Good words Great Teacher and talesin!
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
12
A Christmas tree, and a Word of Appreciation
by Wonderment ini am looking right now at my 10 footer christmas tree.
is "wonderment" celebrating christmas?
i am not one of those individuals who dropped the wt agenda years ago to hop on the first bandwagon of worldly attractions to cross my path.
-
-
-
9
How long will Paradise remaineth? Does Genesis 8:22 give us some kind of inidication?
by I_love_Jeff inwatchtower 6/15/1953 pg 371 though their annual periods were not calculated to the fraction of the day, there was no mistaking the seasons of the year, since jehovah had said, while the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.gen.
although jehovah's witnesses believe that paradise earth will remain forever, why does there own watchtower library 2014 software state otherwise?.
original word: part of speech: substantive; adverb accusative; adverb.
-
-
Wonderment
I submitted this post on another thread in regards to the Hebrew word at the beginning of the verse (Ge 8.22):
Whether the earth's lasts forever or not is not the main idea within the context.
The idea is brought out well by the New Living Translation: "As long as the earth remains, there will be planting and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night."
ISV: ""Never again, as long as the earth exists, will sowing and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night ever cease."
The Hebrew adverb ‛ôd has been rendered with the idea of a: going-around, continuance, still, again, yet, while, as long as, during, etc.
The LXX (Greek) literally says: "All the days of the earth, seed and harvest, chilliness and sweltering heat, summer and spring, day and knight, will not be caused to cease." The Latin Vulgate reads alike. See also NABRE.
The Concordant Version reads: "In the future, all the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and warmth, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
And in Ge. 8:21,22, The Five Books of Moses by Everett Fox, reads: "21 And when YHVH smelled the soothing savor YHVH said in his heart: I will never curse the soil again on humankind's account, since what the human heart forms is evil from its youth; I will never again strike down all living-things, as I have done; 22 (never) again, all the days of the earth, shall sowing and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night ever cease!" (Parenthesis his.)
So the main idea is: God promised that the daily and annual cycles of nature would continue as long as the earth remains.
The revised NWT cleverly and conveniently took the negative particle lō' meaning "not" or "never" toward the end of the sentence, and placed it at the beginning of the verse (as did ISV) after the constituent adverb ‛ôd, still within the bounds of Hebrew-English translation to have it say: "From now on, the earth will never cease to have seed-sowing and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night."
BUT, the NWT reader may get the overall impression, more so than with Fox's translation, that the verse somehow indicates the eternal existence of the earth, when that in itself is not explicit by the wording used. -
23
JW Version Of Spring Cleaning
by JW_Rogue infrom the january study edition second study article paragraph 10:.
we can use the memorial season as an opportunity to look through our wardrobe, our movie and music collections, perhaps even the material stored on our computers, smartphones, and tablets.if i were going to a place where jesus would be present, would i feel uncomfortable wearing this clothing?if i did wear it, would it be obvious to all that i am a follower of christ jesus?would jesus be entertained by watching this movie or by listening to this music?
if he borrowed my cell phone or tablet, would i be embarrassed by what he saw there?as you consider the subject matter of a video game, ask yourself: would i find it difficult to explain to jesus why i enjoy playing it?
-
-
Wonderment
It is interesting that the WT found something for Jesus to do in their religious ecosystem: Christ is now the official ‘police of what is right and what is wrong’ inside the homes of JWs which they can't touch.
Anyone familiar with JWs know too well how insignificant are the roles of Jesus and the holy spirit within Jehovah's organization when compared to "the faithful and discreet slave." The fact is that "the faithful and discreet slave" receives far more ‘obeisance’ from JW followers than does Jesus Christ ‘their alleged leader.’ (Heb. 1.6)
This confirms our suspicion of the WT org in regards to Christ: Jesus does conveniently play a role within the organization, but ONLY when he doesn't have to compete with Jehovah's "organization" and "the faithful and discreet slave."
In turn, the Bible says:
‘For Christ entered heaven itself... so that he now appears before God on our behalf.’ (Heb. 9.24)
Christ in Hebrews is described as "the mediator of a new covenant," and ‘the appointed heir of all things.’ (Heb. 12.24; 2.7-9)
Is the JW "organization" and "the faithful and discreet slave" within those "things" Christ inherited?
