New World Translation
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

“By grace you have been saved”

Since: May 09

Croydon, UK

#1 Nov 7, 2009
How many Jehovah’s Witnesses are aware that the Governing Body quote Roman Catholic Jesuits as authorities on which Greek text to use for the New World Translation?

I was brought up from infancy as a Jehovah’s Witness and thus on the New World Translation.

I became suspicious of the Greek text underlying the New Testament of the New World Translation when I realised the Governing Body quoted Roman Catholic Jesuit Father Jose Maria Bover and Roman Catholic Jesuit Professor Augustinus Merck as authorities on which Greek text to use.

Why should Jehovah’s Witnesses look to Roman Catholic Jesuits as authorities on anything at all, never mind on the Holy Scriptures, the very foundation used to establish doctrine?

From there I examined the history of Westcott and Hort’s Greek text and opened another can of worms.

As I delved further and further into the labyrinth of this fascinating subject, it slowly dawned on me that, working on a theory first propounded by Westcott and Hort in 1881, the translators of most of the modern Bibles, including the New World Translation, have deserted the traditional New Testament text of the Greek speaking churches and have, instead, introduced rare and obscure readings from a handful of peculiar manuscripts, primarily (but not exclusively) Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, together with Christendom’s protestant churches, have been duped into accepting a fabricated eclectic "pick 'n' mix" Greek New Testament text acceptable to, and approved by, the Roman Catholic Church.

I've got to hand it to the Jesuits, they certainly make a good job of what they set out to achieve, even if it takes centuries to accomplish.

Further details here:
http://greeknewtestament.blogspot.com/

“By grace you have been saved”

Since: May 09

Croydon, UK

#3 Nov 7, 2009
sssooss wrote:
Why is it then Stanley that the JWs can use the Catholic approved gk text to refute catholic teachings such as mary worship ,the cross etc?
Which Scriptures do they use to refute Mary worship, the cross, etc?
little lamb

Australia

#5 Nov 7, 2009
Hey! this is what I found..
"King James bible was published in 1611.
Archbishop Bancroft , the head of the Anglocan church , set fourteen rules of translation to maintain the doctrines and practices of the Anglican church of England.
King james made himself head of the church of England, and he required a translation which would facilitate his control over the church and people .
Bishop Bancroft and Erasmus were the architects of the king James Version , translation.
The translators were obliged to fit the translation with the Anglican agenda and beliefs, without any conflict between church and state.

Bancrofts third rule required the old ecclesiastical words to be kept, such as church instead of congregation.
He wanted the old offices of Bishop , deacons .
The King james translation maintained the offices of the church of England , so words were added to the text like 'office of' a bishop or deacon.
They also translated many words differently to agree with the Anglican church.

So what do we learn about all these translations?
That those in authority sought to hide the original lanquage from the common people's understanding.
But today there are programs that show every Greek word and its meaning. There are bible dictionaries , lexicons and many resources, so that even the common man need not be ignorant of the Holy Scriprures."

So to make an issue on translations of the Bible is wearisome and has no good purpose, because every word today can be checked out.
Enlightened

Sullivan, MO

#6 Nov 7, 2009
I have a serious question. Where can a person procure the scriptures in the original Greek in which it was written? I honestly don't know where to get my hands on this, and so it's a mute point for me to have a program that will translate the Greek, when I don't have it. This sounds like a very interesting project to me, in studying the Bible. I learn things all the time about the NWT that make me want to learn the Bible in it's original as closely as possible. Such as the fact that there is no word in Greek for Jehovah. I have a NWT and a KJV, but I am not convinced of the accuracy of either.
Thanks.

“By grace you have been saved”

Since: May 09

Croydon, UK

#8 Nov 8, 2009
little lamb wrote:
to make an issue on translations of the Bible is wearisome and has no good purpose, because every word today can be checked out.
With respect LL, you have missed the point.

The point I am making is NOT to do with translation.

