Many Jehovah’s Witnesses are overwhelmed with excitement following the release of the revised New World Translation at the 129th Annual Meeting over the weekend.
A number have taken to social media to express their joy and appreciation at what is being viewed by many as a gift straight from Jehovah. Geoffrey Jackson, who announced the release of the new Bible, even suggested that Jehovah had manipulated weather conditions to better facilitate its printing.
The new Bible has been available online since Monday, giving us the chance to see how it compares with the original. We also now have opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the various features of the book and ponder the question: “Will it stand the test of time?”
Improvements
More research tools
The new revision to the New World Translation boasts a number of research tools that were absent from the original. These include a glossary of Bible terms and two lengthy appendices. I am particularly impressed with the timeline of kings of Judah and Israel (A6), the chart showing biblical weights and measures (B14) and the much clearer Hebrew Calendar (B15). It is also nice to see footnotes on each page to show alternative terms, which (like the appendices) were previously only to be found in the Reference Bible.
The introductions to each Bible book with summaries of each chapter are also helpful, provided these are not used to mislead people (as I will touch on later).
Improved readability
The most obvious improvement to the New World Translation is that it is now written in English that most people will find easier to understand. This can only be a bonus for those who want to be able to read their Bibles more easily. The original edition, released in the 1950s, used language of the era that could at times be confusing. But with this revision it is much simpler to grasp the meaning of certain scriptures.
For example, expressions like “there proceeded to be” and “there came to be” are mostly gone, but not in such a way that the meaning is lost. And rather than being spelled out in words, numbers like 144,000 are simply expressed in digits. Because so many unnecessary words have been chopped from the text, this has resulted in a reduced total wordcount from approximately 907,000 words to 786,000 – a 13% reduction!
Another reason for the reduced wordcount has been the omission of a small number of bible verses now deemed spurious, namely the long and short conclusions to Mark, and John 7:53-8:11. As expected, this has not met with universal praise. One JWsurvey reader, author Robert Crompton, had this to say…
“I find it interesting that they have removed the alternative endings of Mark and the story about showing mercy in John 7:53 – 8:11. Usual translation practice is to include these with a note pointing out that they only appear in later (but nevertheless still early) manuscripts. That is, there is some, albeit limited, justification for referenced inclusion of these passages. And this limited justification is vastly greater than their justification for including the divine name which doesn’t appear in any NT manuscripts, only in late translations and other non-NT manuscripts.”
I would tend to agree with Robert on this. The fact that these texts were not in all of the earliest manuscripts does not necessarily mean that they shouldn’t have been. A more scholarly way of dealing with the problem would be to include the text with a clear indication of any reservations as to authenticity – as the original New World Translation did. To do otherwise is to risk omitting verses from the Bible that were intended to be in the original, and are therefore just as deserving to be considered as “inspired” scripture.
For those interested in researching this further, here are some interesting links on the omitted verses…
Better rendering of 1 Timothy 6:4
I must point out one significant improvement that has been made to one verse in particular that has caused considerable problems for thinking Witnesses – especially over the past two years. I refer to 1 Timothy 6:3-4, which used to read as follows (bold is mine)…
“If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to the healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions.” – 1 Tim 6:3,4 New World Translation
This same verse now reads…
“If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions.”– 1 Tim 6:3,4 Revised New World Translation
As you can see, the reference to apostates being “mentally diseased” has been removed and the verse translated more correctly to reflect the true intent of the writer. The footnote in the new Bible offers “an unhealthy fascination” as a further rendering, which is also notably different from how people today would consider the term “mentally diseased.”
Despite the obvious translation error in the original New World Translation, this did not stop Watchtower from recently using the term “mentally diseased” to berate those who disagree with organizational doctrine in the July 15, 2011 Watchtower. So loud was the uproar from the article that a journalist for the Independent wrote a piece on the “war of words” that the Society appeared to be waging against their dissenters. Seemingly unfazed by such exposure, the Governing Body had the phrase included recently in the outline for the “Human Apostates” talk at the 2013 District Convention.
Though it is to be applauded that the erroneous and offensive “mentally diseased” expression has finally been extracted from the New World Translation, it can be argued that the damage has already been done. The term “mentally diseased” is now cemented in Witness jargon when it comes to describing any who disagree with the Governing Body.
It remains to be seen whether future writings on apostates will be softened following this change, but I am personally doubtful that there will be any significant toning-down of hateful rhetoric against former believers and free thinkers in the organization.
