Posts by Wonderment

36

I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT

by yogosans14 in

day after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.

they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .

dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.

Wonderment

Phizzy, you provided various quotes from which I would like to comment briefly.

Metzger, a Presbyterian, focused mainly on the theological slant of the NWT -- particularly those texts which dealt with Christ's deity. On the translation side, he admitted the following:

" On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators ...Frequently an intelligent use of critical information is apparent."

Barclay mentioned ‘intellectual dishonesty’ of the WT for translating Jn 1.1 as they did. But two decades later, Barclay acknowledged that the Greek did allow for such translation. Whether Barclay changed his mind, or whether he himself was ‘intellectually dishonest’ in his initial criticism, I leave you to decide.

Rowley too was not kind to the WT either. His harsh NWT criticism for being so literal could well have been said of other literal translations. He is said to have written his NWT criticism before the actual release of the NWT occurred. What happened here?

And since the time Mantey made his deriding comments about the NWT ‘not being scholarly’ for translating Jn 1.1c as they did, various scholars have openly said that if we go by grammar alone, the rendering "a god" is just as legitimate - a complete turn-around from the previous generation of scholars.

36

I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT

by yogosans14 in

day after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.

they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .

dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.

Wonderment

Quoting Mantey, Bowman, Rhodes is not the solution in search of truth. These guys do quite a bit of twisting quotes themselves. They are not reliable sources. The WT is no saint either. Both parties are right sometimes and wrong other times. Evangelical sources attacking the WT are way off at times that it is surprising there are plenty of takers out there.

The McKenzie quote by the WT in my opinion is fair use. McKenzie was clear with the statement the WT quoted. That he is a Trinitarian, and doesn't agree with the WT interpretation overall is besides the point. Mckenzie is not that all clear on various trinitarian texts to have Rhodes quote it for full support.

Harner too presents a picture somewhere between the WT position and traditionalist views. Actually, Harner says or implies that the traditional translation "the Word was God" is a no-no. The part the WT quoted was done correctly -- to indicate that the predicate of Jn 1.1c is not definite. And I ask, what is the opposite of "definite"?

What about Baptist Mantey? Mantey's letter is more of an embarrasment to his scholarship (his Greek grammar is a favorite of mine) by revealing he let his emotions do the talking in respect to the WT. His letter was not articulately done, not to mention obvious exegetical mistakes within, which even other scholars would dispute.

23

NWT departure from greek meaning

by aintenoughwiskey in

the new jw library app includes the kingdom interlinear.

just by looking up the scriptures at the meeting when i went, revealed the following "departures" from the other translations:.

rev 5:10 "over the earth" vs "upon the earth".

Wonderment

On a previous post (c. 18 months ago), I commented on Mt 24.39, "took no note."

Other translators and commentators have explained the phrase similarly. Check around.

23

NWT departure from greek meaning

by aintenoughwiskey in

the new jw library app includes the kingdom interlinear.

just by looking up the scriptures at the meeting when i went, revealed the following "departures" from the other translations:.

rev 5:10 "over the earth" vs "upon the earth".

Wonderment

Although it is tempting to point out NWT errors based on KIT literal renderings, one should be reminded that accurate translation of any document goes beyond basic meanings, word for word transmission.

Various interlinears have pointed out the dangers of rejecting modern translations based on them. Prepositions, for instance, have a lot of overlap, and the translator must ultimately use his/her understanding of the passage in question to properly convey the meaning into the target language. This explains why we have so many English translations...there are potentially various ways to interpret some biblical accounts, such as Revelation.

The NWT Revised Ed. renders the Greek words in KIT (Rev 20.4), "through [diá] the witness of Jesus and through [diá] the word of the God" as: "for the witness they gave about Jesus and for speaking about God."

The preposition diá with the accusative as it appears in the verse can have a spatial meaning, through, but more likely a meaning of cause: because of, on account of, for the sake of

Bible translator and commentatorRobert H. Gundry explains the clause as: "for testifying about the Testimony who is Jesus and preaching about the Word who is Jesus."

Barclay renders it: "because they had declared their faith in Jesus, and for the sake of the word of God."

