Another Bible Error: The Disciples' Journey

by JosephAlward 45 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Moxy

  this is nuts.

  im so confused by adversarial attitudes towards language experts. we wouldnt have ANY bible without the efforts of linguistic scholars. why do you feel you can just dismiss them whenever you disagree with them? since the existence of the modern bible hinges on linguistic scholarship, and since the endurance of the bible is an act of gods spirit according to 1 Pet 1:25, it follows that lingusitic scholars are being led by gods spirit. consider whether you would be fighting gods spirits by disagreeing with them before you are so quick to conclude bias. anyways, this is a topic im considering exploring separately. back to the one at hand.

  your references to bible concordances are impressive. you seem to think that we can use a concordance to find a definition of a word different from the one most people use when translating the word in the bible. this is putting the cart before the horse. the meaning of the bible does not rely on concordances. quite the opposite. there are no ancient greek dictionaries that lexicographers used to compile their modern concordances. they can only rely on the way the words are USED in ancient literature and then compile definitions that cover the cases they find. this saves the time of looking up every use of word when it comes time to decide what it means in some given case, but essentially translators are still relying on nothing more than examples of use. its impossible by definition to take a concordance and use it to say that every instance of a word's use is inaccurate. the concordance was BASED on the words uses. in order to support your argument you have to show an EXAMPLE of the word being used in the way you suggest.

  i am not schooled in ancient greek beyond the limited knowledge i have from WT publications, but i have learned several languages and it seems that taking a word apart into its composite particles, while useful, does not supercede the apparent meaning of the word as a whole. your very own concordance shows mee'te as 'neither,' yet you want to use the entries under 'mee' and 'te' seperately to show that its straightforward definition of mee'te is wrong, or at least incomplete. that seems very misleading. i know enough to know thats not how linguistics works. it also seems obvious that the 'te' particle merely carries the thought from a simple 'not' to a 'neither,' not from 'not' to 'not both.' im not even sure what you're claiming 'not both' means. if you were right about this, i dont see how we could ever understand ANYTHING in ancient literature, if the meanings were so elastic that a simple 'not' could mean 'not more than one.'

  mox
• 

  pomegranate

  >>im not even sure what you're claiming 'not both' means.<<

  Put the both renderings in a sentence:

  Jesus said to take neither staffs. (Denied BOTH absolutely)
  Jesus said to take not both staffs. (Denied only one)

  "Neither" staffs = neither/no is the wrong word for "meete." "Neither and no" are English words for ABSOLUTE DENIAL which ONLY the Greek word "ou" conotates. "Ou" is NOT used here. "Meete" DOES NOT conotate absolute denial, it needs direction for closure.

  EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTE DENIAL:
  Matt 1:25
  25 But he had NO (ou) union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

  The above is ABSOLUTE NO/ FULL DENIAL using the Greek ABSOLUTE word for denial "ou".

  Matt 13:29-30
  29 "No (ou), he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.

  ABSOLUTE NO/NEGATIVE/FULL DENIAL again as there is nothing left for completion. This "no" is FULL DENIAL. The Greek word "ou" is NOT the word used in relation to staffs OR sandals.

  Now....

  "Not both" staffs = this phrase more accurately portrays the Greek word as NOT needs weight and/or qualification. NOT WHAT? Then "both," which closes the compound word. What happens with the closer rendering is that the phrase NOT BOTH is not absolute and leaves the needed room for one staff being kept and the second (spare) discarded. Also, leaving the pair of sandals on their feet and the spare pair discarded.

  Neither staffs. If you know your English EVEN THE WORD "NEITHER" conotates more than one, Websters:

  nei·ther:
  
  Not one or the other; not either

  Which that word "neither" in itself SAYS THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE STAFF being talked about.

  The problem with this word choice is that it is ABSOLUTE DENIAL. That is NOT what the Greek is saying. It is denying ONLY ONE (the extra staff) IF...IF the Greek meant NO STAFFS WHATSOEVER, the phrase would have been this:

  "ouk ra'bdon" = NO STAFFS...ABSOLUTELY DENIED. That is NOT what is said in the Greek.

  >>your references to bible concordances are impressive<<

  They are lexicons/dictionaries, not concordances.

  PS. "ou" means ABSOLUTE NO. "Mee" means NOT and needs qualifiying.
• 

  rem

  Perhaps you are being a bit literal with the "not both" thing. "Neither Staffs" does not mean "not both staffs" because that is not the whole sentence. The rest of the sentence is: "neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece." (KJV)

  As you can see the "not both" (as you put it) refers to more than the "staffs" so the plurality is resolved. It's including the scrip, bread and money. Also, the last part of the sentence is explicit about two coats. Why not be explicit about two staffs?

  It is tricky when you start to break down words into their root forms. Just because the roots mean one thing when separated does not mean you can force those independent meanings back into the word when they are combined. The word would probably not have the connotation of "not both" to a koine greek speaker, but something similar to the word "neither" that we use in English.

  The NASB is usually renouned for it's literal translation, and here is how it renders the scripture:

  "And He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece."

  I think the language is quite clear.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  Moxy

  ok, im done with this thread pom. you dont seem to understand the definitions of words as simple as 'no', 'not', 'neither', or 'either.'

  mox
• 

  Satanus

  Kind of reminds me about a recent debate over the meaning of 'is'. Clinton would make a kick-ass wt pres, if he could control his libido.

  SS
• 

  pomegranate

  >>ok, im done with this thread pom. you dont seem to understand the definitions of words as simple as 'no', 'not', 'neither', or 'either.<<

  No - is absolute denial "ou"
  Not - is a negative needing weight/qualifying. "me"
  Neither - is not one or the other "ou"
  Not either - is the same as the above "ou"

  Pretty simple stuff and I fully understand the words.

  ....................................
  The rest of the sentence is: "neither staves [plural], nor scrip [singular], neither bread [singular], neither money [singular]; neither have two coats apiece [plural by "duo."]

  That is why the NASB changed the "neither" (meaning not one or the other) of the plural staves, to the singular "nor" for the other singular items.

  >>It is tricky when you start to break down words into their root forms. Just because the roots mean one thing when separated does not mean you can force those independent meanings back into the word when they are combined.<<

  You are incorrect. That is exactly how anyone understands words. Study the roots. Anyone that says studying word roots gives you the wrong meanings of words, does not know what they are talking about.

  ho·mo·sporous - producing one/same (homo) kind of spore (sporous)

  GREEK Roots.

  pro.phylactic - before (pro) to protect (phulassein)

  GREEK Roots.

  cosmo.naut - universe (kosmos) sailor (naut)
  
  GREEK Roots.

  Our language is built upon the same constuction as the Greek. Studying and analyzing roots of words DOES NOT EVER detract from the understanding of the expanded compound words rather gives deeper and greater understanding of the compound words.