And can we expect a printed apology for the mischaracterization of so-called apostates based on a previous flawed bible translation? Again, I wouldn’t hold your breath.
And now the bad news…
Poor communication and limited availability
It would not be fair to repeat myself too much on the manner of the book’s release, but I feel a few things should be reiterated in this review. I have already commented on a previous article that there was absolutely no reason for the Governing Body to leave ordinary brothers in the dark as to why there was a shortage of Bibles. The fact that congregations were left guessing as their Bible stocks dwindled suggests strongly that the Governing Body was more interested in having their ticker-tape release than managing the expectations of the brothers.
I have also learned of a very uneven state of affairs in the way the new Bibles are being distributed in some congregations.
According to one report, Witnesses in England have been instructed to start using the new Bibles immediately, even though only a privileged few who attended the Annual Meeting event (mostly elders and their wives) have received their new Bibles. Until new Bibles are delivered for all, the rest of the congregation must make do with their old Bibles for some weeks.
This is causing frustration at the apparent elitist distinction as to who is more favored or “exemplary” in the congregation. Those not privileged to attend the Annual Meeting events and receive new Bibles are left feeling unworthy and overlooked. This problem could easily have been avoided by releasing the new Bibles simultaneously at the District Conventions once there were enough copies for all (as with any other release). But again, this would not have sufficiently satisfied the Governing Body’s apparent lust for acclaim and recognition.
“Governing body” inserted in chapter summary
Before seeing the new Bible for myself I was apprehensive over one matter in particular. I feared that Watchtower would attempt to spuriously insert the phrase “governing body” in the six instances in Acts chapters 15 and 16 where the phrase “apostles and older men” appears. These verses are often highlighted by Watchtower in an attempt to prove that there was a First Century “governing body” when there was no such thing.
You can imagine my relief when I saw that Watchtower had NOT stooped to such a low. The six instances of “the apostles and the older men” (5 in Acts 15, 1 in Acts 16) have been tweaked only slightly to read “the apostles and the elders.”
But my relief was short-lived.
Though the Bible verses themselves have been left un-touched, someone drew my attention to the fact that Watchtower has very cleverly inserted “governing body” in the chapter summary for Acts (pages 1459-1460) as follows…
As I said, there was no such thing as a “governing body” in the First Century. Yes, Jesus appointed his 12 apostles, but even Watchtower doesn’t like to compare the apostles directly with the Governing Body because they know how ridiculous this would sound. They therefore zero-in on a passage of scripture in Acts, chapters 15 and 16, and insist that “the apostles and the elders” served as a “governing body.”
There are two major problems with this, namely…
- You cannot take the circumcision issue of Acts 15 in isolation and use it to extrapolate the idea of the apostles AND elders meeting together from that point onward to decide each and every issue that arose in the Christian congregation thereafter. To do so would be to assume something that is not found in the text.
- Most crucially, by super-imposing the phrase “governing body” OVER the phrase “apostles and elders,” you are adding to the scriptures. You are effectively telling Jehovah, “You are incapable of explaining yourself because you didn’t describe the apostles and elders under a collective noun similar to ‘governing body’, so we will do that for you.”
By stamping the collective noun “governing body” over the term “apostles and elders,” whether in the bible text itself or in bible commentary, Watchtower is going against 1 Corinthians, which says…
“Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and Apollos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: ‘Do not go beyond the things that are written,’ so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other.” – 1 Cor. 4:6 Revised New World Translation
Shackled to the 1914 teaching
I opened this article by asking whether this revised New World Translation will stand the test of time, and I will now give the main reason why I believe it won’t.
A foundation teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the 1914 doctrine – the belief that Christ arrived in kingly power invisibly in 1914 and banished Satan to the earth for a “short period of time.” (Rev. 12:12) Well, that “short period of time” before Satan is abyssed and the Kingdom is established on the Earth is now 99 years and counting – certainly not a “short period of time” in any human context. And with each passing decade, it is becoming increasingly obvious that despite marking the beginning of World War I, 1914 held no significance in bible prophecy at all.
But with this new Bible, Watchtower is chaining itself to the 1914 teaching for decades to come – perhaps indefinitely. How so? Take a look at a detail from a page in Appendix B of the new Bible…
The above chart has clearly been produced by Watchtower with the firm belief that Armageddon is imminent. I can think of no other reason why Watchtower would marry itself to the idea of Armageddon and a cleansed Earth being only a “short time” from 1914. They must really be THAT deluded.
