Patiently waiting for Truth

New International Version
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."
New Living Translation
And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth.”
English Standard Version
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”
Berean Study Bible
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“And you have made them a Kingdom, Priests and Kings to our God, and they shall reign over The Earth.”
There is a fault in the logic here.
The statement itself could be true. BUT, the list of cited scriptures preceding this statement, for which it is presented as a conclusion, refer to rulership, not domicile. The reality however is that a king can rule "over" or "on" a territory without personally being there.
So, there is actually a disconnect between the conclusion and the citations presented as the supporting evidence. The citations merely indicate that different translators have decided on what they consider to be a contextually appropriate rendering for the preposition epi.
The end result of the rendering serves either to clarify or slightly obscure the meaning, which itself still remains apparent either way. It is just a question of reasoning effort on the part of the reader which is reduced by the translator  rendering epi  "over" as opposed to "on". Either rendering is acceptable as the meaning itself is not altered.
So, in answer to the OP, a translator is perfectly at liberty to make a choice between words in their rendering a text into another language where such choice is extended by the nature of the original language. In answer to "Why?", then for the sake of clarity of  the meaning of the text is the reason. In this case, the translator's word choice is quite acceptable according to the various dictionary definitions cited. The understanding of the text is enhanced, not altered. Either rendering epi as "on" or "over" does not change the meaning of the text. It is just that "over" is a better word choice for the sake of style and economy of the effort to comprehend.
 

WTJWorg GB know. :)) They said they are living in Spiritual Paradise now and here. According to this claim people could conclude how Kingdom is on Earth, because Jesus as King is coming in 1914 to visit the Earth. Obviously he stay and spread his Kingdom around the globe with a little help and by means of WT Society.
Perhaps GB source for this knowledge is also in Bible hub? 
Also you said how WTJWorg speak the truth. Well we have Two Witnesses for same claim: You and WTJWorg GB.

I trusted my father.  Everyone in my town trusted my father and there was nothing wrong in doing that.  
The scriptures point to a certain type of man we shouldn’t trust - the arrogant ones, those who love their riches and the organization those riches produced. We don't trust those who put their organization before God.  It is these men among “Jacob”, that we are not to trust.
Isaiah, chapter 2
 

All my sources are both fact and true.
Nothing to be learnt? You do realize what Conveying Scripture is, if it were not for my conveying of the verse, you would not know what God's Kingdom location is, for I pointed this out.
After the ESV you skipped over, there is an order to which Biblehub cites all translations. Therefore, you have suited yourself granted the other ones that does not correlate with what you stated previous are mentioned there. Regardless, that is what 1909 is, those words, nothing you can do can change this notion for this is true to all who are learning the literal Greek.
The later statement you picked 5, I quoted you. I merely put all 23.
If you wanted to focus on the first two, then you would not have a need to cite the others.
Because you do not know anything about the Bible context as is with the wording itself from literal to English? It is right in front of you.
Because I am, as is with my sources.
God has a Kingdom, he has a King, the King has subjects who will rule with him from the heavenly Kingdom, to those who inhabit the earth. Tell me how is this wrong?
Granted everything even the context is right?
These are not my opinions, this is primarily Bibical Hermeneutics. And it takes literally 5 minutes of hermeneutics to realize the context of this verse alone, but for you, it must need to take the discovery of the Lost City of Atlantis to find out the meaning of a somewhat short verse.
Also
An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Bible hermeneutics is the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts. I consider the context of the verse as - both FACT and TRUE
That being said, as you claimed this, to which Srecko sided with you.
If I am in the wrong, all you need to do is prove it. You said that their viewpoint fits their doctrine and or beleif, that is the point and claim you made.
If this is true, what is stopping you from pointing out how their viewpoint is wrong vs the truth of what the verse is telling us?
The truth of the matter is JWs, as with all Restorationist and Non-Trinitarians believe and apply the same context of Revelations 5:10. The doctrine only changes if the individual is a Trinitarian.
The simple change to bleieving that Jesus is God spins Revelations 5:10 into something else.
 
I like this statement of yours
The spotlight is on you, Butler.

SM is actually worse than TTH for writing books. I just could not be bothered to read it all. I glanced over bits. There is nothing spiritual there to be learnt. I did notice SM accuse me of something to do with picking quotes from Biblehub to suit myself. But in fact i had picked the two different examples 'on' and 'above'. SM I cannot be bothered with your domineering attitude. YOU think YOU are right. That's good enough for YOU.  As for me I know that i don't need to rely on your opinions. 
 

I will go for a beer :))  Also, suggest you to buy one for yourself too.

