Sheep and Goats

Category: Verses

  • Principles of Bible Translation: Matthew 5:3

    Most translations of the Bible are pretty accurate. Or, perhaps a better way to put it is that the differences between them are so minuscule to the overall picture that you can be reliably guided in your relationship with God by any one of them.

    In general, the more modern the translation, the more accurate it is. This is not because modern translators are smarter. It is because they have more to work with. Archeologists continually discover new things in their digs. This includes ancient biblical manuscripts. Sometimes they are complete works. Sometimes they are but fragments of a page. The more of these you have to compare and contrast, the better your final product will be. 

    view of the ancient city of myra demre turkey
    Photo by Ahmet Çığşar on Pexels.com

    That is why the King James Bible, for example, is not as accurate as more modern translations. It is not because its authors lacked integrity. They were brilliant and, to this day, the translation is unequalled with regard to literary expression. Countless idioms it introduced have become common phrasing, ‘skin of one’s teeth,’ for example. But the manuscript backing is nowhere near as extensive as modern versions have to draw on. Plus, more recent discoveries show that, in a few cases, errors had crept in to the texts as they were handed down—copied and recopied and recopied again. It happens. That’s why, for example, the Gospel of Mark ends with verses that modern translations do not include, or if they do they flag them as disputed.

    One hesitates to recommend AI, because people start citing its answers in their entirety and the thread gets so long and cumbersome that nobody can plow through it. But, as a research tool of your own, there’s a place for it. It is rapidly becoming a far more powerful tool than Wikipedia, which itself replaced encyclopedias

    Therefore, for any given scripture, enter renderings from different translations, in this case the NWT (since that is the most commonly asked about here) vs whatever you are comparing it to—KJV, NIV, NAB, whatever, and ask for the rationale behind both. Don’t phrase it in terms of one being right and one being wrong. Just ask what considerations have gone into translating to justify whatever differences you see. 

    Doing this will eliminate the conspiratorial suspicion that so many have, that one party or the other is trying to “change” scripture. You will get a sense of what moves one translation to differ from another and yet both be acceptable.

    For example: Explain the different of translation at Matthew 5:3. The NWT says ‘Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.’ Most translations render it as ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit.’ Why the difference?

    Many times I have discussed with this or that person at the door how we each have a spiritual need, but that does not mean we are conscious of it. It can be likened to vitamins. No one goes around feeling a hunger for vitamins, yet without them, one gets sick and never quite knows why. Therefore, it’s well if people make themselves conscious of their need for vitamins—which usually comes just from normal diet, but it you’ve fallen into a weird or deficient one, you might not be getting enough.

    Spiritual need is like that, too. People have it. They are not necessarily conscious of it.

    But it’s hard to explain this from any other translation because most say, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” What’s with that?

    Here is where AI becomes very helpful. Enter the verse in two different translations. Without stating that one is right and one is wrong, ask it to explain the difference. When I tried this with Matthew 5:3, it returned: (everything that follows is from ChatGPT. I tried the same in Grok, the X version (formerly Twitter) and got similar results):

    Matthew 5:3 in Greek reads:

    μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι

    (makárioi hoi ptōchoì tō pneúmati)

    A fairly literal word-for-word gloss is:

    • μακάριοι (makarioi) – blessed, happy, fortunate

    • οἱ πτωχοί (hoi ptōchoi) – the poor, the destitute

    • τῷ πνεύματι (tō pneumati) – in spirit

    So, literally:

    “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

    That’s why most translations render it that way.

    ⸻

    2. What does “poor in spirit” mean?

    In first-century Jewish thought, “poor” (πτωχός) was not just economic. It often meant:

    • humble

    • aware of one’s dependence on God

    • lacking spiritual self-sufficiency

    Examples:

    • Psalm 34:18 – “the brokenhearted”

    • Isaiah 66:2 – “the humble and contrite in spirit”

    So “poor in spirit” does not mean spiritually weak or deficient, but rather:

    those who recognize their need for God

    ⸻

    3. Why the NWT translates it differently

    The New World Translation (NWT) says:

    “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”

    This is not a literal translation, but an interpretive (dynamic) translation. The translators chose to:

    1. Explain the meaning rather than preserve the idiom

    2. Avoid a phrase (“poor in spirit”) that modern readers might misunderstand as:

    • spiritually inadequate

    • lacking faith

    • morally weak

    In effect, the NWT translates the interpretation:

    “poor in spirit” = aware of one’s spiritual need

    Neither rendering is grammatically wrong, but they serve different purposes:

    • “Poor in spirit” preserves Jesus’ original phrasing and biblical imagery

    • “Conscious of their spiritual need” spells out what the phrase means

    ⸻

    5. Is anything “added” in the NWT?

    The phrase “conscious of” is not explicitly in the Greek, so critics rightly say the NWT is interpretive here.

