At what moment "The Truth" has ceased to be "The Truth"?

[JOHN BUTLER]

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think this point showed excellent insight. I wondered if this is what you meant from the start. The very context shows that the type of leadership in this case is more like the local elders rather than the far-away GB:

• (Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.

However, I wouldn't get too hung up on variations in translations, or changes from one NWT to a newer version. As JWs, we are always happy to quote other translations that support our view of Scriptures. There are always several different ways to translate something and it doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. They could both be right. Often there are two ways to say the exact same thing. Often there are slight differences, and sometimes larger differences in meaning, and a translator is obligated to take an educated guess.

The "nakedness" vs "lacking clothing" discussion is an example of that. The word for nakedness in the original Greek is "gymnos." (Strong's Greek #1131)  It's the same word from which we get "gymnasium" because sports in the Greek/Roman world were often performed naked (and sometimes nearly so). This reminds me that I gave a funeral talk in Manhattan in 2013 on the day of the Annual Meeting, and the elder from Bethel (Patterson) who was supposed to give the talk had to leave early for his seat in Jersey City. I already had a copy of the NWT 2013 Revised on PDF, and was under strict orders not to share this fact with anyone, not even my wife. But I cheated a bit. The funeral was attended by a lot of her "worldly" neighbors in addition to brothers and sisters. She had been well-known as a Dorcas-like sister who actually had bought me a new warm coat when I first came to Bethel in 1976. I wanted to use the example in James 2:15, but I always hated the fact that it said "naked" there, and I especially didn't want to read it that way in front of non-Witnesses:

• (James 2:15-16) 15 If a brother or a sister is in a naked state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of YOU says to them: “Go in peace, keep warm and well fed,” but YOU do not give them the necessities for [their] body, of what benefit is it?

So I used the 2013 NWT Revised, against orders, but no one called me out on it. Because no one else should have known anyway. Besides, the new Bible was to be released in just a few hours:

• (James 2:15, 16) 15 If a brother or a sister is lacking clothing and enough food for the day, 16 yet one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but you do not give them what they need for their body, of what benefit is it?

The first is actually a little more accurate from a literal point of view. But the second is probably more accurate from a practical point of view, as it's hard to imagine someone coming into the KH completely naked.

The word "torture stake" vs "stake" is a good point. One is for understanding and the other more literal. A better example might be the word "impaled" which was completely wrong in its most common connotations. That was fixed in 2013.

Some other points are still questionable, and the translators might still wonder whether they may have had a better choice in the old version of the NWT. Here's an example, I wanted to share earlier when discussion the term "illiterate" with @Outta Here so I'll use this excuse to bring it up now:

• (John 7:15) 15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (pre-2013 NWT)

• (John 7:15) 15 And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” (2013 NWT)

The older version could be saying something specific about literacy, where the second is referring to knowledge of Scripture itself.

 

Thank you for such a constructive comment. However we still have the point that the latest NWT uses the word naked in connection to Peter when he was fishing and saw Jesus on the seashore. Why did the GB / translator use naked and not lightly clad ?

Also I would be pleased if you would comment on my new topic concerning how Jesus was killed Stake or Cross. And the amount of nails in his hands and where those nails were placed. Thank you.

 

[Space Merchant]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But unfortunately you don't want to relate it to the Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems you wish to talk about the Bible from a general viewpoint. My point is that JW's 'learn' at their meetings. They use the NWT and are taught from that.  

Actually it does granted when we know exactly what Textual Basis the NWT is using. The question is do you know it?

Everyone can read the Bible anywhere and it is known they use their Bible for teaching.

And no,  no general point of you, we will focus on what I have stated.

Also you still have not made known if you know what Kettel is.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The leaders of the JW Org are the Governing Body. The 'ones taking the lead' are the Elders and others that do the ministry regularly. I'm sure you can understand that difference. 

