It's funny how logic eludes some people. Would I be on this site defending JWs if I were an exJW?.
WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....
by A-Team 212 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Wayne L
Someone who has half a dozen mistakes in two short lines questions someone else's intelligence (note the correct spelling). Thats good!
-
Wayne L
Sorry, I lied. 10 mistakes. I look forward to more intelligence from you.
-
glenster
My updates are registering now at the 2nd link below.
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklynindex.htm
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/Some of the deliberations on phrasing possibilties I'm seeing here seem to
have to do with what I have for the section on "Prov.8:22-31" on p.8. First
century Jewish monotheism understood it and other wisdom literature to mean
God's own wisdom could be imagined as personified, with God, and sent to people.
This could be understood in "God and wisdom" phrasing, Jesus was called "wis-
dom," which the mainstream Christian view understands "God and Logos" and "God
and Jesus" phrasing with, and the JWs leaders just force the point with preten-
sions that the mainstream view isn't possible due to the phrasing.Reaffirming the idea that John intended the mainstream Jesus idea was his cus-
tomization of the word "Logos" as a possible concern of his besides God and wis-
dom. The general thought then was that Logos meant the reason that caused the
cosmos or such. No one of the time is known to have thought it referred to Mi-
chael.The JWs leaders' idea of Prov.8:22-31, that God created through another to in-
dicate the other was sent by God, is denied by God in Isaiah, which is to deny
that He used that method. The closest to that I know is of Philo considering Logos
an emanation of God that had a beginning but not as a seperate created being,
which he referred to figuratively as an angel or god, among other things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_the_LogosThe Canaanite idea of supernatural and human gods, shown in verses like some
of the Psalms (p.4 of the article), was an early Mosaic law idea, then brought
up for God to condemn in various verses, and began being ruled out in Isaiah's
day. Non-Christian Jews generally considered Is.9:6 to just refer to King Heze-
kiah and inappropriate for a Messiah, while Christians thought of it as also re-
ferring to their Messiah in the monotheism that became the norm since Isaiah's
day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Abrahamic_religionsIf that Christian interpretation is used, I think this means there's no gram-
matical reason Jesus couldn't be called "God" other than to make a case for it
being possible to imagine it figuratively.Monotheism and the Shema, belief in "one God and one Lord," was the norm in
first century Judaism, and the Christian variation gave Jesus as the Lord in one
God and one Lord phrasing, like Thomas used, and Paul used at 1 Cor.8:6 and
Phil.2:11, while adhering to monotheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema#Shema_in_ChristianityWhat I have for that so far is that the main ways they distinguished their be-
lief in one God, notable to consider in Jesus' case, was with worship, prayer,
and the Shema. ("What Do We Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?" by
Larry W. Hurtado, p.42) Otherwise, the articles I've read that make a case for
an acceptable "god" in Jesus' day leave out the history of the Canaanite idea
becoming obsolete centuries earlier, let alone that this case of it would be an
idea of a god addressed those several ways, which is how you'd indicate the
mainstream Jesus idea, not Michael.
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Hurtado_Monotheism.htmThe JWs leaders' Jesus is easy to imagine, but it mainly takes God things
figuratively without nearly as good a case, or support from early witnesses, for
a reason to, though.Does anyone have a link to a Watchtower article that explains why Stephen
didn't call Jesus "archangel Michael" to let the discussion continue without
rocks, and ends his speech with a prayer to Jesus, at Acts 6,7? I can't remem-
ber reading their explanation for that (or why nobody else called him that,
either). What I have for that so far is in the section on "Archangel Michael"
on p.8 of my article, which doesn't establish a reason for the JWs leaders to
insist a case against the maistream case. -
Wayne L
Hi, Heathen. Being new to this group, and not having read through all the posts, I came across one of yours by chance from a few days ago. I hope I'm not intruding on a private exchange.
