Posts by Borgia

31

Why would God speak in symbols if he really wanted us to understand?

by rebel8 in

if i was a deity and wanted people to know "the truth", i would just say it in plain language instead of veiling everything in symbolism, innuendo, and vague hints.

what does that method of communication accomplish?.

if i remember correctly, the borg answer to that is this method of communicating tricks the bad people but the good people can figure it out just fine.

Borgia

rebel 8,

you have a typo. it's profeaces......

cheers

Borgia

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.

Borgia

I once read a thread somewhere were the issue of proskuneo was dealt with embedded within historical context.....

Cheers

Borgia

16

Bible Contradictions?

by Aequitus in

i was visited by jehovah's witnesses three times, and i decided to attend a meeting of theirs (which was this morning).

i had brought a page of questions because i was expecting more of a discussion.

this was not the case and i left after two hours.

Borgia

Narkissos, thanks very much indeed. That´s the one.

Cheers

Borgia

16

Bible Contradictions?

by Aequitus in

i was visited by jehovah's witnesses three times, and i decided to attend a meeting of theirs (which was this morning).

i had brought a page of questions because i was expecting more of a discussion.

this was not the case and i left after two hours.

There is a website somewhere which contains the bible. With every text come little icons showing what kind of anomaly they have encountered. A nice site for a good laugh or two and will help you in targeting your initial question a bit better.

I will try to locate that one. If any of you know where it is...please, post it here.

Cheers

Borgia

31

Why would God speak in symbols if he really wanted us to understand?

by rebel8 in

if i was a deity and wanted people to know "the truth", i would just say it in plain language instead of veiling everything in symbolism, innuendo, and vague hints.

what does that method of communication accomplish?.

if i remember correctly, the borg answer to that is this method of communicating tricks the bad people but the good people can figure it out just fine.

Borgia

From the Genesis account with the tower of Babel: God solely is responsibel for the divisions in this world: confusion of language. (Is it any wonder why the rest of the bible caused the same?)

What effect did he pursue: ...."

Gen 11:6 And Jehovah said, Behold, the people is one, and the lip one to all of them, and this they are beginning to do, and now all which they have purposed to do will not be restrained from them.

Gen 11:7 Come, let Us go down and confuse their language so that they cannot understand one another's speech. "

In short....he himself does not want people united but devided. All the wars that came as a consequence were founded on this principle.

Intersting how the NT speaks of unity and the desire to unite........ Here´s another one:

Eccl. 3:10-13

10 I have seen the occupation that God has given to the sons of mankind in which to be occupied. 11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish. 12 I have come to know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good during one’s life; 13 and also that every man should eat and indeed drink and see good for all his hard work. It is the gift of God.

I think it sums it up quite clearly.....

My father once had a return visit who ordered the green NWT. You know why? He used the paper to make and then smoke fags(weed). Now that´s a fine example of a crafty use of the bible.....

Cheers

Borgia

3

The Bible Canon & The Da vinci code

by KW13 in

after watching the da vinci code i remembered as a dub reading about the bible canon and how other books other than the ones included were not authored by those under divine inspiration.. who decided this?

why?

are the other books legit?

Borgia

You have the WT cdrom available? look up the SI book and extract the WT reasons for the current canon. They have been trying to circumvent the RCC/protestant controversy: canon through tradition versus sola scritura. Interesting read I assure you.

Cheers

Borgia

7

Examining ReExamine

by inbyathread in

jw
friends

is reexamine down for the count or is there just a major bug in the system?

Borgia

seems like the index page is written in php and it hows an error on line 62....exit index page. Only the site owner/administrator can correct it.

cheers

Borgia

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.

Borgia

TD,

Exactly. 100%. Translating can be a real drag.

I used this example to show that based upon the availability of resources, including the groundtext, one can draw their own conclusions or use it as a startingpoint for further investigation. Even coming to the conclusion that more than 1 interpretation is possile and that this verse is not definite on that subject, therefore, no need for dogmatism.

I found the candidness about the boundaries between translation and interpretation quite dispappointing.

So, instead of warning against thre use of an interlinear translation freely, I would encourage the use of one from day 1.

Cheers

Borgia

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.

