I like your post!
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
2
There is no ONE Right Answer
by AllTimeJeff inone thing that has irritated me is the idea that it is "one way or the highway.
" on pretty much anything.. it's one thing to have your own view on things.
i do politically, religiously, sports, etc.
-
-
-
25
"The Scholastic Dishonesty of The WATCHTOWER" as a pdf?
by VM44 indoes anyone know if "the scholastic dishonesty of the watchtower", published by caris, has been made into a pdf?.
there has been so much excellent material posted here as pdf files, but i forgotten if the above has been posted.. if it has been made available, is a currently active link for it that works?.
-
-
Wonderment
I have read a lot of material which alledgedly shows WT dishonesty everywhere. Before, when I started reading them, I tended to believe most everything. When I started comparing both sides of the matter, I came to the conclusion that BOTH sides have erred on many issues, and both camps are right with some of their statements. There is no such thing as, the WT is wrong 99% of the times and these critics are right 99% of the times. It is not that simple.
There is evidence that the WT has twisted, misinformed more than a generation of readers. It is sad to see Witnesses who take WT material as if it was written by God's hand. My daughter is one, a loyal Witness herself, who chastised me for sending her money around birthdate time, for wishing her a Happy Birthday. She called me back to tell me she felt uncomfortable with that. I must stop, because when I quoted the Bible, she told me she reads the Bible and she knows her position is right. BTW, she kept the money.
On the other hand, we have tons of people believing these WT critics without question as if they spoke truth all the way. Not true! They too have a problem with facts. They are masters at twisting things, and hiding material relevant to the subject. I have found, at least on the subject of bible translation, the WT to be more accurate than their critics. On other subjects, such as their history, the Society is less accurate. On quoting other references, they omit quite a bit of pertinent material, and they use such material to prove or indicate their current argument without disclosing the authors intended meaning.
The WT critics too give you a one sided view of things as well. The link provided in this thread is indicative of that. The WT critics often place inmense weight on university accreditation when it suits them, even though the material they passionately defend can be understood and rightfully explained differently by other scholars, as is often the case. The Mantey example shows their mishandling of the matter. They keep saying that Mantey, who was a brilliant scholar, proves the WT scholarly dishonesty clearly. But does it? Not nearly in the way the critics paint it.
Most objections of Mantey are doctrinally motivated, not grammar. Have you noticed that? Here we have one of the biggest names of Greek scholarship in the past 100 years, and he dwells on material that is really theologically arguable. And even when he addresses the grammar, he does not acknowledge that his view does not represent all scholars, and a good number of equally trained scholars disagreee with him with some of the very same isssues he brought up. He won't say that of course, because some of these evangelical scholars want to imply that just about everything they teach agrees with the Bible, just as much as the WTS wants all their followers to think that Jehovah is guiding the faithful and discreet slave.
They are both wrong, but if I had to choose who is more honest among the two camps, I think the WT is more accurate, more often, than are some of their critics. Compare for instance, the book Reasoning from the Scriptures from the WTS with similar material printed by countercult movements, and you will find slanted material everywhere, more so with the countercult movement material
-
26
Compilation of the bible and the NWT translation source.
by trailerfitter inhi,, i have a curious question about when the bible was actually compiled.
from what i understand it was actually compiled under emperor constantines request in the 4th century ad.
this was the nicene creed.. i also am aware that there quite a few books that were considered for inclusion but weren't.
-
-
Wonderment
Mantey wrote: "But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse [John 1:1] as Jehovah's Witnesses have."
There are numerous lists on the Web showing a number of scholars who translate John 1:1 in a way that Mantey would not approve. Yet, he picks on the NWT. Why is he is silent about those other scholars who go against the grain, he even pretends they don't exist. Not very accurate in anyones book.
Mantey: But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and the nature is the highest in existence, namely divine.
In other words, although he states‘ that (the Word was God, i.e., was of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator), he seems to be arguing against describing the Word as "the God," indicating that John believed that the Word and the God are distinct and having separate personalities.’
This argument nulls to some extent the common argument made by many Trinitarians that Christ and God are being identified as one and the same. He goes on to cite some scriptures where quality is emphasized, and identity not the issue. (John 4:24, "God is spirit," (not a spirit); I John 4:16, "God is love," (not a love); I John 1:5, "God is light," (not a light); and Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels,") Yes, God is (a) spirit, or God is (a) light, but not God is the light. Mantey talks about Christ having "equality" with the Father, he, however, holds back from calling Christ, the Supreme God.