The trouble is, as previously stated, it is already obvious to many that 1914 was nothing more than a coincidence of history and a year with no prophetic meaning. As further decades tick by, the above chart will become more and more painful for Witnesses to open their Bibles and look at.
But that’s not the only time the 1914 teaching is referenced in this new Bible. I will now show a chart on page 1780 depicting Daniel’s immense image (to the right of the picture below). The new Bible shows the image with a caption at the bottom saying that the feet of iron mixed with molded clay began in 1914. Notice how similar Watchtower’s picture is to a detail from another chart (to the left), produced more than 170 years earlier.
The detail on the left is taken from a famous chart that was used by Second Adventist followers of William Miller to pronounce the year 1843 as heralding the second coming of Christ. When nothing happened in that year, Miller’s followers went back to the drawing board and decided that Christ was actually due on October 22, 1844.
That date went down in history as the “Great Disappointment,” because so many had sold their homes and property in expectation of a rapture that would never happen. It was likely this event that made Charles Taze Russell skeptical of Second Adventists, even though he eventually started to mimic the same fascination with date-setting after meeting Nelson H. Barbour.
It is easy to look back on the Adventist chart now, especially the part at the bottom (not shown above) where the date “1843” is inscribed in big bold letters, and smirk at how naive and misguided Miller’s followers were.
So just imagine how future generations of Witnesses will cringe with the same embarrassment when they dust off and open their old 2013 revised New World Translations and are reminded of the certainty with which 1914 was put forth as holding prophetic significance – and in a book that was printed sufficiently far from that date as to make it obvious that the prediction had already failed.
Of course there are bound to be Witnesses reading this who will be thinking: “Ah, you’re saying that now, but just you wait and see! Armageddon will arrive any moment and fully vindicate the 1914 teaching, and then you’ll be sorry!”
Well obviously you are welcome to think that way if it brings you comfort. But the simple fact is the 1914 teaching was already proved false some time ago when the generation that witnessed the events of that year fell asleep in death. With their passing, no longer could it be said by any reasonable stretch of the imagination that 1914 was a “short period of time” in the past. Instead, 1914 is now sliding ever deeper into the annals of history.
What fascinates me is that rather than recognizing their mistake, or acknowledging that they COULD be in error by keeping their options open, Watchtower is tying itself to the 1914 teaching for as long as this new Bible will be in use. And you can imagine it will be in use for many more decades. This is arguably the biggest problem with the new Bible, and one that will become increasingly obvious as the decades roll by. The sell-by date is simply too short.
Further reading…
- Article on release of new Bible at annual meeting
- Article on the Bible being announced as “sister proof” and provided by Jehovah
Related videos…
■Article on the “adultery pericope” – John 7:53-8:11
Link isnt working
Oops, fixed it! Thanks!
Russell didn’t trust Second Adventists? Kidding me? He sold everything because Nathan Barbour convinced him that the real date would be 1874 AD. 1914 AD–hah! that’s the revised date when 1874 failed. Today, Second Day Adventists still cling to 1844 AD date with “props” to holdup the date prediction. “Investigative Judgement” being the prime support as Jesus coming to “prep the sanctuary”. Likewise, the JW’s keep milking “this generation” deriving various vague connotations as well as spinning the notion that 1914-1919 AD was Jesus prepping sanctuary. However, this year we noticed they dropped the idea that Jesus appointed a FDS in 1919 which means they will now adopt the same “prepping the sanctuary” strategy as their older sibling, the SDA’s.
Correct, Russell didn’t trust Second Adventists – at least not to begin with. When Barbour’s “Herald of the Morning” paper dropped through the letterbox in 1876, Russell’s reaction was (quote, from a 1906 Watchtower): “When I opened it I at once identified it with Adventism from the picture on its cover, and examined it with some curiosity to see what time they would next set for the burning of the world.”
You can almost taste the cynicism and incredulity. It was only Barbour’s belief in an invisible return and willingness to merge his date-setting with Russell’s ideas of conditionalism that won Russell over.
Watchtower has frequently made modifications to its literature while past its initial print date. They would do the same thing if they sensed the teaching was causing enough to start using their brain.
Agreed, the only difference is Watchtower knows websites like this will jump on their backs quicker than they can say “the light gets brighter” if they dare change a word in their divinely provided new bibles!
Cedars, I have to trust that 1906 Wt was an exaggeration because the date 1876 was still a period of collaborative writing between Russell and (NELSON) Barbour. They soon parted ways based on the issue of Ransom Sacrifice and Atonement not “end-time” dates around 1878, and Russell began his own journal in 1879.