It looks how you are right about existence of several "versions" of doctrines inside JW members body, congregants.
But to use your vocabulary: "Who cares". :))
This testimony of yours defeats completely @Space Merchant "version" of his view on WTJWorg. :))

@Space Merchant if you are not able or not willing to concentrate, canalized your thoughts in  few words and few sentences than i have no need nor motivation to have conversation with You!  
You speaking about my "deviation" but you done nothing to change Your attitude toward people who don't accept your "faith" and stand for your "the truth" and your Bible hub or what ever.  
You are so ready to fight for "the truth", for your view on truth, for your version of truth here and now. Also here and now is right place and time to express not only your praise how WTJWorg teaching is wonderful, your "version" of their doctrines (and your version of own Faith, Organization, Church that you belong too), but to give Critical observation and speak against all, even minor detail that is not good and correct according to your inner sensitivity and intellectual    objectivity, about/in both Institutions. 
If you said how there is not nothing wrong in your Church and in WTJWorg OR just skip to speak up about it, to stay deaf and dumb, as you done every time when somebody ask you this same thing, you will show your true face....once again.
Have a good day :))

More lame logic. Trust in men is presented as some sort of extreme error. There is nothing wrong in trusting men.

As I said, I see no problem with you or anyone else (even me!) bringing it up, and I never complained. But the complaint from others was that no matter what the topic, JB would turn it to CSA so often, you came to expect it. If it was a discussion of Trinity, JB would turn it to CSA. If the topic was about 1914, JB would turn it to CSA. etc.
It's as if JB had a goal to bring it up everywhere, but he used the methods of an Internet troll to bring it up in anyone else's topic, but he rarely ever started a topic on CSA his own.

Yes, when one leaves the CCJW and they announce from the platform that ..... is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses then all the congregation shuns the one that left. I've no idea why do you ?  They do not ask if the person actually left of their own accord. 
But of course the one that left cannot inform the JWs of the congregation why they left because the GB rules have made it impossible for the leaver to talk to anyone in the Org. Very sneaky plan by the GB.   The GB try to keep their secrets inside the Org in this way. But hence ex JWs  go online and give the details on blogs or FB pages to warn others of the dangers of the CCJW.  
And we have people such as JWI that stay in the Org, but also give important information to others inside or outside the Org. He really does bring balance to it all ,and he makes up for people like Tom and Arauna that are unfortunately drawn to the Org like a moth to a light, for their own detriment.  The light they are drawn to is not true light...........

Yes, when one leaves the CCJW and they announce from the platform that ..... is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses then all the congregation shuns the one that left. I've no idea why do you ?  They do not ask if the person actually left of their own accord. 
But of course the one that left cannot inform the JWs of the congregation why they left because the GB rules have made it impossible for the leaver to talk to anyone in the Org. Very sneaky plan by the GB.   The GB try to keep their secrets inside the Org in this way. But hence ex JWs  go online and give the details on blogs or FB pages to warn others of the dangers of the CCJW.  
And we have people such as JWI that stay in the Org, but also give important information to others inside or outside the Org. He really does bring balance to it all ,and he makes up for people like Tom and Arauna that are unfortunately drawn to the Org like a moth to a light, for their own detriment.  The light they are drawn to is not true light...........

I don't think they have rejected their own version at all.  We each have had our own experience in the organization, our own “version” of WT’s truth.  The example of 1975 is a good one.  For some JWs, this prediction was taken as a grain of salt, others responded as if a house was on fire.  The critical view portrayed by those on the outside, is in relation to what they experienced while on the inside; however, once outside, their freedom to explore the entire dynamics the organization is built upon, proves to them that they made the right choice to leave.   And, they are motivated to tell those on the inside what they have found. 
 

:)) Must be, (one of few explanations why and how it is possible that people have "own versions" about same stuff) similar to "1975 issue". Management of WT Company blaming followers for "own version" and "misunderstanding" all those WT publication articles that talking about 1975.
By the way, do you have problem with people's "own version" about this and that? Because WT GB also have "own version" about "spiritual food" they offer to JW members. And GB changing periodically "own version" of that same "truth -version". Do you consider them (GB) better than any other human here or elsewhere? Does GB using Bible hub for their meditation and Bible study? If yes, why they not recommending this web site and put it in weekly meetings program ? :)))

What I have realised with many of the critical comments from some on this forum, is that they have rejected their own versions of what they think are the beliefs held by JWs. That is why it is so difficult to understand where they are coming from. Their perceptions are alien because they are personal. They assume they must be shared by all, hence the paucity of explanation, and the irrationality of their criticism. And judging from the murky glimpses of those perceptions through the sarcastic and complicated reasonings they present, little wonder they rejected them!

Hello Space! 
I can notice how You and @Arauna thinking differently about "past, history". Arauna don't want to bother herself about WTJWorg history, and not about my history on this forum. But you do save "records" about other people, what is for praise. :)))) 
You are not like JW elders who must destroy all notes and records about past cases they handled while were dealing with people. :))

In the “generation” teaching, how many times did the sun struggle to rise beyond the horizon, only to drop back below it?  JWs were left in the dark about the meaning of “this generation”.  With the many prophetic dates of Armageddon, dawn never did arrive. 
“But the path of the just is like the shining sun,
That shines ever brighter unto the perfect day.
19 The way of the wicked is like darkness;
They do not know what makes them stumble.” Prov 4:18,19
As long as God's people obeyed His direction, there was never a need for adjustment.   The true prophets sent by God, gave a reliable message.
Amos 3:7 - "Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his counsel to His servants the prophets."  
Many pastors/teachers use the Bible to verify their beliefs.  Do they have Holy Spirit?  Do the WT leaders have Holy Spirit? To say failed teachings shouldn't disturb us is a gloss-over of the reality at hand.  
“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand."  Matt 24:23-25
 
 
 
 
 
 

JB never added things exactly out of nowhere. You always knew what was coming. And I never complained about it. But the complaint was that, no matter what the topic, you always found a way to turn it into a CSA topic. Believe me, there were plenty of others doing things like it. Sometimes a topic was very serious and suddenly 4 Dilbert cartoons would run back-to-back-back-to-back.
Most of us appreciate a good diversion now and then, but they shouldn't always divert to the same old topic.

