John 20:28 response to Garyneal (page 2)

cameo-d

meh....strain at a gnat to swallow a fly.

Black Sheep

Yet, the WT's own Bible also says in this verse ...

If there were any loopholes in the grammar, the WT really needed to jump through them in translating this passage ............ They didn't.

They couldn't. There was no wiggle room for any BS, so don't bother try to infer that because I wasn't educated in 1st century Greek, that I can't understand what Thomas said, and to who, by reading a modern translation.

Cheers

Chris

Blue Grass

You say that Thomas isn't addressing anyone, so what do the words, "AND answerED THE THOMAS AND said to-Him" part convey?

The word "αποκρινομαι" (answer, reply, respond) which is translated as "answer" in this verse should be translated as "respond". Although "αποκρινομαι" is translated as "answer" in most verses, here that wouldn't make sense because Jesus never asks Thomas a question. Thomas was responding to seeing his Lord resurrected by God by saying "My Lord and my God". Thomas can't answer Jesus if Jesus never asks him anything. It should be noted that not all English Bibles have the word "answer" in John 20:28

You see, here's the problem I see. Let's assume that you are indeed correct and that Thomas was not addressing anyone, would not the Bible translators take care to convey this into English? Yet, anyone with an English language translation would immediately from the straight reading of this verse would come away with Thomas saying my Lord and my God to Christ Jesus.

The fact that it reads in such a way says one of the following:

The Bible translators are inferring their own theology into the verse and making the English read to suit their beliefs.

The Bible translators are lazy and just translated it almost word for word, one to one with the literal greek words.

Most Bible translations do show however that they believe Thomas was exclaiming rather to talking directly to Jesus by adding an exclamation point at the end of the sentence.

28

28 Thomas answered him,"My Lord and my God!"(ESV)

28

In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!”(NWT)

possible-san

Hi, Blue Grass.

Although I understand your explanation about Greek grammar, I cannot understand well what you want to do.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?
And do you want to defend the JW's doctrine?

Well, according to the past Watchtower, about John 20:28, it is explained that that is a "vocative."
That is, The Watchtower, October 1, 1962, p.596, footnote.

And please refer to the 1985 edition of the "KIT" (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation), p. 1169 (at the lower left).
Since I think that you yourself should confirm them, I do not quote here.

possible

P.S.
I think that what Ms. Leolaia explained is completely correct.
She showed you "facts" and there is almost no her explanation.
I think that you should not reject her explanation.

garyneal

I was poking around the Internet on some commentary on John 20:28 and I was going to post what was relevant, but right now it is late and I am tired so I will post it later.

I don't get on here as often as I use to so this would explain the less frequent replies. For right now, there are some comments I would like to make.

Unlike Greek, the endings of nouns in English don't change depending on the case nor does the definite article. With that said it would be impossible to translate this verse in such a way that conveys the original meaning. It has nothing to do with translators being lazy or dishonest, it's the incapability of the Greek and English language that conceals the meaning of this verse.

So if I am understanding this properly, there is no way to accurately translate the meaning of this verse into English. Yet, here we are using English to do just that. Why wouldn't the translators at least try to make the attempt so there would at least not be any confusion?

Now, I am not naive, I understand that most translations differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree. I also know that there are dynamic and literal translations of the Bible. I was not trying to imply that the scholars were being dishonest when I stated the possibility of a translator inferring his or her own doctrines in the translation. I just meant that in the case of the dynamic translations, the words of the scriptures aren't translated one to one and the potential of the Bible translators inferring their doctrinal teachings is great.

jonathan dough

The word "αποκρινομαι" (answer, reply, respond) which is translated as "answer" in this verse should be translated as "respond". Although "αποκρινομαι" is translated as "answer" in most verses, here that wouldn't make sense because Jesus never asks Thomas a question. Thomas was responding to seeing his Lord resurrected by God by saying "My Lord and my God". Thomas can't answer Jesus if Jesus never asks him anything. It should be noted that not all English Bibles have the word "answer" in John 20:28

Weak, to say the least. As with most JWs, you took this out of context because Thomas was responding, or answering, to what Jesus said. They were engaged in a conversation, Jesus "said" something to Thomas specifically and Thomas replied or answered. Go back and read the entire paragraph. And I don't know where you come up with the idea that a person can only answer someone if there is a question. This is yet another JW tactic of making up rules as you go along, like language, or interpretations of other religions, or what the outside world is really like. You invent a false reality. And spend some constructive time here: http://www.144000.110mb.com/

If I tell my son to take out the trash and he says NO! well, that is an answer to my command which was not a question. You really need to take a closer look at what I posted above with respect to John 20:28. You're focused on the tail, obsessively and against all reason and aren't looking at the dog at all, not examining the totality of information. And you are commanded by your masters at the WTS to look at all of the evidence, not just some.So try that for a change.

designs

Poor Fundamentalists, what would they do without their equivalent of the Rosary. The Creeds ruined Christianity like all obsessive rule making can with any Movement.

Don't forget the hungry, use a 2 for 1 coupon when you shop and drop off some goods at your local Food Bank on the way home.

Blue Grass

So if I am understanding this properly, there is no way to accurately translate the meaning of this verse into English. Yet, here we are using English to do just that. Why wouldn't the translators at least try to make the attempt so there would at least not be any confusion?

There is no way to accuratley translate the meaning of this verse in English using just the four words "my"(twice), "lord, "and", and "God". Translators would have to add several words to correctly convey the meaning of this verse, but translators are usually weary of adding words that don't appear in the Greek because they do not want to be accused of being dishonsent. It can't be ignored that majority of English Bibles add an exclaimation point to try and convey the true maning of this verse.

Black Sheep

There is no way to accuratley translate the meaning of this verse in English using just the four words "my"(twice), "lord, "and", and "God". Translators would have to add several words to correctly convey the meaning of this verse,

Why should I take you word for that? Even your Watchtower is forced to translate it in a manner that contradicts their own theology. Just because you don't like the implications of the WT's translation doesn't automatically make it inaccurate.

Their explanation in the Should You Believe in the Trinity brochure isn't an explanation at all, and you are trying to come up with a solution to their problem without looking at the passage as a whole. To assert that Thomas wasn't talking to anyone, when it is obvious in any translation, in any language, including the 1st century greek, that it is a conversation between two people, isn't going to be convincing to anyone who bothers to read more than one verse at a time. To get them to believe your explanation, you first need to convince them that you get your explanation directly from God and all they have to do is listen to you with their brains turned off.

Cheers

Chris

Blue Grass

Why should I take you word for that?

You wouldn't have to take my word for it if you had any knowledge of the Greek language.

To assert that Thomas wasn't talking to anyone, when it is obvious in any translation, in any language, including the 1st century Greek

How can you say that when you can't even read the first century Greek? I do find it silly that people with no knowledge of the Greek are telling me I'm wrong. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong at least post a link or give a source of a person with knowledge of Greek who disagrees with what I say.

P.S. I have no idea why you guys keep bringing up JWs and the Watchtower, especially since I haven't step foot inside a Kingdom Hall in nearly 3 years.

John 20:28 response to Garyneal

Share this