Notice this statement of his: But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father," that would be enough to satisfy the seeking soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature.
Yet, he does not translate John 1:1, "the word was God," but "the word was deity [divine]."
-
41
"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)
by Wonderment indoes anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.
-
-
Wonderment
possible-san: I thank you for bringing this to my attention. After I checked the Index and saw Eph 5:33 quoted twice I missed the Imperative section on p. 485 which was being discussed. My apology to you and to the other readers. Rest be assured, it was not a purposely deceitful citation. It was plain human error. I focused at the Imperatival hina section he wrote about on p. 477. At the time, I also was checking other reference works when the mix-up ocurred. I feel there is nothing to gain by being dishonest. I hope this goes both ways. I stand corrected.
Other grammarians, though, do mention the effect of the Imperatival hina at Eph. 5:33 For instance, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by C.F.D. Moule (Cambridge) had this to say:
"An interesting extension of the final hina is the well-known idiom whereby it becomes practically imperative in sense. [...] ii. He [Cadoux] refers to four widely recognized N.T. instances: Mark v:23...; II Cor. viii. 7...; Eph. v. 33 [he de gune hina phobetai...]; and let the wire revere...; Gal. ii. 10... [...] There are some indications that it would be better in some cases to describe the hina as ‘denoting content’ rather than as imperatival [...] But it is clear enough that in many cases the hina is virtually imperatival." (pp. 144-45)
Compare The International Standard Version which you quoted earlier which translated Gal 2:10, thus: "The only thing they asked us to do was to remember the destitute, the very thing I was eager to do." (Greek: only of the poor ones in order that we may remember...hina mnemoneuomen)
A.T. Robertson writes under Eph 5:33: "Let the wife see that she fear (he gune hina phobetai). There is no verb in the Greek for "let see" (blepeto). For this use of hina with the subjunctive as a practical imperative without a principal verb (an elliptical imperative) see Mark 5:23; Matt. 20:32; I Cor. 7:29; II Cor. 8:7; Eph. 5:33..." (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol IV, p. 547)
-
41
"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)
by Wonderment indoes anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.
-
-
Wonderment
possible-san: Sorry, I don't take any stock in Dr. Joseph Murphy's explanation as you quoted him.
On the subject of the Greek expression hina phobetai at Eph 5:33 , Dr. Daniel B. Wallace wrote under, "Specific Uses, In Dependent (Subordinate) Clauses [...] b. Hina + the Subjunctive [...] 7) ImperativalHina...Eph 5:33... The parallel with the imperative agapáto in the first half of the verse shows the independent force of the hina clause." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 477)
On page 486 he adds: "A number of passages could be easily misunderstood as mere permission in most English translations [...] The Greek is stronger than a mere option, engaging the volition and placing a requirement on the individual:...Eph 5:33..."
-
41
"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)
by Wonderment indoes anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.
-
-
Wonderment
possible-san said: First of all, in this thread, you would want to say that we should not apply that trashy advice (Eph 5:33), won't you? You said, "Does anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?"
You are actually saying something I never stated. I merely posted the question above in this thread because I was really curious to see how many on this board interpret the passage today. And I got the answer. A good number of posters think it does not apply today, and some others have stated that it still applies, others stated that it applies conditionally, only if a man is deserving of respect.
I believe the counsel still applies, but unfortunately, many men today abuse their position of headship, making it challenging for many women to love and respect their men.
-
41
"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)
by Wonderment indoes anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.
-
-
Wonderment
possible-san:
You are right. I need to improve my communication. However, I feel you have ignored the bible versions I cited that reflects Paul's strong exhortation at Eph. 5:33. I never said that Paul used a strict imperative, but a "substitute" imperative, or as a grammarian calls it, "a practical imperative." Why use that instead of a straight imperative?
Perhaps, because it is kinder to say, "the wife should have deep respect* for her husband," instead of saying: "Fear your husbands!" Which sounds better? In English, we adapt our approach all the time when we give advice to others, so as not to sound too harsh. Hey, who wants to get a woman upset? I think that is what Paul did here. I never said either that the NWT was the best rendering. I did say the NWT rendering at Eph 5:33 for hina phobetai reflects the Greek well. Other translations do as well. Check the list again.
(*Literally: in order that she may be fearing the man)
-
35
Getting rid of the Book Study - a way to isolate the JW?
by skeeter1 inthe book study meeting was cancelled a while back.
the watch tower said that it was to provide for a family study night and high gas costs.
hmmm.. i thought about the cancellation of the book study meeting after listening to another pastor discus his mega-churchs dependence on small circle groups.