    However, the concept is strongly supported by:

    • Jewish background

    • Old Testament usage

    • The context of humility and dependence in the Beatitudes

    So the issue is not accuracy vs. inaccuracy, but:

    literal translation vs. explanatory paraphrase

    ⸻

    6. Bottom line

    • Greek text: “Blessed are the poor in spirit”

    • Meaning: Those who humbly recognize their dependence on God

    • NWT choice: Translate the meaning instead of the idiom

    If you want:

    • Closer to Jesus’ words → “poor in spirit”

    • Closer to Jesus’ meaning (as interpreted) → “conscious of their spiritual need”

    [end of AI. Back to me]:

    It may be a bad precedent to cite AI. I’ve seen threads where everyone starts doing it, and they get so long nobody can plow through them. But explaining the difference in translation for any given verse seems to me a fine use of it. One can read human comments over the differences of rendering this or that verse and get the sense the one commenting knows little about translating. If you’re not interested in the verse, just skip over all the AI part. In fact, if you’re not interested in the verse, just skip over the entire post. AI just adds detail if you want it to.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Come Now and Let Us Reason Together

    “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD.” It was M.D. Craven’s favorite Bible quote. Or at least, he sure did use it a lot. I can hear him now. “Come now, and let us reason together,” he would say. It was sort of his mission statement as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

    It is not particularly a good rendering of Isaiah 1:18, but it’s how the King James Version of the Bible translates the verse. By the time I’d met Merrill, the New World Translation had been out for only a dozen years. Witnesses had previously used the King James Version in their personal study, meetings, and ministry. Merrill had stuck with what he knew. 

    The NWT much better conveys the thought, with it’s: “‘Come, now, and let us set matters straight between us,’ says Jehovah.” (‘LORD’ in all caps is always a fill-in for the divine name “Jehovah”—sometimes rendered “Yahweh” or something similar. It is the consonants that matter. The vowels are anyone’s guess.) “Set matters straight” is plainly what has to be done. The rest of Isaiah chapter 1 (and the preceding) makes that clear. It will not be just a matter of “reasoning.” Changes will have to be made. 

    “Though your sins are like scarlet, They will be made as white as snow; Though they are as red as crimson cloth, They will become like wool,” says the rest of verse 18, in any translation. For that to happen, Israelites must not just “reason.” They must “return to me [Jehovah] with all your hearts, With fasting and weeping and wailing.  Rip apart your hearts, and not your garments,” as Joel 2:12-13 puts it. It’s not an intellectual effort called for. It’s an effort of the heart. But if they made that effort, the rift between them would heal: Though their sins were like scarlet, they would be made white as snow.

    “Let us reason together” still prevails among Bible translations. Such is the influence of the KJV. I counted 24 translations at BibleGateway that do it that way. But more recent translations (the KJV is 400 years old!) are given to variants as “settling” (7), “discussing,” (5) or “talking things over.” (8) A few invite those Israelites to “argue” (5) and you get the impression that this is not an argument God is going to lose. Still, it is humble for him to phrase it that way, consistent with offering to “settle,” “talk things over,” or “discuss.” “Let us have it out,” says Byington, as though inviting those renegades to a barroom brawl. And NET ominously invites them to “consider your options.”

    It’s like how I would “consider my options” when Merrill himself would ask to borrow my car because his was in the shop. In normal circumstances, the answer would be “No way!” for he was a horrible driver. He had once been a good driver, presumably. In his working days, he’d driven the Bangor to Boston route for Greyhound Bus and, when asked what the M.D. stood for, he would reply, “Master Driver,” a title he would explain was “self-assumed.” But that was long ago. Unbeknownst to him, but painfully obvious to everyone else, his skills had slipped. “Forget about it!” is what I wanted to tell him.

    But he had been so good to me, taking me under his wing at a crucial time, that had he said: “Tom, I’d like to borrow your car and wrap it around a tree,” I would have still felt compelled to lend it to him. I “considered my options,” and then handed him the keys. Despite my misgivings, it always came back to me in one piece. 

    not like this

    ******  The bookstore

    Some kickback from those who preferred “reason” for Isaiah 1:18 sent me cracking the books, but not before offering a glib: 

    “Excuse me, sir, I’m taking a poll,” said a guy in sweats. I agreed, of course, and made ready to spout off opinions. “I’ll take that one,” he continued, and made off with the 10-foot pole behind me for his upcoming pole vault.

    Context is everything. Many words have multiple meanings & shades of meanings, even words spelled identically. Context indicates “set matters straight” works better.

    But then: One commentary (Grok) lists the key verb as “nivvakhah.” It has a judicial flavor. Primary meanings: to decide, judge, prove, rebuke, reprove, convince, arbitrate. In the times of King James, “reason” often carried that meaning, but today it just suggests an intellectual discussion. The upshot of the entire verse is that they will lose their case for sure, but God is offering terms to wipe that slate clean.

  • Gifts in Men or Gift to Men: Ephesians 4:8

    Q: Why does the New World Translation say at Ephesians 4:8 “gifts in men,” whereas most translations say, “gifts to men?”

    Hmm. Do they? I checked some resources and they do—by a long shot. This becomes relevant because Ephesians 4:8 was the theme scripture for a recent Watchtower Study: “Show Appreciation for “Gifts in Men”—from the October 2024 issue.

    I thought at first that the NWT was up to its old tricks, choosing a unique rendering of the preposition, which they would have to justify. I didn’t doubt they would be able to, but I thought they would have to do it. 

    At second glance, it appeared that NWT is the only translation that had it correct! I asked ChatGBT, “At Ephesians 4:8, why do some translations say gifts IN men?” The answer was long and technical. You don’t want Brother Chat in your Kingdom Hall because his windy answers will surely not abide by any 30-second goal. The phrase I zeroed in on was: “The Greek word Paul uses, "ἐν" (en), is typically translated as "in" but can also mean "among" or "through," depending on the context. This flexibility creates the variation in translation.”

    Ha! The word they render as “in” is “typically translated” that way, only in this case, everyone else declines to do it! Corroborating this is Appendix 7C at the back of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. It is a diagram illustrating basic meanings of Greek prepositions. The word at Ephesians 4:8 is “en.” It means, first of all, “in.” (At the JW website, enter “prepositions” in the Search box.)