Moffatt: "for the testimony of Jesus and God's word"

Goodspeed: "on account of the testimony of Jesus and the message of God"

An Understandable Version: "because they had testified about Jesus and [had proclaimed] the message of God" (Brackets are from translator)

Williams: "for bearing testimony to Jesus and for preaching the word of God"

Weymouth: "on account of the testimony that they had borne to Jesus and on account of God's Message"

NLT: "for their testimony about Jesus and for proclaiming the word of God"

CEB: " because they had told about Jesus and preached God’s message "

GNT: " because they had proclaimed the truth that Jesus revealed and the word of God "

Phillips: " for their witness to Jesus and for proclaiming the Word of God "

NLV: " because they told about Jesus and preached the Word of God "

CEB: " for their witness to Jesus and God’s word "

NWT: "for the witness they gave about Jesus and for speaking about God."

114

Early Evidence for 1 John 5: 7

by Perry in

italic 4th and 5th century.

629 in the 14th century.

429 in the 14th century (margin).

Wonderment

Of 1 Timothy 3.16 (whether to read theós or He, Who), professor Daniel B. Wallace claims :

“As attractive theologically as the reading θεός [god] ” may be, it is spurious .” ( Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics , 342):

Of 1 John 5.7, textual critic Philip W. Comfort, asserts: "John never wrote the following words: in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one."

And Bible translator Byington bluntly stated: "The old version contains forged texts ... 1 John 5.7 ... But those words never were in the Greek... [...] A man who uses the old version as his standard Bible [to support 1 Tim 3.16 & 1 John 5.7] has no right to claim that he is treating the Bible respectfully as the word of God."

All three scholars quoted are Trinitarians.

117

Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 in

i asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.

revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.

because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.

Wonderment

Crazyguy: "Even with all the changes the JW's make in their bible using the word obeisance instead of worship, it is clear in the book of Revelation in the last chapter when Jesus becomes the Alpha and Omega."

Clear?

Professor emeritus at Westmont College Robert H. Gundry understands it a bit differently (as it appears in a footnote to Rev. 1.8 of his Commentary on the New Testament ):

" Since alpha and omega are the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet, saying ‘I am the alpha and the omega’ is like saying in English ‘I am the A and the Z.’ … This language described God the Father in 1:4 and therefore identifies ‘the Lord God’ with him here too [in 1:8] (as clearly also in 4:8; 21:22)."

He, as you did, used the word ‘clear,’ but he sees the words "the alpha and the omega" as a reference to "God the Father," not the Son.

13

POP-UPS-----help !!

by bigmac in

jw
friends

please guys---how do i stop these damn pop up pages?.

everytime i click on something---another page pops up---often blank.. .

i'm running firefox and google chrome---with adblock plus on both.

Wonderment

When I hear this stuff, I am so glad that years ago I switched to Linux, and haven't looked back.

Haven't seen one virus since I started Linux over 14 years ago. I have no virus programs, and for the most part haven't used firewalls either. With Linux, one gets much less crap overall when downloading software. Truly, it has been a big RELIEF away from Microsoft.

Unfortunately, a lot of people give up so easily when they try Linux. It's a pity, because most who learn Linux or Mac don't want anything to do with Windows. I use to volunteer and help Window's users, until I got tired of it, since I found Windows so problematic. What good is a system with 100,000 apps at your disposal if it gets bogged down with a dozen apps? The deterioration rate of Windows after a fresh install is abysmal. No wonder that most corporations have made the switch. What's holding the naysayers back?: FUD! Fear...Uncertainty...and Doubt!

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

Wonderment

HowTheBibleWasCreated:

I will briefly address the issues I was able to grab (The others were not clear to me).

John 8:58 as it's rendered in NWT is not a biased translation. It responds to both Greek and English idiom.

For example: Genesis 31:38 literally says in Greek LXX (Jacob to Laban): "These mine twenty years I am with you." How would an English speaker render those words into English?

John 8:58 has a similar Greek construction. In Ge 31.38, Jacob's statement contains an expression of past implications (These twenty years of mine). So when Jacob in LXX adds "I am," the translator would have to take into account the present verb used (I am) combined with words of action that began in the past. Charles Thomson dealt with this Greek construction this way: "These twenty years that I have been with thee." Thomson was correct in doing this.

An English speaker cannot properly use a present verb to convey present action having begun in the past. In the Hebrew narrative Jabob's words lack a verb, like this: "This twenty year I with-you."

How do modern translators render this? With an English perfect indicative of course, even though there is no Hebrew verb used. And just as translators normally do with this type of Greek construction. It is at John 8.58 where Trinitarian translators want to handle this construction differently in their obsession to make Christ equal to God. If there is no temporal modifier extending to the past before "I am," then "I am" means "I am."

