I don't understand how this question falls outside the scope of Christianity.SE:

How do Jehovah Witnesses explain differences between NWT and Hebrew/Latin/Greek in Zechariah 12:10 and Acts 20:28?

There were related questions on BH.SE here and here.

A logical answer to the OP from my perspective would be that the NWT translators made translation choices in the light of JW doctrine. Whether these choices are defensible from an impartial (is there such a thing?) perspective or not is relevant to BH, but the motivation for the choices and how JWs defend them is surely on-topic isn't it?

1 Answer 1


It looks to me like it's predominantly an hermenuetics question, which means it probably belongs on BH.

If you look at the end note you'll see that the OP later posted two questions on BH that solved his problem.

The one answer is got here was a massive bit of copy pasta, not an actual answer. What the OP was looking for was an answer about lingual differences in the text. That's BH's domain for the most part. The OP seemed quite happy with the outcome.

Note: OT is kind of an odd close reason in this case, but it fits. There is a better SE site for this so it's just barely outside of our scope. If BH didn't exist it'd be squarely within our scope and would (hopefully), have much better answers. Because BH exists, we try to give them these questions when we can (in this case there were a couple of different questions, so instead of a straight migration, the OP simply asked 2 and we closed the one on our end).

  • 2
    Clearly I've looked at the end note as I've referred to the BH posts in my question. It's quite a stretch to say that those posts 'solved his problem': He didn't accept any answers on BH; The answers there didn't quite answer the sense of his OP on this site; Further, he questioned the VTC but didn't get an answer in comments; Given these facts, assuming he was satisfied just because he (as a new user) didn't post a Meta is an unwarranted inference. Re C vs BH, surely you can see that doctrinal issues are in play here and not just textual issues? This site should be valid to explore doctrines. Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 12:38
  • @bruisedreed the question is entirely textual. It's asking about JW hermenuetics. Yes there are doctrinal implications, but the question isn't about those.
    – wax eagle
    Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 12:45
  • 1
    Look, I can see the point that you're making, and BH was definitely a good place to take the issue further, but the textual choices were driven by doctrine. Dan edited one of the BH questions to take a doctrinal clause of the body and have it as a footnote instead (lest it be off-topic over there I'm guessing) - the implied ground of the OP is that JW doctrine is inconsistent with these texts and that their hermeneutic must be doctrinally driven. Its effectively a big "PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS" to JWs, not "What is a valid translation of this text" (to reputable textual experts) Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 12:59
  • The reason I noticed this question was because I intended to post this: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30391/… and was just seeing what was already around under the JW tag. I would consider my question to be way more appropriate here than at BH.SE and was inclined to interpret this earlier question that way too. Anyway, I would welcome any comments you have on my question and whether thinking about it changes your perspective on this one at all. Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 13:44
  • @bruisedreed and that's fine. The other question was less explicit about what it wanted. Yours is still probably On Topic on BH (but I'm not 100% sure of that, I'm not a regular there, Caleb would know better than I), though you're right that its a better fit here as it seems the intent is doctrinal scope rather than hermeneutical.
    – wax eagle
    Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 13:48
  • I've re-read the question again closely since my posts and these comments and I notice: 1. You're correct in that his question is overwhelmingly textually oriented - I was merely inferring the consequential doctrinal issues because of what I already had swirling around in my head. but, 2. He still queried the VTC after receiving advice and posting the other BH questions - so I think further explanation should have been given. Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 14:17
  • One final pair of questions - will that post be eventually deleted or is it protected somehow? The first option doesn't really seem fair in these circumstances. Questions that are migrated to BH still remain searchable on this site in normal circumstances don't they? Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 14:19
  • @brusedreed No, that question is not eligible for automatic deletion (upvotes, upvoted answer), and since its closed it likely won't be locked or anything. The only thing it risks is eventual deletion by a mod or 20k users, which is unlikely as we try not to delete anything that is relatively useful (and in this case it has breadcrumbs to some good BH questions). The only thing I see leading to a deletion in the midterm future is if someone continuously edits it and puts in on the front page a couple of times (generating a variety of issues).
    – wax eagle
    Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 14:25
  • @bruisedreed also RE: querying the deletion, he was pointed to meta, but AFAIK, he never dropped in (never even visited as evidenced by the no meta profile).
    – wax eagle
    Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 14:27
  • ok, thanks for clarifying that process. peace out. Commented Jun 28, 2014 at 14:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .