by Amazing 144 Replies latest jw friends
I still have my NWT. When I read a passage in the NIV or KJV, I tend to have a quick look and see how the NWT translates it. In the New testemant it is almost always written in such a difficult way, that the scripture becomes impossible to understand.
Yup, the NWT=Mess,
I don't have a problem with the "Logos was a god" or the "Logos was God." I do feel, though, that not translating that scripture as most scholars do is an insight
into the bias of JW's AGAINST the uniquesness of Christ. After all, I was taught that Jesus was just another angel, he just happened to be the first one. Such
an explanation of Christ does nothing to draw a person closer to him. What JW's have not grasped, in their attermpt to give the Almighty His due as THE CREATOR, is
that the Father willed for the SON to receive praise, honor, glory, dignity, power, authority, obeisance. SUCH things towards the Son are lacking in the JW
theology. This is but a symptom that explains why JW's carry so much guilt and lack the joy of a Christian: Their leaders deny to them the nature of Christ, who man HAS SEEN,
and insist they learn about Jehovah (whom JW's beleive to be the Creator) which no man has seen, and as John said in verse 21 of the same chapter of this
thread discussion, "Christ has explained Him (Almight God the Father) to us." I agree, too, with how forced the language feels in he NWT. And I especially
dislike the substitution of "grace" with "undeserved kindness." That to me is egregiuos.
Jim, I must respectfully disagree with you on this one.
And, no, I don't have a degree in linguistic Greek studies, nor do I have the inclination (unless you press me) to provide a detailed outline of why the translation "a god" is just as legitimate as "God" in John 1:1. Contextually (in a theological and 'early christian writings' sense), "God" would be the most consistent rendering, but in terms of pure and simple grammar, "a god" is equally admissible.
John 1:1 is only the beginning. I have compared so many verses in the NWT with other translations, and they have altered many verses with sometimes just one word. All it takes is one little word and the meaning of a scripture can take on a whole new meaning.
That's why I keep mine out in the garage. It can be a mess out there.
Josie
Gordy:
We have a guy in our church who is Greek. One time he was telling me how JW's called on him and he pulled them up over John 1:1.
They went on about the grammar etc. He said their grammar was totally wrong. He showed scriptures were they had ignored the same grammar they based John !:1 on.
In the end one of the JW's says "We have Bible scholars who cleared this. Any what do you know about Greek grammar"
He said he just leaned forward and said "Because I am Greek- and I say no way that John 1:1 can be translated the way you do it"
Yes, and a perusal of the Constitution of the United States demonstrates that word usage has changed (as it always does), even over just these last 200 years...what about 2000 years?
I had a 'current' Greek dictionary, and the words therein don't, in many cases, correspond to the Greek that was used in Biblical writings. Thus what George Pafapoopoulous had to say about the NWT is like comparing a 327 to a 454.
Onacruse,
Jim, I must respectfully disagree with you on this one. ... And, no, I don't have a degree in linguistic Greek studies, nor do I have the inclination (unless you press me) to provide a detailed outline of why the translation "a god" is just as legitimate as "God" in John 1:1. Contextually (in a theological and 'early christian writings' sense), "God" would be the most consistent rendering, but in terms of pure and simple grammar, "a god" is equally admissible.
I don't mind that you disagree. However, your best bet would be to write to one or more of the scholars quoted ... as your disagreement is really with them ... and show them how they are in error. Dr. Mantey is now deceased, but he was a traditional Christian. Pick the first quote, J. Johnson, who is not a Christian, as he would be accepted as more objective, and write to him. It would make a great read to have your correspondence back and forth posted here on JWD.
Here is his quote again:
Dr. J. Johnson: California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.
While I picked John 1:1, which is a lightening rod verse for many, I can give many more examples of how the NWT is a very poor product, deliberately designed to mislead in order to suit the beliefs and doctrine of the Watchtower Society. I will pick a vew classics and make a new post, or maybe just add them to this post.
Jim Whitney
In fact, the more I think about it, Jim, I must take you to task on this:
The New World Translation (NWT) contains thousands of serious errors.
Really? I dare you to provide even half a dozen that are demonstrably absolute and unequivocal violations of pure grammar.
onacruse, I know hardly anything about Greek, but I am wondering, if their translation as 'a god' is so admissable, why do they have to resort to deceit in order to defend it?
I think you need to provide more examples than John 1:1 to support your "NWT is a mess".
How about the verses in hebrew that hide the fact that the Israelites used some sort of flags in
their field organization? That it was probably done to avoid idolatry? ( Jewish Encyclopedia)
How about the inconsistent translation of "worship" in Greek - to avoid texts in which Jesus
gets worshiped?
metatron
