TD: "First of all, it's absurd to talk about an interlinear and a translation in the same breath. An interlinear is not a translation and most professors will throw you out of class and give you a failing grade if they catch you with an interlinear."
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
62
NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration
by TerryWalstrom incall me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.
-
-
Wonderment
-
62
NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration
by TerryWalstrom incall me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.
-
-
Wonderment
I try to obtain every interlinear translation available. But I find most Interlinears of little use except three of them. The following three Interlinears I like:
Kingdom Interlinear
Word Study Greek-English NT, by Paul R. McReynolds
Concordant Greek Text
Why? Because the translators try hard to be true to the grammatical structure of the Greek Text, are fairly consistent, and show subltle nuances of words. Simpler said than done! In the end, they are quite useful.
Most others are a mess. The translators of the other Interlinears do not always place the English equivalent rendering under the Greek words. They omit translating words not necessary in English, and add words when the Greek is not clear. Some may say: "But that is how a true translation works." Yes, an no!
We have hundreds of versions that attempt to convey the overall meaning of the original, and most do that well. But an interlinear is different. They are expected to convey in English what the Greek Text does say, literally. By nature, an interlinear is supposed to be more discriminating in renditions, and pay closer attention to precision and subleties. Interlinears are not supposed to be paraphrases, but some interlinears are just loose translations showing the Greek Text, and not precisely.
The Mounce Interlinear is needlessly complicated. The CGT is complicated, but careful in the translation work. The best two overall, in my opinion, are the KI and McReynolds. Of course, I realize that that is a personal choice. I am sure others will choose Alfred Marshall's, Philip Comfort's, or some other Interlinears as top choices. And that is fine with me. Anyways, people normally end up making their translation choices based on theological preferences, and that, over true accuracy.
-
62
NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration
by TerryWalstrom incall me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.
-
-
Wonderment
As leaving_quietly aptly observed, both the WH and TR Greek texts read similarly.
The professor, as it true of most Trinitarians, want to make theós in Jn 1.1c the subject of the clause. He says the Greek requires it. It does not. He even said so, when he said ‘unless the context requires the indefinite article, the noun theós should be rendered without one, as if it was the subject.’ Colwell said something similar about the context.
The subject in Jn 1.1c is the Word, not theós. I will give u two reasons: First, the Word Logos has the article before it, indicating it is the definite subject, and theós does not. Normally, in Greek, nouns placed before the verb are indicative of character or quality, not personality. Even Colwell admitted that nouns in this emphatical position may rule out his grammatical rule that they must be definite.
Secondly, this verse speaks of two individuals (the Word was with the God), so by ommiting the article before theós in the third clause, the noun becomes adjectival, and having the Logos with the article makes it clearly the subject. The Logos was the one with God.
The same grammatical structure is found in Acts 28.4, where virtually all translations render the similar noun with an indefinite article.
Literal Greek of Acts 28.4, "murderer is the man." Compare this with: god was the word." The man (Paul) is said to be, supersticiously, by the islanders, "a murderer," (NOT the murderer, or Murderer) for having survived a viper bite. They are describing the kind of man Paul must have been for not swelling up from the bite. The same with Jn 1.1c.
New American Bible (Catholic): "This man must certainly be a murderer."
NIV ("Evangelical"): "This man must be a murderer."
Thus, providing the list of scholars in the website, "Let us reason" only proves that most Trinitarians agree with the professor at John 1:1c. However, I bet those same Trinitarian scholars will accept the fact that in Acts 28:4 the noun before the verb and subject, should be rendered with an indefinite article. Why? Simple! Christ is not involved in the description, so they can see normal Greek grammar at work, but at Jn 1.1, they cannot see it. It's all about theology, not grammar!
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { }
-
6
Are the WT following Jewish practices toward ex-believers?
by Wonderment inon the book of hebrews, the believer's bible commentary says regarding those who leave the jewish faith:.
"now when a jew left the faith of his forefathers, he was looked on as a turncoat and an apostate (meshummed), and was often punished with one or more of the following:.
disheritance by his family.
-
-
Wonderment
On the book of Hebrews, The Believer's Bible Commentary says regarding those who leave the Jewish faith:
"Now when a Jew left the faith of his forefathers, he was looked on as a turncoat and an apostate (meshummed), and was often punished with one or more of the following:
Disheritance by his family. Excommunication from the congregation of Israel. Loss of employment. Dispossession. Mental harrassment and physical torture. Public mockery. Imprisonment. Martyrdom.