Should "the mediator" be employed to intimidate Christians out of wrongdoing? Would it not be better to let a "Christian trained conscience" be the final guide?
-
11
Simon, How do you sustain this website?
by Wonderment insimon,.
first, i hope you and your family are having a nice christmas.. we are at the end of the year, so it's time to ponder a bit about how grateful we should be to you and all the contributors for making this site for what it is.
i have noticed other jw's forum related sites come and go, but this one has held steady for many years.
-
-
Wonderment
Simon,
First, I hope you and your family are having a nice Christmas.
We are at the end of the year, so it's time to ponder a bit about how grateful we should be to you and all the contributors for making this site for what it is. I have noticed other JW's forum related sites come and go, but this one has held steady for many years. How do you do it?
Thanks for not forcing annoying ads all over the place on us. But how do you manage to keep this site up for so long? Maybe this question has been brought up before, but I don't think it should hurt members to be reminded that community services can't be taken for granted. Everything has a cost, whether is the time factor, or the needed funds to allocate for a given project. Hours spent on this site on your part is time you could have easily spent somewhere else.
So again thanks for your efforts! We owe it to you Simon! And my expressed gratitude as well to all the contributors which make this site always current and relevant.
Shalom!
-
2
My desktop froze up!
by Wonderment inafter 6 years of steady computing, my desktop froze last night, and forced to reboot.
i have been using linux for longer than that, so it was surprising to see my linux system freeze a la windows.. but then i realized my mouse cursor was not moving on the screen, and the mouse computer interface depended on a good working mouse.
alas!
-
-
Wonderment
After 6 years of steady computing, my desktop froze last night, and forced to reboot. I have been using Linux for longer than that, so it was surprising to see my Linux system freeze a la Windows.
But then I realized my mouse cursor was not moving on the screen, and the mouse computer interface depended on a good working mouse. Alas! I replaced the failing mouse with another one I had in one of the drawers. Bingo! The computer is back to its normal self.
Which reminds me of one thing. Linux users typically enjoy trouble-free computing. No virus to deal with. No annoying downloads imposed on the computer when browsing websites. No freeze-ups caused by faulty software! Linux is truly a relief for some!
-
12
A Christmas tree, and a Word of Appreciation
by Wonderment ini am looking right now at my 10 footer christmas tree.
is "wonderment" celebrating christmas?
i am not one of those individuals who dropped the wt agenda years ago to hop on the first bandwagon of worldly attractions to cross my path.
-
-
Wonderment
I am looking right now at my 10 footer Christmas tree. Say what? Is "Wonderment" celebrating Christmas?
No! I am not one of those individuals who dropped the WT agenda years ago to hop on the first bandwagon of worldly attractions to cross my path.
The Christmas tree belongs to my wife. She celebrates Christmas just like everyone else. She is probably sad that I don't engage in her yearly celebration, but I make sure not to get in her way of what she wants. I support my wife as much as I can. She is highly religious. Goes to church every week. I don't. She is "trinitarian." I am not. So you can imagine there is plenty to disagree about between us.
Incidentally, another local ex-JW (a female friend) stopped going to the meetings a long time ago. Since then, she goes through the Christmas motions every year, like putting a Christmas tree and decorating her windows, etc. I also have my wife's family and friends engaging in Christmas activities. My ex_JW friend asked me if I wasn't tempted to go with the flow, do whatever everyone else is doing. I answered her: "not at all." The way I see it, I wasn't brought up celebrating Christmas as the child of a JW family. So, the Christmas spirit is not in my blood. I have no need for any of that. I am happy that way. However, I respect what others decide to do with their lives.
And this brings me up to another subject. I participate in this forum, and have sometimes disagreed with other posters on various issues. Please, don't take it personally. If I disagree on a subject, it doesn't mean I'm trying to convert you. No, what it means is that at that moment in time I may have a feeling in presenting a view which otherwise may be passed over.
I have appreciated all along the regular input I receive from your comments. I have learned many things from you guys. In fact, through your posts, you made me aware of many things that until that then I would have never considered.
Thus, I want to thank Simon and everyone else in the forum for contributing to this essential site. God bless you all!
-
10
The mistranslation of John 14.10
by Wonderment indarby bible translation says the following at john 14.10 (brackets his): .