As to Gen. 1:26 the Catholic Church says this - "It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court - " It goes on - "alternately, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God's being - " (New Jerusalem Bible - 1985) marginal reading k, page 19. These quotes sound like you-know-who don't they?
The Catholic Church does not consider this verse a Trinity proof text, so you have them on your side. Thanks, Wayne
-
heathen
Hi Wayne . Not itruding at all , it's an open debate that I have decided to uninvolve myself in anyway. I have no desire to return to the catholic religion , I have heard some trinitarians claim that Genesis 1:26 is proof of the trinity . I've been thinking giving unitarianism a chance but can't seem to actually make meeting attendance.LOL I do know the catholics would probly tell you that you are going to hell for not believing the trinity .Unitarians would probly tell you you're going to hell for believing it.
-
Wayne L
Heathen. Thanks for your quick reply. In no way would I want to see anyone return to the C. C., or join it in the first place. I'm too polite to state what I feel about them, or the Prot. Church.
If you read between the lines, and follow my posts, you will discover that my pleasure is in catching the Great Churches in their lies and exposing them for what they are. I will show anyone who is interested how they have flip-flopped on nearly all their major doctrines in print, yet continue to teach them in church. The CC has removed nearly all Trinity proof from the NJB and what is left can't support the doctrine.
Did everyone read the Pope's major statement from a few years ago about Hell? Most major newspapers carried it on the front page. What he said was what JWs have said long before! More on that another time. Hope you're not leaving us. Thanks Wayne
-
Death to the Pixies
Narkissos,
Actually just after I asked for your interpretation I was able to decipher what it would be given past correspondance. But I appreciate your response.
-
5go
It's funny how logic eludes some people. Would I be on this site defending JWs if I were an exJW?.
Logic eludes you as well not all exjw's are apostates some are apologist. Which I have seen my share. And I am calling you out
Hi. I'm a new member, not a Witness, but an armchair religious student. After studying religion for 35 years, trying to disprove Witness doctrine, I admit defeat.
You suck I stumped two elders on simple questions like what would of happened if adam had not sinned ? Would Jesus be necessary ? If god's correct name was important why not use yahweh or el which are a lot closer than Jehovah. The word jehovah wasn't used till the 13th century. Not only that but Jesus' name isn't likely Jesus his name was most likely Joshua ( Yeshua ). Jesus stems from greek not hebrew which a jew in the first century would have not used a greekized hebrew name because of jewish xenophobia at the time. That is assuming he existed at all. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org
These works, either always or sometimes, transcribe the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah:
- The King James (Authorized) Version, 1611: i.e. four times as the personal name of God (in all capital letters), e.g. Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 26:4; and three times in place names: Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; and Judges 6:24.
- The American Standard Version, 1901 edition, consistently renders the Tetragrammaton as Je-ho’vah in all 6,823 places where it occurs in the Old Testament.
- The New English Bible, published by Oxford University Press, 1970, e.g. Gen 22:14; Exodus 3:15,16; 6:3; 17:15; Judges 6:24
- The Living Bible, published by Tyndale House Publishers, Illinois 1971, e.g. Gen 22:14, Exodus 4:1-27; 17:15; Lev 19:1-36; Deut 4: 29, 39; 5:5, 6; Judges 6:16, 24; Ps 83:18; 110:1; Isaiah 45:1, 18; Amos 5:8; 6:8; 9:6
- The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY 1961 and last revised in 1984. Renders the Tetragrammaton nearly 7,000 times.
Many religious groups, most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses and the King-James-Only Movement, continue to use the form Jehovah, because it is familiar and became well established in usage among some Christians while the correct pronunciation of ???? was unknown. Some groups insist that Jehovah is the only correct pronunciation and that Yahweh is an incorrect and invalid pronunciation.
[edit] History
Under the heading " ???? c. 6823", the editors of the the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon write that ??????? occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
[edit] Early transcriptions of " ???? similar to "Jehovah"
- ?e?a: in Hellenistic Greek magical texts #
- '#' marks forms listed by Sir Godfrey Driver.
