Reading Manuscripts vs. the NWT

[anewlife]

I had a few questions for any JW.

The Watchtower Bible Society (if in err please correct me) suggests that their followers read the NWT and published works exclusively.

Would a follower be allowed to read any manuscripts or Bibles before the assembly of the NWT? If not why?

Why do you not accept the deuterocanonical books? Was this because the Palestine Jews did not accept those writings, or do you accept the council of Jamina, or Melito of Sardis view of canon as being authoritive? Explain

[NonTrinitarian]

I had a few questions for any JW.

The Watchtower Bible Society (if in err please correct me) suggests that their followers read the NWT and published works exclusively.

Would a follower be allowed to read any manuscripts or Bibles before the assembly of the NWT? If not why?
Yes, you are in error. The WT still prints several other versions of the Bible besides the NWT. For instance, the King James Version is still printed for some countries. (Not sure why though.) Most JW's have numerous translations of Bibles and the WT frequently quotes different translations. Also, most JW's have numerous religious books like Bible dictionaries, books on history, etc. At the Bethel library there are thousands of books, some of them even on false doctrine. IE, there are several books on their shelves written by Trinitairans that the WT refers to when writing articles on the Trinity.

The only books we stay away from are apostate books. When I began studying I read several books by apostates and it's pretty obvious they are liars. See David Reed's post here. (You cannot be disfellowshipped and there would not even be a judicial meeting for letting your hair grow long.)


Why do you not accept the deuterocanonical books? Was this because the Palestine Jews did not accept those writings, or do you accept the council of Jamina, or Melito of Sardis view of canon as being authoritive? Explain
I don't know what these are. Please explain.

[David_A_Reed]

The only books we stay away from are apostate books. When I began studying I read several books by apostates and it's pretty obvious they are liars. See David Reed's post here. (You cannot be disfellowshipped and there would not even be a judicial meeting for letting your hair grow long.) If you read my post more closely, you will notice I did not claim to be disfellowshipped for my haircut, nor did I say that I faced a "judicial" meeting for it. I was disfellowshipped for writing the newsletter Comments from the Friends (see archived issues at CFTF.com).

The trial and appeal hearings concerning my haircut revolved over whether or not I could be removed as an elder. Although they were formal hearings, and the appeal hearings were presided over by three elders brought in from out of state to serve as judges, these were not what JWs technically refer to as "judicial committees."

I had served on many judicial committees during the eight years I served as a JW elder, but the only judicial committee I ever faced myself as a defendant was the one where I was accused of writing Comments from the Friends, and I chose not to attend that kangaroo court. (JWs have no freedom of the press, and the outcome was predetermined.) That judicial committee disfellowshipped me in absentia.




The WT still prints several other versions of the Bible besides the NWT. For instance, the King James Version is still printed for some countries. (Not sure why though.) Most JW's have numerous translations of Bibles and the WT frequently quotes different translations.

It may give the wrong impression to say that the WT Society prints "several" other versions of the Bible besides their own biased New World Translation -- unless you count countries where the NWT is not currently available in the local language, and the Society provides some other version in the interim.

The Watchtower Society has also printed limited quantities of translations such as Byington's Bible in Living English because the name Jehovah is used.

Yes, many JWs do possess additional translations besides the NWT. While I was a JW I actually entered a Christian bookstore and purchased The Living Bible's Catholic edition, because it used the name Jehovah in the Old Testament and hence would prove usefull in JW witnessing to Catholics. Ironically, reading passages in this Bible's New Testament helped me to grasp the Gospel, because the different wording broke through the brainwashing associated with familiar NWT wording and repeated indoctrination at Kingdom Hall.

David

[David_A_Reed]

The WT still prints several other versions of the Bible besides the NWT. For instance, the King James Version is still printed for some countries. (Not sure why though.) Most JW's have numerous translations of Bibles and the WT frequently quotes different translations.It may give the wrong impression to say that the WT Society prints "several" other versions of the Bible besides their own biased New World Translation -- unless you count countries where the NWT is not currently available in the local language, and the Society provides some other version in the interim.

The Watchtower Society has also printed limited quantities of translations such as Byington's Bible in Living English because the name Jehovah is used.

Yes, many JWs do possess additional translations besides the NWT. While I was a JW I actually entered a Christian bookstore and purchased The Living Bible's Catholic edition, because it used the name Jehovah in the Old Testament and hence would prove usefull in JW witnessing to Catholics. Ironically, reading passages in this Bible's New Testament helped me to grasp the Gospel, because the different wording broke through the brainwashing associated with familiar NWT wording and repeated indoctrination at Kingdom Hall.

David

Please do not make back-to-back posts to the same person. Remember that you can edit posts and add information up to 45 minutes after each post.

[anewlife]

The deuterocanonical books would be the PC term for the apocrypha (OT) books that in the Catholic Bibles (i.e. Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, etc). The Protocanonical books would be the books (OT) accepted within Protestant Bible.