The point I am making is about the Greek text underlying the New Testament from which the translation is then made.

Translation is a different issue altogether.
little lamb

Australia

#9 Nov 8, 2009
Stanley Walker wrote:
<quoted text>
With respect LL, you have missed the point.
The point I am making is NOT to do with translation.
The point I am making is about the Greek text underlying the New Testament from which the translation is then made.
Translation is a different issue altogether.
I apologise Stanley. Not my area of expertise.
However are you aware the further forensic research by L woodard ,
He began research in 1981 on codex washington, and published some of his discoveries in a 'Kodex W: Old and Holy" in 2002, and he claims the Codex W dates from the first century.
And that that it therefore predates codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.?
he has found the Codex W contains a wealth of valuable scribal notes , signatures, and even dates , all of which suggest a very early origen
I thought you may be interested in his research , because the fellow is very approachable, and seeing your into this research you could e-mail him for any information you would like. He is found on the web site 'codex washington'.
One of the reasons he believes in its antiquity, is the scribal seals at the close of the gospels are extremely small, and the alpha numeric dates in the headings and foot notes also appear in a claudestine manner. Scribes would have been keen to avoid anything whatsoever that could lead a paper trail to fellow disciples.
Previously they thought codex W was written in the 4th or 5th century. But by then persecution would not have been an issue..
L. Woodard claims that each manuscript is signed in Hebraic by the Gospel namesake, including the signatures of Mark in the Mark- Barnabas crosses and in his personal seal.
Such signatures would not have appeared on copies prepared a generation later. And he believes that within a few short years of the Apostles , Bible scribes would no longer have been fluent in Hebrew as well as Greek.
The reason the great age of the Codex . W, was not recognised sooner , is the fact that scholars in their efforts to date manuscripts have focussed primaraily on writing styles and materials , plus information regarding the origins of manuscripts.
No one prior to Woodard , looked more closely at the detailed and helpful scribal entries in Codex .W.
I have obtained this information from a friend who is as interested in the original codex's used for translations of the bible- thought you might like to contact Woodard himself for more detail.
Because i know some of you guys are really interested in this .

“By grace you have been saved”

Since: May 09

Croydon, UK

#10 Nov 8, 2009
little lamb wrote:
However are you aware the further forensic research by L woodard ,
He began research in 1981 on codex washington, and published some of his discoveries in a 'Kodex W: Old and Holy" in 2002, and he claims the Codex W dates from the first century.
And that that it therefore predates codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.?
Yes, I am aware of Codex Washingtonianus or Codex Freerianus.

It is of particular interest because, although from Egypt, it displays distinctive Byzantine readings which again undermines the outdated theories of Westcott and Hort.

Since the time of Westcott and Hort there have been many new developments and/or discoveries.

Works has been done examining the actual readings of the earliest known papyri, dated before the third century, revealing that distinctive Byzantine readings (not present in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus) are far more prevalent than previously thought, flying in the face of Westcott and Hort and forcing the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament committee to revise their text in favour of the Byzantine readings.

Nevertheless, I remain cautious of any Alexandrian or Egyptian manuscripts because of the known Gnostic influences of that time.

One of the Christian "Church Fathers", Irenaeus, wrote: "Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened." (Ante-Nicene Fathers; Vol. I; pp 434-435)

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) was Principal at the theological School of Alexandria in AD 190 and attempted to fuse Gnosticism with Christianity. Clement freely quoted from, and promulgated, the corrupted Gnostic Scriptures of Marcion.

Clement of Alexandria's influence in the adulteration of Christianity by Gnosticism was immense. His most famous pupil was Origen the Gnostic who succeeded Clement as Principal at the School of Alexandria in AD 202. Origen of Alexandria is likewise documented as taking liberty with the Scriptures to suit his purpose.(See: Kilpatrick, "Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament," 1963, pp 129-130; and Origenes Werke; Berlin; Vol. 10; pp 385-388)

There is abundant historical evidence that Gnostics produced corrupt manuscripts in Alexandria. In 1945/46 no less than thirteen Gnostic bound volumes were discovered at Nag Hammadi, near Chenoboskion, in Egypt, which contained more than fifty Gnostic sacred writings and scriptures including, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Both Clement and Origen refer to, and quote from, these apocryphal and corrupt Gnostic scriptures in their own writings.

