Posts by Hellrider

137

New World Translation Brackets!!

by gold_morning in

for what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.

the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".

at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.

Hellrider

Mondo:

The obeisance/worship issue is hardly justified either, for Bible translations regularly translate that different. They translate it as worship for Christ because that is what *their theology* teaches, but they translate it other was in other places. So it isn't a matter of bias, just interpretation in translation. There is a difference.

They do? Do you have any examples?

And finally, on the Lord/Jehovah issue, I don't think there is any ambiguity at all. The Bible is very clear on who they are.

Just curious: How do you justify the NWT-version of Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

...which the NWT renders "They will look to the one whom they have pierced..."

No amibguity, you say?

137

New World Translation Brackets!!

by gold_morning in

for what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.

the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".

at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.

Hellrider

Mondo

No, I do not deny that they have added it, but frankly, if I had to choose between adding it and taking it away, as long as there is some level of justification in adding it (i.e. that it is a quote or allusion to an OT passage and the context does not demand that it not be present), I'd rather see it added then removed.

The problem is that adding the "divine name" into the NT causes theological consequenses by settling the trinity vs non-trinity-dispute once and for all, and in an unjust manner. It removes all ambiguity about Jesus Christ and is relationship to the Father, an ambiguity that is present in the texts, and which it is wrong to remove. This, in combination with f.ex. translating the same greek word as "obeisance" (when referring to Jesus) and "worship" (when referring to the Father), along with lots of other examples, makes for a very biased translation. I saw you write "most criticisms of the NWT are unjustified" above a couple of posts ago, but most translators are very clear on the NWT:

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
"Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Manteyon The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)

17

Anyone familiar with this Ex-JW?...

by Merry Magdalene in

curious about accusations against the iranian president for his views on the holocaust, i was doing a little research into the matter and stumbled across this character: ditlieb felderer

charged, tried, convicted and jailed in sweden.

vilified in the press.

Hellrider

MerryMagdalene: Don`t believe everything you find on the internet. Zundel is one of those antisemites/neo-nazis posing as "revisionists". They never hesitate to lie, misrepresent, etc, to support their wacky conspiracy theories. As for the number 60 000, I have never heard the JWs claim that that many jws were killed in the concentration camps. I believe the yearbook once upon a time said 10 000, and that number is wrong, I think I read somewhere on the board that the real number is 2000. It is typical of someone like Zundel to claim that the "holohoax"-historians (as the call them) said that it was 60 000, and that the real number was 200. Exagerate what the real holocaust-historians say, and then claim that the actual number is ridicolously low. Typical holocaust-denial-technique, they do that with the number of jews too. These folks honestly believe that the total number of jews who died in the camps was no greater than 100 000, and that most of them died due to "malnutrition caused by food-shortage due to allied bombing of the railways, and of tyfus". They are crazy and retarded, and don`t listen to them.

21

I finally did the right thing

by cyberdyne systems 101 in

jw
friends

i had been friendly to a woman i met recently and wanted to take things further, but found out she was with someone when i asked if she wanted my number.

i bumped into her again two weeks later and she then asked for my number, so i asked her again was she with someone, she said yes but she could still text me.

my gut reaction through mistakes i have made in the past was to not get involved.

Hellrider

You did the right thing. Ten years ago, I wasn`t that smart, and got involved with a woman that loved with someone, fell desperately in love. Evetually, she dumped me, and I had my heart broken so bad, it took me years to get over it. Stay away from those kinds of women.

27

New Watchtower - Who is the Antichrist?

by TheKings in

i admit to being curious as soon as i saw this new bit of propoganda put on the dining room table 'casually' in my view by my mother.

i know i can't look at any of the magazines without being questioned why...so i took a look while i had some private time.. what a fine lot of manure... :p. .

they must be getting scared in brooklyn.

Hellrider

"The word "antichrist" applies to all who deny what the Bible says about Jesus Christ, all who oppose his Kingdom, and all who mistreat his followers. It also includes individuals, organizations, and nations that falsely claim to represent Christ or improperly ascribe to themselves the role of Messiah by presumptuously promising to achieve that which only Christ can do--bring about true peace and security."

I wonder where in the Bible exactly that is said...

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

According to Barrs Biblical Words for Time, the word olam means in pertpetuity, not "eternity". Was it often used to describe God as eternal, you say? Even though it doesn`t mean "eternal" at all? Hm, I wonder, could this not be the case of other words and expressions too, such as....(see above).
No it couldn't be a case of that, because olam was the closest thing that had to eternal.

This one was also good. As if the greeks only had one way to say a certain something, one word for each meaning, true linguistic reductionist positivism. You`re a funny man.

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

Your argument is full of holes, for if it was so often used of God himself that people thought of God when it was used, that would mean that every other time somebody used it they thought the person was claiming to be God

I`m just gonna let this one stand for itself, so everyone can see how silly it is.

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

Oy vey indeed.

First of all, hO WN does not mean eternal existence. So I don't know where you got that from.