Borgia

Reply on the wrong place. so double entry on purpose. and sorry for the greek being corrupted. I did not quite figure out how to do that.... Mondo 1, These were your comments: Frannie, An interlinear translation is a completely different type of translation and should not be used by those without at least a basic understanding of Greek and translation principles. You would find the same "issues" that you see with the NWT with any other Bible too if they were compared without understanding what is going on in the text. Mondo Frannie, Let me give you an example. Look in the NASB at John 14:9 and you'll see the words "have been." Yet look in the interlinear and see "am." Is the NASB wrong and dishonest? Or is there a reason that it is translated differently that a person who does not know anything about Greek would not understand? Mondo Mondo, Although I agree with you that knowledge is essential for understanding, people can use their ability to reason and come to their own conclusions. Especially when they have access to : ground text, dictionaries, concordances, interlinear translation and other bible translations. I agree with you that every translation is just a translation and to correclty(complete thrust/meaning) understand the bible text in greek one should be able to natively understand it, which I do not profess to do by the way. Now let´s turn to that gem of an example you gave. How does the rendering in present or perfect tense influence the meaning of the text? What exaclty is the point here? Now tell me that by failing to have a basic understanding of greek and translation principles I am coming to the wrong conclusion......... Trying to answer these above questions might be used as a starting point for further investigation.Tons of research material are available. And I can consider arguments pro and contro for myself. For example, you and Narkisson seems to have profound knowledge of the greek language and translation principles. That´s ok. But you both do not seem to agree as far as your conclusions are concerned. So, I outweigh arguments pro and contra and will come to a conclusion myself. And on the fly I may pickup some knowledge of greek and translation principles without becomming or professing to be a scientific learned person. What is the basis for salvation? Is it not faith in Jesus? Tell me that without the correct understanding of the text in collosians 1:15,16 (your understanding that supposedly will be) I cannot be saved because I drew the "wrong" conclusion.... And as I have pointed out before: WBTS inserts an extra word [also], like this word is imperative to correclty understand the essence of the text. If a translator is inclined to add words in a text which clearly shows the meaning without it, what impact does that have on texts which are open to multiple interpretations, or may be used to support other doctrine than that the translator holds dear? Let me give a an example: Fil 2:6. NWT renders it in a totally different way than the interlinear other translations. Mind the brackets in the NWT. Phi 2:6 (ALT) who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto, (AOV) Hy, wat in die gestalte van God was, het dit geen roof geag om aan God gelyk te wees nie, (ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, (DSV) Die in de gestaltenis Gods zijnde, geen roof geacht heeft Gode even gelijk te zijn; (EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, (GEB) welcher, da er in Gestalt Gottes war, es nicht für einen Raub achtete, Gott gleich zu sein, (GLB) welcher, ob er wohl in göttlicher Gestalt war, hielt er's nicht für einen Raub, Gott gleich sein, (ISV) In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping. (KJV+) Who,3739 being5225 in1722 the form3444 of God,2316 thought2233 it not3756 robbery725 to be1511 equal2470 with God:2316 (LBLA) el cual, aunque existía en forma de Dios, no consideró el ser igual a Dios como algo a qué aferrarse, (LITV) who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, (Webster) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: NWT: , 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. Where are the brackets????????? (Who[, although, he was] existing in God’s form[, gave] no consider[ation to a] seizure[, namely that he should] be equal [to] God.) Please, tell me which translation is the close to the original text: ??3739 R-NSM = (ha/hay)/ho) the e?1722 PREP = (en) in µ??f?3444 N-DSF = (morphe) Form, Shape ?e??2316 N-GSM = (theou) god god ?pa????5225 V-PAP-NSM = (huparcho) exist; come into existence ???3756 PRT-N = (ou) not a?pa?µ??725 N-ASM = (harpagmos) robbery ???sat?2233 V-ADI-3S = (hegeomai) think, judge, consider, govern t?3588 T-ASN = (to) = this, that e??a?1511 V-PXN = (einai) exist; being ?sa2470 A-NPN = (eesos) gelijk equal ?e?2316 N-DSM = theoo god I´m sure they have a reason for doing so. These reasons may be found on the WT cdrom in numerous places and the interesting thing about it is that it only refutes some other exotic translation of the "consider robbery" part and it tries to refute trinitarian concept, which this text clearly does not show and therefore is a no brainer. Stil leaves with the basic question as to the textual reasons to do so. Given the above proof, it must be a hell of a reason. (Clearly, but this may be added to another thread about looking for fresh conspiracy theory, chistendom is corrupting the bible text to keep people within the bonds of Babylon the Great. ) The usual explanation and especially conparisson is that Satan did consider to be equal to God and therefore considered a seizure which christ did not. But....the context is not about that. Tell me I came to the wrong conclusion here. What did I use? Groundtext from several sources, concordances, dictionaries and several available translations. All freely available. Cheers Borgia

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.

Borgia

Mondo 1,

These were your comments:

Frannie,

An interlinear translation is a completely different type of translation and should not be used by those without at least a basic understanding of Greek and translation principles. You would find the same "issues" that you see with the NWT with any other Bible too if they were compared without understanding what is going on in the text.