[edit] Early transcriptions of ??????? similar to "Jehovah"
Excerpts from Raymond Martin's Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos of 1270 CE (page 559). God's name at the Roman Catholic Church named St. Martinskirche, Olten, Switzerland, 1521. Image of the divine name as it is written on the wall of a Norwegian church. (Source: The Divine Name in Norway) Transcriptions of ??????? similar to
"Jehovah" occurred as early as the
13th century.- 1278: yohoua: in the work Pugio fidei by the Spanish monk Raymond Martin (Raymundus Martini). [8] Note that the image to the right shows "Jehova" not "yohoua". [i.e. conflicting ref's!]
- 1303: Yohouah: in the book entitled:Porchetus' Victory Against the Ungodly Hebrews.by Porchetus de Salvaticis. [9] . [3]
- 1518:Iehoua:in De Arcanis
Catholicæ Veritatis,1518, folio
xliii by Pope Leo X's confessor
Peter Galatin (Galatinus) - 1530:Iehouah:Tyndale's Pentateuch
- 1611:Iehovah:King James Bible of 1611
- 1769:Jehovah:1762-1769 edit of the King James Bible
- The editors of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon write that the pronunciation "Jehovah" was unknown until 1520 when it was introduced by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety.
- Note that the English transcription "Jehovah" did not first appear until the 1762-1769 edit of the King James Bible. The critique of the English transcription Jehovah, as well as the critique of Galatinus's Latin Transcription "Iehoua", and the earlier English transcriptions "Iehouah" and "Iehovah", is based on the belief of scholars, that the vowel points of ??????? are not the actual vowel points of God's name. Thus while most scholarly sources say that scholars are critiquing the name "Jehovah", Galatinus's Latin Transcription "Iehoua" and the earlier English transcriptions "Iehouah" [1530 A.D.] and "Iehovah" [1611 A.D.] were being critiqued, before the English transcription "Jehovah" [1762-1769 A.D.] ever started to appear.
- All three transcriptions have the vowels "e" and "o" and "a", and scholars believe that those vowels are from another word [i.e. Adonay / Adonai], but as noted in the introduction of this article, the vowel points of ??????? and the vowel points of "Adonay / Adonai" are not precisely the same. [See Section 3 and Section 3.1 for more information]
- Note that the English transcription "Jehovah" did not first appear until the 1762-1769 edit of the King James Bible. The critique of the English transcription Jehovah, as well as the critique of Galatinus's Latin Transcription "Iehoua", and the earlier English transcriptions "Iehouah" and "Iehovah", is based on the belief of scholars, that the vowel points of ??????? are not the actual vowel points of God's name. Thus while most scholarly sources say that scholars are critiquing the name "Jehovah", Galatinus's Latin Transcription "Iehoua" and the earlier English transcriptions "Iehouah" [1530 A.D.] and "Iehovah" [1611 A.D.] were being critiqued, before the English transcription "Jehovah" [1762-1769 A.D.] ever started to appear.
- The editors of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon write that the pronunciation "Jehovah" was unknown until 1520 when it was introduced by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety.
Yahweh is an English reading of ???? (the "Tetragrammaton"), the name of the God of the Bible, as preserved in the original consonantalHebrew Bible text. This form of God's name is used in modern Bible translations and literature during the last two centuries.
The four Hebrew consonants read JHWH (in German-originated transliteration) or YHWH. It is also common to use YHVH and JHVH.
English decends from saxon as well as german.
My spelling sucks for reasons I am alway am on either late at night or right before something like work or a meeting. That and I dropped out of school in the fifth grade and home schooled for the rest of my school. By the way you are guily of ad hominem Don't go there man it never works -
5go
Hi. I'm a new member, not a Witness, but an armchair religious student. After studying religion for 35 years, trying to disprove Witness doctrine, I admit defeat.