Which insertations would you condemn? The NWT additions at Colossians 1:16, where they added, other to "all things," Or the one at Col. 1:17, where Trinitarians translators add "else" to "everything else"? (Check ISV; TLB; and CEV)

Genesis 1:2, which rendering is worse for you for the Hebrew w e ru'ach ?

"the breath of God" (Thomson)

"and God's wind" (Common English Bible)

"God's active force" (NWT)

"the power of God" (Good News Bible)

"the rushing-spirit of God" (Fox)

I like all of the above for Ge 1:2.

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

Wonderment

dabster:

Actually, I did not say that ESV translated monogenes incorrectly. What I did say is that the ESV translators focused and displayed in English the first part of the compound word mono-genes. The translators may have given the popular trinitarian definition found in trinitarian lexicons, but lexicons do not always show lexical particulars. The ESV translated monogenes as "the only God."

That may be acceptable to Trinitarians, but since the Trinity doctrine was developed after John's writings, one does well to question controversial renderings. The ESV translated like if the original reading was: "ho monos theós." Is this what we find at John 1:18? Please take a look at how monos is applied to God in the next few verses.

"O [Jehovah] our God...you alone [monos] are God" - Is. 37:20, Septuagint.

"Father,....to know thee who alone [monos] art truly God" - John 17:1, 3, NEB.

"from the one who alone [monos] is God" - John 5:44, TEV, cf. NEB, AB.

"he alone [monos] is God" - 1 Tim. 1:17, LB

"to the one only [monos] God" - Jude 1:25, AB, cf. LB.

Now, how should mono-genes be translated? Some Trinitarians avoid the -genes part of the compound. Some may think the -genes part is not necessary to translate the compound word. There may be a doctrinal objection to show a rendering for that part.

Take a look at how the ESV translated a compound word in Matthew 18:9, monó phthalmos = one eye. (mónos & opthalmós). This is in contrast to dúo o phthalm ó s = "two eyes." Yes, this rendering affects no religious doctrine.

Below you will find a list of compound words and their translations. Notice how the second part of the word is not ignored.

m onohḗmeros = one day; a day ( Wisdom of Solomon 5.14, LXX)

monókerōs = one horn ed ; “unicorn” (Job 39.9, ABP, LXX)

monózōnos = one girdle; “a band of troops” (NETS); “ lightly armed ” (2 Samuel 22.30, ABP, LXX.)

Modern Greek :

monokúttaros = one-celled

monódrama = single play, one [person] drama

monóprakto = one-act play

monódromos = one-[way] street

monoet ḗ s = one year

monographía = monograph

monóklino = single-[bed] room

monokommatikós = one party

monópeto = single breasted

monokómmatos = one piece

monóphylos = one-leaf

monochromía = monochrome

monócheiras = one-handed

monóchordos = one-stringed

monosántalos = [wearing] one-sandal

monóstichos = [of] one verse

monótrochos = one-wheeled

It is standard practice to consider the full meaning of Greek compound words.

Many scholars do define monogenes huiós/theós as the "only-begotten Son/God." This way, they are addressing the fact they are in presence of a compound term. Do you not think this affects accuracy?

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

Wonderment

Phizzy: "Jason BeDuhn is right of course that many religions, and others, use selective quoting, but that does not make it ethical."

I agree with you here. But the reason I submitted this quote was to address the charge made by the poster I was addressing that the WT ALWAYS quotes everybody wrong. In this case, Dr. BeDuhn acknowledged he was quoted accurately, with the exception they skipped some parts where the professor felt the NWT was weak. And even that, as Mr. BeDuhn himself pointed out, the practice of selective quoting is not uncommon. Why repeat that?

For the simple reason, that some posters here give the impression tha ONLY the WT do things like this. Like the poster I was addressing which seems to view things: good or evil. The WT is evil. Catholics and Protestants are the good. And that´s where I disagree with those holding such views. I see a problem with the JWs, Catholics and Protestants. Who is better or worst among these groups is not so easy to determine. They all have good and bad.

I dislike, to put it mildly, what the WT have done to my family and exJW friends. Overall, I lost them over two decades ago. Thus, I have suffered the consequences every day of my life since then. In fact, I don´t even know where my daughter lives. Do I think this WT practice is evil? Yes, but no less evil than what Catholics and Protestants have done throughout history. This is a reason why I have avoided going to any church, not because I don't think I could benefit somehow from it, I just lack the incentive to go. The hypocricy of most religious groups is easily evident. I wish we could find a realistic explanation for a lot of things.