LATEST INSTALLMENT: ANSWERS 22-31

by You Know 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  Was there anyone who said the NWT translate John 1:1 in a bad way ? Perspi. Yes, millions of us say that, because it's true: The NWT mistranslation of John 1:1 is inexcusable. No matter how many others mistranslate it. BTW, "divine" in all of the tranlations you quoted means "having all the nature and attributes of the one true God", not, as you seem to think, "having some vaguely god-like characteristics". To say "The Word was divine," with or without a capitol "D", is to say that the Word was God, the one and only, with the emphasis on WHAT the Word was, instead of on WHO the Word was. Robert Frazier P.S. BeDuhn is wrong in his interpretation of Col 1:15-17, and in his empty claim that it's okay to reverse the meaning of the passage by adding "other" four times (which was done WITHOUT brackets until the Society was called on it) into the text. He is also wrong on John 1:1. See http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RH.Jn1_1.Index.htm and read all the articles. To try to prop up his case, BeDuhn has to resort to claiming that "evidence" that simply does not exist proves he is right. He has some impressive credentials, but if he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to prove his case in published articles in peer-reviewed journals. He hasn't, because he can't. He has no case.

  Edited by - robert_v_frazier on 25 June 2002 16:17:5
• 

  perspicacia2

  <<...millions of us say that...>>

  Maybe it is a little bit exaggerated, ins't it ??!

  <<...He has some impressive credentials, but if he wants to be taken seriously...>>

  Ooh!! So you do not take seriously who do not agree with you !! Interesting....much interesting!!!

  Yep, ...now i've something to think about .

  Perspi
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  Maybe it is a little bit exaggerated, ins't it ??!

  No, understated. "and the Word was God" is how John 1:1c is tranlated in all English tranlations except paraphrases and one-man translations. All of the translations that are in regular use in Christian churches (again, excepting paraphrases) read that way. And that is how millions of Christians accept it. More accurate would be hundreds of millions, but I'm willing to understate the case for the sake of discussion.

  Ooh!! So you do not take seriously who do not agree with you !! Interesting....much interesting!!!

  Yep, ...now i've something to think about .

  No, I don't take seriously people who make claims to support their arguments that are not true. Follow the link I posted above and see for yourself.

  For example, BeDuhn wrote:

  The grammatical rules involving Greek genitives and datives make the definite article practically unnecessary, and used only in a limited set of circumstances. So definite nouns in their genitive and dative forms often omit the article. But the opposite is true of Greek nouns in the nominative and accusative cases. In these forms, definite nouns as a rule require the definite article, with a very limited set of exceptions. So any count of anarthrous THEOS that combines these four cases into a single statistic yields erroneous results. Looking just at the nominative and accusative occurrences of THEOS, one would be able to state the opposite of what Mr. Hommel says, namely, that anarthrous THEOS is almost always INDEFINITE. I would be happy to entertain an assessment of every anarthrous THEOS in the genitive [sic] and accusative cases to demonstrate this fact.

  Robert Hommel ran the numbers in a computer concordance, and surprise! BeDuhn was utterly and completely WRONG!!! Either incompetent, or lying. Take your pick. Either way, not to be taken seriously by lovers of the truth.

  You do indeed have something to think about, but I doubt you have the guts to persue it. Please prove me wrong on that!

  Robert Frazier
  

  Edited by - robert_v_frazier on 25 June 2002 16:50:48
• 

  hillary_step

  perspicacia2,

  Ooh!! So you do not take seriously who do not agree with you !! Interesting....much interesting!!!

  Do you?

  HS
• 

  perspicacia2

  <<...I doubt you have the guts to persue it...>>>

  HA Ha Ha Ha !!!

  Time to Time , Time to time.

  Persp
• 

  Farkel

  : If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he" and "him" in Jn 16:7- 8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness (Jn 15:26); Feel hurt (Isa 63:10); Be blasphemed against (Mk 3:29); Say things (Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, and Heb 10:15-17): Desire (Gal 5:17); Be outraged (Heb 10:29); Search (I Cor 2:10); Comfort (Acts 9:31); Be loved (Rom 15:30); Be lied to and be God (Acts 5:3-4)?

  Of course, YK did an absolutely splending job of talking around the question, while never getting around to answering it. "Implied ownership" and all of your other strawmen do not answer the question.

  Care to try again?

  You are brilliant at dazzling folks with words, YK, but abysmal with honestly dealing with facts.

  Farkel
  Vile Viiper Class
• 

  OUTLAW

  Anyone could tell Farkels shoe size by looking at the boot mark on YK`s ass..Farkel`s kicked it enough times..LOL...OUTLAW

  Edited by - OUTLAW on 25 June 2002 17:23:43
• 

  Earnest

  Robert_V_F,

  You wrote that "'and the Word was God' is how John 1:1c is tranlated in all English tranlations except paraphrases and one-man translations. All of the translations that are in regular use in Christian churches (again, excepting paraphrases) read that way."

  My copy of the New English Bible reads "and what God was, the Word was."
  This translation was planned and directed by representatives of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Congregational Union of England and Wales, the Council of Churches for Wales, the London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, the Presbyterian Church of England, the United Council of Christian Churches and Religious Communions in Ireland, the British and Foreign Bible Society and the National Bible Society of Scotland.

  This translation is no paraphrase except in the sense that every intelligent translation is a paraphrase. And it is most certainly in regular use in Christian churches, as you would expect considering its provenance.

  The meaning of this verse has been discussed ad nauseam on other threads so I just wish to limit this to suggest you are mistaken. Quite clearly, to say "what God was, the Word was" is not the same as saying "the Word was God". If it was then the translators would not have changed it. In fact it is more akin to saying "the Word was a God". Now where have I read that before?

  Earnest
• 

  Kenneson

  Perpsi writes: "Firstborn would be the only creation that God himself directly created." This is in reference to firstborn of creation, that Jesus is the first creature created by God.

  What would "firstborn from the dead" in Col. 1:18 mean? Does this mean that Jesus was the first to be brought back to life from the dead? Apparently not, as Elijah raised a child back to life in 1 Kings 17:21-23 And Jesus himself raised Lazarus (John 11:43) How, then, was Jesus the "firstborn from the dead"?
• 

  SpiderMonkey

  What would "firstborn from the dead" in Col. 1:18 mean? Does this mean that Jesus was the first to be brought back to life from the dead? Apparently not, as Elijah raised a child back to life in 1 Kings 17:21-23 And Jesus himself raised Lazarus (John 11:43) How, then, was Jesus the "firstborn from the dead"?

  apparently, that child and Lazarus were only "mostly dead," and therefore didn't count.