My question was why the JW also accept these Protocanonical books?

Would this be because they accept the same Protestant ecumenical councils declaring these books as canon?
The main reason would be of course the Quote about Michael the Archangel in reference to the book of Jude (9). According to Jewish intertestamental literature (such as 1 En. 20), Michael was one of seven archangels.

So would the JW accept 1 Enoch 20 as inspired canon?

If so we find the following information



Enoch Chapter 20

1These are the names of the angels who watch.

2Uriel, one of the holy angels, who presides over clamor and terror.

3Raphael, one of the holy angels, who presides over the spirits of men.

4Raguel, one of the holy angels, who inflicts punishment on the world and the luminaries.

5Michael, one of the holy angels, who, presiding over human virtue, commands the nations.

6Sarakiel, one of the holy angels, who presides over the spirits of the children of men that transgress.

7Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who presides over Ikisat, over paradise, and over the cherubim.

[anewlife]

I am not assuming a JW would accept Enoch as being an inspired book, such as Paul also quotes from Epimenedes, and other Greek authors.

"Assumption of Moses" was being quoted in Jude 9, but would the JW accept this writing (AOM) as being inspired?

[NonTrinitarian]

The deuterocanonical books would be the PC term for the apocrypha (OT) books that in the Catholic Bibles (i.e. Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, etc). The Protocanonical books would be the books (OT) accepted within Protestant Bible.

My question was why the JW also accept these Protocanonical books?
The OT books were settled on by the Jews before Jesus came to the earth.


Would this be because they accept the same Protestant ecumenical councils declaring these books as canon?
The main reason would be of course the Quote about Michael the Archangel in reference to the book of Jude (9). According to Jewish intertestamental literature (such as 1 En. 20), Michael was one of seven archangels.

So would the JW accept 1 Enoch 20 as inspired canon?
JW's do not accept 1 Enoch as inspired.

[anewlife]

There isn't much on the intertestemental period (that I can find) that discussed the OT canon other than the council of Jamina, or Melito of Sardis declaration of the OT canon. There seemed to be a disagreement between the Palestinian, Alexandrian, Hellinistic Jews about the OT Canon, and thus the disagreement between Protestant and non-Protestant.

I think some of the JW's on Paltalk may be giving out false information. They told me that the study of JW history, and theology was not permitted. They were very offended that my NIC had the name Christ, maybe that should have been clue #1?

hmmm interesting... No I am not a JW BTW.

:smile:

[NonTrinitarian]

There isn't much on the intertestemental period (that I can find) that discussed the OT canon other than the council of Jamina, or Melito of Sardis declaration of the OT canon. There seemed to be a disagreement between the Palestinian, Alexandrian, Hellinistic Jews about the OT Canon, and thus the disagreement between Protestant and non-Protestant.

I think some of the JW's on Paltalk may be giving out false information. They told me that the study of JW history, and theology was not permitted. They were very offended that my NIC had the name Christ, maybe that should have been clue #1?

hmmm interesting... No I am not a JW BTW.

:smile:

I would question whether they are really JW's on Paltalk. I will look into what I can find on the determination of the OT by the Jews. I knew you were not a JW but thanks for making sure I knew that.

[anewlife]

I would question whether they are really JW's on Paltalk. I will look into what I can find on the determination of the OT by the Jews. I knew you were not a JW but thanks for making sure I knew that.

Of course no offense intended by my last statement.

:wink:

[NonTrinitarian]

Of course no offense intended by my last statement.

:wink:

None taken

[Aletheia]

The Watchtower Bible Society (if in err please correct me) suggests that their followers read the NWT and published works exclusively.


That is somewhat true.

The WTS does cite the books, articles, etc that they get their info from. I think every JW should look up what was quoted in the WTS publications in the original books/articles.

It was by looking up many of the cited scientific works found in the WT and Awake mags that my husband came to realize that the society was quoting the scientists out of context.

[anewlife]

That is somewhat true.

The WTS does cite the books, articles, etc that they get their info from. I think every JW should look up what was quoted in the WTS publications in the original books/articles.

It was by looking up many of the cited scientific works found in the WT and Awake mags that my husband came to realize that the society was quoting the scientists out of context.

Thank you for the reply.

[roostafish]

This is merely my opinion, but after reading other translations; the King James (as much as I could stand anyway), the New King James, the New American Standard and such. It appears that perhaps the NWT is not a translation of original manuscripts, but a translation of the King James into 1930's American English, then where it suited, an opinionated translation from Greek or Hebrew to warp the message. I'm sorry if that seems harsh, and I truly would take an NWT if I were stuck on an island with nothing else, but it just doesn't seem to flow, or be as simple as the aforementioned translations. I don't like that we are not to really know the translators of the NWT, or their credentials. Yeah, we know who they were, but only by hearsay, it's not published. Anyway, any more insight on this?