    The “gifts in men” allows one to view the men themselves as gifts. The gifts to men (or unto) better furthers the view that holy spirit is the gift, but also allows for the view that the recipients do little with it beyond basking in their own smug ‘righteousness.’ None of that on the Witnesses’ watch. Witnesses are into applying scripture, not just thinking themselves holy by virtue of it.

    The difference is subtle because the “gifts to men” results in the same product as the “gifts in men.” That is, it results in men who use their given talents for the benefit of the entire “body of Christ,” with the end result that “we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (vs 13-14)

    At any rate, the friends at our Watchtower Study that Sunday had nothing but praise for the gifts in men they have experienced. None of the grumbling you may hear online from ones who have run afoul of discipline or who prefer kicking against the goads. Just unsolicited  accolade after accolade, many of which also threatened the 30-second target or even trounced it entirely. It was not of just servants, not just elders, not just circuit overseers, though all of these drew praise.

    Someone extended the point to showing appreciation to anyone, be it servant, elder, CO, brother, sister, or anyone met in the ministry or workplace. Dishing out genuine praise benefits the giver more than the recipient. It trains one’s way of thinking, not to take people for granted, and look to their best side. Someone else said the CO’s day off is frequently anything but that, since everyone knows what it is and they slam him with phone calls that day. 

    We have in our congregation an LDC brother (Local Design Committee) who said it takes about 500 brothers or sisters to build a Kingdom Hall, plus other hundreds in support roles. The ones in overseer roles, though they have a project to complete and must keep on reasonable schedule, primarily view themselves and are trained as shepherds. They have a way of breaking down any task into manageable steps and parcelling them out to volunteers according to their ability.

    He summed up the review questions with the observation that the young men and women have power—it is what defines them. And, if they turn it towards career, they can do nicely for themselves—certainly not nothing. But, when they turn their gifts to the of building up the body of Christ, they end up writing a “bestseller.” He may have been thinking of the book of remembrance that Malachi 3:17 speaks of, about those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.

     

    Notwithstanding how that Watchtower Study made use of the  New World Translation’s “gifts in men,” that is not to say that “gifts to men” is wrong. In fact, since AI is no more than a compilation of human scholarship, it may not be surprising that it sides with the majority “gifts to men.” Greek prepositions are tricky. There is not a strict one-on-one correspondence to the prepositions of other languages (which also may be tricky). Other factors can influence how they are rendered. Complicating matters further is the fact that Ephesians 4:8 itself is an application of Psalm 68:18: “You ascended on high; You carried away captives; You took gifts in the form of men.”

    Says wordy Brother Chat: “The phrase “gifts in men” could arise from an attempt to closely mirror the original Psalm's emphasis on "receiving gifts among men." Some older translations or more literal renderings may choose this phrasing to preserve the link to the Psalm's wording.” 

    If there is one thing we know about the NWT, it is that if favors “literal renderings.” Its translators shy away from more interpretive renderings, lest they too get hoodwinked by the “every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men” of vs 14!

    “On the other hand,” says Chat, "gifts to men" reflects Paul's interpretation and application of the [Psalm 68:18] verse in Ephesians, where the focus is on the giving of spiritual gifts. Most modern translations adopt this phrasing to align with Paul’s theological point.”

    Then it summarizes:

    • "Gifts in men": This might suggest that God bestows gifts within people, placing spiritual gifts in individuals to be exercised.
    • "Gifts to men": This emphasizes the act of giving, highlighting that Christ distributes spiritual gifts to individuals for the benefit of the church.

    Point is, the NWT goes for literalism, which is what they generally do in translating. The others are more modified by context. At first glance, I prefer the majority “to men” interpretation. But since both effectively return the same result, qualified men who turn their gifts toward the betterment of the body of Christ, the more literal one also works.

    Just to make sure Chat wasn’t pulling a fast one on me, I arm-twisted it: 

    Q: How is that Greek preposition in Ephesians 4:8 usually translated in other settings?

    A: (long and windy, as usual) . . . then: “The preposition in question in Ephesians 4:8 is "ἐν" (Greek: en). This preposition is highly versatile in Greek and is most commonly translated as "in" or "within", depending on the context.”

    Then some hi-falutin stuff about how, “its meaning can shift based on its grammatical and contextual usage. . . . When analyzing translations, the choice of "in men" versus "to men" hinges on interpretive considerations rather than rigid adherence to the preposition's usual usage. Most translators view the theological emphasis of Paul's argument—Christ giving gifts—as justifying the rendering "to men" over a more literal "in men" or "among men." This also aligns with the broader narrative of Ephesians 4 about equipping the saints.“

    So, either is correct. Not allowed is looking down one’s nose at the other for using the “wrong” translation. There are a few instances where translations are wrong, but this is not one of them.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • 1 Thessalonians 5: Verses Amassed on Jehovah’s Day

    If you’ve been around for awhile, as I have, you’re on the lookout for something,to make you prick up your ears. Most things don’t. Most things are reminders, reinforcements, applications, etc, of what you already know. So here featured in the WatchtowerStudy is a chapter in 1 Thessalonians in which verse after verse, each one a solid base hit, adds up to a grand slam of illustrations about Jehovah’s day. Had I ever looked at the passage that way?

    “Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.  For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape.  But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves, for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness. So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses.