Correct, but I think the 1906 quote regarding that first encounter demonstrates that Russell’s feelings toward Adventism itself were not those of capitulation. He had reservations based on Adventism’s well-earned reputation for failed predictions. But I grant you that once Barbour and Russell combined to form a unique Pseudo-Adventism the ball started rolling.
Hi Cedars, not sure how relevant this is to English speakers, but on page 1743 of this new revised Bible the Portuguese name for Jehovah has been grossly mistranslated. It reads Iáhve whereas it should read Jeová; the latter is by far the most widespread usage and is the standard spelling amongst JWs. NO WT publication in Portuguese refers to God as Iáhve. Anyone using the ‘incorrect’ spelling inside a KH would immediately be advised not to do so; someone using it during a speech would probably be called upon. Iáhve is RARELY seen and when it is seen, is usually in association with a Christendom church.
This has been a really severe error in revision.
Portuguese speakers account for 800.000+ publishers!
A major slip IMO.
Apparently this revised Bible is already in need of a revision…
Cheers.
Thanks so much for bringing that to our attention Fred. Not being a Portuguese speaker there is no chance I would have spotted it!
It is remarkable that they let that one slip.
Fred,
It was not a major slip at all. Pages 1742-1743 include a list of foreign NT translations that include a form of the divine name. The Portuguese NT translation that includes the Divine Name, spells the name as Iahve, not Jeova. Jeova only appears in a some texts of the OT of the João Ferreira de Almeida version, the most widely distributed version in Portuguese next to the NWT; Jeova is also found over 200 placers in the OT of the popular O Livro, a modern Portuguese translation.
If Jesus didn’t want the account of the adulteress in the Bible, why did he wait nearly 2,000 years to have it removed, and then ONLY from the nNWT?
Certainly, he could have told “the brothers” back in 1919, or at least in the ’50s when they were working on the old NWT.
Maybe Jesus doesn’t have anything to do with this at all!
The brackets around the word “other” in the first chapter of Collosians are now gone. Insertion of the word “other” completely changes the meaning of course.
So rather than the Watch Tower org being a “true” religion it is an offshoot of 2nd Day Adventist….a religion that I myself would want nothing to do with! At any rate since JWs cling to the 2nd Day Adventist teachings how can they claim to have gotten out of Babylon the Great the Mother of False Religion? Wouldn’t 2nd Day Adventist be part of BTG since they don’t come under the WT and the WT is suppose to be the TRUE religion? Wouldn’t that make the 2nd Day Adventist also a true religion? When it come tos JWs I have more question’s than answer’s!
Thank you, Cedars.
Cedars,
As one of the lesser worthy great crowd in the UK that has yet to get a new bible I can’t yet comment on this :) was soo nice at the meeting tonight…very much a sense of them and us. Seems to have been handled very badly over here.
In totalitarian regimes, the loyalists are kept loyal through rewards, and those who are deemed less than loyal receive lesser rewards down to punishments for those in revolt.
1 part Adventism, 1 part Christadelphian – the George Storrs influence, and maybe some George Rapp in there. Storrs as I wrote in a lengthy blog comment was among those from Albany Conference (‘What Really Happened in 1844?’) to found 3 branches of Adventism apart from EGWhite-influenced SDA. SDA’s also picked up some Christadelphian influences on soul-sleep, and nature of divinity.
Interesting, I was never taught about the 1914 thing. But my brother, who is 7 years older than me, was. I didn’t even know about it until I was an adult and already had my own kids. Then I found out we were raised completely different when came to the religion.
@BeckyE doesn’t surprise me if you were raised JW between 1980 through about mid-1990’s. Around that time HQ was preoccupied–distracted, even–with battles with the likes of Watters, Sanchez, and others, plus the decline of morality in the ranks where divorces and other issues such as substance abuse were rising. Most Watchtowers were devoid of heavy prophetic and dual-fulfillment texts you would have seen leading into 1975. During this period, there was not many of the Major and Minor prophet books or articles, and releases were very “light”–tracts, a revamp of the “blue book” and Revelation/Climax with a skimming of the heavy duty topics in previous “Bablylon the Great”. Daniel was revisited in the late 1990’s, because of obvious failure of the King of the North = USSR matters. Vague references to 1914 were veiled, or masked, by references to “this generation” and “the last days”.
I’ve been wondering why my posts will not materialize it may have been a cookies problem so I will try again.