To quote but one example, the book "The Beginnings of Christianity" (Floris Books, 1991, ISBN 0-86315-209-0), by Andrew Welburn, highlights a letter written by Clement of Alexandria which refers to the secret Gnostic Gospel of Mark which, it is claimed, was the original Gnostic edition of the Gospel written by Mark in Alexandria (they claimed Mark was a Gnostic). To quote from the letter: "Mark came over to Alexandria ... he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being initiated ... when he died, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it is even yet most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great Mysteries." (p 98)
little lamb

Australia

#11 Nov 8, 2009
Stanley Walker wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am aware of Codex Washingtonianus or Codex Freerianus.
It is of particular interest because, although from Egypt, it displays distinctive Byzantine readings which again undermines the outdated theories of Westcott and Hort.
Since the time of Westcott and Hort there have been many new developments and/or discoveries.
Works has been done examining the actual readings of the earliest known papyri, dated before the third century, revealing that distinctive Byzantine readings (not present in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus) are far more prevalent than previously thought, flying in the face of Westcott and Hort and forcing the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament committee to revise their text in favour of the Byzantine readings.
Nevertheless, I remain cautious of any Alexandrian or Egyptian manuscripts because of the known Gnostic influences of that time.
One of the Christian "Church Fathers", Irenaeus, wrote: "Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened." (Ante-Nicene Fathers; Vol. I; pp 434-435)
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) was Principal at the theological School of Alexandria in AD 190 and attempted to fuse Gnosticism with Christianity. Clement freely quoted from, and promulgated, the corrupted Gnostic Scriptures of Marcion.
Clement of Alexandria's influence in the adulteration of Christianity by Gnosticism was immense. His most famous pupil was Origen the Gnostic who succeeded Clement as Principal at the School of Alexandria in AD 202. Origen of Alexandria is likewise documented as taking liberty with the Scriptures to suit his purpose.(See: Kilpatrick, "Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament," 1963, pp 129-130; and Origenes Werke; Berlin; Vol. 10; pp 385-388)
There is abundant historical evidence that Gnostics produced corrupt manuscripts in Alexandria. In 1945/46 no less than thirteen Gnostic bound volumes were discovered at Nag Hammadi, near Chenoboskion, in Egypt, which contained more than fifty Gnostic sacred writings and scriptures including, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Both Clement and Origen refer to, and quote from, these apocryphal and corrupt Gnostic scriptures in their own writings.
To quote but one example, the book "The Beginnings of Christianity" (Floris Books, 1991, ISBN 0-86315-209-0), by Andrew Welburn, highlights a letter written by Clement of Alexandria which refers to the secret Gnostic Gospel of Mark which, it is claimed, was the original Gnostic edition of the Gospel written by Mark in Alexandria (they claimed Mark was a Gnostic). To quote from the letter: "Mark came over to Alexandria ... he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being initiated ... when he died, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it is even yet most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great Mysteries." (p 98)
I am not knowledgable in these areas Stan, but my friend is pasionate in these studies, just like you seem to be, that is why i thought you might like to contact and talk with woodard, because my friend said he just freely sent him heaps of information.
my friend told me that scholars have known that Codex W contains ' traditional' or Byzantine , type text, but previously thought ot to be 4th or 5th century departure from earlier and more reliable versions of the gospels.
So are you aware of woodards latest research?
little lamb