    “For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and put on the breastplate of faith and love and the hope of salvation as a helmet  because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us, so that whether we stay awake or are asleep, we should live together with him.  Therefore, keep encouraging one another and building one another up, just as you are in fact doing.” (1 Thessalonians 1-11)

    The study was a verse-by-verse commentary. I love those things. The Day comes so quickly as to perhaps surprise even those expecting it, like birth pains, like a thief in the night, not to be slept through, nor drunk into oblivion in an effort to ignore. “When we want to sleep, we turn out the lights—intentionally,” said one brother, as he likened that course to what some do today in the face of plunging world conditions.

    The congregation of Thessalonica was founded amidst great persecution, another pointed out. The temptation in similar areas of persection, such as current Russia, is to imagine maybe that Day to come any second now. The temptation in more laid back areas is that it is yet a long ways off. Either view can mess one up.

    I kind of liked this side reference from Ephesians on keeping our act together: “For you were once darkness, but you are now light in connection with the Lord. Go on walking as children of light, for the fruitage of the light consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth. Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; and stop sharing in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness; rather, expose them for what they are. For the things they do in secret are shameful even to mention. (Ephesians 4:8-12)

    Who knows what devious schemes or deeds or plots are referred to—things shameful even to mention? Good to be far away from where those things are launched.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Seed-Pickers Exposed

    So here I am just minding my own business, calling myself a seed-picker’ same as Paul’s derisive Greek critics said of him—he picks up a seed here and poops it out there, thus giving only the facade of wisdom, not the real thing—when along comes that know-it-all brother to say I am using the word wrong!

    “Aristophanes once wrote an award-winning play called ‘The Birds,’ he says. The play mentions birds as ‘seed-pickers’ more than once, and uses this same word ‘spermologos’ [seed-picker-sayer].

    “Aristophanes' play also mentions defecation and such private matters, but . . . and this is a big but . . . it doesn't ever tie the idea of seed-picking to ‘pooping.’ I have never seen a place where the word "spermologos" was tied to anything scatalogical.”

    Brother Know-it-All even adds the useful tidbit that Luke, the Bible writer who recorded Paul’s trip to the Athens marketplace where they called him seed-picker, manages to return the insult: “In fact, all Athenians and the foreigners staying there would spend their leisure time doing nothing else but telling or listening to something new.” (Acts 17:21)

    In other words, they don’t really do anything. Updated to the modern age, it would be, “They just fart away all their time scrolling on the internet,” same as my wife says of me.

    8B77960A-A2F5-4273-B474-740DDA8753A3I have to admit, I just made it up—the pooping part. But I’m sticking to it. (not literally) I mean, what becomes of that seed after it is ingested? It’s not as though the bird is simply OCD reorganizing like a neurotic file clerk. I can’t think of any better way for the big boys to deride a Jewish philosopher than to say he picks up a tidbit here and poops it out there.

    I’ll take on the whole ancient Greek world if I have to. They’re wrong. I’m right. Though I suppose I ought to explain I’m changing space and time. Thanks for the clarification, (smart-ass!)

    Moreover, I’ll stick with seed-picker. No surprise here that I distrust intellectualism. It’s not how Jesus taught. It’s okay as a spice, even as a semi-staple. “Bring your gift to the altar” if that is your gift. But when people carry on as though it is the be-all and end-all I smell a rat. I think of those reveling in heady matters “which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.” (1 Timothy 1:4) As though the truth within us all resides in the brain and not the heart.

    And just who is “that know-it-all brother?” Since I am a Witness doing the Witness thing, I don’t do names (or I provide my own). Aristophanes will be “one worldly author,” same as Elon Musk will be “one wealthy businessman.”

    There are three ways to spin HQ’s avoidance of names:

    The pious way: ‘Give all glory to God; men are but dust on the scales.’

    The derisive Greek philosopher way: ‘Yeah, it’s because they have no idea who these people are.’

    The third way I think I have invented myself; if it copies anyone, I’m not aware of it: ‘It is the play we are watching, not the actors in the play. You don’t have to know the names of the actors to follow the play; it can even be a distraction if you do. Besides, as soon as you name a villain, you create the impression that removing that villain remedies things. Instead, another actor who has all the lines down pat instantly steps on stage and the play continues with barely a hiccup.’ 

    Nobody gains dignity in any of my writings, including myself. Always they lose a little, in keeping with us all being but dust on the scales who do well not to take ourselves too seriously. It’s a little dicey to know how much to ‘credit’ people. The introduction to Tom Irregardless begins standard boilerplate and then expands a little: 

    “All persons with names like ‘Irregardless’ are real though generally composite. You can meet them in my circuit or even yours. Events related are faithfully depicted except for a few that I’ve made up. Persons with names recognizable from history or current events—you’re nuts!—it’s not those people at all!”

    ***  The bookstore

  • All You Need to Know About Naboth—For Bible Students Who Aren’t Fussy

    Distraught over violence in the Bible? Don’t be. It is history, not a grade school primer on being nice. Being nice is in there—it is even a main theme, but that doesn’t mean the book is not history documenting plenty of times when people were not nice.

    Focus on cheery parts of the reading, such as this recent week’s account of Jezebel trying to make it hot for Naboth, a course of action that necessitates her finding some “good for nothing men.”  (1 Kings 21:10)

    Close your eyes and trying to visualize the scene. Picture Jezebel taking out an ad in the classifieds: ”Help wanted: good for nothing men.” 

    “Um—that would be me,” qualified applicants would reply.