Anyway it is interesting days in view of the Watchtower Society’s new Bible and all that.
Well not so new, but you know what I mean.
Here is what the “Anointed witnesses site” had to say about this subject.
[link to evangelical site removed, please see posting guidelines]
I’ll provide another link to this site as some might not have a PDF reader to view this file.
[link to evangelical site removed, please see posting guidelines]
Cedars,
You do outstanding work and research. Thank you for the overview on the new Bible. It seems Jehovah didn’t get it right the first time… I’m so glad he is open to improvement :)
Heal from Jehovah’s Witnesses: [link to evangelical site removed, please see posting guidelines]
Another issue with the governing body story is its lack of reference by Paul. In Galatians, Paul rails against circumcision. Yet, despite all his arguments, he never once mentions the earlier meeting by the ‘governing body.’
That is why many scholars (notably Bart Ehrman) believe that the story in Acts was not a real occurrence.
They have removed “[strong] testicles” from Jeremiah 5:8
The verse, referring to JWs, used to read:
“Horses seized with sexual heat, having [strong] testicles, they have become. They neigh each one to the wife of his companion.”
Now it reads:
“They are like eager, lustful horses, Each neighing after another man’s wife.”
“[strong] testicles” have gone!!! Why? Where had they come from? Removing them from the Bible does not mean removing them in the mind of “sisters”!!!
Isn’t the revised Bible only in English at the moment?
Yes, but due to the number of new reference tools etc Watchtower will need to release versions in other languages eventually. They are just non-commital on how quickly this will be.
Excuse me Cedars, this link does fall within the guidelines as far as I’m concerned as this site has now a large influence on many of Jehovah’s witnesses and the two who operate this site are actually two active Jehovah’s Witnesses. So why are you forbidding this link?
This has been answered.
Acts 5
34 But one standing up in the sanhedrin, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law honored by all the people, commanded the apostles to be put outside a little while.
35 And he said to them, Men, Israelites, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do on these men.
36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming himself to be somebody, to whom was joined a number of men, about four hundred, who was done away, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed and came to nothing.
37 After this, Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the Registration. And he drew considerable people after him. Yet that one perished, and all were scattered, as many as obeyed him.
38 And now I say to you, draw away from these men and permit them; because if this counsel is of men, or this work, it will be destroyed.
39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to destroy it, and you be found even fighters against God.[LITV]
I have just read through your guideline for posting again.
You have a link section at the top which I have now become aware of, but no link to the anointed witnesses site so perhaps this now presents you an opportunity to provide one now.
Of course it is your site and you can do whatever you want with it, but in the interest of fairness and in the interest of truth should you not provide a link to this site as well?
Hello FutureMan
As you point out, I reserve the right to decide what content gets posted on JWsurvey, and this includes links that are posted either in the comments section or on our links page.
I have decided not to promote anointedjw.org due to reservations I have about that website. Firstly I believe it purports to be something it can never be, namely a mouthpiece for anointed christians. For example, look at one of the boasts made on the home page…
“This call to the adventure of building up the spiritual brotherhood of Christ has spread to over 140 countries yielding significant and positive change in the lives of millions of individuals, both Jehovah’s Witnesses and non-Witnesses…”
Just because two professed anointed Witnesses have a website that “millions of individuals” have access to does not make their views representative of anointed Witnesses as a whole any more than, say, the eight anointed witnesses on the Governing Body. Though I don’t think they necessarily set out to mislead people into thinking they speak for all anointed ones, that is certainly the impression that is given to visitors to their site. And in my view it is a false impression, demonstrably so. We have had 13 professed anointed take part in the 2013 global survey so far, and even they can’t agree on everything – so how can there be such thing as a consensus among anointed ones – and why are two unknown anointed Witnesses somehow qualified to determine and publish this consensus?
I also consider anointedjw.org to fall within an unpleasant category of website I tend to think of as “Pseudo-Watchtower.” Robert King’s “ewatchman” website also falls into this category. Unfortunately there is a strange number of so-called apostates (I have met some personally) who think the Watch Tower Society still has some role to play in God’s purpose and think they have the answers as to why it has erred and what must be done to bring it back under God’s favor. Such an approach is neither productive nor healthy and I feel a certain responsibility to protect readers of JWsurvey from getting trapped in a sort of mental purgatory between leaving the Watchtower’s influence and not leaving it. Of course if people want to visit these sorts of websites they are welcome to, but I won’t promote them on this website or allow others to promote them. They are on their own.