Australia

#12 Nov 8, 2009
Stanley Walker wrote:
<quoted text>

autious of any Alexandrian or Egyptian manuscripts because of the known Gnostic influences of that time.
One of the Christian "Church Fathers", Irenaeus, wrote: "Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened." (Ante-Nicene Fathers; Vol. I; pp 434-435)
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) was Principal at the theological School of Alexandria in AD 190 and attempted to fuse Gnosticism with Christianity. Clement freely quoted from, and promulgated, the corrupted Gnostic Scriptures of Marcion.
Clement of Alexandria's influence in the adulteration of Christianity by Gnosticism was immense. His most famous pupil was Origen the Gnostic who succeeded Clement as Principal at the School of Alexandria in AD 202. Origen of Alexandria is likewise documented as taking liberty with the Scriptures to suit his purpose.(See: Kilpatrick, "Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament," 1963, pp 129-130; and Origenes Werke; Berlin; Vol. 10; pp 385-388)
There is abundant historical evidence that Gnostics produced corrupt manuscripts in Alexandria. In 1945/46 no less than thirteen Gnostic bound volumes were discovered at Nag Hammadi, near Chenoboskion, in Egypt, which contained more than fifty Gnostic sacred writings and scriptures including, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Both Clement and Origen refer to, and quote from, these apocryphal and corrupt Gnostic scriptures in their own writings.
To quote but one example, the book "The Beginnings of Christianity" (Floris Books, 1991, ISBN 0-86315-209-0), by Andrew Welburn, highlights a letter written by Clement of Alexandria which refers to the secret Gnostic Gospel of Mark which, it is claimed, was the original Gnostic edition of the Gospel written by Mark in Alexandria (they claimed Mark was a Gnostic). To quote from the letter: "Mark came over to Alexandria ... he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being initiated ... when he died, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it is even yet most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great Mysteries." (p 98)
You have a great reason then to be cautious Stan, but one of the reason, woodard believes that Codex W is produced sometime before 200 A.d , is because of the extensive and scribal entries found in it, these would not have been found in copies removed a generation more from the originals.

“By grace you have been saved”

Since: May 09

Croydon, UK

#13 Nov 8, 2009
little lamb wrote:
i thought you might like to contact and talk with woodard, because my friend said he just freely sent him heaps of information.
Many thanks for this LL

Is this Dr Lee W Woodard of Oklahoma?

If so, I have his email address and will get in touch.
little lamb

Australia

#14 Nov 8, 2009
Stanley Walker wrote:
<quoted text>
Many thanks for this LL
Is this Dr Lee W Woodard of Oklahoma?
If so, I have his email address and will get in touch.
yes he is the one- By the way Stan went and read your blog , you placed on here. What a lot of work and study, not withstanding the amount of historical knowledge.
A lot of this does go over our heads, but we do appreciate the information you end up sharing with us. But if you could simplify it, what is the exact area of concern?
Is this a 'trinity' push, because you know we are suspicious.Please don't get offended with this question but I rather get to the crux of the matter. Because it was within the scriptures of the NWT , that I found the witness to Christ. Is there some command that has not been identified. What exactly do you believe we lack in not knowing what scholars know?

“To God be the glory!”

Since: Feb 09

Lake Hiawatha, NJ

#15 Nov 8, 2009
Enlightened wrote:
I have a serious question. Where can a person procure the scriptures in the original Greek in which it was written? I honestly don't know where to get my hands on this, and so it's a mute point for me to have a program that will translate the Greek, when I don't have it. This sounds like a very interesting project to me, in studying the Bible. I learn things all the time about the NWT that make me want to learn the Bible in it's original as closely as possible. Such as the fact that there is no word in Greek for Jehovah. I have a NWT and a KJV, but I am not convinced of the accuracy of either.
Thanks.
try www.greekbiblestudy.com

“By grace you have been saved”

Since: May 09

Blairgowrie, UK

#16 Nov 9, 2009
little lamb wrote:
What a lot of work and study, not withstanding the amount of historical knowledge.

A lot of this does go over our heads, but we do appreciate the information you end up sharing with us. But if you could simplify it, what is the exact area of concern?

Is this a 'trinity' push, because you know we are suspicious.