I already know the difference, because I mention the Structure of the Church last time and the fact as who has what role in the church. Such things isn't unknown to anyone.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

This whole forum is about Jehovah's Witnesses but you still want to bring in other issues. 

This whole form still revolves around Controversial posts, granted we are talking about the Bible, this still applies. You did assume debate, so this is what we shall do.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As with the word nakedness which you didn't want to understand my viewpoint on. The GB either wrote the word or approved of the word nakedness, but why ?  If the original meaning was lightly clad or wearing underclothes then why say naked ? To a JW reading that scripture from the NWT it mens naked. You don't agree, that's up to you. 

I've corrected you on what it actually means, even the JWs know this because as with everyone else. You were quite to assume the literal nakedness when the truth of the matter was he was girdled. If you forget I will do you the favor of re-posting so you can see, to which you ere in disagreement of the actual truth of the matter

So tell me, how would you even far if you wish to debate about Strong's when you do not even understand Strong's? Your own Bible that you choose even holds your hand and here we see your response. Where is the Spiritual Wisdom, Butler?

And no, JWs do not will not profess this is literal nakedness, as you claim, thus making you exposed by your own deception when the footnote of the Bible you are using says the following

naked: Or “lightly clad.” The Greek word gy·mnosʹ can have the meaning “lightly clad; in the undergarment only.”—Jas 2:15, ftn.; see study note on Mt 25:36. 

So the question is, why putting forth a lie, Butler? Surely you spoke of trickery, yet here we can see past that deception, for no smog can cover something that anyone can cut through with ease.

even Biblehub disowns you at this point, and the fact you now assume without merit proves true to question Evo was asking of you.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

There is another phrase in the NWT 'torture stake', which is used in place of cross. Now the word, i think would be stake. But the GB has used 'torture stake'.  I can understand it is to show what type of stake, but, is it  true to translation ?  

Stauros is an upright pole, the cross came into Christendom 400 years or so after the Christ. Stauros is deemed a upright stake of torture by many because of how vile and crazy Roman executions were, which was still in practice later later on. They added torture stake because it, ironically enough and to your surprise, with the Strong's. It is no different from the use of upright stake or tree.

To add more fuel to the fire, such a device by the Romans is used to torture even kill those hung from such a thing, they even break the legs of people to hasten ones death.

As a side note, look into The Torture/Torment  of Marsyas, he himself was on an upright stake the same one of which he was torture on.

https://itsartalicious.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/the-torment-of-marsyas-greek-sculpture/

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You see the whole point of this is not about a general meaning, not about what every religion thinks of it. It is about how JW's view it through the NWT.  Because as I've said  many times this is a JW Forum. 

Everything must be taken into consideration when it comes to the Bible and its history.

Not wise to speak of every religion when you you were unaware of the views of Islam and didn't know what interfaith is. It should also be aware on your part that there are those who do not take the Strong's let alone the manuscripts for granted.

 

[Evacuated]

12 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Feynman's statement should be taken in the context of what he was discussing at the time .... which was NOT Quantum Electrodynamics ( QED) ... but likely (?) the philosophy of how to think about Quantum Electrodynamics, and most other things ... most of the time.

that seems to be the "never definitely right bit"

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

For this command you not need any other verse from Bible for purpose of some so called Context. Is this OK with you?

No not at all. Context is everything.

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

• (John 7:15) 15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (pre-2013 NWT)

• (John 7:15) 15 And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” (2013 NWT)

Good example of how NWT 2013 is a reading Bible and  NWT 1984 is a study Bible.The cross reference in both editions to Luke 4:16 indicates that the (literal) literacy of Jesus was not the question here.

