by Mad Sweeney 508 Replies latest watchtower bible
19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
Obama the George Bush, the beginning and the End!
I was just speaking in Churese E-Bonics, Chalam!
Mad JW wrote
I have spent 40 years intensly studying different translations, and the Bible's background- and ALWAYS prove our NWT true to any who give any example they feel wrong! I FOCUS on the Hebrew and/or Greek, the context, and the others connected scriptures- always LOOKING to see if what I have seen to be True ISN'T.
If you feel me wrong- give one example at a time, so we can look at it closely!
I gave you the example of ego eimi = I am. I said that the Watchtower intentionally changed that [see John 20;28] to change what Christ Jesus had truely said.
With your 40 years of intense studying of different translations and the bibles background perhaps you can add some light. Instead of making fun of IamIamIam, why not educate me on how 'I have been' can be translated from 'ego eimi'.
thank you, dc
I gave you the example of ego eimi = I am. I said that the Watchtower intentionally changed that [see John 20;28] to change what Christ Jesus had truely said.
It wasn't just in John 20:28.
But it's a moot point.
A translator, any translator, is "allowed" to translate what is in his or hers best opinion the correct meaning of the text.
It doesn't have to be a literal translation.
Every translator goes in with an inherant bias, this is normal and obviosuly Fred Franz had his own based on the doctrines the WT had already firmly established before they decided to work on their own bible.
PSacramento wrote- A translator, any translator, is "allowed" to translate what is in his or hers best opinion the correct meaning of the text.
Yes, I agree that translations are to be the translators best opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that 'ego eimi' never translates to 'I have been' any where else in scripture.
Jesus said 'I am' as a claim of being equal to God. That fact is confirmed by the Jews around him wanting to stone him for blasphemy. Why would anyone [let alone a group] want to stone him for saying 'I have been'? Besides blasphemy, Mosiac law allows stoning for acting as a medium/fortune teller [Lev 20;27], false prophesying [Deut 18;20], leading others to idolatry [Deut 13;5-10], offering children to Molech [Lev 20;2], being a rebellious or stubburn son [Deut 21;18-21], and types of sexual behaviour [being a whore, etc] [Deut 22;21-24]. Was Jesus guilty of one of these crimes? There is no question that the Jews were about to stone him for anyelse other than blasphemy.
dc
Oh I agree, John couldhave used many other terms that would have been far more Grammatically correct.
But again, it's up to the translator to "make sense" of the verse, the problem is that Fred Franz failed to follow somebasic rules of translation.
One of them is that context must dictate the translation, and for the people to freak out on Jesus, it must habve meant more than a simepl " I have been".
Second, How John uses the term BEFORE Chapter 20 is what sets precedence on how it is translated in Chapter 20.
Third, when a writer makes a statement in the beginning of a book or letter then it sets the motif for the whole book or letter and when a phrase or term is used in the first instence then it aslo sets up how it is to be translated fromthem on, ex:
In the first chapter of Revelation John says how the 7 spirits are before the throne ( of God), that sets up that, whenever John says that something is before the throne of God, it is in the same "location" as those 7 spirits ( the great crowd for example).
Can we please stop pretending Fred Franz did ANY translating? They went from English to English with a couple Greek interlinear books in hand. That's not translating, it's creating an English transliteration of earlier English translations.
I've had more Spanish classes than Freddy had Greek and I can barely order at a Mexican restaurant. Franz didn't translate jack squat.
Can we please stop pretending Fred Franz did ANY translating? They went from English to English with a couple Greek interlinear books in hand. That's not translating, it's creating an English transliteration of earlier English translations.
I've had more Spanish classes than Freddy had Greek and I can barely order at a Mexican restaurant. Franz didn't translate jack squat.
I mentioned Fred for arguments sake, but I agree that we really can't call what was done, "translation".
At best it was interpreting the OT and NT to fit with WT doctrines.
The bottom line is that the translation has purposely been altered to represent the beliefs that the Watchtower would have you believe. This is certainly not what the apostles taught. There is proof positive that ego eimi never equals I have been. If it were a remotely reasonable that I have been could be considered accurate, then why were the Jews going to stone Jesus?!
dc
Quite correct TTWSYF.
Let us not forget that the WT does this consitenly in the NT, See Romans and Colossians as another 2 examples.
