John 1:1 in Coptic Translation (page 5)

LittleToe

Edited to add that this doesn't apply to your latest comment which was quite... mystical.

ROFL

That was so below the belt!

...but I like it - LOL

Midget-Sasquatch

Hi Leolaia! And everyone....

I should pop in more often. Who knows how much I've missed in both enlightening and entertaining discussion.

Terry

Terry,

You sound like the guy who would break up into a concert shouting that music is just noise; in a library shouting that literature is just ink scribble on paper; in an art gallery shouting that painting is nothing but paint spots on canvasses.
Of course he would be right. He might even be mildly interesting in a sort of surrealistic way -- albeit for a short while.
In any case isn't he missing something? Doesn't even he know that?
Edited to add that this doesn't apply to your latest comment which was quite... mystical.

Har har har

You could hardly be asserting that the meaning of a scripture is not a construction of the mind rather than a concrete instance of the inherent nature of assembled letters of an alphabet-----could you?

There is no meaning in music or literature or art except what we project onto it by common agreement using a learned vocabulary of values societally implanted from birth by conditioning.

Unless you disagree.............somehow.......???

T.

Terry

ROFL
That was so below the belt!
...but I like it - LOL

Well, I deserved it for always sounding so pompous!

T.

Narkissos

You could hardly be asserting that the meaning of a scripture is not a construction of the mind rather than a concrete instance of the inherent nature of assembled letters of an alphabet-----could you?

Definitely not.

There is no meaning in music or literature or art except what we project onto it by common agreement using a learned vocabulary of values societally implanted from birth by conditioning.

OK. So what?

I didn't deem necessary to make the point of my comparison explicit but apparently I was wrong.

My point is about focus. To enjoy music, literature or art you have to screen out, to some extent, the physical infrastructure (sound waves, letters or photons) and enter the superstructure (e.g. harmony and melody, meaning and style, forms and colours), arbitrary as it may be. If you want to play, you've got to forget for a while that it is "just a game".

If you want to understand a religious text, you have to suspend the external questions (valid as they may be) -- such as, "is it true," "did the writer believe what he wrote," "was he right in believing so," etc. Those questions are not lost: you may come back to them any time. But as far as exegesis is concerned they are not relevant.

I don't need to believe in a "God" out there to figure out what the Johannine Prologue means. Paradoxically the question of "truth" (whether I answer it positively or negatively) is external and pollutes the exegetical debate.

Try to explain Aesop's fables to the high school smartass who keeps repeating: "It ain't true, animals don't do that."

LittleToe

I'm laughing more at seeing Didier's sense of humour shining through. It's rarely seen so keenly

It's nice to see that you can laugh along, too, Terry. And as for pompousness, I apologise if I occasionally come across that way, too. My only excuse is that I'm a Brit, and was born with a poker up my @ss

jaffacake

Slim

Jaffacake,
I am not convinced those letters from George Howard are genuine. Howard's article, although presented as a 'theory', certainly supported the view that the tetragram was used in th NT, so it would have been very strange had the Witnesses not taken advantage of that. Besides, they have new support now from David Trobisch who also argues that the tetragram was originally used in the NT.

You may be aware that Ray Franz reproduces actual photocopies of letters and articles in his books CofC and ISoCF. He does this because JWs always cast doubt on whether they are genuine. This is where I got the letter, and it has been the most reliable source I have ever found for authentic documents. I was prepared to reverse my beliefs on this if JWs could make their case (I abandoned my trinitarian beliefs due to JW studies led me to my own research). There is not another subject I've studied more than the Tetragram in the NT. The evidence, using only JW sources (NWT reference edition and the Kingdom Interlinear) which I bought specifically for this research, provides overwhelming evidence that the Tetragram was never in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The use of the name Jehovah never belonged in the NT, because the Tetragrammaton was never there, for a very good reason. Okay, so JWs may claim support from another 'expert'. Have you actually followed up the sources they quote? For example, on another subject (translation of parousia) they quote from a Greek lexicon in the NWT reference edition to support one translation. They don't tell the reader that they selected one sentence that appears to support the JW translation, but ignore the following 14 pages of the lexicon which explain precisely why the opposite is true. I can recommend a good study of the Tetragram which would allow you to work out the facts for yourself, rather than believe anyone.

slimboyfat

Jaffacake,

I have read Lundquist if that is what you have in mind - and it is possibly the worst book on the subject. A book I would like to get my hands on (just out of interest to see how others have borrowed from him) is the one by Doug Mason. Also the books by Firpo Carr on the subject, that are never available for anything by ridiculous prices.

I too am very interested in this subject and have read widely on it. I came across Trobisch's comments on the subject myself while browsing the library one day - so I am confident he is not taken 'out of context'.

Have you read Gertoux's book that also touches on the subject? But Trobisch is the one I would really recommend - The First Edition of the New Testament.

Are you sure that Ray Franz is your source for these letters? I do not recall seeing them in CofC or ISoCF. From what I remember they originated from a rather dubious evangelical in America who claimed to have corresponded with George Howard. There is also a mistake in one of the letters that it is rather difficult to believe a scholar would make. I forget now the details, but remember thinking at the time.

jaffacake

slim
Yes, I did have Lundquist in mind, which no doubt leads to the 'worst' conclusions for some.
I haven't seen the other books you mention, I'll look them up, thanks.
Yes I have read Gertoux, which is the worst book I have read in respect of this subject. I'll look out for Trobisch. I'm sure about the Ray Franz source - checked it before posting. But I know wghat you think of Franz. Many question Franz sources but no one sues people who allegedly forge Howard letters. btw its in ISOCF.
I'll keep an open mind slim.

btw my study was purely watchtower bibles - this was the clincher for me.

slimboyfat

Here is one Witness's take on the Coptic translation of John 1:1:

http://sahidiccoptic.bravehost.com/solomon.html

John 1:1 in Coptic Translation

Share this