Please don't get offended with this question but I rather get to the crux of the matter.

Because it was within the scriptures of the NWT , that I found the witness to Christ.

Is there some command that has not been identified.

What exactly do you believe we lack in not knowing what scholars know?
Hi LL

No offence taken.

No, this is not a trinity push, this is a genuine Greek text push.

I am on record on this forum and elsewhere as not defending the Trinity doctrine as taught by Christendom and as spelt out in detail in the Athanasian Creed. Nor, for that matter, do I accept the Watchtower teaching that Jesus is a created angel called Michael. But that is neither here nor there as regards the issue before us.

My bottom line, my main point on this thread, was covered in my first post.

The Roman Catholic Church, through the Jesuits, has contrived to manipulate the rest of Christendom (including Jehovah’s Witnesses) to accept a faulty Greek text of the New Testament from which to translate the New Testament into English and other languages.

I, too, was saved reading the NWT, so it is not an essential for salvation issue.

What is lacking is more knowledge on the identity of the authentic Greek New Testament text.
Boy Nilli

Port Jervis, NY

#18 Nov 9, 2009
They are all fairy tales.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#19 Nov 9, 2009
Truth is truth even if it comes from demons!

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#20 Nov 9, 2009
duh-boy, the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one. That includes the WTS.

Exodus 13:9) especially the WTS that is.

“By grace you have been saved”

Since: May 09

Croydon, UK

#22 Nov 9, 2009
Duh-boy wrote:
Truth is truth even if it comes from demons!
Is that a Watchtower quote? LOL

“By grace you have been saved”

Since: May 09

Croydon, UK

#23 Nov 9, 2009
Tell it as it is wrote:
Are you saying Stanley that God has not protected his written word?

What would you say is the best version?
I'm getting worried about you Manchester UK. You keep asking intelligent questions. Are you feeling well? Are you coming off the couch to stay?

Yes, God has protected his written word. My belief, until otherwise is proved, that He has protected it in the Byzantine text tradition.

My opinion is, and this is only my opinion, that the best version is currently an ongoing project but we do have at the moment the combined scholarship of Hodges, Farstad, Robinson, Pierpont and Pickering brought together in the English Majority Text Version.
YHWH

Glasgow, UK

#24 Nov 9, 2009
Enlightened wrote:
I have a serious question. Where can a person procure the scriptures in the original Greek in which it was written? I honestly don't know where to get my hands on this, and so it's a mute point for me to have a program that will translate the Greek, when I don't have it. This sounds like a very interesting project to me, in studying the Bible. I learn things all the time about the NWT that make me want to learn the Bible in it's original as closely as possible. Such as the fact that there is no word in Greek for Jehovah. I have a NWT and a KJV, but I am not convinced of the accuracy of either.
Thanks.
The is not quite right go to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia-under Jehovah what the early Christians call God!
ablebodiedman

Canada

#25 Nov 9, 2009
Stanley,

I like using the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

The reason why is that it is Jehovah's Witnesses own bible translation

and

It thoroughly condemns them no matter how accurate the Greek and Hebrew were translated!

It really doesn't matter which translation is used, they have still comitted the Unforgivable Sin!

The only transgression which is guaranteed to cause desolation.

http://thebiblereport.blogspot.com/2007/11/un...

In Christ

abe

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Youthful Libido and the New System 1 min Wow 117
What is the trinity? (Apr '13) 2 min rsss1 26,543
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Even Understand? 7 min I_know_better_now 555
The Twinity Dogma- the Most Ridiculous Dogma of... (Mar '15) 15 min Veritas 69 1,943
"The body of Christ" 16 min roy 646
Lock them up; Lock them up! 39 min GreatSouthbay4040 11
God's Name WAS in the Original NT!!! 58 min PrufSammy 1,343
Shouldn't governing body nember Jackson be disf... 1 hr Veritas 69 106
wt lies about the cross 3 hr Aneirin 683
More from around the web