"believest thou not that i [am] in the father, and that the father is in me?
the words which i speak to you i do not speak from myself; but the father who abides in me, he does the works.".
-
-
Wonderment
Darby Bible Translation says the following at John 14.10 (Brackets his):
"Believest thou not that I [am] in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words which I speak to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father who abides in me, he does the works."
The words in bold reflect the Greek literally. Thus, a translator who seeks to stick closely to the original document, will do no wrong by rendering word-for-word in the text. In this group of literal Bibles we can include the Darby Bible, KJV, Young's Literal NT and the New American Standard Bible.
So what's wrong in rendering literally in the above verse? Let's imagine a 13 year old asking his/her parents what those words in bold above actually mean. Trinitarian parents in the western world would probably be tempted at once to explain the words on the assumption that Jesus is God. It is generally acknowledged that the Trinity dogma as understood today was not tied to Scripture until a few centuries later. Hence, it is important not to convey a posterior thought of another era to Jesus' sayings of the First-Century.
Jesus as a Jew fully sustained the Shema belief found at Mark 12.29:
"“The most important one [commandment],” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."
Jesus' words at John14.10 are not a tribute to the complexity of the trinity doctrine. Rather it is a tribute to the "unity" existing between the Father and the Sent Son. Nothing more!
Eugene Nida and Barclay Newman, two scholars who worked on the UBS Handbook Series New Testament (20 vols.) for Bible translators, explained the meaning of Jesus' words at John 14.10:
"The meaning of [I am in the Father and the Father is in me] may be expressed by translating ‘I am one with the Father, and the Father is one with me.’....In some languages ‘my Father is united with me, and I am united with my Father’ or ‘my Father and I are just one as though we were one.’....The Father, who remains in me, does his own work is a fairly literal rendering of the Greek text. These words indicate that Jesus' miracles were not accomplished by his own power or initiative (see 8.28); rather, they reveal his union with the Father. A number of translators attempt a dynamic translation; NEB has ‘it is the Father who dwells in me doing his own work’; NAB ‘it is the Father who lives in me accomplishing his works’; Mft ‘it is the Father who remains ever in me, who is performing his own deeds’; Gdsp ‘but the Father who is united with me is dong these things himself.’
However, it may be difficult to speak of the Father ‘doing his own work.’ The reference is obviously very broad, for it includes both miracles and sayings. Sometimes one can employ such an expression as ‘my Father who remains in me causes these happenings.’ But in other instances a more satisfactory rendering may be ‘...does what he decides to do.’ Such rendering indicates clearly that the agency and the initiative rest with God."
However, since the Trinity doctrine is prevalent within the religious world of Christendom, modern Bible readers amazingly prefer the literal wording as indicated in their so-called "contemporary" English versions. They may not realize that the words in bold above are Greek words dressed with English ones. It is the duty of the translator to employ English idioms in a contemporary version instead of Greek ones.
In sum, John 14.10 is not a "mistranslation" per se in most English versions. They reflect the Greek wording with English replacements. Nevertheless, most English versions claiming to be "contemporary" fail in providing a thought-for-thought translation in John 14.10 by conveniently sticking to Greek idiom. So a better subject title would have been: "The mishandling of John 14.10."
-
26
The mistranslation of John 8.58
by Wonderment injohn 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.
many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.
others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.
-
-
Wonderment
HowTheBibleWasCreated: ‘The translators of the NWT were well aware of this.... they produced the Kingdom Interlinear which proves John * :58 as 'i am'. but on the right hand column the NWT lies.’
The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, by Brown and Comfort, and edited by J. D. Douglas warn their readers in this kind of work: “It is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax, grammatical constructions, and idioms that are difficult—if not impossible—to replicate literally in another language.”
A translation that aims to be idiomatic, contemporary has to adapt. The translation on the right column aims to express in today's language what the Greek said 2,000 years ago. A Greek Grammar (Greek – An Intensive Course) states: “When [the present is] used with expressions denoting past time, the present is the equivalent of the English present progressive perfect: πάλαι τοῦτο ποιῶ [palai touto poiō]*. I have been doing this for a long time.” (Hardy Hansen & Gerald M. Quinn, New York, 1992. Page 731.) *Notice the literal reading, "I am doing this for a long time," rendered with the present perfect by the authors.