[anewlife]

This is merely my opinion, but after reading other translations; the King James (as much as I could stand anyway), the New King James, the New American Standard and such. It appears that perhaps the NWT is not a translation of original manuscripts, but a translation of the King James into 1930's American English, then where it suited, an opinionated translation from Greek or Hebrew to warp the message. I'm sorry if that seems harsh, and I truly would take an NWT if I were stuck on an island with nothing else, but it just doesn't seem to flow, or be as simple as the aforementioned translations. I don't like that we are not to really know the translators of the NWT, or their credentials. Yeah, we know who they were, but only by hearsay, it's not published. Anyway, any more insight on this?

The NWT utlizes the Westcott-Hort text. From my findings, it (NWT) is the only translation (after WWII era) that uses these texts. The KJV (not NKJV) used the Textus-Receptus MSS. I am not sure what you mean as the NWT as being a translation of the KJV? As far as the credentials of the NWT translators, one can only speculate. I have heard of a few suspected translators of the NWT--but have not been 100% verified on my part.

:wink:

[roostafish]

The NWT utlizes the Westcott-Hort text. From my findings, it (NWT) is the only translation (after WWII era) that uses these texts. The KJV (not NKJV) used the Textus-Receptus MSS. I am not sure what you mean as the NWT as being a translation of the KJV? As far as the credentials of the NWT translators, one can only speculate. I have heard of a few suspected translators of the NWT--but have not been 100% verified on my part.

:wink:
That's good to know, I was just speculating because they read very similarly except when there are variances in theology.

[Cal_Minian]

That's good to know, I was just speculating because they read very similarly except when there are variances in theology.

That is because when Trinitarian translators get to verses which support their theology they ignore the best lexical resource currently available for Greek translation, Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich. See my sig for documentation on their theological bias.

[anewlife]

That is because when Trinitarian translators get to verses which support their theology they ignore the best lexical resource currently available for Greek translation, Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich. See my sig for documentation on their theological bias.

This is merely an assertion at this point. Almost anyone could be classified as having a certain bias. To use a bias a conclusive argument is circular. Please explain why the BDAG is the best lexical resource, and provide a more indepth thesis on why you have came to the conclusion that all trinitarians are wrong and have been wrong for a very long period of time. At this point I am only assuming your credentials.

I am sorry but your sig links do not prove conclusiveness in your findings as of yet.

:blush:

[Cal_Minian]

This is merely an assertion at this point. Almost anyone could be classified as having a certain bias. To use a bias a conclusive argument is circular. Please explain why the BDAG is the best lexical resource, and provide a more indepth thesis on why you have came to the conclusion that all trinitarians are wrong and have been wrong for a very long period of time. At this point I am only assuming your credentials.

I am sorry but your sig links do not prove conclusiveness in your findings as of yet.

:blush:

Dear anewlife,
If you click on the BDAG link you will see that the owners of TWEB consider BDAG to be the standard reference for NT study. Therefore the articles from my signature which accurately quote this lexicon (which was produced with assistance and cooperation with the conservative Lutheran Missouri Synod) are not my own opinion.

While threads defending their lexical data and conclusions is something I do upon occasion, it is not necessary to make the point I am making.

The point is that the standard Greek NT reference lexicon gives support to renderings in the NWT and sheds doubt on many Trinitarian proof texts.

[anewlife]

Dear anewlife,
If you click on the BDAG link you will see that the owners of TWEB consider BDAG to be the standard reference for NT study. Therefore the articles from my signature which accurately quote this lexicon (which was produced with assistance and cooperation with the conservative Lutheran Missouri Synod) are not my own opinion.

While threads defending their lexical data and conclusions is something I do upon occasion, it is not necessary to make the point I am making.

The point is that the standard Greek NT reference lexicon gives support to renderings in the NWT and sheds doubt on many Trinitarian proof texts.

Understood, and I often use the BDAG--but not exclusively. I was just making sure because it could be an argument from authority. [Tweb aside :wink: ]

I am not so sure if I agree with you on the texts of Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Jude 1:4, but that is another discussion. We can discuss the varying opinions about these texts from various scholars, however we must decide making a clear judgement ojectively, not based upon any introjectory persuasion

[Cal_Minian]

Understood, and I often use the BDAG--but not exclusively. I was just making sure because it could be an argument from authority. [Tweb aside :wink: ]

I am not so sure if I agree with you on the texts of Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Jude 1:4, but that is another discussion. We can discuss the varying opinions about these texts from various scholars, however we must decide making a clear judgement ojectively, not based upon any introjectory persuasion

You mean you do not agree that BDAG says what I posted or that you do not agree with BDAG on those verses? (I did not post Jude 4, did I?)

If you want to discuss Sharps rule perhaps you could start a new thread. This one is very generic.