Is SM saying that God's word alone is not enough ? 
But ONLY God's word was inspired by Holy Spirit. Anything else is putting trust in men. 
Unfortunately we don't seem to have a true Bible translation because none of them seem to be inspired by God's Holy Spirit. 
For SM Bible Hub Revelation 5 v 10
New International Version
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

New Living Translation
And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth.”

English Standard Version
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

Berean Study Bible
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“And you have made them a Kingdom, Priests and Kings to our God, and they shall reign over The Earth.”
Um, which do we believe ?  
 If I'm living ON THE EARTH that is different to if I'm living OVER THE EARTH. (in heaven)
But it seems to me that SM is saying that everyone seeking to serve God needs to study Strong's. 
I do not agree with that. 

That is your cart before horse

I had no doubt that YOU knew it. But there are some people here from the UK, like @4Jah2me (assuming of course that he is the reincarnation of @John Butler). And, I'm not so sure that they had any groups like the Beatles over in the UK. 😉

Let me help you with that, focus on the verse in question, I could not find "Glasglow", "Abraham being selfish" or "God approving brazen conduct" on Biblehub either. The website is verse associated and commentary filled.
Perhaps instead of ignoring the subject matter, check the links. You use to favor biblehub yet when it does not fit your narrative you willfully ignore it.
https://biblehub.com/revelation/5-10.htm
Also if you forgot how to use your favorite website, here is a tutorial, she pretty much points out some of the things I pointed out
 
I linked you the same website a long time ago relating to another verse, same correlation with Bible Strong's in the past:
This goes back to the lesson on Biblical Facts, for you really cannot do much if it is the Bible alone. You've proven my point yet again.
From even then to now, 2020, you still haven't learned, therefore that remark of sharpens of which you stated is contradicting.
 

I put "Jehovah's Witnesses" in Bible hub .....and nothing :))

@4Jah2me Well it does not stop you from citing their viewpoint. If they are in the wrong and or misleading as you claim, can you cite it here please? Even with the Strong's not in use, the context is still there, to which you said it is in err.
Also
Well if you checked the BibleHub it shows you the usages of all words in the Strong's which are appropriate for the verse in question. That being said, you have not proven anything pertaining to a Greek violation and nothing in this verse points to the latter being different.
That being said, like I said, if Strong's were to be ignored, you'd have people believing God is female, or that Jesus is cruel, which is indeed a reality for those who ignore it.
This goes hand and hand with the "nakedness" verse to which was discussed in the past.
@Srecko Sostar That is an understanding based on as how you view it, but the context and the Strong's gives us that understanding, it shows us what is being conveyed. The context of the verse in question has not changed and everyone agrees on this notion concerning the message itself. I do not see why you, Butler and everyone else is afraid to even go on Biblehub, let alone Bible Gateway, to which some of you use to use here alone.
@JJJ-AUSTRALIA Former JW or not, to go around Strong's and the context of Scripture speaks volumes, a problematic issue in the KJV-Onlyist community as it is here. The conveyance of the verse is the same even outside of the faith community in question.
Also way ahead of you, YHWH is a transliteration, there are 2 modern variations of YHWH in the modern language, Jehovah and Yahweh, Yehovah. Depending on the translation you will see one of these variations. The Tetragrammaton is H#3068. I said this to a Trinitarian a while back who said Jesus is YHWH.
Ephesians 1:20-22 speaks of The Christ being at the right hand of God, while Philippians 2:9 speaks of Jesus not taking plunder to be equal to God. God’s name YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) is a great name as is spoken of to be The Personal and Divine Name, the Proper name of the God of Israel: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3068.htm | https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=h3068  Another factor is Jesus’ name [Jesus] means Yahweh/Jehovah is Salvation (Yah/Jah saves for short), evidence of the StrongÂ’s even shows us too: https://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm   | https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=g2424 That being said, the problem I see here is not the verse in question, but, because they said it, yet, when the real information is addressed, with source included, and the Strong's to back it up.

I don't see the point talking to SM or any JW apologetics, i was former JW and because of the GB acts i lost trust in them and the society.
I mean i bet he would even defend the name Jehovah is in the Bible 😆😆😆
But anyways everyone to their own, my concience is clear not following the watchtower anylonger i prefer wasting my life looking for God and Jesus by my own than slaving and defending the watchtower 1 more second in my life.