I was rather hoping to avoid any unpleasantness or hurt feelings, particularly on the part of the owners of anointedjw.org, but hopefully if nothing else I have been clear and transparent as to why your links were removed.
FutureMan, and what did Gamaliel say about the work from Satan? Your thinking is 2000 years behind today’s standards!! Did you see that “Gamaliel”! Was he a prophet of God? why did not Jehovah use his prophets to say that? IF YOU THINK THIS THINKING APPLIES TO GOD’S ORGANIZATION, IT APPLIES TO HIS “SATAN’S (HIS SON) ORGANIZATION”, TOO.
The words are not selective, apply them now to HIV/AIDS, Cancer diseases, poverty, ignorance, child molestation in JWs community, lies …. and tell me if the works are from God as we cannot destroy them?
This Work comes from Charles Taze Russell. If you opened his grave you would not find it “EMPTY” but “. . .full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. . .”(Matthew 23:27)!!
The resurrection of the “anointed 144,000” that is NOW HAPPENING comes from WHO? Satan of God. Deny its happening now you will be called APOSTATE “Mentally Diseased”!!!
Yes … the brackets that were around the inserted words have all been removed. But this is nothing new. In the 2006 printing of the NWT they were also removed.
You see, the really interesting thing about Acts 15:22 from the ‘outline of contents’ in the New New World Translation is it says;
“Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole congregation, decided to send the chosen men…”
Why does the outline of contents even say that this was from the governing body when the verse clearly says that a decision was made by the “whole congregation”? Does that, by their terminology, make all those in the congregation a member of this governing body? The verse effectively cancels out the idea of a body of men who make all the decisions of the congregation.
Dodge,
So glad you are here. I am in the UK too. I am at the stage now where I actually found it funny at the pomp of all the elite ones. But it has got to hurt you right now.
Take comfort, stay on this site. Cedars is great and he will help you through this. Try and read all his blogs, take your time and deprogram from this experience.
We are all thinking of you at this time Dodge
Take care 70wks of yrs
Cedars,
Fantastic article, well researched. You certainly have an insurmountable amount of energy, I cant keep up to date with all your articles you post so frequently. Well done, keep up the good work.
The reply to Dodge didn’t work. It just went to the end of the page. May be I am doing it wrong.
70wks…
Thanks 70wks, and to all for the kind comments!
serious data u’ve got there. keep me up-to-date. thanks
Anytime Cedars
test
It is interesting to see the GB claiming claiming that they revised the translation because “the English language has changed” over the last 50 years. Clearly they want to avoid any suggestion that the original translators made unfortunate choices. It is just “outer circumstances” that have changed. Right.
The most important revisions have little to do with any linguistic changes. The style of the original NWT was always deplorable, for instance the endlessly repeated “proceeded to”-phrases that were based on a highly dubious interpretation of Hebrew grammar to begin with.
Other changes seem to have more to do with modern sensibilities. In Genesis 20:3, Abimelech used to be told regarding Sarah: “She is owned by another owner as his wife.” In 2013, this becomes the rather more politically correct “she is married and belongs to another man”.
Exactly how much one should read into the Hebrew phrase _be’ulath ba’al_ (“female ownee of an owner”, OR just “wife of a husband”) can surely be debated, but please don’t tell us that the phrasing has been altered just because the English language has changed! Political correctness may have changed, though — or at least the Governing Body has decided to pay a little more attention to it! Back in the day, Watchtower literature described and demanded female submissiveness far more bluntly than nowadays.
Even from a brief survey, it is obvious that the 2013 revision represents an enormous improvement in style. The original translation (believed to be overwhelmingly the brainchild of Freddie Franz) was often completely tonedeaf as regards stylistic matters.
Take for instance the Hebrew word _me’il_, which technically refers to some kind of robe or shirt, apparently without sleaves. Freddie pedantically translated this as “sleaveless coat”, but in a symbolic context, such a rendering just doesn’t work. Consider Isaiah 61:10: “With the _me’il_ of righteousness he has enwrapped me.” Bizarrely, the original NWT here wrote about the “sleaveless coat of righteousness”! Honestly, Freddie — what is that?!
By 2013, sanity luckily prevailed, and the new translation reads “he has wrapped me with the robe of righteousness”. The “sleaveless coat” has happily migrated to a footnote.