    WHAT!? Here I am assigned a #4 talk—one of those five-minute jobs. I spy it in the lineup from 2 months out and have it all written in my head. Then it’s pulled on account of the circuit assembly! After all that work! Well, they’re not going to get away with it! I’ll put it here.

    It’s a quirky talk—I looked forward to working it—that ostensibly uses that account of Naboth framed by those slimeballs Ahab and Jezebel so they could steal his land and build an addition to their home—not an addition really, but an extension of their vineyard. But the theme of the talk has nothing to do with Naboth—he’s just there as a prop! The theme of the talk has to do with how we used to say ‘this is an antitype of that’ and we no longer do. Now we just say, ‘this reminds me of that.”

    Antitypes were all the rage at one time. They were widely used, not just by Witnesses, but by many who studied the Bible with a view toward application. But—let’s face it—it’s a little presumptuous. How do you know that one thing is an antitype of another unless the scriptures explicitly say so? It’s just interpretation. On the other hand, you can always say ‘this reminds me of that.’ What! Is someone going to come along later and say it didn’t?

    So my ‘this reminds me of that’ talk was going to consist of two stories, one just a few decades ago and one ancient. Naboth wouldn’t sell his land to the king because you weren’t supposed to—not permanently. At the king’s purchase offer, “Naboth said to Ahab: “It is unthinkable, from Jehovah’s standpoint, for me to give you the inheritance of my forefathers.” (1 Kings 21:3) So Jezebel and Ahab conspired to slander him and have him killed—apparently as a one-time antitypical forerunner (though we don’t do antitypes anymore) of Jesus, who was also slandered and killed for obedience to God!

    Now—is there any modern-day example of someone who also wouldn’t sell his land? There is! Kodak wanted to buy up all the surrounding city blocks for parking, but here and there were stalwarts who wouldn’t sell. You’d drive through the area, all blacktopped, except for a few old houses with parking lot on the left, right, behind, and in front, the public street and then more parking!

    “These people are so stubborn!” Sam (a Kodak employee) grumbled to the car group—and I was among them. “Kodak needs that property and offered good money, but these people are too stubborn to sell.” Then, upon further reflection, he added, “I’m stubborn. But these people are MORE stubborn!”

    Now, you know how brothers love to razz each other. “No! YOU, Sam, stubborn??! No! Don’t be so hard on yourself! Not you! Stubborn? Never!”

    Sam was the one of the most stubborn people ever to walk the planet. He loved everyone and everyone loved him—but he was stubborn, and when his son showed up to give the public talk—gasp! he looked just like his dad, though he never had growing up.

    Now, what if I advanced the notion that Naboth was an antitype of Sam? You would apply to me that scripture some wise guy floated as the next possible year text: “‘Is everything all right? Why did this crazy man come to you?’ [Jehu] answered them: ‘You know that sort of man and his sort of talk.’”

    But if I said Naboth’s experience reminded me of Sam? It obviously did or it wouldn’t be in the talk. That’s the difference between antitypes and ‘reminds me of’s. You get almost as much bang for the buck, with no downside in case your ‘antitype’ fizzles.

    509398A6-47BC-447B-9427-2749FDD982B7Kodak is a mere shell of its former self. Kodak—the company that invented digital photography and then put it on the shelf as a curiosity that probably no one would ever care about—so busy were they raking in the dough from developing film. Kodak, the company that took to exploding its buildings rather than paying tax on them. Kodak—where there is no parking problem whatsoever today. The stubborn people were right not to sell! Where are they today?

    Dead, no doubt. It’s probably the reason they wouldn’t sell—they were getting up there in years, had raised kids, made memories, lost drive to get up and go, and weren’t sure where they would go anyway. Ahab wants to buy their land to park his chariots? Tell him to forget it. He’ll be history soon enough.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • The Earthiness of the Bible—Is Baal Really Taking a Dump?

    In the process of writing up a summary of last week’s Watchtower, what grabs my attention is the line Elijah freely gives to all future comedians—that Baal is a no-show because he is taking a dump. Starting with that verse:

    “And it came about at noon that E·liʹjah began to mock them and say: “Call at the top of YOUR voice, for he is a god; for he must be concerned with a matter, and he has excrement and has to go to the privy.” (1 Kings 18:27)

    Most translations, as though run by board-certified prudes, do all they can to obscure the unsavory phrase. Says the King James Version: “And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

    The New International Version: “At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

    ‘Busy’ doing what? A few translators, thinking themselves very risqué, no doubt, nudge toward greater explicitness: “Occupied” (BSV) “Attending to business,” (NASB)

    Okay, but again, what kind of business?

    “Relieving himself,” says ESV

    The Contemporary English Version, shoving aside all decorum, says he is “using the toilet.” One almost expects to hear flushing in the next verse, as though Archie Bunker is upstairs.

    “On the potty,” says CLB

    Only the New World Translation says what he is doing  there.

    If you want to hear the unvarnished word of God, who does not shy from earthiness, you read the New World Translation. But if you are even more pure than God, you go to some translation where they go weak at the knees if the text seems to indicate a naughty word. (‘They sh*t their pants,’ as a bold workman of the language would put it, but not as they themselves would.)

    (See: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/20670/was-baal-relieving-himself )

    The Bible is earthy. God is not squeamish

    Don’t get me going on ‘piles.’ One local brother waxed ecstatic in how Jehovah so humiliated Dagon and his worshippers—by requiring them to fashion hemorrhoids from gold in order for the plague to go away. Can you imagine them looking into each other’s rear ends to satisfy themselves on what they looked like in order to make an accurate copy?

