The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

by Theophilus 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

AhHah

I never said that other translators do not do it, did I? Why do you insist on defending them by saying "Yeah, but THEY did it too!". That doesn't seem to me a very intelligent or valid way to discuss matters of such importance. AhHAH

No, you never said they didn’t do it but you never admitted that they did either, did you? Your argument conveniently left out that important piece of information. YOU singled out the NWT for criticism and accused it of doing something that other translations do also. Where is the fairness and the ‘intelligence’ of that? Why use the argument at all if you are willing to admit that the others do it as well. It’s like cheating on a test and then accusing your fellow students of doing so too. What’s the point?
Do I really need to answer that quesion again? Must every post I make have a disclaimer of every possible org that may be guilty of the same to be worthy of posting? Does that omission invalidate the point of the post itself?
I am not attacking the JWs or the NW translators for being any less reprehensible than any others may be. Copying the sins of others should not be an excuse for those who claim to be God's only true organization, should it?
So, in your mind, if everyone does something wrong then no one should even bring it up as being wrong?
Obviously, you believe that purposely mis-translating the Bible is not wrong. In fact you approve of it, when it suits your belief:
Their insistence on inserting God's name in the NT is just one more way that they betray their callousness about how they go about creating their religious deception. ------ I don’t agree with that either. Giving prominence to God’s name does not constitute deception.

I’m responding to your post although it was addressed to Theo and Sandgroper . If you prefer that I don’t respond to comments which are directed to someone specifically then I will honor that in the future as I have no wish to cause any disturbance.
My questions about your continued association with your local congregation of JWs and how you feel about it is my attempt to understand why you often attempt to discredit my criticisms of the JWs and in this case the translators of the NW Bible. You once told me to open my mind to the possibilities that the JWs are God's organization, for purposes of argument and possible enlightenment. In a similar vein, perhaps you should consider setting aside your emotional attachment to that religion and allowing yourself to recognize the failings of that organization for what they are before responding to posts that criticize them. Your objection to reading my criticism of their Bible because I did not criticize every one else's Bible in the same post speaks for itself.
Frenchy

AhHah:
Does that omission invalidate the point of the post itself?
What it does is underline YOUR bias. When EVERYONE does it and you single out ONE then you yourself are guilty of the same sort bias of which you accuse others. I leave it to you to decide what that does for your credibility. Your making such an issue of being called down on this does nothing but call into question your objectivity here. The discussion was not about the WTS’s claim that their translation was free from bias. But to answer your question, no, you don’t have to answer that again.
So, in your mind, if everyone does something wrong then no one should even bring it up as being wrong?
I should think that if you are going to stone someone that you, yourself should be free of the sin for which you are stoning your fellow man, that’s what I believe.
Obviously, you believe that purposely mis-translating the Bible is not wrong. In fact you approve of it, when it suits your belief:
I believe that I am articulate enough to state what it is that I believe myself. May I point out also that what is obvious to you might not be so obvious to others? I’m smiling at the word “mis-translating”. I am wondering (not stating in the manner in which you do) whether or not you understand the process involved in translating. Can you, for instance, translate from one language to another? Anyway, I don’t see any ‘callousness’ in inserting God’ name in the NT. Who is there that can say for a certainty that the original writings did not indeed contain the tetragrammaton? The writers were all Jewish, all very well acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures from which they quoted profusely and which did indeed contain the tetragrammaton thousands of times. Jesus would have had no hesitation in using his father’s name, why should his followers do, especially those who chronicled his life? It is a point for discussion not an act for accusation of callousness.
My questions about your continued association with your local congregation of JWs and how you feel about it is my attempt to understand why you often attempt to discredit my criticisms of the JWs and in this case the translators of the NW Bible.
I don’t believe that is the case. For one thing, this is a discussion board. People come here for, among other things, to discuss and debate. You should expect for some to take issue with what you say. Another thing is that it doesn’t matter if I am pro WTS or not if what I say is true. Truth is truth even if it should come from the devil himself. I will take issue with you as quickly as I will with the WTS if I believe that you are wrong. And I believe in all these instances that I have noted here in this thread that you are wrong. You, on the other hand have every right to take issue with what I say and I will never ask you how much you hate or love the WTS as if that would somehow discredit your argument.
In a similar vein, perhaps you should consider setting aside your emotional attachment to that religion and allowing yourself to recognize the failings of that organization for what they are before responding to posts that criticize them.
It is not out of emotional attachment to the WTS that I make a reply to your post. In this thread you have made some statements that are simply not true. I pointed those out. There is no emotion involved in this. Since you have brought this up, allow me to ask YOU a question along that same line. Are you perhaps so full of hate that you can no longer be objective about your criticisms? You don’t have to answer that here. Just consider it.
Your objection to reading my criticism of their Bible because I did not criticize every one else's Bible in the same post speaks for itself.
I hope that it does. I would hope that one would see that I am a fair man. I hope that this says that if you are going to be critical that is all right but be fair and honest about it. I hope it says that I can disagree with someone and I am still able to see them clearly and not through a cloud of hate. I hope it conveys the message that when I voice my opinion on something as important as this that it is after I have looked at both sides of the matter. I hope it says that I believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, that fair means being fair to all, and that one must give the devil his due.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
AhHah