It is easy for me to prove the accuracy of JWs major beliefs by using only Protestant and Catholic writings ( especially Catholic). To start, I will point out that the title of this topic is wrong. The NWT rendering of John 20:28 is correct. It is easy for me to prove the accuracy of the NWT by using modern Cath and Prot bibles, especially the Cath " New Jerusalem Bible" (1965). This bible is so close to the NWT that you won't believe it. And it's the current official bible, if I'm not mistaken. It has put the name Yahweh back in all it's 7000 places!
In the official Catholic "Dictionary of the Bible" 1965, it says (about J. 20:28) - "Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, 'My Lord and my God'. This quote is self-explanatory. I have numerous other non-JW proofs that support their stance on this verse for those interested.
As an aside, this same Catholic work says on the same page (about John 1:1) - it "should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" Sounds like what JWs have been saying, isn't it?
As another aside, I came across an anti-Witness site which had a lengthy blog about the Watchtower society not allowing its members to surf the net. Then I picked up a WT mag and guess what. It had their web address on it. Yes, I will also reveal the numerous lies told about JWs by those who do not have facts, to any interested parties. Thanks, Wayne
Let me pick this apart
Hi. I'm a new member, not a Witness, but an armchair religious student. After studying religion for 35 years, trying to disprove Witness doctrine, I admit defeat.
You must give up easy.
It is easy for me to prove the accuracy of JWs major beliefs by using only Protestant and Catholic writings ( especially Catholic). To start, I will point out that the title of this topic is wrong. The NWT rendering of John 20:28 is correct. It is easy for me to prove the accuracy of the NWT by using modern Cath and Prot bibles, especially the Cath " New Jerusalem Bible" (1965). This bible is so close to the NWT that you won't believe it. And it's the current official bible, if I'm not mistaken. It has put the name Yahweh back in all it's 7000 places!
You need to read this site more some of us are quite good at disproving the watchtower doctrene with it's own material. See any Quotes.ca mirrior site for examples.
In the official Catholic "Dictionary of the Bible" 1965, it says (about J. 20:28) - "Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, 'My Lord and my God'. This quote is self-explanatory. I have numerous other non-JW proofs that support their stance on this verse for those interested.
Post them ! honestly I could careless I don't even know what John 20:verse whatever says. And, could care less. After reading my NWT cover to cover I found it doesn't really support any faith or really it's self well. That is despite NWT being the cult hack job it is.
- New World Translation
[ edit ] Translation committee
The members of the committee that translated the New World Translation wished to remain anonymous, with the stated goal of ensuring that the glory goes to God and not to man. [22] This move has been criticized, as it is meant that the credentials of the translators could not be checked. In 1950 the New World Translation Committee said, "The true scholarship behind the New World Translation will make itself known, not by the disclosure of the names of the translating committee, but by the faithfulness of the translation to the Greek text and by the reliable help it gives toward understanding God's written revelation to men." [23] A former member of the Governing Body, Raymond Franz, has stated that the translation committee consisted of Frederick William Franz, George Gangas, Karl Klein, Nathan Knorr and Albert Schroeder.
[ edit ] Theological bias
The New World Translation has been criticized as either adding or selectively translating certain portions of the Bible so as to conform to Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. The criticism of "theological bias" concerns mostly matters of the divinity of Christ (i.e., that Jesus was God), but also concerns other matters such as the eternity of the soul or the return of Jesus to the earth. [24] Some scholars have defended the translation, to some degree. [25]
The most frequently criticized rendering is that of the first verse of the Gospel of John:
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Most English translations - e.g., KJV, NIV, NASB)
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT, emphasis added)
The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society states that the latter rendering is the literal translation of the passage, and that the original language indicates not that Jesus ("the Word") is "God", but that he is "godlike" or "divine" or "a god". [26] [27] Some scholars state that "a god" is a possible literal translation of the passage, [28] though not the one they would prefer to see. [29] Some scholars also state that a literal translation does not equate persons, but assigns a quality (godlike nature or essence) to Jesus. [30]
A large number of scholars, however, have disagreed with the Witnesses' translation of this passage, [31] describing the latter rendering as "a frightful mistranslation", "monstrous", "intellectually dishonest", "totally indefensible", and "evidence [of] an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar". [32]
Other New World Translation renderings that form major points of contention include Jeremiah 29:10, Luke 23:43, John 8:58, Acts 20:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8 and Revelation 3:14.