    Even today, most cultures have no squeamishness on earthy things:

    Speaking with a certain missionary and the subject of vomiting and pooping comes up—not as a subject in itself, but in connection with food poisoning, a not infrequent occurrence in her assigned land. “It says something about a culture in which there is a single word for ‘coming out both ends,’” she says.

    Somehow—don’t ask me how—modern lands of germ-free progress manage to eliminate the earthiness but keep the filth. See “The Normalization of the F-Bomb.” It reminds me of that verse about people whose throats are like an open grave. Do you have any idea what an open grave smells like a after a week or two?

     

    Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal wasn’t the main thrust of the WatchtowerStudy: ‘Jehovah Watches Over His People.’ (Theme verse: “The eye of Jehovah watches over those fearing him.”​—PS. 33:18)—in fact it wasn’t even mentioned. I just got sidetracked.

    Someone said during the study itself how if you do everything right, and your doing everything right has been verified by God (consuming the burnt offering whereas Baal could not consume his), you do not expect to be banished and have to run for your life. You expect to be hoisted and carried around on people’s shoulders, have newspaper headlines herald your victory, receive a phone call from the president. You don’t expect the queen to make death threats.

    No wonder it messed with Elijah’s head. 

    So when the article said, “Why, then, did Elijah feel so alone?… The account does not fully explain Elijah’s feelings.” (Para 4) Well, I guess not, but you can make a pretty good stab at it—see above paragraph.

    “But what we do know for sure is that Jehovah understood why Elijah felt alone and that He knew exactly how to help him.” (also from paragraph 4) 

    He runs away. God finally catches up with him, hears him out. 

    To this he said: “I have been absolutely zealous for Jehovah the God of armies; for the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, your altars they have torn down, and your prophets they have killed with the sword, and I am the only one left. Now they are seeking to take my life away.”

    Reinforcing the study article was a video during the midweek meeting of Geo Jackson dealing with the same account, bailing out Elijah in three ways

    One: the problem will be solved.

    Two: help given in the form of Elisha.

    Three: No, you’re not the only one, there’s at least 7K others,

    *** Miscellaneous thoughts during the week:

    The gruff German grandma down the road loaded me up with enough pears from her tree to last weeks. I was just walking by with headphones on, the way I do, and greeted her as she was crossing the street. Turned out she had just returned from giving a load to people there, also.

    My greeting was enough. She pulled me into her yard and made me take some of her pears. However many I took, it was not enough, and I left with a bag as heavy as I could carry. So I brought them to the congregation get-together where several young children who had never eaten pears before dove into them, found them delicious, and probably had the runs for a week.

    My wife has called on this women before in the course of her ministry. ‘I don’t think she’s interested,’ she says. ‘She’s gruff, but underneath decent.’ So I told her my wife’s verdict, which I agree with. I’ve been back since for more pears and even some apples.

     

    Huh! I just visited someone who has his Bible collection immediately adjacent to some comic strip collections just so he can explain (‘my wife is so tired of hearing this,’ he says) ‘If it’s not in the Bible, it’s a joke.’

     

    The speaker referred to ‘every time you feed your faith’ and do you know what I heard, living in a land of overweight people?

     

    “Now the servants of the king of Syria said to him: “Their God is a God of mountains. That is why they overpowered us. But if we fight against them on level land . . . .” (1 Kings 20:23)

    So they tried them again on the flatlands and they found Jehovah does pretty good there too.

     

    And let us not forget Jezebel trying to make it hot for Naboth, a course of action that necessitates her finding some “good for nothing men.”

    Close your eyes and trying to visualize the scene. Picture Jezebel taking out an ad in the classifieds: ”Help wanted: good for nothing men.” 

    “Um—that would be me,” qualified applicants would reply.

    (Yes, the classic. The child says to his mom. Mom if I am good and do a chore for you, will you give me something. She says to her child. " Why can't you be good for nothing like your dad?)

     

    Been spending time with some relatives who refer to GPS as “the woman in the box.” Upon getting lost, it is “You should have listened to the woman in the box.”

     

    ******  The bookstore

     

     

     

     

  • An Obedient Heart or an Understanding Heart—Which Is It?

    “So grant your servant an obedient heart to judge your people,” Solomon asked in a dream, “to discern between good and bad, for who is able to judge this numerous people of yours?” (1 Kings 3:9)

    Imagine such a request—for an ‘obedient heart.’ From a king!—who normally isn’t concerned with obedience to anything or anyone.

    Furthermore, God equates this request for an obedient heart to ‘understanding:’

    “It was pleasing to Jehovah that Solomon had requested this. God then said to him: “Because you requested this and you did not request for yourself long life or riches or the death of your enemies, but you requested understanding to hear judicial cases, I will do what you asked. I will give you a wise and understanding heart, so that just as there has never been anyone like you before, there will never be anyone like you again. Furthermore, what you have not requested I will give you, both riches and glory, so that there will be no other king like you in your lifetime.” (vs 10-13)

    I was just getting ready to comment on this at the midweek meeting when I thought I’d check how other translations put it. We have a handful of them on our own app, some mainstays like King James and American Standard Versions, some eclectic ones like Rotherham and Byington, and a few permutations of our own New World Translation. But for sheer scope, I like Biblegateway.com. Enter your scripture, append “in all English translations” to the result, and you have a list of 54 translations to choose from. It is not “all English translations,” as they say. It is all they have. Rotherham and Byington aren’t there, nor is New World Translation. But it still is a lot. Let’s check how many render 1 Kings 3:9 as “obedient.”