Frenchy,
Now you have lowered the level of this discussion even more by questioning whether my posts are motivated by hate. I think that you and everyone else knows better than that. (Why then did you say it? Are you just upset?)
However, I am definitely irritated by your use of mis-direction in your attempt to discredit my posts and very disappointed by the quality of your posts and by your accusations. Your posts were rebuttals to posts that I made. I would hope that when you choose to post a rebuttal that you would do so fairly and intelligently so as to maintain the quality of the forum. Of course, you are not under an obligation to do so.
Obviously, you believe that purposely mis-translating the Bible is not wrong. In fact you approve of it, when it suits your belief: ----- I believe that I am articulate enough to state what it is that I believe myself. May I point out also that what is obvious to you might not be so obvious to others? I’m smiling at the word “mis-translating”. I am wondering (not stating in the manner in which you do) whether or not you understand the process involved in translating. Can you, for instance, translate from one language to another? Anyway, I don’t see any ‘callousness’ in inserting God’ name in the NT. Who is there that can say for a certainty that the original writings did not indeed contain the tetragrammaton? The writers were all Jewish, all very well acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures from which they quoted profusely and which did indeed contain the tetragrammaton thousands of times. Jesus would have had no hesitation in using his father’s name, why should his followers do, especially those who chronicled his life? It is a point for discussion not an act for accusation of callousness.
Your post above seems to indicate a lack of understanding for what you are discussing or a very liberal view of Bible translation. Either way, I couldn't disagree with you more. My posts are biased, but they are also informed. If you accuse other translators for erring by not translating the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah", how can you excuse translating that name when it is not there? There is no confusion about how to translate the Greek words for "Lord" and "God". To do otherwise is not only biased, it is presumptuous and callous. Translating the Bible is probably one of the most responsible and serious undertakings a human could aspire to. To do so in a careless manner to suit one's own bias is inexcusable. I am well aware that it is very common. That does not excuse it. I am shocked by your attitude on this serious matter.
Since this forum righly focuses on the JW org, and may include exposing them for their deceit and lies to their members, my post was not out of line by exposing their errors in translating the Bible. This is important information that all JWs deserve to be aware of, especially in view of the JW claims to be the only true religion.
Your exceptions to my posts are duly noted and everyone here now has opportunity to read your dissenting opinions and decide for themselves. Again, I believe that the posts speak for themselves as to their basis and value.
I sincerely regret the direction that this post has taken. However, please be aware that I will never refrain from calling things just the way I see them. I have had enough of lies and deceit and half-truths. When you post a rebuttal to one of my posts and use mis-direction and "straw man" tactics instead of genuine and fair arguments to discredit them, then be prepared for my rebuttal to expose them.
When I post on a serious matter, such as this one, I have first done the research to support my arguments. I have no desire and no need to misrepresent any facts. When I state opinions or make judgements on the subject, they should be understood to be just that, nothing more.
Now, let's please raise the standard of this thread back to the level of dignity that all who post here deserve.
Edited by - AhHah on 22 November 2000 17:4:8
Frenchy