Of course, there was always the escape route. If he would renounce Christ and return to Judaism, he would be spared from further persecution."
Doesn't this sound similar to what the WT Society actually does in practice with us "renegades"? Where is the Christian spirit in all this? Wasn't Christ really "superior" to former Judaic practices supposed to be left behind?
-
26
WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia!
by Wonderment indid anyone notice this wt's subtle attack on wikipedia?
they wrote (from the 2011 yearbook of jehovah's witnesses, pp.
9-10. source: 'tracing all things with accuracy'):.
-
-
Wonderment
I could not have said this better myself (from EdenOne):
The Watchtower Society will dismiss any website that isn't supportive of their beliefs. A "neutral" view, an "independent" view, or a site that will display the "opposite view" for the sake of balance of opinion, will be a big no-no, nearly as dangerous as outwardly "apostate" websites. Even those that are pro-Jehovah's Witnesses aren't in any way endorsed nor are individual Witnesses encouraged to take part in those. In fact, if it were the GB's way, the only website that any faithful JW could ever access to would be the ubiquitous JW.org. Eden
It seems some here are very suspicious of Wikipedia, and convey trust in other sources. I am not so sure of how truly reliable these other sources are. Take for instance the subject of religion from othe Encyclopedias. Have you read their articles on Jehovahś Witnesses (Incidentally, one of the 8 most edited pages on WP). I have found most sources to be slanted and provide quite a bit of misinformation on this subject of JWs. Remember when we were JWs, and disliked the way these sources were not being factual on the whole?
Now, if you look at the JW page on Wikipedia, you will find on the whole an informative and accurate picture of the religion. I find it to be a more balanced view of JWs, with faults, claims and virtues mentioned all in one page. Try to get that elsewhere!
Other reference sources on JWs seem so slanted and incomplete. Have you ever tried reading the writings of Walter Martin, Robert Bowman, Ron Rhodes? These scholars are supposed to be ¨experts" on JWs, yet, I find their works not so trustworthy, and above all, so biased that their info is highly questionable. Contrary to the popular opinion of those who quote them, they do not provide a balanced picture of JWs at all. They display their Evangelical bias with passion. Wikipedia, in just a few pages, beat them all. Some people object to the facts. They seek passion to support their bias.
Both works as sources of information, have errors within their pages. But somehow, due to their open nature, Wikipedia is bound to offer the facts better than the other ¨unbiased¨ sources.
Of course, I would not base a dissertation in a prestigious college on Wikipedia, but for most of us, Wikipedia is good enough to make it the 5th most visited website to obtain quick data.
-
26
WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia!
by Wonderment indid anyone notice this wt's subtle attack on wikipedia?
they wrote (from the 2011 yearbook of jehovah's witnesses, pp.
9-10. source: 'tracing all things with accuracy'):.
-
-
Wonderment
Oh, I forgot to mention about Wikipedia's disclaimer as an authority.
It is due perhaps in the interest of protecting their website from numerous litigious individuals that Wikipedia made such disclaimer. Wikipedia is non-profit, and depends largely on contributions.
The website and the anonymous contributors don't have the resources to squander in defending themselves before the court, so a disclaimer is logically necessary to avoid possible litigation. Other corporations have the financial resources to battle whatever judicial hearings they come up against. Plus, who wants to go against Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, MIT, etc. in court?
-
26
WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia!
by Wonderment indid anyone notice this wt's subtle attack on wikipedia?
they wrote (from the 2011 yearbook of jehovah's witnesses, pp.
9-10. source: 'tracing all things with accuracy'):.
-
-
Wonderment
Thank you guys for your comments.
I want to add that Wikipedia is more accurate than generally believed.
Sure, it has been involved in more than a few scandals where the site was butchered by vandals. As Simon noted, religion and politics are specially good target subjects for vandals to butcher specific info. Due to its open nature, this was bound to happen. However, Wikipedia has learned a lot through this, and made the necessary changes to curtail, or at least reduce the unwelcomed intrusions.
But there is another matter to consider. Other established encyclopedias have lost a lot of their business to Wikipedia, if not disappeared altogether. They have zero interest in admitting that Wikipedia is safe and accurate.
And what do you think of established reputable universities? Are they willing to acknowledge that an open website by volunteers can dispense accurate information to the masses? Not likely, since these universities make their living by convincing the public that good accurate information can only come from reputable sources, which is mainly true, but not totally true. Their paid professors are not signing in Wikipedia, and their colleges are not receiving their fame from its contributions. Thus, these colleges have little interest to push Wikipedia to the scholarly forefront as authoritative.