    Whoa! None of them do! Well—just one, the Holman Christian Standard Bible. 53 of the 54 translations have something different!

    By far, the most frequent rendering is an ‘understanding heart’ that Solomon requested, as opposed to an ‘obedient heart.’ 31 of the 54 versions say ‘understanding,’ with two more saying, ‘a heart that understands’—almost the same thing. The next most common is ‘discerning.’ Some versions change the ‘heart’ to ‘mind,’ as though what Solomon wants is to be the smartest kid in class.

    So the New World has an ‘obedient’ rendering that only one other translation has! Did they just write it in? You know how our people like to lay it on with obedience. I was just entertaining the notion that the Witnesses got it wrong when I noticed a handful of versions that suggested they were on to something after all—maybe something others had missed.

    The New American Bible—Revised Edition, the one I employed as house Bible in I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses: Searching for the Why (because the New World Translation is there declared ‘extremist’) says ‘listening heart.’ The Names of God Bible says ‘heart that listens.’ Oh yeah? Listens to what? Or should it be who?

    Indicating it is the ‘who’ to be listened to, the Wycliffe Version reads: “Therefore thou shalt give to thy servant an heart able to be taught, that is, enlightened of thee . . . And the Message Translation, which is sometimes so paraphrased as to veer into ludicrousness, here is spot-on. Solomon requests a ‘god-listening heart,’ it says.

    So now I’m thinking that the brothers aren’t so daft after all, that they’re on to something that most miss and nobody but one says explicitly. Hmm. How to research this? Look up ‘obedience’ in the Insight book. There I find that the Hebrew word is ‘shama.’ Is 1 Kings 3:9 one of the places shama is used? The article doesn’t say.

    Look up ‘understanding’ in that same encyclopediac work. Nothing.

    Okay. Nothing remains than to hop on the great internet with the search terms, ‘1 Kings 9:3,’ ‘shama,’ and ‘obedient.’ This is a little risky because Witness apostates have peppered the internet with a gazillian tirades about how their former religion stinks to high heaven. But in this case, ‘obedient’ is the furthest thing from their minds, and nobody has bothered to weigh in on this particular verse. Instead an article by Daniel Hoffman is pulled up.

    “When Solomon prayed for wisdom,” he says, “surprisingly, he did not use the word “wisdom.” What he prayed for, according to the ESV, [Easy-to-Read Version] was “an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil”

    There is a Hebrew word for ‘wisdom.’ Solomon doesn’t use it! What word does he use? ‘Shama,’ the one that Insight on the Scriptures identifies as the root word of ‘obedience!’  Quickly the New World Translation has risen from ‘dog of the pack’ to ‘top dog!’

    It is not that ‘understanding’ is wrong as a rendering. It’s fine as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go very far. If it does not convey the idea that ‘understanding’ comes from listening to God rather that simply being innately smart it does its readers a great disservice. Here’s how Hoffman puts it:

    “So the ESV translation is not wrong. But I think maintaining the literal translation is better in this case. The more concrete “hear” reminds us that wisdom, discernment, or understanding, biblically conceived, is a matter first of all of hearing the word of the Lord. Wisdom in its biblical conception is not an abstract trait that some people just naturally have, but is a result of hearing the word of the Lord and digesting and embracing it.” (He says “hear” because shama has the connotation of hearing someone, in this case God.)

    Is it really necessary to go so far as the New World Translation goes (and the Holman Christian Standard Bible) and say ‘obedient.’ No, I don’t think it is. But it just may be the best choice of renderings. After all, what is the point of ‘hearing’ God if you blow off what he says as nothing? Disobedience is afoot today. It is like what was said to Ezekiel: “Look! You are to them like a romantic love song, sung with a beautiful voice and skillfully played on a stringed instrument. They will hear your words, but no one will act on them.” (Ezekiel 33:32)

    Ha! The words are a “romantic love song.” They are inspirational—the stuff of stirring song, moving poetry, rousing prose, but as to obeying them? No. And so Dee mentioned to me the other day how she had commented on someone’s ornate religious edifice he was carrying on about, that yes, people have built many beautiful things for God, “but I almost think it’s better when they find out what he wants and obey him instead.” That got her the fisheye from her recipient but I thought she hit the nail on the head. It’s not unlike what Samuel told Saul: “Look, to obey is better than sacrifice.”

    That being the case, that obedience is important to God and we live in a time of marked disobedience, and we strive to avoid “the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience,” (Eph 2:2) you can make a case that ‘obedient heart’ is the best rendering of all.

    This is not the first time I’ve spotted the New World Translation with a rendering that at first seems suspect but turns out to be superior. Ronald Sider, in his book ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience’ grumbles that Galatians 5:13 literally reads, “be slaves to each other,” yet most popular translations dilute the verse to a more independence-savoring “serve one another in love”—a rendering promoting disobedience that he says contributes to the deplorable state of his own people, whose overall moral conduct is identical to that of the greater world whereas it is supposed to be a notch above. The New World Translation, however, holds to the original Greek, with “through love slave for one another.”

    I noted it here as well with Psalm 22:16, where the New World Translation stuck to the literal Hebrew whereas almost everyone else succumbed to an at least arguably fraudulent reading.

    If the New World ranks with the best translations in these three instances, why is it sometimes said that it is the worst? In almost all cases it is because it does not render certain verses in the formalistic, even if less rigorous, way that they must be rendered to support the trinity doctrine—and adherents to the trinity take offense. There is such a thing as letting beliefs dictate scholarship, whereas it ought to be the other way around.….