Yet the impovements are something of a hit-and-miss affair. The ludicrous (pseudo-)”scientific” rendering “dynamic energy” still occurs in Isaiah 40:26. “Because of his vast dynamic energy … not one of them [the stars] is missing.” The Hebrew word hardly means anything more than power or strength, but Watchtower literature has been known to make connections with Einstein’s formula E = mc2 in an overwrought attempt to demonstrate that Isaiah by divine inspiration realized the relationship between energy and matter! The orginal scripture only says that the deity has created the stars with his great might. Trying to smuggle a modern scientific concept of “energy” into the text is bizarre.
Also uncorrected is the pretty obvious mistranslation of Luke 1:37, Gabriel telling Mary that “with God no _declaration_ will be an impossibility”. The exact wording has now changed to “no declaration will be impossible for God”, but the “declaration” remains. How could the translators miss the fact that _rhema_ is here used in the sense of “matter” or “thing”? Mary is being told that “no thing” or “no matter” is impossible for God (including miraculous pregnancies). In fact, the footnotes in the (now “old”) reference Bible as well as in the new translation indicate this “alternative” rendering. Why not put it in the actual text, where it so obviously belongs? The point really is not that God is able to make “declarations” about anything he wants; we can all do that! Actually delivering on the “declaration” is another thing altogether.
@HKF well, someone knows their Hebrew, but have you considered Romans 1:13 (11-13) where Paul hints that he longs to go shopping for “fruitage”, or picking fruit, with the Roman congregation? Modern translators concisely deliver it as Paul’s desire to see the Romans with his focus on his mission to “harvest” more to the Lord.
The new translation capital-G “Grave” instead of Sheol/Hades reflects Watchtower interpreation rather than philological fact. Since the Watchtower insists that there is no immediate afterlife, there can be no “realm of the dead”, and Sheol/Hades is reduced to a wholly symbolic “mass grave” for all who are dead. This understanding is retroactively imposed on the ancient Hebrews as well.
Luke 16:23, from the story of the rich man and Lazarus, becomes really peculiar now: “And in the Grave, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment …” It should be obvious that Hades is here conceived as an actual place of torment, and even if the Watchtower insists that this story is “just symbolic”, the rendering “Grave” hardly works even on a narrative level.
Even from a brief survey, it is obvious that the 2013 revision represents an enormous improvement in style. The original translation (believed to be overwhelmingly the brainchild of Freddie Franz) was often completely tonedeaf as regards stylistic matters.
Take for instance the Hebrew word _me’il_, which technically refers to some kind of robe or shirt, apparently without sleaves. Freddie pedantically translated this as “sleaveless coat”, but in a symbolic context, such a rendering just doesn’t work. Consider Isaiah 61:10: “With the _me’il_ of righteousness he has enwrapped me.” Bizarrely, the original NWT here wrote about the “sleaveless coat of righteousness”! Honestly, Freddie — what is that?!
By 2013, sanity has luckily prevailed, and the new translation reads “he has wrapped me with the robe of righteousness”. The “sleaveless coat” has happily migrated to a footnote.
Yet the impovements are something of a hit-and-miss affair. The ludicrous (pseudo-)”scientific” rendering “dynamic energy” still occurs in Isaiah 40:26. “Because of his vast dynamic energy … not one of them [the stars] is missing.” The Hebrew word hardly means anything more than power or strength, but Watchtower literature has been known to make connections with Einstein’s formula E = mc2 in an overwrought attempt to demonstrate that Isaiah by divine inspiration realized the relationship between energy and matter! The orginal scripture only says that the deity has created the stars with his great might. Trying to smuggle a modern scientific concept of “energy” into the text is bizarre.
Just like to say bravo, Cedars! As a confirmed agnostic but really an atheist, I applaud you removing links to sites that are simply a rehash of the JWs.
I agree that people need to get out altogether. I have great respect for those who still believe, and I will not deliberately insult them. However, this site is not a place for proselytising, and that is why, in my opinion, your site goes from strength to strength.
“However, this year we noticed they dropped the idea that Jesus appointed a FDS in 1919”
This is a common misconception I hear many saying. Jehovah’s Witnesses have NOT dropped the idea that Jesus appointed a FDS in 1919.
What was dropped is the idea that he appointed the FDS over ALL his belongings in 1919. They now teach that appointment over all his belongings refers to them receiving their future heavenly reward, when as kings in heaven, they will be over all Christ’s belongs – both heavenly and earthly.
Jehovah’s Witnesses now teach that Christ’s INITIAL appointment of the FDS to feed the domestics occurred in 1919.