-
-
Wonderment
I suspect too that the WTS was concerned of reports of money contributions not making it to the Kingdom Hall. Hey, after the voluntary arrangement episode, every penny counts...
-
28
Are Jehovahs Witnesses a Cult?
by mankkeli inthis is an excerpt from the 1994 watchtower, february 15. in the entire article, the watchtower tries to debunk any claim of their cultism.
see how they go about it.. " would it be accurate to refer to jehovahs witnesses as a religious group with radical views and practices that clash with what is accepted as normal social behavior?
are jehovahs witnesses a cult?.
-
-
Wonderment
Pams girl said:
YES, they are a CULT.
B - Behaviour Control
I - Information Control
T - Thought Control
E - Emotional Control.
And there you have it.
--------------
I like your summary!
==================
Apeman: Good points!
-
41
"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)
by Wonderment indoes anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.
-
-
Wonderment
possible-san:
Wonderment said: At Eph 5:33, Paul is not expressing just a simple wish, but by using hina with phobetai with the other words, it becomes kind of a practical imperative.
possible-san said: I think that this your explanation is right/correct. But, this is NOT the "imperative mood."
Therefore, I think that the meanings of the original word will completely disappear if it is translated into "should", IMO.My answer to u: Yes, I know that hina phobetai at Eph. 5:33 is not strictly an imperative mood. However, the combination usage of hina with phobetai in the subjunctive mood becomes in a way, an imperative.
A Greek Grammar of the NT...: "387...(3) As a substitute for the imperative, in addition to the subjunctive...hina with the subjunctive is also occasionally employed...E[phesians] 5:33 (after agapáto) he de gune hina phobetai ton andra..." (Blass &Debrunner, Robert W. Funk, p. 195)
The Expositor's Greek Testament (under Eph 5:33):
"The change in the construction from the usual imperative to the form hina phobetai is explained by some by supplying Blepéto, as Blépete stands in v. 15. But hina with the conj. is used elsewhere in the NT (Mark v. 23; 2 Cor. Viii. 7) as an imperative formula, originally no doubt an elliptical form for ‘I bid you that you do,' or, ‘see you that you do' . It occurs also in later Greek prose (e.g. Arrian, Epict., iv.m I, 41) as the corresponding formula hópos is used in the same way in classical Greek with the fut. indic. (Aristoph., Nubes, 823) and more occasionally with the conj. (Xen., Cyr., i., 3,18) [...] phobetai, fear, in the sense of reverence, spontaneous, obedient regard; cf. the frequent application of the verb to the fear of God (Luke i.50, xviii. 2, 4; Acts x. 2, 22, 35, etc.); and its use in the case of Herod (Mark vi. 20)." (Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. 3, pp. 374-75)
A Grammatical Aid to the Greek NT: "Hina phobetai is parallel with the imperative agapáto (cf. R994, Eph. 4:29..." by Dr. Robert Hanna, p. 356.
As to your objection to "should" you said:Therefore, I think that the meanings of the original word will completely disappear if it is translated into "should", IMO.
Not really!It is one good way to express what Paul was exhorting. Various grammarians explain phobetai in the "passive" voice (where the subject receives the action of the verb), or as a "middle" voice (the action of a verse in the middle voice in some way affects the subject) or as passive deponent. (Deponent=a verb that is middle or passive in form but active in meaning.) A grammarian, Mounce, explains the middle voice can be "difficult" to deal with or explain.
"deep" is variously used as an adjective, noun or adverb, not a verb. And "respect" can be used as a noun or verb, and even as an adverb, respectfully. The NWT uses a helping verb "have" to get the intended message through... "the wife should have respect for her husband." Many translations ADD words here for a smoother English. Notice below how other versions deal with this verse: NIV: However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
New Living Translation: So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
New American Standard Bible: Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
International Standard Version: But each individual man among you must love his wife as he loves himself; and may the wife fear her husband.
GOD'S WORD Translation: But every husband must love his wife as he loves himself, and wives should respect their husbands.Montgomery NT: ...and the wife, on her part, should reverence her husband.
Simplified Bible: The wife should respect her husband.
Analytical Literal NT: but the wife, that she should be respecting her husband.
An Understandable Version: And the wife should respect her husband.
Darby Bible Translation: But ye also, every one of you, let each so love his own wife as himself; but as to the wife [I speak] that she may fear the husband.
Bible in Basic English: But do you, everyone, have love for his wife, even as for himself; and let the wife see that she has respect for her husband.