Mondo

Frannie,

Let me give you an example. Look in the NASB at John 14:9 and you'll see the words "have been." Yet look in the interlinear and see "am." Is the NASB wrong and dishonest? Or is there a reason that it is translated differently that a person who does not know anything about Greek would not understand?

Mondo

Mondo,

Although I agree with you that knowledge is essential for understanding, people can use their ability to reason and come to their own conclusions. Especially when they have access to : ground text, dictionaries, concordances, interlinear translation and other bible translations.

I agree with you that every translation is just a translation and to correclty(complete thrust/meaning) understand the bible text in greek one should be able to natively understand it, which I do not profess to do by the way.

Now let´s turn to that gem of an example you gave. How does the rendering in present or perfect tense influence the meaning of the text? What exaclty is the point here? Now tell me that by failing to have a basic understanding of greek and translation principles I am coming to the wrong conclusion.........

Trying to answer these above questions might be used as a starting point for further investigation.Tons of research material are available. And I can consider arguments pro and contro for myself. For example, you and Narkisson seems to have profound knowledge of the greek language and translation principles. That´s ok. But you both do not seem to agree as far as your conclusions are concerned. So, I outweigh arguments pro and contra and will come to a conclusion myself. And on the fly I may pickup some knowledge of greek and translation principles without becomming or professing to be a scientific learned person.

What is the basis for salvation? Is it not faith in Jesus? Tell me that without the correct understanding of the text in collosians 1:15,16 (your understanding that supposedly will be) I cannot be saved because I drew the "wrong" conclusion....

And as I have pointed out before: WBTS inserts an extra word [also], like this word is imperative to correclty understand the essence of the text. If a translator is inclined to add words in a text which clearly shows the meaning without it, what impact does that have on texts which are open to multiple interpretations, or may be used to support other doctrine than that the translator holds dear?

Let me give a an example: Fil 2:6. NWT renders it in a totally different way than the interlinear other translations. Mind the brackets in the NWT.

Phi 2:6

(ALT) who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto,
(AOV) Hy, wat in die gestalte van God was, het dit geen roof geag om aan God gelyk te wees nie,
(ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(DSV) Die in de gestaltenis Gods zijnde, geen roof geacht heeft Gode even gelijk te zijn;
(EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
(GEB) welcher, da er in Gestalt Gottes war, es nicht für einen Raub achtete, Gott gleich zu sein,
(GLB) welcher, ob er wohl in göttlicher Gestalt war, hielt er's nicht für einen Raub, Gott gleich sein,
(ISV) In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping.
(KJV+) Who,3739 being5225 in1722 the form3444 of God,2316 thought2233 it not3756 robbery725 to be1511 equal2470 with God:2316
(LBLA) el cual, aunque existía en forma de Dios, no consideró el ser igual a Dios como algo a qué aferrarse,
(LITV) who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
(Webster) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

NWT: , 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

Where are the brackets?????????

(Who[, although, he was] existing in God’s form[, gave] no consider[ation to a] seizure[, namely that he should] be equal [to] God.)

Please, tell me which translation is the close to the original text:

??3739 R-NSM = (ha/hay)/ho) the
e?1722 PREP = (en) in
µ??f?3444 N-DSF = (morphe) Form, Shape
?e??2316 N-GSM = (theou) god god
?pa????5225 V-PAP-NSM = (huparcho) exist; come into existence
???3756 PRT-N = (ou) not
a?pa?µ??725 N-ASM = (harpagmos) robbery
???sat?2233 V-ADI-3S = (hegeomai) think, judge, consider, govern
t?3588 T-ASN = (to) = this, that
e??a?1511 V-PXN = (einai) exist; being
?sa2470 A-NPN = (eesos) gelijk equal
?e?2316 N-DSM = theoo god

I´m sure they have a reason for doing so. These reasons may be found on the WT cdrom in numerous places and the interesting thing about it is that it only refutes some other exotic translation of the "consider robbery" part and it tries to refute trinitarian concept, which this text clearly does not show and therefore is a no brainer. Stil leaves with the basic question as to the textual reasons to do so. Given the above proof, it must be a hell of a reason.

(Clearly, but this may be added to another thread about looking for fresh conspiracy theory, chistendom is corrupting the bible text to keep people within the bonds of Babylon the Great. )

The usual explanation and especially conparisson is that Satan did consider to be equal to God and therefore considered a seizure which christ did not. But....the context is not about that. Tell me I came to the wrong conclusion here.

What did I use? Groundtext from several sources, concordances, dictionaries and several available translations. All freely available.

Cheers

Borgia