What Shazard said. I think.
FAITH DEFINED. Heb 11:1 REALLY bad in NWT. Also Richard Dawkins' definition
by Open mind 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
TheOldHippie
"That seems a little more honest to me. How 'bout you?"
What do you know? When did you finish your studies in New Testament Greek?
-
WTWizard
The NWT definition would suffice if they actually upheld it. However, they do not. They expect people to have blind faith on the Governing Body and in those taking the lead, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of anything happening. And, they expect one to have faith even though there is blatant evidence that it is not going to work.
-
Open mind
Yassou, Old Hippie. You said:
What do you know? When did you finish your studies in New Testament Greek?
I'm still working on my Greek Studies. Just like Fred Franz. Oops, I guess it's too late for him to finish up.
Nah, the only Greek I know is that Gyro is my favorite Greek food and (I've been told) that "Year - Oh" is the correct pronunciation. Goes great with a nice big, cold bottle of Amstel. On that point, I stand firm.
Good catch though. Me saying that the NWT rendition of Heb 11:1 isn't "honest" did make it sound like I've got some knowledge of Greek, which I don't. Unless you count decades of WT indoctrination, which I don't.
My point would have been more accurately expressed if I had said that the NWT version is "confusing" to me and the NIV version "makes more sense". To me. An unabashed layperson.
Let me give it one last shot here. The NWT makes it sound like faith is tangible, provable, here and now. The words "evident", "demonstration" and "realities" lead my average layperson brain down this path. WOW! This is great! I can really dig my teeth into this faith stuff..........though not beheld.
Those last 3 words really take all the steam out of this verse. In my....non-scholarly...layperson....opinion.
Just curious, Old Hippie, do you have any Greek studies under your belt? If you don't, no biggie. You didn't imply that you did. But if you do, I'd enjoy your input on this verse.
Adio,
Open Mind
-
hmike
Another related thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/147366/2667939/post.ashx#2667939
-
Shazard
Caedes
I still stand on my claim about Dawkins being poor phylosopher.
He defines term by negating other term defined by first term!
Phylosophically "belief" is singelton. And "justified belief" is knowledge. What Dawkins told was tautology, as belief by its very nature is "unjustified". When belief becomes justified it is called "knowledge". Stating "unjustified belief" Dawkins separates it from "justified beliefs" as defining is dividing world items into classes. So Dawkins basically defines belief as unjustified knowledge, which is wrong ans knowledge is the term depending on term "belief".
And actually here we see brainwashing as this is one of techniques of brainwashing - redefining terms, mixing basic terms with derived terms thus making delussion that Dawkins has objective truth, and everything else depends on these basic Dawkins truths... Nope... Dawkins phylosophy and phylosophical materialism depends on such terms as "belief", "truth" etc. And only then comes terms "knowledge" "empirical evidence" "rational thinking" etc.
So be carefull when one tries to redefine terms allready defined by phylosophers.
More be carefull when you mix phylosophical materialism with methodological naturalism.. Until you don't know difference of both and are not able to distinguish them, you are vulnerable to scientists like Dawkins! -
SickofLies
So be carefull when one tries to redefine terms allready defined by phylosophers.
lol, really?
-
Caedes
He defines term by negating other term defined by first term!
Faith and belief are two seperate words
Faith is unjustified belief and Knowledge is justified belief, my belief in science can be justified through empirical evidence which cannot be said for a belief in god for which there is no empirical evidence.
People define words not 'phylosophers' (sic) this is nothing more than an appeal to authority.
After this you descend into tin foil hat territory with the nonsense about brainwashing and being 'vulnerable to scientists like Dawkins' You should look up logical fallacies before you try to lecture on the subject of materialism.
-
TheOldHippie
First of all, I think your last message was a very good one, and if only all of us had managed to stick to such a polite manner of talking/writing, things would have been so much easier, and one could have been able to sit down around a table and TALK in stead of standing at the hill tops or in the trenches, shouting.
My Greek "knowledge" is limited to my struggling with trying to learn New Testament Greek, I have bought some books, I read and I read - but it is a rather "lonely" study to carry out, so I struggle on, but have the goal marked out in front of me that I AM going to learn it and "master" it. My background or direction as to education and interest is a linguistic one, I have a University education in German, Spanish, English, language history, general language knowledge and phonetics, and also have post-high school courses in French. I therefore KNOW the terms, the tricks, and feel I am on the right path when it comes to NT Greek. As for the verse in question - and others - I find that you have one group of scholars harshly critizising the WT, whereas you have other scholars or researchers, such as BeDuhn, Stafford and others, who point out that the WT are possible and at times good/better, and at times even the best. This is puzzling, it is disturbing, it makes many things difficult and hard to handle, and that was the reason for my beginning to try to learn NT Greek on my own. And the more I read as to the discussions on various verses or renderings, I clearly see that there is widespread bias out there, that many scholars are prejudiced against the WT translations, and that stripped of these prejudices and their own personal beliefs such as Trinity etc., as well as the tyranny of "all scholars say that", "no scholar of reputation support" etc., - when this removed - then ARGUMENTS begin to be scarce, one possibility might be or is as good as another, and much of the dispute boils down to fairly little.
That is my take on much of it.
-
dogisgod
One of my favs is Zephaniah 2:3 (NWT) seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who have practiced His own judicial decision. Seek righteousness, seek meekness, Probably YOU may be concealed in the day of Jehovah's anger." ........ So if you really give 100% in trying to be godly your whole life, 24/7 "PROBABLY" you "MAY" be concealed?????????? That's worse than the pension agreements the airlines have stolen from their employees.