What is the difference? What is the distinction? PLENTY!!

by Terry 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  What is the difference between these two renderings:

  1. All men are sportsmen; vigorous, skillful and capable of achieving substantial goals.

  Compared to this version

  2.All men (who) are sportsmen (are) vigorous, skillful and capable of achieving substantial goals.

  A quick glance will tell us there is a difference in magnitude and specificity of intent.

  ONLY those men who are sportsmen would possess the characteristics of vigor and skill and goal setting attributed to them.

  Otherwise, we might think the Author was painting with TOO BROAD a brush.

  Now, apply this principle to the following

  1.

  2 Timothy 3:16-17 (King James Version)

  16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

  17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

  Compared to this

  2.

  2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Young's Literal Translation)

  16 every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,

  Notice anything? (Hint: look at the brackets)

  the LITERAL translation does not make SPECIFIC and ALL ENCOMPASSING CLAIMS.

  It is saying, in effect, "in cases where scripture has been breathed by God (inspired) THOSE PARTICULAR scriptures are useful for blah blah blah."

  That is quite different from painting with a broad brush and saying:

  "Hey folks, if it is in the bible it MUST BE INSPIRED and useful for blah blah blah."

  Point made?

  the BRACKETS ( ) INDICATE WORDS HAVE BEEN INSERTED to CREATE a meaning NOT IN the literal.

  Draw your own conclusions.
• 

  tec

  Agreed. (and also one should take into consideration what the author considered to BE scripture - and also not go beyond what he said it was good for doing in the first place)

  Tammy
• 

  Terry

  This principle of READING INTO THINGS meanings and broad reference that IS NOT THERE is rampant in Bible commentary.

  For example. When JW's want to prove the Old Testament is inspired and reliable they do the following.

  They point to instances

  of Jesus speaking about Moses and the Old Testament. They FORCE A LINK which is not actually going to prove their point.

  How can we say this?

  Each time Jesus quotes a passage from the Old Testament he then PROCEEDS TO CONTRADICT IT with his own instructions!

  "You have heard it said....." followed by "BUT-I SAY TO YOU INSTEAD......"

  You can't pretend Jesus, by contradicting Old Testament law is granting inspired approval of it.

  You can't get there from here.

  Either Jesus was bound by law as a Jew and INNOCENT of law-breaking OR he was actually guilty of breaking the law.

  If he was guilty of breaking a valid law GIVEN BY HIS FATHER, then, we must conclude he was worthy of the penalty of death.

  Opening such a ridiculous can of worms isn't really necessary, is it?

  Jesus spoke about Adam. Does this actually mean Jesus BELIEVED there was an ADAM?

  If I speak about Captain Ahab and the white whale as an example of pursuing a course of obsessive self-destruction,

  does this actually mean I believe Herman Melville was writing about factual events?
• 

  ziddina

  Oh, yeah...

  The Watchtower Society LOVES to play that sort of 'word game' in its literature...
• 

  Terry

  Theology is a never ending chain of links.

  The links are FORCED together to form the chain.

  The chain has to pull the weight of the entire belief system.

  DO THOSE LINKS REALLY HOLD?
• 

  hamsterbait

  I dont know much about GREEK grammar, but doesnt the case of the noun (here "scripture") affect the words in the target language?

  Do you object to the insertion of "A" in John 1:1 for the same reason?

  HB
• 

  Terry

  I dont know much about GREEK grammar, but doesnt the case of the noun (here "scripture") affect the words in the target language?

  Do you object to the insertion of "A" in John 1:1 for the same reason?

  HB

  Rabbinical saying: "All translations are lies."

  When you impose upon text you change meaning.

  The fact that NT scripture contains paraphrase acting as quotes doesn't help.

  We can't ever really KNOW for sure.
• 

  JuanMiguel

  Actually, Terry, I have to take issue with something here.

  The brackets used in Young's mean that the word is implied in the original language, though it does not literally appear there. It does not mean that the words added have been interpolated to create a meaning not in the original.

  Target languages sometimes require the insertion of words that don't exist in the mother tongue in the translation process. Languages, as you know, are not a word-for-word exchange. They often have different tenses and syntaxes that are unique or do not have equivalents in the target language. And sometimes the target language cannot allow the usage of a word that appears in the original.

  To illustrate, I can say to you: "Let us go the movies when our work is finished." But if I were to translate that into American Sign Language (ASL) I would have to do a few things.

  First of all I would have to remove "is." There are no states of being in ASL (is, are, am...those don't exist). Also there is no need to use the words "us" and "our" unless we had to differentiate ourselves before others. If we are the only ones talking, in ASL rules it is redundant to use pronouns that are obvious. Next I can't talk about going to the movies first. I have to put all events in chronological order. Why? There are no tenses in ASL. There is no past, no present, no future.

  So in ASL the phrase gets rendered as: "Work, finish. Go to movies."

  Now let's turn that around. Let's say that I signed: "Scribblings, God breath over. Help: What? Number-one: instruct. Number-two: think, adjust. Number-three: mistake, change right."

  In English that would be: "All Scripture is inspired of God, and is beneficial for teaching, for refutation, for correcting..."

  We can know for sure if we study the principles of linguistics, the science behind languages and its transmission. These principles then get applied to each language and its own forms of logistics to aid a translator and/or interpreter to offer renditions for target audiences.

  While I do know that on the surface it may seem the way you present it, but that is probably due to the fact that you're a native speaker of English. I've noticed that native American English speakers tend to see language as needing to bend to the way they conceive language when in reality language does not bend to any set of logistics except for those unique to its own transmission.

  I'm not trying to insult here. It's a common mistake. I'm not a native English speaker, and coming from a multi-lingual background has been helpful in this, but unless someone can seperate themselves from their own language to see what language is, they generally come to your conclusion.

  Language, however, just doesn't work that way. It's far more dimensional than the interpretation you're trying to make it fit.
• 

  Curtains

  Terry if 2tim 3:16&17 wanted to say this

  It is saying, in effect, "in cases where scripture has been breathed by God (inspired) THOSE PARTICULAR scriptures are useful for blah blah blah."

  it might use the genitive case or it might use a participle. As 2 tim 3:16&17 uses neither and it uses the nominative case for both noun and adjective it does mean

  All scripture is inspired of God...

  Youngs translation is being over literal here as it is a convention (ellipse) of greek to leave out words that are understood to be there from the case used.

  I'm saying this because I have trod this path too - however my opinion is open to question
• 

  Terry

  My point is that PROOF TEXTING belief systems from bible text is an empty exercise in bootstrapping.

  The Watchtower Society craftily inserts a comma to change Jesus' statement from "Truly, I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise"

  converting it to "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise."

  They don't want Jesus in Paradise. In goes the comma. Meaning is shifted.

  I only point this out because the scriptures are reductions of oral stores.

  By the time we open our bible and start reading the words AS PROOF TEXTS our goose has already been cooked.

  That's all I am intending to demonstrate: the easy manipulation of meaning.