The New World Translation rendering of the Greek word proskuneo has also been a source of criticism. The word is rendered "worship" in almost all occurrences in the New World Translation. However, when the word is used in reference to Jesus, it is consistently translated "do obeisance". [33] The Watchtower Society has explained its renderings in the publication Insight on the Scriptures. [34]See also: Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#New_World_Translation
The New World Translation is claimed by Jehovah's Witnesses to be the most accurate translation of the original manuscripts to date in Japanese [25] . [citation needed] However, some scholars have accused the translation of containing significant theological bias [26] . A recent book by Jason BeDuhn [27] states: “While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NW[T] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” [28]
Although the members of the committee that translated the NWT wished to remain anonymous, Raymond Franz, a disfellowshipped former member of the Governing Body [29] , has stated that the translation committee consisted of 5 members: [30]
- Frederick William Franz
- George Gangas
- Karl Klein
- Nathan Knorr
- Albert Schroeder
William Cetnar, a former Witness who resigned from the international headquarters in 1958 and was disfellowshipped from the religion for apostasy in 1962 [31] , also included Milton Henschel as a member of the translation committee. [32]
It has been argued that the NWT translators were insufficiently qualified to translate the Bible, with only Franz having formal education in Biblical languages. It has also been argued that the size of the translation committee was very small compared to the number of translators involved in producing most other English translations. [33] These criticisms are disputed by Witnesses, who state that the translation should be examined on its own merits, not on the speculated credentials of its translators. [34]
As an aside, this same Catholic work says on the same page (about John 1:1) - it "should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" Sounds like what JWs have been saying, isn't it?
I think Narkissos had a good thread dispelling this. But just in case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1
The proper rendering from the original Greek language used to write the Gospel of John to English has been a source of serious debate in the area of Bible translation.
The most common rendering in English is:
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
This rendering is preferred among popular English translations today. However, this is not unversal in usage among scholarly translations. Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render it:
"...and the Word was divine."
Other variations also exist. Todays English Version reads:"...and he was the same as God."
The Revised English Bible reads:"...and what God was, the Word was."
A few translations have rendered the verse "...and the word was a god" [4] [5]
John 10:35 has similar usage of Greek word theos (god), with and without ho (the) when describing human rulers as "gods".
[edit] Difficulties
There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular. [6] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "...a god" is the proper rendering. [7] Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation ...a god. [8] [9] [10] While other scholars believe it is possible or even preferrable. [11] [12] [13]
[edit] Theology
The two competing beliefs which cause great controversy over this scripture center on are whether Jesus is God or God's agent.
[edit] Grammar
A major point of contention within the grammatical debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule, which states:
“In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.”
At issue is whether Cowell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. [14]
As another aside, I came across an anti-Witness site which had a lengthy blog about the Watchtower society not allowing its members to surf the net. Then I picked up a WT mag and guess what. It had their web address on it. Yes, I will also reveal the numerous lies told about JWs by those who do not have facts, to any interested parties. Thanks, Wayne
This is the paragraph that tipped your hand the only people aside from some nuts who would post here are people who have either been a JW or a know one. The last sentence is a dead give away to the fact you most likely are an apologist there really isn't much to deffend trust me I tried in a past life. The facts are posted all over this sight from from Tacoma dome scandal all the way up to the recent settlement over protecting pedphiles.
- New World Translation
