Is Jesus the Creator? (page 28)

Halcon

I'm not sure if legitimizing is the right word. If the human brain is the source of all of our gods and related beings and worlds, that wouldn't necessarily make them real.

Then the brain, a very physical thing with all its chemical reactions, cannot be the ultimate determiner of which metaphysical phenomena is real or not.

The question would be, are there any that are real? How would we confirm that, if we have defined them in such a way to make it impossible to do so?

Good questions, if the brain can't, who or what makes the ultimate decision on wether something like desire, longing, melancholy is actually real?

Halcon

Do you wish us to equate your belief in God/s to be equated with fantasy?

Perhaps you would attempt to do this the same way you would equate jealousy and envy to fantasy. If not, why?

You where the one arguing that your feelings and inner thoughts met the standard for objective truth/reality. As I said that is the domain of theoretical pure religion. It is when religion makes claims about objective reality such as charges of witchcraft or claims of history and biology, that they are now in competition with science and open to falsification. You can entertain any feelings or thoughts of jealousy and envy you wish but to accuse and prosecute the object of your jealousy you will need evidence. This is so far off topic.

TonusOH

Halcon: Then the brain, a very physical thing with all its chemical reactions, cannot be the ultimate determiner of which metaphysical phenomena is real or not.

I agree, but that isn't the point I was making. I am saying that, if thoughts and feelings are metaphysical, then the only source of metaphysics that we have been able to confirm is the brain. If there are other sources of metaphysics, we would need to identify them, and this would need to be corroborated. By definition, this cannot be done. Until we can confirm those other sources, the only one we can be sure of is the brain and the rest are conjecture.

Halcon: Good questions, if the brain can't, who or what makes the ultimate decision on wether something like desire, longing, melancholy is actually real?

Those would be emotions, which can be described as states of mind. Humans share many of these to such an extent that we can categorize them and recognize them in ourselves and others. I don't know about an ultimate decision, but it would be difficult to find people who do not experience these feelings in the same fashion.

Gods, on the other hand, do not share this consistency of experience and description. Across societies and nations, people can agree on how it feels to be happy or sad. Even animals seem to express these in a very consistent and similar fashion. Not so with deities. What might the difference be?

Halcon

You where the one arguing that your feelings and inner thoughts met the standard for objective truth/reality. As I said that is the domain of theoretical pure religion.

Interesting how you categorize thoughts and emotions the same as theoretical pure religion. This is what I was referring to when I responded to tonus, you either legitimize all metaphysical phenomena or are forced to discard it all.

Halcon

Across societies and nations, people can agree on how it feels to be happy or sad.

Across societies and nations, people can agree on how it feels to have God in their hearts.

Why is my statement above any less true than yours?

Earnest

TTWSYF : NO SCHOLARLY ORGANIZATION INCLUDING ANY COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES RECOGNIZES THE NWT AS A LEGIT TRANSLATION….sorry, but that’s the facts

In most cases, bible translations are decided by particular lecturers or departments. When the department or lecturer is affiliated with a particular religious view then it is likely they will use a translation sympathetic to their view.

However, there is an FAQ discussing whether the NWT is accurate and that includes positive comments about the NWT from non-Witness scholars. One of these is Jason BeDuhn who is currently Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University. He wrote a letter to Watchtower in 1998 when he was Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Chair of the Department of Humanities, Arts and Religion at Northern Arizona University. In the letter he said :

“I have just completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, [U.S.A.] . . . This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students.”

Why does Dr. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear translation in his college courses? He answers:

“Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your ‘New World Bible Translation Committee’ has done its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your ‘New World Translation’ is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today.”

Sorry, but that's the facts.

peacefulpete

At some point anyone who studies the topic realizes that every translation is interpretive. I was just listening to a Mark Goodacre blog about his role in the NRSV translation. He observed issues with the finished product that resulted from the compartmentalization that occurs. Translators are assigned sections and sometimes they make different word choice. markgoodacre.org/podcasts/NTPod104.mp3

Setting aside that for the moment, the reality is that new translations are not reinventing the wheel. The fact is anyone with reference works and a selection of translations can create a new one without actually doing ANY translating. The WT did not have any highly qualified Hebrew or Greek scholars when they created the NWT. Nor did they really need any. I'm sure that is true now. They looked at options other translators had chosen and selected from among those or were inspired by them and used different word choice that even better fit their sectarian stance. The small adjustments actually requiring skillful proficiency with Hebrew/Greek that are suggested by new manuscript discoveries are very few. The 'scholarship' of the NWT (with a few sectarian exceptions) is actually the work of the many translators that came before.

The fact is JWs formulated their doctrine almost entirely before they created their own translation. That makes the point that sects (JWs, Christian Scientist, Pentecostal etc...) are arrived at through selective interpretation and proof texting primarily.

TTWSYF

Earnest,

cherry picking a particular positive comment in an ocean of negatives, does not an endorsement make.

I agree that the Greek inter-linear is true and accurate, somehow, although, that doesn’t translate into the New World translation. Dr. Jason Bedugh never endorses the New World translation.

Again, sorry, but those are the facts.

ttwsyf

Rivergang

The feelings of empathy, kindness and consideration are simply byproducts of a chemical reaction?

Almost correct! More like the end result of a chemical reaction, rather than a "byproduct" (although some here may scream "semantics").

Furthermore, if these chemicals in the brain (known as "neurotransmitters") get out of balance, conditions such as depression usually result. Treatment for depression simply involves the correction of that chemical imbalance.

Is Jesus the Creator?

Share this