW use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ignatius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
tommy4321:
Jehovah’s name shouldn’t bother someone if it has been inserted. It’s the name of God. How can we argue about including the name of God and how does that bother you? Satan does not like Jehovah’s name either.
Hi Tommy,

Jehovah is not the Father’s name. Jehovah was a bad English transliteration which was used due to a limited understanding of the Hebrew language which has no vowels. Yahweh, YHWH, or YHVH would be a better translation of His name. Basically, the JWs put down the false name of Yahweh in favor of Jehovah. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

And also, the Trinity does not state that there are three Gods, its meaning is Tri-Unity. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

God bless,
 
You said **Jehovah’s name shouldn’t bother someone if it has been inserted.
**
I thought the question here was about truth. After all, JWs call their religion “The Truth”. Or, in the words of their new book; “What Does the Bible Really Teach”?. (if YHWH is in the New Testament, that teaches one thing, if it was never used by the New Testament writers, that teaches another…) Is your view shared by the majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses? Do they think that, even if it’s not really supposed to be in there, it’s OK to insert it?

This is a major issue. If YHWH does not appear in the New Testament, then that means that JWs are seriously out of line with the practice of the early Christians, and with Jesus himself, in the use of that name.

If the name DID NOT appear in the original manuscripts of the New Testament: then that means JWs have produced an innacurate translation, they have “added to the words of this book”, their practice and teaching w/regards to the name are out of step with the NT, etc.

If the name DID appear in the original manuscripts of the New Testament (as the WT Society officially teaches): that means that the entire field of Biblical scholarship is wrong, it means that our existing manuscripts cannot be trusted (after all, if YHWH could have been removed 237 times, what else could have happened?) and it also means that the JW leaders are correct in their accusing the 2nd Century Christians of a conspiracy to remove the name from the New Testament (without leaving a trace behind!) - the same generation of Christians that were slaughtered in the arenas of the Roman Empire for the gospel. JW publications show pictures of this persecution in the arenas - well which is it? - Age of Apostacy, or Age or Martyrdom?
 
40.png
b_justb:
And please … stuff like “Satan does not like Jehovah’s name either” is just out of line. Passive aggressive statements intended to malign a poster in the forum is just uncalled for.
Hmm, funny. No one ever called you guys on it. :cool:
 
40.png
Jaded27:
Hmm, funny. No one ever called you guys on it. :cool:
Welcome back.
I’m pretty sure I encouraged you to make the calls as you saw fit, and still do.
 
JW’s use the New World Translation which they, and only they use. Why? Much of it has been changed to support their peculiar beliefs.
Just briefly scanning some a very few of the many “difficulties” with the NWT, one finds these examples:

1 -John 1:18 the NWT translates this verse as “No man has seen God at any time; the *only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.” The Greek reads (and is always translated) "the only-begotten Son. The Greek word is “uios”, which is son, not “god”. Also, “bosom position” is quite reflective of their desire to lessen the status of the Son; i.e., He is in a “position” within the Father, not united in the Godhead.

2 - Luke 1:28 (the Angelic Salutation) - get this one!! - “Good day, highly favored one.” The Greek “Chaire” is traditionally translated as “Hail” and is the same word with which the Roman soldiers taunted Our Lord: “Hail, King of the Jews!” I hardly think they said, “Good day”!! - but, believe it or not, this is exactly how tthe translators for the NWT translated THAT passage, too! I guess they get a star for being consistent on some occasions. 🙂

3- Compare the NWT translation of Luke 9:35 with 1 John 4:1 - In both verses the Greek reads “'o agapetos”, i.e., “beloved”, but the JW’s only use 'beloved" in 1 John when John speaks to his “beloved”.

4 - In 2 Cor. 3:16-18 (and also 8:21), the NWT four times uses “Jehovah”, when the Greek uses “Kyrion” - Lord.