Marcus Dods (The Expositors Greek Testament p 763) has a relevant comment on this: "His teaching astonished the Jews, and they asked [the question cited] It is not His wisdom that astonishes them, for even uneducated men are often wise ; but His learning or knowledge, (Comp.Acts 26:24 where the Greek word, grammata, rendered as "knowledge of letters" at Jn.7:15, is "learning" at Acts 26:24) included the whole circle of rabbinical training, the sacred Scriptures, and the comments and traditions which were afterwards elaborated into the Mishna and Gemara " (Plumptre, Christ and Christendom). But it cannot be supposed that Jesus made Himself acquainted with these comments. His skill in interpreting Scripture and His knowledge of it is what is referred to. What the scribes considered their prerogative, He, without their teaching, excelled them in.—Ver. 16. But though not received from them, it was a derived teaching. He is not self-taught. "The teaching which I give has not its source in my knowledge but in Him that sent me." (John 7:16).

Thanks for referring back to that point.  ?

[Witness]

23 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Wt. 1964/10/1 - "Those who do not read can hear, for God has on earth today a PROPHETLIKE ORGANIZATION, just as he did in the days of the early Christian congregation."

Thank you for revealing more of Watchtower’s lies. 

In the quote above, they are comparing the WT organization to the anointed Body of Christ in the first century, where it has been made plain through scripture that there were inspired prophets designated so, by God.  If the GB are not “inspired” by Holy Spirit they should not make the comparison.   

23 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

He designates these Christians as his “faithful and discreet slave.” (Matt. 24:45-47) This “slave” group is strictly commanded: “Do not treat prophesyings with contempt.” (1 Thess. 5:20) This has proved true of Jehovah’s anointed witnesses on earth. They pay attention to prophecy with the greatest respectfulness. They have corrected themselves when prophecy revealed their own shortcomings. They have not held back when prophecy has condemned practices followed even in Christendom. (Isa. 58:1) Yes, they have proclaimed the prophecies written in God’s Word even though this has brought world hatred toward them.—Matt. 24:9.

 

Since they have a 100 percent fail rate, how does this show respect for prophesy?    I have yet to find a genuine heartfelt apology by the governing body or any WT leaders for misleading millions of people with their failed prophesies.   They are more inclined to pass the buck onto their hearers.  1975 is a prime example.   

Here is another:

"Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything." (Watchtower 1926 p. 232.) 

Let’s go back to 1925 to identify the “some”:   

"We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? Using this same measuring line.... it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably in the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914." (Watchtower, p. 150, May 15, 1922)

 Check the 1914 chronology to see its changes.  Check all of the dates for changes.  “Any possibility of erasure”???  They are such liars.  

"True, there have been those in times past who predicted an "end" to the world, even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The 'end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that He was using and guiding them.'' (Awake, Oct. 8, 1968) 

 "God's faithful people on earth emphasized the importance of the dates 1914 and 1918 and 1925. They had much to say about these dates and what would come to pass, but all they predicted did not come to pass." (Vindication, vol. 1, 1931, p. 146) 

By their own definition, they are false prophets.   

Prophecy can not be understood until it has been fulfilled or is in the course of fulfillment. From 1874 to 1914 the prophecy concerning the Lord's coming was being fulfilled and could be understood, and was understood, by those who were faithful to the Lord and who were watching the development of events, but not by others. (Creation; 1927; p. 290) 

'If these prophesies have not been fulfilled, and if all possibility of fulfillment is past, then these prophets are proven false.' (Prophecy, 1929, p 22) 

As I said, they are “inspired” through demonic inspiration.  If they were still part of the vine of Christ, they would naturally be "inspired" with Holy Spirit.  John 15:5; 1 John 2:27 

THE ARE FALSE “INSPIRED” PROPHETS.   Matt 12:34  

They may not join the word “inspired” to prophet, but God does not need to.  The dictionary makes it clear that prophets are inspired, as does the Watchtower itself.   

God – But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ ²¹ And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’— ²² when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. 

This organization is supposedly GOD'S organization.  When every doctrine fails, then who is to blame?  The GB do not take the blame.  Is God to blame since His spirit supposedly guides it? 