These Greek experts say that a Greek present verb can be rendered with the English perfect tense when there is an expression of past time present as there is in John 8.58. No lying! No mischief!
-
26
The mistranslation of John 8.58
by Wonderment injohn 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.
many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.
others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.
-
-
Wonderment
Aroq: ‘Have you considered this same thing in John 6:20? The direct translation of Jesus statement is: " I am, not be you fearing.’
In John 6.20, the "I am" statement in this verse is a simple self-identification before the frightened disciples who saw (in darkness and stormy weather) Jesus walking over the waters of Lake Galilee: "Jesus told them, "It's me. Don't be afraid!" (GOD'S WORD Translation)
-
26
The mistranslation of John 8.58
by Wonderment injohn 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.
many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.
others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.
-
-
Wonderment
John 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.
I am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates. Many insist the "I AM" rendering found in many versions is correct. Others defend the "I have been" or "I was" readings of other versions. Who is right? Right off the bat, I am going to tell you that the rendering "I AM" is proper in a strictly literal version, such as an interlinear, but not in a modern language version. In such cases, the other renderings "I have been" or "I was" are better" in the text. Even so, most translators who prefer "I have been" or "I was" at John 8.58 slip up in the English department. That includes the New World Translation. They had a chance to correct their 8.58 reading in their latest revision, but did not.
Let's see why!
First of all, many trinitarian advocates swear that "I am" is the only appropriate rendering. They claim that the Greek phrase is absolute, somehow indicating that the expression is another name for God, or that it indicates timeless existence. They love to indicate that the NWT is inconsistent in their translation of the Greek phrase. The NWT does render the Greek ego'eimi' as "I am" in most places, but not in John 8.58. This is surely "bias" on their part. Right? Not so.
What the "I am" defenders don't tell you is that the construction of John 8.58 shows a grammatical difference to most other occurrences. The Greek clause of John 8.58 has a time element in the clause which places the beginning of the action in the past: "Before Abraham was born, I am." The "I am" Greek expression simply expresses existence from the past, as grammarian Stanley Porter indicated.
When Jesus said, to name one instance, "I am the fine shepherd (John 10.11)," there is no time adjunct, such as "before," or "long ago" in the phrase. So the correct rendering is "I am." But if it did have a time expression pointing to the past, the translation would have to be adapted accordingly.
To illustrate: John 15.27 shows Jesus saying in the Greek: "and you [plural] but are bearing witness, that from beginning with me you [plural] are." Notice the Greek has a time indicator in the statement: "from [the] beginning" which puts the action starting in the past to the present just as John 8.58 does. The Douay Version incorrectly says, "And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning." In good English you cannot use a present verb "you are" when there is a time element pointing to the past. The NIV wisely adapts it to the English idiom.
The NIV correctly renders it: "And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning." "From the beginning you are" is uncalled in John 15.27. It is poor English. Also, notice that the NIV reordered the "you have been" and "from the beginning" expressions in the sentence to conform to English idiom. So did the NWT and other versions as well. That is proper.
Coming back to John 8.58, the NW translators were in the right track when they rendered, "...before Abraham came into existence, I have been," just as they did in John 15.27. They took into account the time indicator in the clause, and appropriately used an English perfect tense in the process. A Greek Grammar (Greek – An Intensive Course) states: “When [the present is] used with expressions denoting past time, the present is the equivalent of the English present progressive perfect: πάλαι τοῦτο ποιῶ [palai touto poiō]*. I have been doing this for a long time.” (Hardy Hansen & Gerald M. Quinn, New York, 1992. Page 731.) *Notice the literal reading, "I am doing this for a long time," rendered with the present perfect by the authors.
Also, it should be mentioned at this point, that another way to tackle the Greek in John 8.58 is by using an imperfect like this: pre { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { }
“I already was before Abraham was born.” – Worldwide English New Testament.
Is the NWT John 8.58 rendering a perfect translation? No, they erred by following the Greek wording order instead of adapting it to English as they should have.Is there anyone out there who translated correctly using the "I have been" expression reflecting proper English idiom?Yes, The Source New Testament (Dr. A. Nyland, Australia) got it right at John 8.58: “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born!”