5 - Gal. 2:20 - the NWT reads, “I am impaled with Christ. It is no longer I that live, but it is Christ that is living in union with me. Indeed, the life that I now live in flesh I live by the faith that is toward the Son of God. . .” Now without considering the error of “impaled” about which there are a number of Catholic sites that address the JW’s capricious belief that the Lord was impaled on a “torture stick”, in the Greek there is no mention of "in union with. . ", but rather of Christ living IN me. This is set up as a contrast to “in flesh” and “in me”. The JWs know nothing of the depth of indwelling of Christ (and of each Person of the Blessed Trinity) in the believer, of which St. Paul speaks. When skimming through the translation now, I noted that wherever “in Him” (or He in us) should be, it is, rather, translated as “in union with”.

6 - The last point above is reflected in their translation of Ephesians 3:19: “. . .and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may in everything be filled with all the fullness that God gives.” OTC, what we are to be filled with is the “fullness of God.” The JWs, again, do not know (or to give them the benefit of the doubt - can’t express) that His Gift is Himself.

7 - This again is reflected in their translation of Col. 2:8-9: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells.” The Greek, otc, reads the “pleroma tes Theotatos” - “fullness of the Divinity (or the Godhead) dwells”.

8 - The first chapter of Colossians is a prime example of their infidelity to the actual Greek text since to be faithful to the text would overthrow their belief about the nature of Christ. In vss. 13-30, which speak of all things being created through Christ, the JWs add to the text by using brackets, in this case the word “[other]”; e.g. vs. 16: “. . .because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth…” To the contrary, of course, St. Paul is saying that all things - Christ excluded! - were created in and through Him, the Christ. The JWs won’t have that since they insist the He, too, was created, though the first.
 
40.png
b_justb:
I think the question goes to honesty. If The Name (YHVH/YHWH) is not represented in the Greek manuscripts, doesn’t insertion of it go to show a dishonest translation or rendition of the texts in question? Why would that be needed or even wanted? I would think that anyone reading Scripture would want as clear and accurate a translation as possible. I think that is the question or point being spoken of.

And please … stuff like “Satan does not like Jehovah’s name either” is just out of line. Passive aggressive statements intended to malign a poster in the forum is just uncalled for.
Witnesses believe that Satan does not like Jehovah’s name.
 
40.png
tommy4321:
Witnesses believe that Satan does not like Jehovah’s name.
And by adding “either” to the remark denotes an equivalency to an intended audience and Satan.

It’s on thing to say, “My belief is that Satan, The Evil one, dislikes people using The Name of God.”

Quite another to say, “If you don’t like The Name I like to use for God then you have aligned yourself with Satan.

By adding that one word “either” changes the sentiment drastically.
 
40.png
b_justb:
And by adding “either” to the remark denotes an equivalency to an intended audience and Satan.

It’s on thing to say, “My belief is that Satan, The Evil one, dislikes people using The Name of God.”

Quite another to say, “If you don’t like The Name I like to use for God then you have aligned yourself with Satan.

By adding that one word “either” changes the sentiment drastically.
Witnesses believe the rejection of God’s name is an act of Satan.
 
40.png
tommy4321:
Witnesses believe the rejection of God’s name is an act of Satan.
So, I am left to connect the dots? OK straight question: Is it your belief and affirmation that since the Catholic Church does not expressly use the term “Jehovah” for The Name of God then the Catholic Church is of Satan?

Be advised this is a moderated forum.
 
40.png
b_justb:
So, I am left to connect the dots? OK straight question: Is it your belief and affirmation that since the Catholic Church does not expressly use the term “Jehovah” for The Name of God then the Catholic Church is of Satan?

Be advised this is a moderated forum.
This would include all forms of His name. For example the King James Version Exodus 6:3 reads. “I am Jehovah…”. Do you reject what is in the King James version of the Bible? There are other references in the Bible to His name such as the Almighty One, YHWH, Yahweh in the New Jerusalm Bible. God does not speak a language, he undertands them all. Yahweh is the how it is pronounced in Hebrew and Jehovah is the english translation as well as 36 other languages it translates into.
 