Dictionary –  Prophesy - to utter by or as if by divine inspiration, to predict with assurance or on the basis of mystic knowledge 

Watchtower’s Reasoning Book –

Prophesy - An inspired message; a revelation of the divine will and purpose. Prophecy may be a prediction of something to come, inspired moral teaching, or an expression of a divine command or judgment. 

This definition just about covers all aspects of the Watchtower’s teachings within the "theocratic organization".   If the GB claim they are not inspired, then they should put down their pen, stop the printing presses and leave millions alone to find truth by turning fully to Christ and the Father.   

When a GB members says, “This is a theocracy ruled by God, not a collection of man-made decisions.  This is governed from heaven.”, how do you believe this is possible if not through an “inspired” anointed one?  If God “pours out his Spirit on His organization”, where does all that spirit go?  Does it magically appear in word form in a magazine?  

The nation of Israel was governed from heaven through an authentic prophet – Moses.  Did you know the GB at times compare themselves to Moses?  They expect JWs to swallow this lie and also to accept they are not inspired.   On top of this, they must obey without question any doctrine doomed to fail.    

Where is the truth in any of this?  The truth is that the GB is guilty of false prophesy. Since they are unable to receive “inspired messages” from God, even though they claim they are anointed; not only because they say they are not inspired, but because they are led by another spirit, 

THEY ARE FALSE PROPHETS TELLING LIES.  ACTUALLY, THEY ARE FALSE PROPHETS CLAIMING AN IDOL – THE ORGANIZATION – IS THE ONE INSPIRED (since they say they are not)  as  GOD’S “SPIRIT-DIRECTED ORGANIZATION”.  

The Reasoning Book continues:

False prophets - Individuals and organizations proclaiming messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will. 

Is the claim made on the front of the Wt. magazine below in harmony with the will of God?  Is it that hard to recognize a lie when you see it? Can you see how firm the statement is made on the cover that was circulated to thousands - millions of people in the world?  It is purely, false prophesy. 

Without a doubt, the Watchtower is guided by false “inspired” prophets, who have “breathed spirit” into the organization.  It is a spirit that has caused great harm, oppression, confusion, depression, division of families and loss of lives; pure darkness.   It is the farthest thing from a spiritual paradise that has ever existed.    Rev 13:1,11,15 

It is fruitless to further communicate with you on this, SM.    My hope is that JWs see through the organization’s lies and turn aside to Christ.

 

 

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

4 hours ago, Outta Here said:

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

For this command you not need any other verse from Bible for purpose of some so called Context. Is this OK with you?

No not at all. Context is everything.

Please, what extra clarification, through  context aka additional Bible verses aka contextual support people would need to understand this command about not eating animal blood? With what other Bible verses, you think you have to, you need to, to give more explanation for purpose of understanding. Command is clear in his words, only what people need sometimes is answer on question, Why. But here at the moment we not need answer on Why not eating blood, but we discus do we need extra CONTEXT about one Bible verse. Context means to have more Bible verses (not only one) who support one verse and idea in that verse, that maybe is questionable or unclear. 

In question on blood and procedure of blood transfusion i would ask, What context in Bible show us that transfusion of blood in medicine treatment is under ban, is under command of not eating (or drinking) blood? What Bible context can be used to clarify that?

You say "Context is everything".

Please give us Context. BUT Context, NOT Interpretations. Not possible meaning and Not possible application. 

I am not supporter of eating or drinking blood, for sure. But we also have to know how some people eating flesh of some animal, in one part of the world, and this is something disgusting for people in other part of the world. Same was been with old Israel nation. God forbidden them not only to eat blood, but also to eat some animal meat, flesh, or forbidden to eat some part of animal flesh that was given for food. Later, that same God showed how he do not care what animal you eat, and what parts you eat (clean or unclean). Ban was connected to nutrition, feeding. Not with medical methods of healing.

 

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please give us Context.

