Romans 10:13 - got owned in a jw study. need help with greek.

by bohm 54 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  bohm,

  To your personal question, I have been mostly dealing with Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek to French translation for many years after I left the WT, although I am not so intensively into philological technicalities lately (except for fun ;).

  However, my reply to your thread had little to do with Greek and much with rhetorical analysis: what was the point for Paul quoting Joel in the context of his argument, and what does it imply as to the wording of the quotation. My conclusion: "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (as supported by all mss of Romans) was relevant to his argument; "everyone who calls on the name of Yhwh will be saved" (Hebrew wording of Joel and WT conjecture for Romans) was not.

  I didn't address your question about Greek because AnnOMaly did it very well: the different endings of kurios, kurie, kurion, kuriou, kuriô corresponds to the Greek declension (or flexion) of nouns (and articles, adjectives, pronouns, etc.) where the ending changes depending on the function of the word in the sentence; kurios (nominative) when the word is subject or subject predicate; kurie (vocative) when addressed (O Lord); kurion (accusative) as the object; kuriou (genitive) as a noun complement, possessor, origin, etc. (e.g. "of the Lord", "from the Lord"); kuriô (dative) for other indirect relationships ("for the Lord," "to the Lord" etc.). Similar examples of declensions can be found in Latin, German, Russian etc.; there are even vestiges of declension in English (e.g. the "possessive case", 's = genitive; who, whom, whose; thou, thee, thy).
• 

  Chalam

  watchtower / beliefs - Romans 10:13 by PSacramento

  The NWT is a false translation and there insertion of "Jehovah" into this verse contradicts what is written elsewhere.

  Acts 4:10-12 (New International Version)

  10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is
  " 'the stone you builders rejected,
  which has become the capstone.' 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

  John 20:31 (New International Version)

  31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

  All the best,

  Stephen

  here is nothing LITERALLY wrong with inserting the name Jehovah in that passage, since it is a direct quote from Joel, but it does change the meaning of the context of how Paul was applying that passage.

  I strongly disagree. The word in the original koine greek that Paul wrote was kurios. Now, that word means Lord

  http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2962.htm

  Even the NWT agrees because they translate it Lord in other places.

  When it suits them they change it to "Jehovah". That is a mistranslation.

  They do the same with the greek word for God, theos. Sometimes, they change that to "Jehovah" if it support their doctrine and other times not.

  Now, back to the case in point. The insertion of "Jehovah" now places a contradiction in the NT. What name do people call on for salvation? Jehovah or Jesus? Acts 4 and John 20 make it cleat that there is one name only to call upon and that name is Jesus.

  So the NWT, with its "highest level of accuracy" actually ends up contradicting the bible and confusing people. Listen to the WT teaching and the job is well and truly done :(

  All the best,

  Stephen

  Spike T- It is a different context from Romans 10:13, which is what this thread is about.

  So who is the name we call on to be saved? Jesus or Jehovah? There is only one.

  The question boils down to this, who is Lord? For you, "Jehovah" is Lord. For myself, Jesus is.

  You really need to get to the bottom of this issue before you meet Jesus and he asks you Romans 10:9 Matthew 7:23

  All the best,

  Stephen

  Hi Spike,

  Thanks for the answer. In effect, you are saying to call upon both the name of Jesus and Jehovah?

  If so, I find that contradicts Acts 4

  Acts 4:10-12 (New International Version)

  10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is
  " 'the stone you builders rejected,
  which has become the capstone. [ a ] ' [ b ] 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

  Also, now I look that actually contradicts Acts 2 as well!

  Acts 2:21 (New International Version)

  21 And everyone who calls
  on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

  38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

  Once again, this verse concurs

  John 14:6 (New International Version)

  6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

  If you change the way to "Jehovah" then it does not make one shred of sense or even logic.

  Spike, can I suggest you do a study on "the name" with regards to Acts and see which name you think that name is?

  Acts 2:21 Acts 2:38 Acts 3:6 Acts 3:16 Acts 4:10 Acts 4:18 Acts 4:30 Acts 5:40 Acts 5:41 Acts 8:12 Acts 8:16 Acts 9:27 Acts 9:28 Acts 10:48 Acts 15:26 Acts 16:18 Acts 19:5 Acts 19:13 Acts 19:17 Acts 21:13 Acts 26:9

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  bohm

  Reniaa: Thanks for your input. i know you get a lot of flames here and, when its about evolution, also from me, but here your both on topic and knowledgeable about the issue at hand! Keep it up and get to know that evolution this as well as the scripture - we can both agree that nature is a witness of god (is he there) and a study of nature is thus a study of god.

  Dave: The more i read about this, the more i get the feeling its something that require a deep knowledge of the bible to get to the bottom of... actually, the more i think about it, i think i took the bait :-) .

  Narkissos: I come from a technical background so my approach to scripture (and litterature in general) is properly best summerized as "read it and see what sticks to the brain"... its quite interesting to learn there are rigid ways to analyze texts that make sence, even to an engineer :-) . Now that i have read your arguments a couple of times it begin to make good sence to me, and actually i feel its kind of strange that he pick a quotation that so easily become problematic.. however, im sure that since it depend on contextual analysis, if i should ever bring it up, he will have many other places in the nt to jump to and i will look even worse, since i wont have the luxery of not having made a commitment to a particular stance with regard to using "jehovah".
• 

  Piercingtheveil81

  While I do not believe the bible to be 100% the word of God I really do feel that Rom 10:13 is a reference to Jesus. Although it is originally found in Joel in reference to Jehovah, under the context paul is clearly speaking about Jesus before and after. Their are many instances were Paul uses old testament texts that originally have an application to Jehovah but are used in reference to Christ.

