The 1950s NWT (1984) (page 4)

Phizzy

My thinking exactly HTBWC ! and maybe even Jesus, if we only knew what he really taught, was promoting this view of the Supreme Being, his god, It would certainly explain the antipathy of the religious leaders of his day ! it would really piss them off !

Certainly Gnostic thought does not seem to be something that did NOT affect the writer of the Gospel of John, and maybe the incipient, or nascent, Gnosticism we see is because it was far from mainstream in his time. The influence of Gnostic thought on the genuine Letters of Paul I shall have to have a look at, but are there perhaps more such thoughts in the Pseudepigraphic Letters ?

scholar

Jeffro

hahahahaha. Aside from issues with the grammar, the NWT rendering and interpretation is completely illogical in reference to the context of the passage. After Babylon's 70 years are ended, attention is given to the Jews' return. It is completely irrational to insist that attention is given to their return after they're already returned. You really are a lost cause.

-----

No lack of logic for the context most certainly favors a locative meaning as 'at' or 'in Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon'. But scholar can work with either as it is a matter of opinion because the Hebrew preposition has a wide range of meaning. Jeremiah's words recorded in ch. 29 simply indicated the length of their Exile or period of servitude in Babylon.

scholar JW

scholar

Jeffro

Huh? I pointed out that BeDuhn is himself biased toward nontrinitarianism, so your elaboration about BeDuhn’s assessment is pointless.

---

No matter for any critic or reviewer will have an inherent bias. Nothing to see here.

scholar JW

Jeffro

So tedious. Acknowledging that your preferred reviewer is simply showing their own doctrinal bias is hardly a credible endorsement. And your pitiful assertion about Jeremiah 29:10 does not even attempt to deal with the flawed JW interpretation. It’s pointless dealing with you, and I’ve only ever done so for the benefit of other readers.

JoenB75

I would agree John has an unique take on who Jesus is. But it seems pretty clear that he claimed the God of the old testament as his Father. In John 5:46 he says Moses wrote of him. Who is Jesus in the gospel of John. I would say the incarnation of the Word and Mind of the Father is one way to put it, God speaking on feet in flesh. Also a sort of baby God, all having the heavily symbolisms of John in mind. Godman out of heaven, "divine flesh". It fits fine with my general Oneness/Modalist understanding of Jesus

scholar

Jeffro

So tedious. Acknowledging that your preferred reviewer is simply showing their own doctrinal bias is hardly a credible endorsement. And your pitiful assertion about Jeremiah 29:10 does not even attempt to deal with the flawed JW interpretation. It’s pointless dealing with you, and I’ve only ever done so for the benefit of other readers

-----

Ditto!!

scholar JW

Anony Mous

BeDuhn is a close WTBTS sympathizer if not outright a JW. There are exchanges on this forum from ~14 years ago that show that he distributed WTBTS literature such as the Kingdom Interlinear to his students as textbooks and that he is highly biased, claiming that every scholar that does not adhere to the WTBTS viewpoint is biased.

Even reviewers of his book outright state that he only accepts and defends the Jehovah's Witness viewpoints and thus his book is incredibly biased for anyone that does not accept those viewpoints while at the same time stating that HE alone in his field is not biased at all. You can't imagine the hubris that guy must have to claim he is infallible, if anything, it sounds like he may have been involved in the translation of the NWT himself (given the authors have never been revealed) and thus feels the need to defend it.

This is a quote from BeDuhn on EVERY other biblical scholar: I do not "ignore" these predecessors and colleagues, but rather find fault with their highly biased approach and surprisingly fallacious claims.

You can find a scholarly rebuttal to the BeDuhn books here and it isn't good for BeDuhn: https://web.archive.org/web/20110303223048/http://www.ses.edu:80/Portals/0/documents/TRUTH%20IN%20TRANSLATIONA%2001.pdf

Note that BeDuhn's appendix on the NWT use of Jehovah even where it isn't in ANY extant translation, BeDuhn's arguments are basically the same arguments which the WTBTS uses to justify the mistranslation. You could literally read his book and put earlier WT articles and see the arguments are a copy.

scholar

Anonymous

Thomas Howe provides a detailed critique of Be Duhn's work of some 100 pages and accuses him of theological bias similar to that uttered against the Witnesses. Much of the discussion in both pieces of scholarship hovers around the correct translation of John 1:1 and what is at issue is whether the anarthrous predicate nominative theos is definite or indefinite.

The NWT is a worry for scholars because it challenges them in a way that they have never had to deal with before and is similar to how WT scholars have a Bible Chronology that with such dates as 607, 537 BCE amongst many others also confounds such scholars causing them much dispute and controversy. It is amazing how much of the scholarly literature centers on the John 1:1 debate and it would appear that the JW's with their brilliant NWT has got it just so.

scholar JW

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

The NWT is a worry for scholars because it challenges them in a way that they have never had to deal with before and is similar to how WT scholars have a Bible Chronology that with such dates as 607, 537 BCE amongst many others also confounds such scholars causing them much dispute and controversy.

🤣😂 Seriously, you’ve got to be just trolling at this point. I needed the laugh. Thanks 🤣

scholar

Jeffro

I am only here for your amusement or perhaps I am trying to bait you.

scholar JW

The 1950s NWT (1984)

Share this