The use of Kurios in the New World's Tranlation

Place to discuss the reasons for our faith (I Peter 3:15)

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

The use of Kurios in the New World's Tranlation

Post by Marc » Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:33 pm

Yeh hi. I was just considering the use of Kurios (Lord) in the New World's Translation used primarily by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Basically, I was wondering on what grounds do they decide to tranlsate Kurios as Jehovah or as Lord. When they think it refers to the Father is it Jehovah and when it refers to the Son is it Lord? Why then don't they translate it as Jehovah when it refers to the Father in Matthew 11:25 and Acts 17:24.

www.watchtower.org/bible/

Marc

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

don't really know...

Post by m273p15c » Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:57 pm

I am sure you already know this, but the ancient Jews were very careful and reverential in their treatment of God's covenant name, Jehovah, or YHWH in Hebrew. The oft repeated illustration is that a scribe would be dilligent to dip his stylus in the ink well immediately before writing the Lord's name, just to ensure that the ink was clean and new.

If memory serves me, I believe that "Jehovah" was replaced with "Lord" in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, which is the version quoted by Jesus and the apostles. Interestingly, they were content to use the name "Lord" in the New Testament. They never tried to "fix" the Septuagint, neither did they complain about its translation in either accuracy or wording.

In fact, I do not believe that "Jehovah" appears anywhere in the Greek New Testament. Instead, we find "Lord", "Father", "God", etc. Can you tell if the New World translators only made the swap when it corresponded with "Jehovah", as part of an Old Testament quotation? There could be some justifiction for that, although I would still consider it presumptive to tamper with the words of Jesus and His apostles. I would be dubious of any attempt to "fix" the original by "clarifying" references to "Lord" as either "the Father" or "the Son". Furthermore, I would strongly challenge any other rule to "help" the translation.

The wording of John 1:1 in the New World Translation is enough to discredit its integrity, in my opinion. That clear shift in meaning evidences too strong of a desire to modify the original, so as to best fit their doctrine. Given the amount of heat that the Jehovah's Witness translators have taken on this verse, and their refusal to reverse their error, I believe it safe to assume that it was a deliberate choice to save their organization by perverting the Scriptures.

At some point in the future, I will try to do some more digging on this, but this is all I can personally offer at the moment.

truth
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:22 pm

Re: The use of Kurios in the New World's Tranlation

Post by truth » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:11 pm

Marc wrote:Yeh hi. I was just considering the use of Kurios (Lord) in the New World's Translation used primarily by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Basically, I was wondering on what grounds do they decide to tranlsate Kurios as Jehovah or as Lord. When they think it refers to the Father is it Jehovah and when it refers to the Son is it Lord? Why then don't they translate it as Jehovah when it refers to the Father in Matthew 11:25 and Acts 17:24.

www.watchtower.org/bible/

Marc
The Greek "Kyrios." This Greek word is an adjective, signifying the possessing of power (ky´ros) or authority, and it is also used as a noun. It appears in each book of the Christian Greek Scriptures except Titus and the letters of John. The term corresponds to the Hebrew ´A·dhohn´. As God's created Son and Servant, Jesus Christ properly addresses his Father and God (Joh 20:17) as "Lord" (´Adho·nai´ or Ky´ri·os), the One having superior power and authority, his Head. (Mt 11:25; 1Co 11:3) As the one exalted to his Father's right hand, Jesus is "Lord of lords" as respects all except his Father, God the Almighty.-Re 17:14; 19:15, 16; compare 1Co 15:27, 28.

Its use in place of the divine name. During the second or third century of the Common Era, the scribes substituted the words Ky´ri·os (Lord) and The·os´ (God) for the divine name, Jehovah, in copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Other translations, such as the Latin Vulgate, the Douay Version (based on the Vulgate), and the King James Version, as well as numerous modern translations (NE, AT, RS, NIV, TEV, NAB), followed a similar practice. The divine name was replaced by the terms "God" and "Lord," generally in all-capital letters in English to indicate the substitution for the Tetragrammaton, or divine name.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

OT only?

Post by m273p15c » Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:59 pm

So, this practice of replacing "Lord" (KJV) with "Jehovah" in the NWT only occurs in the Old Testament, where the original was the Hebrew "YHWH"? Does it occur in the NT? Or, where the original was not "YHWH"?

truth
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:22 pm

Post by truth » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:17 pm

I'm thinking the best way to answer your question is to cut and paste from the book that explain why the nwt was done the way it is. this is not the whole article , but should answer your question



Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky´ri·os and The·os´. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 324) This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Last edited by truth on Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

reference?