Strawman. I never said that it meant "eternal existence", I said it meant The Being! Can you read? It`s right there in my post. But: Yahweh calls himself The Being in this text in Exodus, and we bot agree that God has eternal existence, correct? So obviously, the term "The Being", hO WN, when used about God, must contain also the quality "eternal existence", correct? Or do Jehovahs Witnesses now believe that God aka Yahweh aka The Being is not eternal? I get confused with all these "new light"-things...

Second of all, you have contradicted your argument that Jesus is quoting Exodus 3:14. Now you seem to say that he is no longer quoting it, he just means the samething. If they meant the same thing that why are they different??

You must be confused. I allready admitted I was wrong about the wording in Exodus, and that it`s hO WN and not EGW EIMI. However, the term "I AM", EGW EIMI, is used as an introductory statement so many times in the OT that the readers and authors of the NT would automatically associate it with God himself, when coming from the mouth of a) God b)someone claiming to be God (and that would result in stoning). I don`t understand why this is so hard to understand. Also, the term (as you yourself admitted) in John 8, contains a claim of longlasting (I would say eternal) existence.

Ummm.. ever heard of olam? It referred to an unspecified period of past time, but it was often used to describe God as eternal. In Greek we would say aiwnos.

According to Barrs Biblical Words for Time, the word olam means in pertpetuity, not "eternity". Was it often used to describe God as eternal, you say? Even though it doesn`t mean "eternal" at all? Hm, I wonder, could this not be the case of other words and expressions too, such as....(see above).

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

Undifsfellowshipped:

God said to Moses, [...] "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
'I AM has sent me to you.'"
You said before that God was not using "I AM" as a Name in Exodus 3:14. Yet, God told Moses, "Say ... 'I AM has sent me to you.' " That is most definitely not the normal way of using "I AM." Normal people do not tell others "I AM has sent you," rather they would say "I sent you."

Mondos point is that doesn`t really say "I am has sent you", because the phrasing is hO WN , and hO WN doesn`t mean "I am", it means "the Being". When God says "I am who I am", he really says "EGW EIMI HO WN", which directly translated means "I Am the Being", not "I Am who I Am". However: This doesn`t mean that you are wrong! "I am the Being" is the direct translation of the passage, and the direct wording in greek, but that doesn`t mean that the translators made an error when the Bible was translated from greek. What is the essential meaning of "The Being"? It is existence, isn`t it? Existence in itself, for itself, by itself, and for all eternity, with no beginning, no end. This is what God is, and not even Mondo or your average jw would disagree on that. In other words, the term "The Being" means all that is God, and so does "I am". When the words EGW EIMI, "I AM" came from the mouth of God as an introductory statement in the OT, it really just means the same as "The Being". It was translated into "I AM WHAT I AM" or "I AM THAT I AM", because the translators ever since the Vulgata understood the meaning of both EGW EIMI and hO WN. The point is that the two terms mean the same thing, when God is using them. It means "I exist" (forever, by myself). What Mondo also doesn`t understand, is the claim of eternal existence by Jesus, in John 8:

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Hebrew didn`t really have any words that meant "eternity". What do you then say, when you want to say that something or someone is eternal? You create an expression, a metaphore that signifies an extremely long-term existence, construct sentences that would mean such a thing as our modern word, "eternal". The greeks were great poets, but these jws don`t understand poetry very well...

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

LoL, no, I don`t. That is not the point at all! The point is now what "God meant", but what the greeks and greekspeaking jews read in the LXX, what impression this made on them, what caught their eye, what phrases that stood out, and how they interpreted these phrases. Then they wrote the NT on the basis of this, in combination with the stories about Jesus` life. That is the point.

You have to demonstrate that these sentences use it in a unique way, or your argument is completely invalid.

In fact, I would like to see the WTS justify grammatically the NWT-translation of " and the Word was a God", without taking into consideration context! And what is the point of me mentioning this? The point is that grammar will only get u so far. Yes, grammatically there is no hO WN in John 8, but there most certainly is no "a" in "and the Word was God". Why then did the WTS shove that "a" in there? Because they have this certain doctrine, and the doctrine was deciding for the translation. In turn, these doctrines are made on the basis of an overall-view on the Bible. The point is that this decision of the WTS was made solely on what they saw as "context", which in reality is their overall Bible-doctrines (anti-trinitarianism). So, when the context tells us that "I AM" was used so much in the OT by God when he presented himself to his people, and we see the jews attempting to stone Jesus in the NT when he is calling himself it, what is the logical conclusion? That "I AM" had taken on status as a title for God, when used by a heavenly being, in a certain way.

You have to demonstrate that these sentences use it in a unique way, or your argument is completely invalid.

Well, I tried to do that in John 8 (not with the greek though, my skills are very limited in that), but you dismissed it. Or rather, you tried to explain it away, and when I pointed out that even within your alternative explanation, the term refers to someone heavenly, you just ignored it. Nice going.