Even from a brief survey, it is obvious that the 2013 revision represents an enormous improvement in style. The original translation was often completely tonedeaf as regards stylistic matters.
Take for instance the Hebrew word _me’il_, which technically refers to some kind of robe or shirt, apparently without sleaves. In the original NWT, this was pendantically translated “sleaveless coat”, but in a symbolic context, such a rendering just doesn’t work. Consider Isaiah 61:10: “With the _me’il_ of righteousness he has enwrapped me.” Bizarrely, the original NWT here wrote about the “sleaveless coat of righteousness”! Honestly, folks — what is that?!
By 2013, sanity luckily prevailed, and the new translation reads “he has wrapped me with the robe of righteousness”. The “sleaveless coat” has happily migrated to a footnote.
Yet the impovements are something of a hit-and-miss affair. The ludicrous (pseudo-)”scientific” rendering “dynamic energy” still occurs in Isaiah 40:26. “Because of his vast dynamic energy … not one of them [the stars] is missing.” The Hebrew word hardly means anything more than power or strength, but Watchtower literature has been known to make connections with Einstein’s formula E = mc2 in an overwrought attempt to demonstrate that Isaiah by divine inspiration realized the relationship between energy and matter! The orginal scripture only says that the deity has created the stars with his great might. Trying to smuggle a modern scientific concept of “energy” into the text is bizarre.
sleeveless coat relegated to ‘robe’. I would say this represents an overall lack of study of the Hebrew tradition and culture that shines throughout the OT/HS and is characteristic of JW’s in general. How does a “sleeveless coat” compare to a ‘robe’ (bathrobe? choir robe? judicial robe?) a symbol of intimacy, closeness?
Even though we may have access to Strong’s or other dictionaries to define a term, it doesn’t guide one to understand how the author evoked meaning to that culture through the use of a term.
And, nephesh/psykhe will still be problematic for JW’s, even as they sing “fear not those who kill the body, but Him that can kill the soul”. Soul is not the body? Soul is in the blood–that’s why we don’t eat it and pour it out? Life is in the blood, and life=soul? Has that been clarified?
Also uncorrected is the pretty obvious mistranslation of Luke 1:37, Gabriel telling Mary that “with God no _declaration_ will be an impossibility”. The exact wording has now changed to “no declaration will be impossible for God”, but the “declaration” remains. How could the translators miss the fact that _rhema_ is here used in the sense of “matter” or “thing”? Mary is being told that “no thing” or “no matter” is impossible for God (including miraculous pregnancies). In fact, the footnotes in the (now “old”) reference Bible as well as in the new translation indicate this “alternative” rendering. Why not put it in the actual text, where it so obviously belongs? The point really is not that God is able to make “declarations” about anything he wants; we can all do that! Actually delivering on the “declaration” is another thing altogether.
“However, this year we noticed they dropped the idea that Jesus appointed a FDS in 1919”
This is not true. You have evidently misunderstood the recent change in doctrine regarding the appointment of the FDS.
What was changed is the date of initial appointment of the FDS and the date of final appointment over ALL Christ’s belongings.
It used to be taught that Christ initially appointed them to feed his sheep when the first century anointed congregation was formed, and that his final appointment over all his belongings took place in 1919.
Now they teach that the initial appointment of the FDS started in 1919, and the final appointment over all his belongings comes only at the very end when they receive their heavenly reward as kings and priests.
So instead of the 1919 appointment being the final appointment over ALL his belongings, it is now regarded as the initial formation/appointment of the FDS to feed the domestics.
The utterly ridiculous implication of this adjustment is that Peter and the first century apostles who were appointed by christ to ‘feed his little sheep’ and who had a hand in preparing the most important spiritual food for christians – the New Testament – were not part of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. The thinking of the men in New York is ridiculously unreal!
In 1919 WT leadership had no idea they were appointed to be the FDS. They were still teaching C. T. Russel was the FDS. In 1926 Rutherford decided Christ and his body (144,000) was the FDS. So 7 years after the appointment, WT leadership still did not know they were appointed. It took them until 2013 to figure it out.
See “6 interpretations of the Faithful and Discreet Slave of the Watchtower” by TheScrewedGeneration on youtube.
Also see “Jehovah’s Witnesses(The huge lie of the first nomination of the Faithful Slave in 1919-Part 1)” by Fuerzalavasoriana on youtube.
Those two videos give a big picture of WT’s changes to the FDS doctrine from 1881 to 2013. When you step back and look at it, their teaching starts to look ridiculous.
But the GB says we love it!