I just stumped our PO!!! (page 4)

jwfacts

If he asks what you have found you may want to tell him how it is quite interesting that the JWs used to worship Jesus until the 1950's. See http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/worshipjesus.htm

Jeffro

TD:

I guess I'm missing the significance of pointing this out in the KIT instead of the NWT itself

The sublinear text in any NT translation is as close an approximation of the Greek as is possible, but this often results in awkard and bad English.

Yes, you have missed the point. The issue is not regarding the possessive at all, but the inclusion of the definite article, 'the' (ho) in, 'the God [of] me'. Thomas is quoted as referring to 'the' god of his, not 'a' god of his. That is the issue in question.

Hortensia

I looked at Ebay - there are two Kingdom Interlinear translations available. I remember my copy all those years ago. It was pretty interesting.

candidlynuts

i checked google books to see if any of it was available to read online..

of course not. ( although many older pubs are)

here's what info it has on the Kingdom Interlinear

i was surprised to see real names credited

By Brooke Foss Westcott
, Fenton John Anthony
Hort, New World Bible
Translation Committee

Published 1969
Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of New
York]

LtCmd.Lore

I think there's a reason that the Kingdom Interlinear isn't included in the WT library.

Apparently this is a tool that they don't want to GIVE away.

Our literature guy says that you are not allowed to order one unless you are considered to be 'exemplary'. Is this true?

kurtbethel

I use an interlinear that I got as a free download from here:

http://apostolicbible.com/

When my JW is over for our study and I want to clarify or get depth about some WT teaching, I suggest we see how it was written in the original Greek and look at the interlinear. It is often interesting and enlightening. One recent finding was the "sacred secret", "mystery", "musterion" passage and what it meant.

Maybe I can get that purple interlinear on eBay.

Death to the Pixies

Yes, you have missed the point. The issue is not regarding the possessive at all, but the inclusion of the definite article, 'the' (ho) in, 'the God [of] me'. Thomas is quoted as referring to 'the' god of his, not 'a' god of his. That is the issue in question.

I think that kinda is the point, if it is possessive it can't be "a god" of me, just as when you refer to "my book" we know you are referring to a specific book, it is definite for that reason. That book is still "a book" but because of the possessive it is definte. So, it is really a theological argument which both sides ( Trins and non-trins,with regard to John 20:28) have no problem fitting it into to their theology Those grammatical reasons (exceptions) do not apply to the Father who is being called "Ho Theos" as a means of special identification. Although this next quote is not dealing with John 20:28, it does touch on how "Ho theos" normally applies, this from Murray J. Harris:

Similarly, the differentiation made between hO QEOS as the one who
speaks in both eras and hUIOS as his final means of speaking shows
that in the author's mind it was not the Triune God of Christian
theology who spoke to the forefathers by the prophets. That is to
say, for the author of Hebrews (as for all NT writers, one may
suggest) "the God of our fathers," Yahweh, was no other than "the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (compare Acts 2:30 and 2:33;
3:13 and 3:18; 3:25 and 3:26; note also 5:30). Such a conclusion is
entirely consistent with the regular NT usage of hO QEOS.

TD

Jeffro

Yes, you have missed the point. The issue is not regarding the possessive at all, but the inclusion of the definite article, 'the' (ho) in, 'the God [of] me'. Thomas is quoted as referring to 'the' god of his, not 'a' god of his. That is the issue in question.

Like I said, I think it's fairly obvious what Thomas is saying in the context of the preceeding and following verse and the overall theology of John.

But the definite article would be required regardless. (As DTP has pointed out above.) In this instance, ancient and modern Greek are identical and the presence of the definite article in the modern Greek NWT does not hinder Greek speaking JW's from accepting the WT explanation.

The JW explanation that Thomas was essentially speaking into the air (swearing) is grammatically plausible (albeit theologically unlikely) because in that even the definite article would be reflexive. The only difference is that today you would say, " O lordoV mou kai o qeoV mou. "

Nemesis

If anyone is interested you can download the 1969 ‘Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures’ here in searchable PDF format for free: http://rapidshare.com/files/83569986/Kingdom_Interlinear_Greek.pdf.html

(If you’ve never used Rapidshare, just scroll down to where you see the ‘Free’ button at the bottom of the page, press it, a new page will load and wait for the countdown to finish which is in the middle of the page, and another new page will automatically load when it gets to zero. Then just enter the four digit code, and press download.)

Regards,

Nemesis

Lady Liberty

Dear The Last..

Well, they will be keeping a close eye on you know..that for sure. Funny how the most damning information to the organization is their OWN literature!! Keep us posted how it goes..

Sincerely,

Lady Liberty

P.S. I am not sure if you have discovered this yet or not, but I used to pride myself on the fact that "our Bible" the King James Bible had replaced God's name over 7,000 (?) times where most Bibles had disgracfully removed it. However, was I ever shocked to find that they added God's name to the Greek scriptures, where originally there was no use of his name!! Only in the few places that actually was quoting a scripture from the Hebrew scriptures, did the Greek scriptures originally contain God's name. Evey other place you see Gods name in the Greek scriptures, it has been added by the Society!!

Now keep in mind how the scripture says that if any one adds to or takes away from God's word, even if it was a Angel, let him be ACCURSED!! Jehovah left his name out of the Greek scriptures except in those few places for a reason. Who is the Society or anyone else to replace God's inspired words!! Anyhow...just thought in case you haven't discovered this yet, you may want to tell your P.O. what you have discovered!! But beware...the outcome may not be good!!!

I just stumped our PO!!!

Share this