I usually use my Reference edition, which is about three years old. I noticed about two years ago that they changed the standard-size NWT by using a slightly better, crisper font. Also, they had changed the maps on the inside cover. But that was all I noticed because I rarely use that edition.However, I just noticed the other day that they changed Job 14:14 to compulsory labor, instead of compulsory service.Also, the NWT used to have certain words in brackets, words that weren't in the original languages, but complete the sense in English. For example, Genesis 1:1 used to say In [the] beginning . . . and now it just says In the beginning . . . I have two questions for JWs:1) Have you noticed any other differences? If so, what are they?2) Does the newer Reference edition (last two years) have these changes?
Yea I noticed a while back while out in serviceI turned to 2 Tim 3:1-6, and looked down at the bottom of the 1st column on the right page, and it wasn't there. Than I began to examine why the shift and that's when I discovered the removal of the brackets.
Dear Abernathy, Vot had not noticed that and I checked just now. My baby NWT does not have the brackets at Gen 1:1 and says labor at Job 14:14. Since I have been following your advice to stick to the baby NWT so I could get used to it (which I have, I can now find verses before the speaker reads them AND still keep up with my note-taking), I donno where my regular-sized NWT is since I haven't used it in months (besides, my room is an academic mess right now so who knows where it's buried?) Anyways: 1) No, but I'll keep an eye out for them 2) My Reference Edition still has the brackets at Gen 1:1 and says service at Job 14:14. It's an old one though :-P *stars*
Yes. Comments were made on this at a Ministerial Training School session back in 2008. Among other things, it was pointed out that since 1000's of texts have insertions for completed thoughts, it is not necessary to ID them for the ordinary reader. Most Bibles do not use brackets for this purpose and therefore the new Bi12, which is most often placed with the public, has removed them. As for the refinement of Job 14:14, reference was made to the Insight book: it-1 p. 495 Compulsory Service The Hebrew word tsa va', which often applies to military service or service in war, also means compulsory labor, that is, to pay off debt or guilt. Thus Jerusalem was to be told that her militaryservice had been fulfilled and her error had been paid off. (Isa 40:1, 2, ftn) When under test, distressed and pain-racked Job likened life to hard, fatiguing service or compulsory labor, asking: Is there not a compulsory labor for mortal man on earth, and are not his days like the days of a hired laborer? (Job 7:1) With similar sentiment, he later said to God: You will make your vexation with me greater; hardship after hardship is with me, or one shift of compulsory labor after another is with me. (Job 10:17, ftn) Job evidently felt that God was adding to his affliction by bringing one new hardship after another upon him. Job also likened the time that the dead spend in Sheol to compulsory labor, a burden that is enforced; yet he expressed hope in a resurrection.—Job 14:14. There is also another refinement, at 1 Thessalonians 4:13 to make it consistent with versess 14 and 15 which uses the translation falling asleep in death. 1984 Edition Bi12 and Rbi8 - concerning those who are sleeping [in death]; 2006 Edition Bi12 concerning those who are falling asleep in death. Many Bible translations from the 1950s - 1970s have been revised also. This is necessary to keep up with changes in understanding and changes in language.
I have noticed a change or two but none come to my mind immediately to write down here. I will keep thinking. Today I do not have the time to check - but I will say that if you take the verses that did have brackets, and if you have good study copies (with footnotes etc) of other translations, you will notice how they are treated in those translations. In most, they will insert the words - or other words in other verses, with no brackets. On occasion, they may be printed with an italicized font. But most time, no note is made of any additional English language words, but a footnote will say In orig Greek - such and such. The idea of translation, any translation, is to get a clear meaning from one language to another. If this means using an additional word or words, that is acceptable for scholarly standards. That is my thought.
While that is what the KJV also teaches, no they did not use any preconceived notions except that the Bible is the Word of God. A fine example of this is found at Exodus 28:19. What is today's meaning for the rock written about here? The truth is that no one knows. So many translations just made up a stone to put in there. Not so with the NWT. They used the real Hebrew word lash'em stone for the name. This provided them accuracy while not making something up based on speculation. As for using Jehovah, enemies of the true God have for centuries tried their best to destroy the Bible or failing that, remove the divine name entirely.