    028A3395-E560-4286-B720-827CABF8E208 

    Painting: ‘The Wisdom of Solomon”—James Tissot

    (1 Kings 3:9, which this post expounds on, was included in the recently assigned week’s Bible reading. Therefore this post will fill in for that week’s meeting notes.)

     

    ******  The bookstore

     

     

     

  • At the New System Dinner Table

    “Well, here we are at the New System dinner table. We’ve regaled each other with stories of how we all learned to get along and not take offense at each other’s stupid foibles before the world went more nuts than usual and how it all came in handy later on. And now—knock me over with a feather!—here with us is one of the faithful ones of old. Bob, we know you were a guard but you can uncuff him. He’s okay. (Sorry, he’s still learning to be trusting.) We all have so many questions to ask.”

    Mephibosheth: Yes I can see you all have many questions. And I’m ready to answer them. Fire away. Do you want more details on how I said about that liar Ziba who tried to flimflam me, ‘Let him take it all!’ because I was so overjoyed that King David (who foreshadows Jesus) had been restored to his throne? Pretty slick move, huh? Want to know more about that?

    Tablemates: Not just yet.

    Mephibosheth: Well, what then?

    Tablemates: What we want it know is, what in the world were your parents thinking when they gave you the absurdly unpronouncible name Meshibofeth? And why didn’t you change it when you came of age? Did you notice how even Brother Malenfont flubbed your name at the Regional? Brother Malenfont! who doesn’t flub anything! He flubbed your name! Seriously, how did you get named that?

    Mephibosheth: Well, I’ll tell you. It was just one of those things. Does that answer your question, Tom?

    Tom: Perfectly.

    Mephibosheth: Good. And now I have a question for you.

    Tom: Um—little ol me?—Sure, you can ask but I don’t see what . . .

    Mephibosheth: Did you really bust out laughing when you gave that Bible reading with my name four times in as many lines so that Charlie quipped he thought the earth was going to open and swallow the whole congregation because he had never heard someone guffaw during a Bible reading?

    Tom: Uh—well—I didn’t really guffaw. I just chuckled a little. I mean, I’d worked so hard on getting your name straight—it was there seven times in the talk, and I did get it straight at first but then in that final passage I messed it up, and—uh—it was sort of involuntary. I didn’t mean it. Sorry.

    Mephibosheth: That’s okay brother Tom. Here’s a verse for you that was in today’s WatchtowerStudy. It’s from Luke 12: 47-48:

    “Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes.But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few.”

    We know you’re a clueless dope and you don’t mess up on purpose. Of course you are the one who doesn’t ‘understand’ because you don’t understand anything. So we’ll just beat you with few.

    Tom: Thank you, Brother Mephiberrpeth

    Mephibosheth: You can call me Phib.

    6790BB26-106E-4177-8519-73EB5C071013

    To be continued: here

    ******  The bookstore

  • Flubbing Mephibosheth

    Just look at this monstrosity I’m assigned to read!

    “So Mephibosheth ate at David’s table like one of the sons of the king.  Now Mephibosheth also had a young son named Miʹca; and all those who lived in Ziʹba’s house became servants of Mephibosheth. And Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem, for he always ate at the table of the king; and he was crippled in both feet.”

    I mean, can they say it any more? FOUR times that unpronounceable name! What was wrong with Jonathan his dad? Why couldn’t he have named the kid Jon Jr? Throw in the middle name Albatross while you’re at it! And he was crippled in both feet? I’ll be crippled in my mouth after this talk!

    Yes yes, I admire the optimism, I said to someone who assured me I could do it, but tell me true: did you name any of your kids Mephibosheth?

    Maybe you can go with Mephie, another said.

    Good idea. Just like Andy Taylor used to call his nephew Opie when the kid’s real name was Opilakimommaoctolibiario.

    Look at it as an opportunity to pronounce it differently seven times, Stephen said.

     

    Mission accomplished (sort of). Seven times the unpronounceable name read, including a veritable minefield of 4 at the very end.  He sells seashells by the seashore. “And if I ever have a son, I think I’m gonna name him . . . Bill or George, anything but Mephibosheth.”

     

    I flubbed it!  just before the minefield and then laughed at myself for flubbing it. It’s just a tongue twister of a name to say fast and repeatedly. “I’ve never actually seen a brother chuckle at such times,” said one bro as he braced himself to see if anyone would be smited like Urijah grabbing the ark.

    “I think the angels chuckled with you and were proud of your effort as well as all the others who gave this assignment around the world 🌎.   Even when you think you are losing, you’re winning in our eyes, especially Jehovah’s eyes,” said one sympathizer. I admit I had not thought of myself that way, as sort of a Geico lizard mascot to everyone else assigned that reading.

    Said Murray: ‘You are not alone my brother. I did not have any dealings with that part this week. I was householder on the study portion, but two of the brothers who had to use the name had serious muble with their trouths & got their murds wixed up. He will need a name change upon his ressurection I reckon.’

    “Is there anyone remaining of Saul’s house to whom I can extend loyal love, perhaps by giving them a name change in case it is Mephibosheth?” David probably said in a beta version of the Bible that has vanished. 

    Yikes! No sooner do I flub the Meshibosheth minefield (2 Samuel 9) then I see this week’s Watchtower study title: “Are You “an Example . . . in Speaking”?  Theme scripture: Become an example to the faithful ones in speaking.”​—1 TIM. 4:12.

    Way to rub it in.