Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>]

Hi b-hebrew,

 Rolf Furuli wrote:
>The two posts of Schmuel regarding the NWT and the New Testament are outside 
>the scope of this list.

Schmuel
That is for the list moderator to determine.  We are talking about using a 
possible
Biblical Hebrew insertion in the original Greek text (ergo potential biblical 
hebrew)
and this Hebrew being somehow in the New Testament text line.

Also a claim was made about the NWT or the NIV being consistent in 
translation.
My comments have shown that the whole concept was incorrect vis a vis the NWT.

If my comments are off-topic, then the claim of NWT consistency should be 
off-topic.
In fact I am discussing the aspect of the claim that is closest to the 
biblical hebrew
focus of the list.

Rolf
>...  when a claim that is outright false is made, it is the duty of one 
>having a knowledge to speak up.

Schmuel
True, but my claim was clearly true.

Rolf
>...three factors ... 1) quotes from the OT, 2) New Testaments in Hebrew 
>using  Jehovah, and 3) the context. In *all* cases where Jehovah is found in 
>the NWT New Testament one or more of these factors are behind the choice. 
>Theology *must*  be an important factor in Bible translation. 

Schmuel
Essentially you are conceding my point.  

First, let's be clear, 

(1) is understood, but not relevant to the great majority of verses.  I 
believe it is an error
to place Jehovah in those verses, since it is not in the underlying Greek 
text, but at least 
that translation has a textual (Tanach-->NT) base in some dozens of cases.

(2) is essentially irrelevant, as what difference does 1500-1900 
Greek-to-Hebrew 
translator's  decision have to do with the essentially impossible JW 
conjectures 
about the original written-in-Greek autographs .. there is no significance 
there at all. 
Even if these late Greek-to-Hebrew translations support the selectivity of 
the NWT
(doubtful) it simply has no relevance, as it is apples and oranges.

Then we go to the critical one (3).
"Context"

"Context" in Jehovah Witness theology means that the idea that Jehovah 
manifest
as the Lord Jesus Christ is not acceptable.  Therefore, yes, that is the 
determining 
factor in not putting Jehovah into those types of verses that I indicate 
below, while 
inserting 'Jehovah' into those verses that are unharmful to their Christology.

Grammatically and linguistically there is simply no way to consider the 
selection
omissions as guided by anything other than Jehovah Witness doctrine, masked
as "context".

In terms of the Greek language text the Jehovah translation decisions are 
inconsistent.

In terms of matching the Jehovah Witness doctrine, you could say they are 
consistent,
with that I will agree, in that they are a deliberately consistent 
translation tampering.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

PS
It is good to also truly consider the modern JW theories of how 
   a) multiple authors in 
   b) multiple books transmitted their text early, in
   c) multiple languages of early translation

.  They are supposed to have inserted the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (or some 
unknown 
equivalent) into an original work Greek text, something unseen and unknown in 
all
textual history, Jewish or Christian.  (This is not the same as 
Hebrew-->Greek translation
decisions, we are talking here about original Greek language writing).

   This is supposed to have occurred without a trace of this being found or 
mentioned historically.

   And then there is conjectured a massive redaction of each and every 
occurrence in each and
every book to bring them back to Greek (and perhaps Latin and Aramaic) as we 
have them today.  

   And this was done without any reference in any writings by the early 
church writers,
and in addition this was a massive textual redaction done over a wide range 
of books,
authors and languages -- and yet this massive translation tampering in the 
first centuries
was somehow done 100% consistently, and without a trace.

   When you really consider what is being alleged, it truly takes on an 
Alice-in-Wonderland
type of nature.

   It also means that the New Testament was corrupt for about 1800 years, and 
that the 
only true New Testament even today has no textual witness whatsoever in the 
original
language.




Rolf,
>We cannot translate a text we do not understand, and a part, often a great 
>part of this understanding is theology. One can disagree with the theology 
>of the NWT translators, but to claim that they are inconsistent to their own 
>translation principles in their choices of Jehovah in the NT is false 
>witness.

Schmuel
>> To be clear, the verses below are examples where the NWT did NOT use their 
>> own methodology because it would be discomfiting to their doctrinal 
>> position. Jehovah is inserted to show what the verses would look like if 
>> they were consistent, and those who are familiar with JW doctrine will 
>> understand how their doctrine drove their translation.
>> http://www.tetragrammaton.org/nwtandhvs.htm
>> According to their own grammatical rule, haAdohn [] is translated as 
>> Jehovah at 1 Corinthians 4:19 and 1 Corinthians 7:17. .....the New World 
>> Bible Translation Committee did not follow their own rule at 1 Corinthians 
>> 11:23, Philippians 2:11, or Luke 24:34.

>> 1 Corinthians 12:3
>> Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of 
>> God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is Jehovah, 
>> but by the Holy Ghost.
>>
>> Philippians 2:11
>> And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, to the 
>> glory of God the Father.
>>
>> Luke 24:34
>> Saying, Jehovah is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
>>
>> John 20:28
>> And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Jehovah and my God.