To refresh your memory, “BOMB SHELL--The Reason the
WT's KIT is Out of Print! Part 1” is here. In this blog, Part 2, I was looking through my KIT (Purple Cover) when I noticed on Page 9 the following. "Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading." I am going to look at FOUR examples where the WT has deviated from the Westcott and Hort text AND their "preferred reading" DOES NOT have a footnote showing the basis for that reading.
If the WT was being totally honest, their footnote (the reason for their "preferred reading" for each of these examples) would state: "The basis for our "preferred reading" does not exist. We have engaged in sectarian religious coloration, i.e. we rendered the verse so it appears that our NWT is in harmony with the Greek when no such harmony exists. We have engaged in
Two definitions are needed at this point.
Exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author,
Example #1 is John 14:14 which is also in "BOMB SHELL . . . Part 1" and in Presto Change-O! Part 3 which is here.If the WT was being totally honest, their footnote (the reason for their "preferred reading" for each of these examples) would state: "The basis for our "preferred reading" does not exist. We have engaged in sectarian religious coloration, i.e. we rendered the verse so it appears that our NWT is in harmony with the Greek when no such harmony exists. We have engaged in
Two definitions are needed at this point.
Exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author,
Where As
Eisegesis occurs when a translator imposes his/her interpretation into and onto the text. In Biblical Eisegesis a translator has a pre-conceived doctrine, then goes to the Bible and translates a verse in a way that supports that doctrine. The word Eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.
The WT reading of John 14:14 varies from the Westcott and Hort Text, YET there is NO FOOTNOTE showing the basis for the WT's varied reading.
Example #2 is Revelation 5:10. It is also in Presto Change-O! Part 6 which is here.
The WT reading of Revelation 5:10 varies from the Westcott and Hort Text, YET there is NO FOOTNOTE showing the basis for the WT's varied reading.
The WT reading of John 8:58 varies from the Westcott and Hort Text, YET there is NO FOOTNOTE showing the basis for the WT's varied reading.
Example #4 is Col. 1:16-17. It is also in Presto Change-O! Part 2 which is here.
The WT reading of Colossians 1:16-17 varies from the Westcott and Hort Text, YET there is NO FOOTNOTE showing the basis for the WT's varied reading.
The WT's statement that "when we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort Greek text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading," can best be summed up in the following pic . . .
The WT reading of Colossians 1:16-17 varies from the Westcott and Hort Text, YET there is NO FOOTNOTE showing the basis for the WT's varied reading.
The WT's statement that "when we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort Greek text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading," can best be summed up in the following pic . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment