Words and Meanings

by rassillon 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  rassillon

  I was just reading jwfacts topic about the change in the teaching about "worshiping" Jesus, and I wanted to get this off my chest so to speak.

  I started a new thread because these comments are not really inline with his thread, nor is this a rebuttal...

  For some time even since before I got to the point which I did not agree with the WTS teachings I have been researching things and this whole thing about people and having their battle about words and meanings seems a little short sighted to me.

  I will take the "worship jesus" example (I am not arguing a point either side here)

  We have to accept that the english bible was translated from another language (latin, greek, aramaic, etc.. depending on the translation). When translating, translators have to take into consideration the multiple meanings that both the source and target words have multiple meanings.

  Proeskuno(sp?) <-----------> Worship

  meaning one ---------NE------------- meaning one

  meaning two ----------NE------------ meaning two

  meaning three =====EQ====== meaning three

  meaning four ======EQ====== meaning four

  just an example and not a good one.

  But what I am saying is that in Greek during the period when it was written in the context in which it was written needs to be understood AND even when translated into english this may not carry the exact meaning of the word worship or maybe only kind of one of the meanings.

  I know I may not be expressing this the best way but thus the reason for caution when reading and understanding. lol

  I have seen so many battles on the internet about the bible says WORSHIP (or whatever the word in question may be) so you must accept the default definition of the word. When if people would just say "you know, it could mean this or that, just do your best with what you know and keep trying to understand more" a lot of people would have a lot more free time. ;)

  Anyway I just wanted to get that off my chest.

  Regards,

  -r
• 

  mouthy

  So your point??? Do we worship Jesus or not ( In YOUR opinion?
• 

  skyking

  Worship can mean: act of reverence, whether to a thing, person, or God. to act piously towards a deep acknowledgement of a thing, a person, or Gods attributes.

  It does not imply how we today have come to understand the word. It can mean simply to acknowledging whom Jesus was. To imply anything more is not supported by the word WORSHIP in its original form.
• 

  serendipity

  Hi Rasillon, I too have been thinking about how people belabor discussions on specific words or phrases in the Bible. The Bible is translations of translations, copies of copies, possibly filled with scribal errors and intentional changes to support doctrines. How close to the original words are the words we read today ? With the high probability of inaccuracy, I have no plans to argue over specific words or be dogmatic about meanings.
• 

  Narkissos

  Rassillon,

  You are quite right...

  Although the notion of polysemy is sometimes misleading (inasmuch as what we tend do regard as different, unrelated meanings of one word, may be related in depth and in unconscious use for the original speakers, as appears in puns for instance), the fact is that there is never an exact word-to-word correspondence from one language to another. As one popular metaphor puts it, languages are networks cast on reality, but the size of the meshes are not the same from one network to another. Iow you rarely have "equivalent words" with exactly the same semantic field. Whence the absurdity of the ideal of literal translation (as shared by the NWT), implying one word for one word. The best (optimal) consistency a translator can aim at is not to unduly multiply the number of correspondences -- translating the same source word by the same target word in a similar context -- but even this can result in an overly stiff translation.

  One additional problem when it comes to translating ancient languages into modern ones is that the imaginary representations of the source and the target language don't match. What we call "worship" in a monotheistic or post-monotheistic culture may not adequately represent the way people in an ancient polytheistic world related to their "gods". We cannot even really know what they meant by "gods".

  In the case of proskuneô, I agree that "worship" (or "obeisance," btw) is rarely if ever a correct translation. In most cases proskuneô refers, not to an abstraction but to a concrete gesture (of prostrating or bowing down) which is performed both before people and deities. Sometimes it can refer more abstractly to the meaning of the gesture, but then it is probably broader than "worship".

  So there is simply no perfect solution. You have to find a more or less happy medium. The best I have found in this particular case is to stick consistently to the concrete gesture, leaving the meaning open for contextual and intertextual interpretation. I am aware that this does not do perfect justice to the possible "abstract" occurrences, but here breaking the consistency (as the NWT and most translations do, only on a different line) is worse. In spite of what I have just said against consistency...
• 

  Pahpa

  Let's face it....a translator is going to render a translation according to his own personal religious views. The gospel of John illustrates this point. Unitarians like Jehovah's Witnesses render John 1:1 ..."and the Word was a god." Trinitarians get bent out of shape over this. Yet, a few verses (Vs. 18) down they have no reservations about rendering "the only begotten Son" as "the only begotten God" or "God the One and Only."

  One would think that the readers of the Bible need to be extraordinary experts in the original languages and intellectuals in the field of Biblical exegesis. The fact is that most of the Bible is written in plain and simple terms that the average reader can comprehend regardless of languages. The Catholic church once used the argument that only the priests had the ability to understand and explain the Bible. But the Reformation corrected this view. The Watchtower is close to this when it says that as God's representatives on earth they alone have the correct understanding. But, as illustrated by the events at Bethel in the early 1980s, many members did not accept this theory either.
• 

  rassillon

  Mouthy Said:

  So your point??? Do we worship Jesus or not ( In YOUR opinion?

  Well I was using the worship example as an "example" but since you asked, the text clearly states we should "proskuneô" Jesus so, that is my opinion. The real question is, in this context what does "proskuneô" mean? Which definition of worship is correct if any? If you say we should worship Jesus, what definition are you using and are you choosing that because of personal preference and personal belief or are you seeking to have an accurate understanding of the original writing. I think most people's belief is a partial fantasy based on what they personally want to see or preferr in the text. I think that once a person becomes dogmatic about a particular viewpoint they have gone beyond the scriptures. Does that answer it for you? -r
• 

  Pahpa

  The real issue of "worshipping" Christ or "doing obeisance" to him is whether or not one believes in the trinity doctrine. Trinitarians will insist that the proper word is "worshipping." Unitarians will demand "doing obeisance." The scriptures allow for either translation. Likewise, one can find scriptures to support either side. Personally, I prefer the simple explanation of the Bible that Jesus was the SON of his heavenly FATHER, God. It is a very human relationship that we can understand without the complicated reasonings of the theologians about Christ's "essence" or "nature."

  Orthodoxy demands belief in the trinity as the "central belief" of a Chrisitan. But isn't this just as judgmental as the Watchtower that condemns Christendom because of its "false teachings?"