Re: Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?

From: Mitchell Gray (
Date: Wed Jan 05 2000 - 00:25:35 EST

> Even if one accepted such an analysis as weighty, a textual critical
> consider such a suggestion as at best a "conjectural emendation." And
> is by definition "speculative"! Furthermore, I would note that there is
> one scholarly edition of the Greek New Testament which takes such a
> conjectural emendation seriously. Indeed, it is not taken serious enough
> even appear in any scholarly Greek New Testament's textual apparatus.
> And given this fact, and it is a fact (!), it is absolutely clear that
> the New World Translation translates KURIOS or QEOS in the NT as
> it is not faithfully translating any scholarly Greek text of the New
> Testament. That too is a fact. You might consider such facts to be
> irrelevant or moot, but that does not make them any less true.

You know, Steven, I have sat here and read your comments about dishonest
that and conjectural emendation this and not one Greek NT has YHWH blah,
blah, blah, but why don't you stop and think for a second. Instead of
criticizing the NWT translators for taken such an unpopular stand for and
including the tetragram in their NT translation, because maybe there is
some truth behind their decision to do so. We don't have the original MSS
so to even say that it does not/did not appear in the originals is being a
bit pompous on your part (and everyone else who holds this view). Do we
know if the writers didn't use it? No. Do we know if they did? No.
Should we use it? The lack of the tetragram in the NT autographs suggest
that we should not, but that is not entirely the case. Why do I say that?

Take a look at the OT. The tetragram appears about 6,828 times and it
appears in extra-biblical text and yet I can count on two hands the number
of translations that use the Name faithfully. To name some, the YLT, the
NWT, the ASV, Byingtons translation, the NJB and the Jerusalem Bible.
Those are the only ones to my knowledge that use it faithfully--in all
places it occurs in the OT MSS--yet almost all scholars are in agreement
(Jewish and Christian) that the Name should not be included in the
translation of the OT! The OT most certainly contain the translation but
TRANSLATORS FAIL TO PUT IT IN!! The NT lacks it, but the NWT translation
committee has taken serious time and effort to research and investigate and
try to find places where the Name *might* have appeared. If you want to
talk honesty and being faithful to the originals, then why don't you take a
look at the translations of the OT. If anything, the NWT translators were
more honest and reflected a better standard of integrity to the original
MSS than other Bible translators by their use of it and not their disuse.
Look at the preface to the NRSV, which you yourself said was "our best
scholarly translation at this time" (1/04/200) and you might see this:
"Although the American Standard Version (1901) had used 'Jehovah' to render
the Tetragrammaton (the sound of Y being represented by J and the sound of
W by V, as in Latin), for two reasons the Committees that produced the RSV
and the NRSV returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version.
 (1) The word 'Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of the Name
ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only
God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be
distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era
and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christians Church"
(NRSV Preface).

Let me just say that this is completely BULL CRAP! Reason 1 holds no
water. Jesus is not the accurate form of Christ name. It was most likely
Joshua (Hebrew) and it is Iesous (in Greek). By their line of reasoning
then, we should NOT use Jesus in the NT because Jesus "does not accurately
represent any form" of Christ name in the NT--Jesus is Latin! Reason
number 2 holds no water. What about Shintoist? Taoist? Buddhist?
Primitive tribes in Africa? What about all the other thousands of
religions that have gods whom they worship and whom they know by name? Do
they know the name of the God of the Christians? No, and most Christians
don't either. Their excuses for not using the Name in the OT are stupid
and show a lack of intelligence. They may have head knowledge, but that's
it. Notice reason 1: "'Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of
the Name...", well then, why didn't they use Yahweh, which they had said
previously in the preface the name was "almost if not quite certain that
the Name was originally pronounced 'Yahweh'"? Why didn't they use that?
Wouldn't use mark that up as being a dishonest thing to do? Again, step
back and look at what your backing, and then you can criticize other
translations (Luke 6:42).

Try backing off of what they did and concentrate one what other translators
don't do.


B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:53 EDT