40.png
tommy4321:
This would include all forms of His name. For example the King James Version Exodus 6:3 reads. “I am Jehovah…”. Do you reject what is in the King James version of the Bible? There are other references in the Bible to His name such as the Almighty One, YHWH, Yahweh in the New Jerusalm Bible. God does not speak a language, he undertands them all. Yahweh is the how it is pronounced in Hebrew and Jehovah is the english translation as well as 36 other languages it translates into.
What is being rejected by me and others is the idea of a single term for The Name, to the exclusion of all others. I, and others, feel with reason that “Jehovah” is a poor translation of The Name. But, even if the term is poor, it is not completely without merit or use. The term “Jehovah” is intrinsically Catholic for it was a Catholic scribe that coined the term in translating Holy Scripture.

Have you ever spoken to any Orthodox Jewish people on their ideas of how The Name is pronounced? Maybe attended Shabbat and heard The Name read from the Torah in Hebrew? The Hebrew services are beautiful, I can’t think of any other language where the prayers are more beautiful than when canted in Hebrew.
 
40.png
b_justb:
What is being rejected by me and others is the idea of a single term for The Name, to the exclusion of all others. I, and others, feel with reason that “Jehovah” is a poor translation of The Name. But, even if the term is poor, it is not completely without merit or use. The term “Jehovah” is intrinsically Catholic for it was a Catholic scribe that coined the term in translating Holy Scripture.

Have you ever spoken to any Orthodox Jewish people on their ideas of how The Name is pronounced? Maybe attended Shabbat and heard The Name read from the Torah in Hebrew? The Hebrew services are beautiful, I can’t think of any other language where the prayers are more beautiful than when canted in Hebrew.
Hi: Regardless of how it is pronounced, it is a form of the sacred Divine name. The Hebrew form of Jesus’ name means “Jehovah is Salvation”.
 
JW tactics -

1) use the Name with an emphasis and frequency that far, far exceeds the writings of the New Testament (where, according to ** ALL** manuscripts, it does not appear), the writings of the Early Church, and the practice of other Christian groups
**
2)** - Use that fact as part of their reason for calling themselves “the one true religion”, and all other Christian groups part of the great whore, Babylon the Great (Romans 16:17)
**
3)** - Produce (1950) a New Testament that has the Name in it
 
40.png
tommy4321:
Hi: Regardless of how it is pronounced, it is a form of the sacred Divine name. The Hebrew form of Jesus’ name means “Jehovah is Salvation”.
“Regardless of how it is pronounced”? It seems the JW are very adamant on the issue of pronunciation. But in any case I am unsure how or why we came to this “rejection of The Name” junction. So maybe you can elaborate the point you are trying to make?
 
b_justb said:
“Regardless of how it is pronounced”? It seems the JW are very adamant on the issue of pronunciation. But in any case I am unsure how or why we came to this “rejection of The Name” junction. So maybe you can elaborate the point you are trying to make?

Sure, I would be happy too. Go to the Non-Catholic section of this forum. Take a look at a thread I posted entitled, “Revelation…are we ready” with the last active post yesterday. I have quite a bit of the subject. I think it is a huge mystery that will be revealed in the last days of the system as you will see. blessings, P.S. JW is not a good term. I like Witnesses better 🙂 I also want to personally thank you for asking about the importance of this subject, it does demonstrate good conscience and I sincerely mean that. Your brother in Christ, tommy
 
Go to the Non-Catholic section of this forum. Take a look at a thread I posted entitled, “Revelation…are we ready” with the last active post yesterday…
Dude (May I call you, “Dude”?),

That thread is like 300+ posts and growing. Anyway I think it’s unfair that I seem to have steered this thread off track. It was supposed to be about “What translation of the Bible do JWs use” and it’s turned into a quasi-discussion about The Name (Ha’Shem!). Maybe we need a new thread about The Name and the way the Witnesses (see that? I used your nomenclature of choice) use it in Scripture.

Anyway sorry ya all for getting so off track. Helmsman! Full rutter! Turn us about!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top