I am answering this out of courtesy, as the point has been raised here, also,  the topic can soon be lost in the proliferation of posting. Also I note you have already started a thread on this topic elsewhere, so I will limit my responses in future to that thread to avoid disorder.

With respect, I have made my own decision on how to apply the words of Acts 15:20; 29, considering the context within which this instruction was given.

You are at liberty to make your decision on whatever basis you choose. I have no objection to sharing the contextual setting which provides the basis for my decision, and I consider with interest the basis that others choose, should they choose to share it. But I do not seek to impose my will on others, and neither do I tolerate any attempt by others to impose their will on mine. 

In answer to your (and the "us" you refer to) question, the immediate context for the Christian prohibition on the misuse of blood is Acts Chapter 15.  Make of it what you will. I have.  ?

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 hours ago, Outta Here said:

I am answering this out of courtesy, as the point has been raised here, also,  the topic can soon be lost in the proliferation of posting. Also I note you have already started a thread on this topic elsewhere, so I will limit my responses in future to that thread to avoid disorder.

With respect, I have made my own decision on how to apply the words of Acts 15:20; 29, considering the context within which this instruction was given.

You are at liberty to make your decision on whatever basis you choose. I have no objection to sharing the contextual setting which provides the basis for my decision, and I consider with interest the basis that others choose, should they choose to share it. But I do not seek to impose my will on others, and neither do I tolerate any attempt by others to impose their will on mine. 

In answer to your (and the "us" you refer to) question, the immediate context for the Christian prohibition on the misuse of blood is Acts Chapter 15.  Make of it what you will. I have.  ?

In context. Acts 15 was written at a time when people literally drank the blood of dead gladiators. That is context. It is what was happening in their world at their time.  That is why such a warning or direction was given.  S.M may have information about people actually drinking blood now. If so then that same direction would prove true now. But blood is blood, chopped into a million pieces it will still be blood. So, if blood is forbidden by GOD then the GB are giving false instruction about blood fractions. 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and for you to act on your own opinion is right. For what human has a right to judge you  ? None.

My opinion is that blood transfusions are not in opposition to God's word. I use the scripture at Matthew 12 v 9 to 12 where Jesus says it was right to break the Sabbath rule for the right reasons. In my opinion Jesus was meaning much more than the Sabbath rule here. He was talking about saving lives. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

According to former witness websites. There are 8 versions of the revised 2013 NWT. Which one is being compared to 1984 as opposed to the rest of the Bibles published by the Watchtower. Interpretation and translation are updated as new material are discovered that will aid in those revisions.

Is the Watchtower the only one that has revised their bible? I can think of many.

2017-International Standard Version John 7:15

15The Jewish leaders  were astonished and remarked, “How can this man be so educated
when he has never gone to school?”

It appears by comparing both texts in the NWT of John 7:15 it is referring to education. The revision does not imply anything else even if the wording has changed. The first thing to consider, were John works letters and a revelation? 1984, and 2013 are still correct in context. There is no conflict.

https://returnofbenjamin.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/mistranslation-pet-peves-and-the-isv/

 

 

I cannot see the NWT on that chart . 

I have a 1985, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, which I found useful at times.

A couple of questions, which i never ever got answered in my former JW congregation :-

1. Was this translation of the Greek ever updated ? 

2. Was a similar translation of the Hebrew scriptures ever produced ?

I like the 'new' NWT and find it very readable. However i would love to have Hebrew and Greek direct word for word translations from a good source. 

Knowing which is a good source is the problem. 

 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and for you to act on your own opinion is right. For what human has a right to judge you  ? None.

Thanks. That attitude saves a lot of pointless jousting.

 

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Acts 15 was written at a time when people literally drank the blood of dead gladiators. That is context.

That is certainly a bit of historical context, but not the main context for the decree.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

According to former witness websites. There are 8 versions of the revised 2013 NWT. Which one is being compared to 1984 as opposed to the rest of the Bibles published by the Watchtower.