  While it is difficult to convince christians otherwise, I believe to bible to present conflicting and contradictory ideas and theology, thus the reason for so many sects and denominations among christians. Thats why God sent His last messenger (peace be upon him) to correct the misconceptions and errors.

  Piercingtheveil81
• 

  besty

  might find some stuff here on NWT problems

  look out particularly for the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew Versions download
• 

  jwfacts

  You have done well to notice the issue with this Scripture. I think it is a great topic to raise.

  It is hard to dispute that Romans 10 is referring to Jesus, and as Romans 10:13 originally uses the word Lord it highlights the intellectual dishonesty of the NWT to use the word Jehovah. Bringing up a topic like this with your study conductor and seeing his response will give you a good indication of whether there is any possibility of him changing his beliefs or if he will defend everything the Watchtower says without question.

  http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/jehovah.php discusses in more detail the Watchtower arguments for including Jehovah in the NT and why this is wrong.
• 

  Black Sheep

  I'm with Dave on this one. Drop it.

  I did warn you that you are fish in a barrel to a JW when it comes to scripture.

  If you try to answer this one he will be very happy, even if you disagree with him. You are still in HIS comfort zone.....scripture.....which means he can pull out another one to baffle you with....and you will be back here looking for our help on that one.

  I really don't see the point of haggling over over what God meant in a certain scripture when you don't believe God wrote it, but he got you doing it. He's a cunning bugger. You have to be even more cunning. Especially if your missus is watching.

  Cheers

  Chris
• 

  Narkissos

  i feel its kind of strange that he pick a quotation that so easily become problematic..

  You raise a very interesting question here. The way OT "prooftexts" work in NT context is often quite puzzling to a modern, Western, "rational mind"; to us they prove nothing, because they appear to rest on purely verbal and formal coincidences which we tend construe as fortuitous, hence not logically constraining. NT arguments stand somewhere between Hellenistic / Latin rhetorics and Jewish midrash and later rabbinical discussions (where the use of prooftext is often even more puzzling to most of us).

  However there is often more than first appears to a modern-Western eye. Take the famous quotation of Hosea 11:1 by Matthew 2:15 as an example. Taking it as a prediction that the Messiah would come from Egypt seems an insult to the context of Hosea (where Israel is "God's Son" and the reference to the Exodus tradition is clearly to the past). But when you start to understand that the whole story in Matthew 1--2 is constructed in such a way that Jesus' fate reflects, echoes, recapitulates or embodies Israel's (and more particularly Moses'), you perceive there is a deeper "logic" beneath the purely verbal and formal one -- even though neither may seem rationally compelling to us.

  I think something similar happens with the quote of Joel in Romans 10:13. We tend to see a purely accidental coincidence between kurios as a substitution word for Yhwh, and kurios as a common honorary title. By (too) strict logic the quotation would "prove" too much, i.e. that calling anybody (Caesar, for instance) "Lord" would "save". But to Paul Jesus is not just anybody; he is God's Son, his identity derives from the Father, and this creates a "deeper" (although equally implicit) basis for Paul's particular use of kurios, both in his own wording where it becomes an almost exclusive Christological title, and in his quotations where kurios clearly stands for Yhwh but is very often applied to the Son.

  In sum (trying to use the most dogmatically 'neutral' wording), the Pauline use of kurios consistently links "Jesus" with "God"; the NWT introduction of Jehovah has the opposite effect: distinguishing "God" from "Jesus". And this of course is bound to affect the Pauline arguments (for what they are worth).
• 

  isaacaustin

  Reniaa said:

  Joel 2:32

  32 And everyone who calls
  on the name of YHWH will be saved;
  for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
  there will be deliverance,
  as YHWH has said,
  among the survivors
  whom YHWH calls.

  Romans 10:13 (New International Version)

  13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [a]

  Acts 2:21 (New International Version)

  21 And everyone who calls
  on the name of the Lord will be saved.' [a]

  both Paul and peter quote this scripture from joel.

  My reply: Quote of an OT verse does not mean it was quoted verbatim. Does not justify the insertion of the Divine name for "Lord", as much as you may try to assert it does. But even if it did, that proves the Trinity. Romans 10 in its preceding verses speaks entirely of confessing, decalring, etc Jesus. It follows that the calling would also be of Jesus. Acts 2:21 says calling on the name of the Lord will save one while Acts 4:14 says there is no salvation in any name other than Jesus.

  Reniaa said:

  Jesus himself taught his followers to pray to God: YOUR name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9) And in prayer on the night before his execution, he said to his Father: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world . . . Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name which you have given me.”—John 17:6, 11.

  Reniaa

  My reply: Correct. And a name meant more than simply the pronunciation of letters, it meant a revealing of the person.

  Your grade Reniaa: F
• 

  quietlyleaving

  romans 11:25-32 & romans15:9-27 are interesting as in those verses we see examples of Paul's desire to see salvation for Israel by Jesus via the gentiles. So it makes sense that he would try to persuade a strong link between jesus and YHWH

  I think one of the functions of myth and their reworking is to revitalise peoples by bringing integration via disintergration/loss/a journey into the unknown in order to refresh and transform as it were. In this sense I can see similarities between Moses and Jesus