Post by m273p15c » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:27 pm

Maybe I missed it, but would you mind including the book reference? Thanks!

truth
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:22 pm

Post by truth » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:35 pm

no
what i gave you was enough to explain the reason as to who,what, were ,when ,why.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

huh?

Post by m273p15c » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:01 pm

truth wrote:no
what i gave you was enough to explain the reason as to who,what, were ,when ,why.
What? :shock: Why would you refuse to provide a reference? I'd just like it for completeness, so I can follow up on this some day. Also, I noticed that you edited your last post and deleted most of the quote. Why? It seems kind of interesting...
truth wrote:Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:17 pm (GMT -6)

I'm thinking the best way to answer your question is to cut and paste from the book that explain why the nwt was done the way it is. this is not the whole article , but should answer your question



Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky´ri·os and The·os´. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 324) This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Restoration of the divine name in translation. Recognizing that this must have been the case, some translators have included the name Jehovah in their renderings of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott, a 19th-century translation by Benjamin Wilson, contains the name Jehovah a number of times, particularly where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. But as far back as the 14th century the Tetragrammaton had already begun to be used in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew, beginning with the translation of Matthew into Hebrew that was incorporated in the work ´E´ven bo´chan by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. Wherever Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, this translation used the Tetragrammaton in each case of its occurrence. Many other Hebrew translations have since followed the same practice.

As to the properness of this course, note the following acknowledgment by R. B. Girdlestone, late principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. The statement was made before manuscript evidence came to light showing that the Greek Septuagint originally contained the name Jehovah. He said: "If that [Septuagint] version had retained the word [Jehovah], or had even used one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N. T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalm, instead of saying, 'The Lord said unto my Lord,' might have said, 'Jehovah said unto Adoni.'"

Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds: "Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word ?????? occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N. T. into all languages if the title Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, wherever the expression 'the angel of the Lord' occurs, we know that the word Lord represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression 'the word of the Lord' would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title 'the Lord of Hosts.' Wherever, on the contrary, the expression 'My Lord' or 'Our Lord' occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used." (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name Jehovah have proceeded.

Outstanding, however, in this regard is the New World Translation, used throughout this work, in which the divine name in the form "Jehovah" appears 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As has been shown, there is sound basis for this.

truth
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:22 pm

Post by truth » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:17 pm

please respect my actions.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:49 am

truth wrote:please respect my actions.
Friend, the previous poster is not the only one left scratching his head regarding your responses to a relatively simple question. I don't perceive there being any disrespect in the question at all but an inquiry of evidence as the name of this section of the Forums is named.

Although your quote is not of a Biblical text I find great wisdom to be applied in answering folks questions, in general, given by Peter:
1Pe 3:15 wrote:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
To deny an answer to a question for apparently arbitrary reasons casts doubt on the evidence prevented and I'm sure that is something you would hope to avoid. Best to you!

truth
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:22 pm

Post by truth » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:14 pm

i like this one. 1 peter 3:16 Hold a good conscience, so that in the particular in which YOU are spoken against they may get ashamed who are speaking slightingly of YOUR good conduct in connection with Christ.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

should we not be prepared to offer a defense?

Post by m273p15c » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:03 pm

That's a good one, and I like the preceding verse too:
Peter, an inspired apostle, wrote:But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (I Peter 3:15-16)
This verse is about suffering persecution for righteousness's sake. but, nobody is accusing you of anything. Why did you assume so?

Please be considerate of everybody else. Would you take my word for what the Bible says without me providing you book, chapter, and verse? Would you take my word for the definition of a Greek word without quoting Thayer's, Strong's, Vine's, etc.? All we are asking is for a reference.

Please remember, this thread is located in the "Evidences and Apologetics" category....

Also, please remember that Jesus and His apostles were inspired, yet they still quoted Scripture and offered evidence (John 5:31-47; Romans 4:1-8, 17-25; Acts 14:15-17; etc.). As uninspired men, are we free to do less?

There is no malice here - just a polite and well intentioned request for authority. If this request is unfair, please let us know why, so we can correct our wrong.

Thank you.

truth
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:22 pm

Post by truth » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:59 pm

hopefully there would be no problem with you knowing ,but i have had some experience with the anti-Christ , and i have no intent on giving them any information that can in any way be used to there advantage .
if you have read and under stand what i posted , i would appreciate it if you would remove it please.

Post Reply