Interesting points Leolaia but whatever the American Standard Version states in its translation it certainly doesn't support any ideas about the so called JW "saints" remaining on earth after the resurrection of the dead saints occured, in 1918 according to them. If I am not mistaken Russell was expecting (or pretended to be expecting) to be raptured at some time in his life perhaps in the 1870's.
The New World Translation is a Mess
by Amazing 144 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Leolaia
BTW, hama + sun also occurs in 1 Thessalonians 5:10 (found nowhere else in the NT), and there too both the NWT and the ASV do not take it as a time expression. Interestingly, the Emphatic Diagott here also renders it in the same way, i.e. as "together with".
-
Jeffro
The first sentence of this thread was "The New World Translation (NWT) contains thousands of serious errors." After that a long-winded discussion mainly about 1 verse has ensued.
So what about the other "thousands" of serious errors. (I actually have considerable doubts about whether there are actually "thousands" of errors in their translation that could be considered "serious".)
Jeremiah 29:10 is plainly botched, replacing 'for' with 'at' to skew the implication of the 'seventy years'. A consideration of the context of chapters 28 and 29 invalidates their translation.
So that's 2 serious errors (though I don't care about John 1:1 either way). We just need at least another 1,998 to validate that claim of 'thousands'... -
greendawn
I checked about ten bible versions and none of them translate "ama", that word is left out in all translations. Nonetheless even the words "sun autois = together with them" clearly imply a simultaneous rapture of the resurrected and the living saints. I suppose "Ama" is used for emphasising the meaning of "sun autois" as if to say: make no mistake it will be together with them, at the same time".
The question is, why weren't the dubs taken up in 1918 together with them? If they didn't go up the resurrection did not occur therefore the Christ didn't return invisibly in 1918, therefore everything based by the JWs on Christs's invisible return is a myth. Including their selection as his elite people. It's as clear as daylight.
-
Narkissos
greendawn,
Hama is not necessarily temporal, and in view of the close parallel in 5:10 I think "together with" is absolutely correct (also NRSV for instance) -- "at the same time" being inferred by the text, not this particular expression.
Jeffro,
Jeremiah 29:10 NWT is plainly wrong, as I have pointed earlier, and dependent on the KJV (which Russell & co. had used in their chronological theories). A couple of other "serious mistranslations" have been mentioned, but I agree with you that those won't amount to thousands.
Many impressive lists of so-called NWT falsifications have been posted here. The problem being, the average JW is able to see that most charges rely on ignorance, and s/he is not likely to pay attention to the few valid criticisms...
-
LittleToe
Didier:
And what would that change? Wouldn't they be just a finite number of "examples"?
You're right, very little when numbers are articulated. I was just exploring whether or not room could be made to allow it, if the species is given certain coexistant qualities, a little like a three-celled organism.
I highlighted the words "creator" and "progeny" because they belong to two distinct metaphors, which the Gnostic crisis of the 2nd century and subsequent theology, both orthodox and heretic, have dramatically set against each other. Creator / creature or Father / progeny, that has become the main shibboleth of Christian theology...
And you know my ecumenical self, not being one for artificial divides. Hence I have written what I have written, but elaborate below:
As another sidebar, I have also given consideration to whether a creator needs to be more complex than His progeny. Following that thought: when an amoeba splits, which part is the parent and which part the child?
The bit in red is the sidebar, and the bit in bold refers back to the comments on species. Sorry about the sloppy logical progression of my comments.
...from this perspective, where does the notion of creation fit in your diagram:
It doesn't. That's a separate point/post, representing a pre-creation, non-biological evolution of Deity
Jeffro:Gawd you're obsessive - and I thought I was bad!
-
RAF
only details ...
-
Narkissos
...from this perspective, where does the notion of creation fit in your diagram:
It doesn't. That's a separate point/post, representing a pre-creation, non-biological evolution of Deity
Including point D.? He he...
-
greendawn
Narkissos though I agree with you that the simultaneousness of the rapture of the two groups of saints (living and resurrected) can easily be inferred from the context the word hama is in the text and has to mean something even if just as an emphasiser. Otherwise Paul might as well have left it out. How is "sun autois" different from "ama sun autois"?
-
LittleToe
Didier:I permitted it as a line of discussion as it has an interesting fit with some forms of Gnosticism, Kabbalah and even Taoism. It puts a different slant on why a "Devil" would be permitted to exist and/or still be seen as powerful yet inferior (numerically??).
I know it should really be in its own thread, and it is outright heresy, but sometimes conversation meanders above the strictures of Forum threads. Forgive me my philosophical mood