If history teaches us anything, is that many learned leaders from past generations have strived to limit knowledge to a golden few. Religion, fame, pride, and reputation are factors in conveying that only a few privileged ones are capable of transmitting accurate information.
Let us recall for a moment, that in Jesus' time, only a few selected learned men taught religion and Scripture "authoritatively," and Jesus' teaching was considered ‘inferior,’ and mocked before the world.
Later Catholic leaders with Latin learning before the 17th century were the only ones authorized to teach others from the Latin Vulgate. They even resisted progress of Bible translation work. The masses were kept away from vital information. After all, only special schools had the know-how to convey important information, so it seemed.
However, with the advent of printing foreign language editions of the Bible, more people were having access to vital truths. But religious leaders still wanted the fame, and the reputation that only special schools can communicate such accurate info. Today, Ph.Ds, Masters and many other titles have been developed to accomplish this goal. And any entity that do not go through their channels will never seem to be good enough.
Enter Wikipedia! A free website by anonymous volunteers will never look good enough to meet their stringent requirements. Just look at how people treat the NWT by an anonymous committee. Of course those prestigious universities will never give their blessing to Wikipedia or anyone else not going through their approved establishments. What do you expect? It is simply their competition, and far cheaper than what they can offer.
Some published independent studies reveal that Wikipedia is just as accurate as established reference sources. Other studies dispute them. Who are we going to believe? The Watchtower who is known for controlling their subjects? The colleges who depend on thousands of paying customers and prestige to advance their cause?
The truth in this case is not so plain and simple. We have to weigh the source of any published information and compare it with various sources to obtain an approximate truth to any matter.
-
26
WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia!
by Wonderment indid anyone notice this wt's subtle attack on wikipedia?
they wrote (from the 2011 yearbook of jehovah's witnesses, pp.
9-10. source: 'tracing all things with accuracy'):.
-
-
Wonderment
Did anyone notice this WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia? They wrote (From the 2011 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, pp. 9-10. Source: 'Tracing All Things With Accuracy'):
"The Writing Department follows the pattern of ‘tracing all things with accuracy.’ But where can reliable information be found? While the Internet is a convenient and quick source of vast amounts of information, our researchers do not rely on blogs or poorly documented Web entries written by unidentified or unqualified persons. For example, Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, warns that some articles on its own site ‘contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism,’ adding that ‘users need to be aware of this.’ Thus, the Writing Department looks to standard reference works, articles written by recognized experts, and books produced by respected publishers."
Me thinks that the WT Society have heard of a lot of brothers quoting Wikipedia as an authority on religion and other material, and some of this material is not always WT friendly.
I am sure Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it is an amazing site. Even doctors and professors use it privately, quietly. There is a reason for that. The fact is that no reference work is perfect, no matter how reputable it is. There are errors everywhere.
It seems that the WT wants to undermine the authority from the highly visible and prominent Wikipedia site in the interest of further safeguarding their reputation.
By the way, the WT's quote of Wikipedia's admission of errors only confirms the openness and candor of Wikipedia, unlike the WT Society which hardly ever acknowledges they make mistakes in their theology and publications.
What do you think?
-
25
'Tracing All Things With Accuracy' - How the Watchtower Society's Writing Department never makes a mistake
by jwleaks infrom the 2011 yearbook of jehovah's witnesses.. source: 'tracing all things with accuracy'.
tracing all things with accuracy.
jesus said that the faithful slave would be discreet in giving the domestics their food at the proper time.
-
-
Wonderment
By the way, the WT quote of Wikipedia's admission of errors only confirms the open and candid status of Wikipedia, unlike the WT Society which hardly ever acknowledges they make mistakes in their theology and publications. -
25
'Tracing All Things With Accuracy' - How the Watchtower Society's Writing Department never makes a mistake
by jwleaks infrom the 2011 yearbook of jehovah's witnesses.. source: 'tracing all things with accuracy'.
tracing all things with accuracy.
jesus said that the faithful slave would be discreet in giving the domestics their food at the proper time.
-
-
Wonderment
Did everyone notice the WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia?
Me thinks that the WT have heard of a lot of brothers quoting Wikipedia as an authority on religion and other material, and some of this material is not always WT friendly.
I am sure Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it is an amazing site. Even doctors and professors use it quietly. There is a reason for that. The fact is that no reference work is perfect, no matter how reputable it is. There are errors everywhere.
It seems that the WT wants to undermine the authority from the highly visible Wikipedia site in the interest of further safeguarding their reputation. What do you think?