AhHah:
Now you have lowered the level of this discussion even more by questioning whether my posts are motivated by hate. I think that you and everyone else knows better than that. (Why then did you say it? Are you just upset?)
YOU brought up the matter of emotion: “….perhaps you should consider setting aside your emotional attachment to that religion…” And after you did I asked myself what it was that prompted you to make invalid claims such as you did. I think it was a logical deduction on my part to consider that perhaps hatred played a part in your attacks. I merely asked the question, however, I did not state it as fact.
However, I am definitely irritated by your use of mis-direction in your attempt to discredit my posts and very disappointed by the quality of your posts and by your accusations. Your posts were rebuttals to posts that I made. I would hope that when you choose to post a rebuttal that you would do so fairly and intelligently so as to maintain the quality of the forum.
This is twice you have insinuated that my replies are less than intelligent. It is your prerogative to make that evaluation of me. But now I am wont to ask at what level do you suppose YOU are operating here? As far as my rebuttals being fair, well that was what they were all about, about being fair. You chose to take offense at that. You made some claims that were false and now you speak of the quality of the forum. Now you are doing it again. You speak of accusations and yet that is what you have done. I’m not upset at all.
Your post above seems to indicate a lack of understanding for what you are discussing…
Should I take offense at your statement here? I think that you would if I had said it. I ask a question and you get upset. Now you make a statement about my inability to understand. It’s really quite amusing. I understand a great deal about translations. I also understand people who accuse other people wrongly. I understand people who criticize and then scream FOUL when they are subjected to criticism.
If you accuse other translators for erring by not translating the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah", how can you excuse translating that name when it is not there?
I’m not sure you really want an answer to this but I will provide one nonetheless. YOU accused the NWT translators of inserting “Jehovah” where it does not occur. I did not argue the point at that time that perhaps other writers had substituted another “Lord” or “God” but rather I made the point that those same writers DID, IN FACT, substitute “LORD” for the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scriptures. You got upset at this. I stated fact and you took issue. But now let’s take a closer look at the Greek. Let us first understand that there exists today none of the original manuscripts. All we have are copies of copies of copies, etc. Let us also understand that, according to Jerome, Matthew (and perhaps the others as well) wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. It was later TRANSLATED into Greek by party or parties unknown to us at this time. Jesus and his apostles used the Septuagint Version, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which inserted the characters for the tetragrammaton where they appeared in the Hebrew text. So when one read the Septuagint one was reading the tetragrammaton where it originally appeared in the Hebrew text. Matthew makes over a hundred quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures FROM THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT WHICH AT THAT TIME CONTAINED THE TETRAGRAMMATON. Why would he have not used it in his quotation? Would he not have been obliged to render the verse as it appeared in the version of the Bible that he was using? Which makes more sense? The same applies to other books of the Greek Scriptures. Let me give you an example.
For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’—Act 3:22 NKJV
The NKJV cross references this to Deut 18: 15,18,19 and rightly so because that is what Peter is quoting. Notice that the NKJV uses all capitals for the word “LORD” . That little trick should not be lost on you. You know that this is what most translators do when they run across the tetragrammaton. Now what does that verse that Peter was quoting REALLY say? Let me quote it from the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation: “…Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like myself, from among yourselves…” And now from the ASV: “Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee…” And from the YLT: “A prophet out of thy midst, out of thy brethren, like to me, doth Jehovah thy God raise up to thee—” Would Peter have deliberately corrupted the verse he was quoting but substituting “LORD” for the tetragrammaton? I leave those reading these words to make their own decision concerning this.
Later on the tetragrammaton was removed from the Septuagint and the Greek words Kyrios and Theos were inserted in its place. Since we know that it was done with the Septuagint why do we suppose it was not done also with the Greek Scriptures as well? Those are the words that you are now referencing.
Now all of this has been debated and kicked around before though not necessarily on this board. One this is very clear and cannot be disputed: The tetragrammaton has been removed from the Hebrew Scriptures in a multitude of translations. You cannot show ONE instance of the NWT INSERTING the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scriptures. Given that fact, which is more likely to have occurred?
Since you have stated that you posts are “biased but also informed” I would think that you would be aware of all of this. And since you are the one that brought it up in the first place, saying: “…their (NWT) insistence on translating the Greek words "kyrios" (Lord) and "theos" (God) in the New Testament as the Hebrew name for God (Jehovah).” By so stating you are giving the impression that you are familiar with those passages where this occurs. There are presently thousands of manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures in the original Greek with thousands more in various other languages. Some place the number at over ten thousand such manuscripts scattered about in museums all over the place. Some are in the Vatican library. Some of these are just mere fragments but others are quite extensive. How many of these have you personally examined and can truthfully say that you know for a certainty that the substitution you are talking about took place? Remember YOU made the statement so the burden of proof rests upon you. Or is it that you are merely repeating what you have heard someone else say?
Since this forum righly focuses on the JW org, and may include exposing them for their deceit and lies to their members, my post was not out of line by exposing their errors in translating the Bible.
You are always out of line when you are not accurate regardless of who it is that you are attacking. You are not an expert in translation and cannot rightly make the claim that you did as if you were.
I sincerely regret the direction that this post has taken. However, please be aware that I will never refrain from calling things just the way I see them. I have had enough of lies and deceit and half-truths. When you post a rebuttal to one of my posts and use mis-direction and "straw man" tactics instead of genuine and fair arguments to discredit them, then be prepared for my rebuttal to expose them.
Nor will I refrain from calling things the way that I see them. I too have had enough of untruths regardless of where they come from. You accuse my arguments of not being fair or genuine. You are again resorting to personal attacks. As far as being prepared for your rebuttals, rest assured that they pose no problem whatsoever.
When I post on a serious matter, such as this one, I have first done the research to support my arguments. I have no desire and no need to misrepresent any facts.
You have misrepresented the facts.
Now, let's please raise the standard of this thread back to the level of dignity that all who post here deserve
I’m smiling again….
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
AhHah

Frenchy,
Allow me to refresh your memory on my original post:
The NW translators' insistence on translating the Greek word "kyrios" 227 times and "theos" 10 times as "Jehovah" is based on a presumption that the original New Testament writings must have used the Hebrew tetragrammaton ('YHWH' or 'JHVH') instead of "kyrios" or "theos". This cannot be proven, of course. Because some early fragments of Greek Septuagint manuscripts of Hebrew (Old Testament) scripture preserved the tetragrammaton in a few places where it is found in the Old Testament, their presumption is that the original Greek scriptures must have been written using the Hebrew name for God, instead of Lord or God. Yet, none of the earliest copies of the apostolic writings in existence (such as the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 - containing fragments of nine of the apostle Paul's letters) contain even one use of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, even when quoting Hebrew scriptures where the tetragrammaton was used.
You responded in agreement:
Let us first understand that there exists today none of the original manuscripts. All we have are copies of copies of copies, etc.
Translations are based upon the copies, since the originals do not exist, as you agreed. To conjecture as you have, and as the NW translators have that the tetragrammaton MAY have been used in the original scrolls is just that - conjecture. If conjecture is a valid basis for translation, then where should the conjecture end?
In my opinion, (based upon my research) the lack of any copy of the Greek scriptures with any inclusion of the tetragrammaton obligates the translator to use what is available -- in this case "kyrios" and "theos", which are properly translated "Lord" and "God". If you are aware of any recent discoveries of ancient Greek copies of New Testament writings which contain the tetragrammaton then I would be very interested to hear about it, as would the entire theological community. Until then, the burden of proof is upon the NW translators to justify their position.
As you can see, and as your post confirms, I have not misrepresented any facts. For you to say that I have is irresponsible and I do not appreciate it at all.
Apparently, this is a personal issue with you. For what it is worth, I would not be surprised if the original scrolls actually did include the tetragrammaton. But until a copy surfaces to prove that, I believe that translators should translate with what they have, and not based upon conjecture.
Apparently you disagree. That is your priviledge. But, I do not appreciate your attacks and your accusations.
I have been forthright and have not misrepresented any facts. I wonder why you have a need to claim that I have?
-
Frenchy, at one time, I respected the way that you expressed yourself on this forum, even when I did not agree with you. However, with this and other recent posts, where you have attacked my posts with unfair and baseless criticism, I have lost that respect for you. You have turned this thread into a personal attack instead of sharing information in good will, as spiritual brothers. You have never backed up any of your accusations with any actual evidence, in spite of your bravado.
What is most disturbing, however, is that you seem to have actually enjoyed this attack, as though it were some kind of game to you -- you said at the end of your post, "I am smiling again". What does that say about you as person? What does that say about your heart and your reasons for posting on this forum? I assure you that these last few posts have not been pleasant for me, and I do not consider the discussion of serious subjects like this one, with all of their potential to affect readers, to be a game. These are matters that I have thoroughly researched and which I take very seriously. I do not expect anyone to agree with me, but I do expect that when they post rebuttals that they will not unfairly try to misrepresent what I have said and will not make baseless accusations. If I were looking for that, I would not be posting on this forum.
I always welcome a valid discussion based on the sharing of facts or even respectfully offered opinions. That often results in a productive educational process for all involved, since none of us can be completely informed on every subject that comes up. Your recent posts were intended to discredit my statements by way of the old WT tricks, so as to avoid having to argue based on facts. I am beginning to understand your continued attraction to the JW religion. I am very disappointed and very offended by your posts and by your attitude.
Edited by - AhHah on 23 November 2000 1:13:4
Edited by - AhHah on 23 November 2000 1:27:40
TR

Man! Where's MDS when you need him!
Tom
AhHah

Hey Tom,
It feels to me like he never left!
Frenchy

AhHah:
You don’t seem to have any qualms about making personal judgments about me at all but I will refrain from posting my opinion of you here on this forum. My e-mail is available to everyone here so if you would like to know MY personal evaluation of you I would be most happy to accommodate.
I don’t intend to continue this line of discussion and I won’t go into all the reasons because it would merely be more fuel for the fire. I don’t care at all about your opinion of me, really. I am amused at how disturbing this is to you. Do you know why this is so? Drop me a line and I’ll tell you.
Theo:
Sorry we got side-tracked here. Maybe we can get back to our discussion whenever you’ve a mind to. I like to use several translations and normally I don’t use the NWT unless the discussion is a witness or the person references it himself. I’m particularly interested in what you think about what I posted from the Catholic encyclopedia.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
AhHah

Frenchy,
I am not surprised by your response at this point. Your attitude toward me was already more than obvious and your last post confirms it. I don't find it amusing at all. Again, I am very disappointed.
I welcome fair argument and fair criticism. Yours were neither.
I feel that something was lost here, something that made this forum feel different to me than others I have seen.
Edited by - AhHah on 23 November 2000 22:47:46
Frenchy

AhHah:
I’ m putting my replies to you on a new thread and in a new forum (one that is out of the way and somewhat appropriate) because I do not want to further corrupt Theo’s thread with things not directly related to his topic. I sincerely apologize to Theo for already having done this to some extent. My comments can be found in the “Thorns in the Flesh” forum.
Since you won’t e-mail me and yet persist in pushing your point: “ I welcome fair argument and fair criticism. Yours were neither…I feel that something was lost here, something that made this forum feel different to me than others I have seen. I’ll set this up there, out of the way of the regular discussions because this has become personal. In this way no one else needs to be bothered with this since it’s between you and me.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

Share this