According to the record from the Watchtower Society itself, this is about right, if you don't count some interim corrections to typos, page headings, and grammar inconsistencies. (These are minor, but there have been at least 16 additional versions if you count these minor printing updates.) For example the original NWT of Psalms in the 1963 and 1964 "Fat Boy" NWT had a big bold typo (Psalm 17 was marked as Psalm 71). The large print (bi8) printed in 1971 had some typos, such as switching the font of the verse number itself from regular to bold and back to regular --most noticeable in Hebrews 9:27 where the 2 is bold and the 7 is regular, and even a couple of subject-verb agreement errors that were fixed up until 1984, well before the 2013 Revised came out. When the 2013 came out a heading on a page 267 was wrong, Psalm 51:4 was changed, and there were still some inconsistencies with capitalization and usage. 

Here's one example with the capitalization of "Ark" [of the Testimony]. Exodus 25:22 still has one remaining inconsistency:

• (Exodus 25:16-22) 16 You will place in the Ark the Testimony that I will give you. 17 “You will make a cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 You are to make two cherubs of gold; you will make them of hammered work on the two ends of the cover. 19 Make the cherubs on the two ends, one cherub on each end of the cover. 20 The cherubs are to spread out their two wings upward, overshadowing the cover with their wings, and they will face each other. The faces of the cherubs will be turned toward the cover. 21 You will put the cover on the Ark, and in the Ark you will place the Testimony that I will give you. 22 I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover. From between the two cherubs that are on the ark of the Testimony, I will make known to you all that I will command you for the Israelites. (2013 NWT)
• Exodus 25:22 (1972 bi8) . . . the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony . . . (1972-1984)
• Exodus 25:16 And you must place in the Ark the testimony that I shall give you. (1984)

Note that in 2013 every instance of "the Ark" is capitalized except this one in verse 22. Also verse 10 does NOT capitalize it in 2013, but did capitalize it in 1984. And you can see above, in verse 16, that Ark was capitalized in 1984, but in no places was testimony ever capitalized. 

As far back as the 1953-1961 versions of the NWT, "Testimony" was capitalized, but "ark of the testimony" was not always, even in the same context, or sometimes just Ark and not testimony:

• (Numbers 7:89) he would hear the voice conversing with him from above the cover which was upon the Ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubs [upon the cover].” (1953)
• (Exodus 16:33,34) Moses said to Aaron: ‘Take a jar and put in it an omerful of manna and deposit it before Jehovah as something to be kept throughout your generations.’ Just as Jehovah had commanded Moses, Aaron proceeded to deposit it before the Testimony as something to be kept. (1953)
• (Num. 17:10) Subsequently Jehovah said to Moses: "Put Aaron’s rod back before the Testimony as something to be kept for a sign to the sons of rebelliousness, that their murmurings may cease from against me, that they may not die." (1953)

Also note that in Deuteronomy, the term "ark of the testimony" is never used; it's always "ark of the covenant," (a different Hebrew word) but this doesn't ever get capitalized in any NWT of any date. (There are exceptions in quotes from the Watchtower in the 1950's, 1960, and 1976, but not in the NWT itself. ["ark of the covenant" "Ark of the covenant" or "Ark of the Covenant".] Of the hundred or so references, there has been no capitalization since the 1970's.)

• (Deuteronomy 31:26) “Take this book of the Law and place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. . . (2013)

• (Deuteronomy 31:26) “Taking this book of the Law, YOU must place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. (1960-1984)

In fact, between 1961 and 1964, there were literally hundreds of pages that needed re-pagination along with the page headings, dozens of footnotes with the wrong J-references, cross-references, footnote letters skipped, wrong hyphenation breaks, a couple of misspellings, mismatched single/double quote marks, and at least a couple of grammar changes. There is some evidence of these changes in one of my "Fat Boy" Bibles where you can see that certain pages were updated, and these resulted in a brighter light-green edging on the updated pages (which includes Psalm 17, of course). See the pictures below: