Posts by Wonderment

12

The other Border

by Wonderment in

.

Immigration: The Truth about the LIe - CRIME

by Wonderment in

immigration: the truth about the lie: crimecrime: do immigrants increase rates of violence?

there has been a lot of talk about how immigrants pose a threat to the safety of this country by increasing crime rates.

is there any truth to this, or is it "fake news.

Immigration: The Truth about the Lie: CRIME

CRIME: Do immigrants increase rates of violence? There has been a lot of talk about how immigrants pose a threat to the safety of this country by increasing crime rates. Is there any truth to this, or is it "fake news."

Wikipedia: “In fact, most studies in the U.S. have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants, and that higher concentrations of immigrants are associated with lower crime rates.

FOX News (07/12/2017): “Fear of an illegal immigrant crime wave is sparked by the fear that they are overwhelmingly murderers, rapists, and thieves. In reality, illegal immigrants have lower incarceration rates and live in places with lower crimes rates than native-born Americans.... Looking at all incarcerated prisoners in state, federal, and local adult correctional facilities provides a more accurate picture of illegal immigrant criminality. Based on census data, the numbers show that illegal immigrants are about 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans.”

NPR (05/02/2018): “The Trump administration regularly asserts that undocumented immigrants are predatory and threaten public safety…. Now, four academic studies (University of Wisconsin - 2 Studies; Cato Institute; U.K. journal Migration Letters) show that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems.... U.K. journal Migration Letters shows that youthful undocumented immigrants engage in less crime than do legal immigrants of U.S.-born peers.”

University of Pennsylvania: "For those who are skeptical that these findings are true, consider the case of El Paso, Texas a working class city of approximately 700,000 people that sits opposite the Rio Grande.... More than 80% of El Paso's residents are Hispanic and the vast majority of these individuals are of Mexican origin. A large population of El Paso's Hispanic population are immigrants. In fact, El Paso has one of the highest proportions of immigrants among U.S. cities. Many of these migrants are undocumented. If those who fear Mexican immigration are right, then El Paso should be a hotbed of violence. As it turns out, El Paso is one of the safest cities in the United States with a homicide rate of 2.4 per 100,000 residents.

New York Times (03/30/2018):

“The Trump administration’s first year of immigration policy has relied on claims that immigrants bring crime into America. President Trump’s latest target is sanctuary cities. ‘Every day, sanctuary cities release illegal immigrants, drug dealers, traffickers, gang members back into our communities,’ he said last week. ‘They’re safe havens for just some terrible people.’ As of 2017, according to Gallup polls, almost half of Americans agreed that immigrants make crime worse. But is it true that immigration drives crime? Many studies have shown that it does not.
“Immigrant populations in the United States have been growing fast for decades now. Crime in the same period, however, has moved in the opposite direction, with the national rate of violent crime today well below what it was in 1980.... The 10 places with the largest increases in immigrants all had lower levels of crime in 2016 than in 1980.”

What do you think? Are these sources reliable? Or, are they "fake news"?

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Wonderment

Doug Mason,

Is the material released on the link your own? I see no date or name for authorship.

There is some good stuff in there. Surely, there are many unanswered questions. It takes faith to believe strongly in whatever we choose to believe.

Thanks!

You wrote: "Is the Watchtower's rationale equally as fanciful as the Trinitarian's?"

The WT Society goes by the KISS principle: Keep it Simple Stupid."

Easier said than done!

1

Bach’s Chaconne

by Wonderment in

chaconne bwv 1004, partita no.

2 d minor:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fchz5yssi .

Wonderment

Chaconne BWV 1004, Partita No. 2 D minor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Fchz5YSSI

This is one beautiful performance that I cannot get out of my head. It is played by Scottish-born, and for many years based in Brazil, Paul Galbraith, with a special instrument, an 8 string guitar that rests on the floor by a metal support, unlike the conventional guitar of six strings.

Violinist Joshua Bell has said the Chaconne is "not just one of the greatest pieces of music ever written, but one of the greatest achievements of any man in history. It's a spiritually powerful piece, emotionally powerful, structurally perfect." (Wikipedia)

Paul plays Chaconne on a slower tempo, but WOW! His sensitivity, and accuracy are outstanding. This instrument has remarkable bass sounds. Truly a sublime work to share.

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Wonderment

TD: Why do you believe θεός is qualitative in 1:1c? Do you believe it's entirely a function of the nominative or do you think the odd placement of the word also plays a part?

There are a couple of reasons why I think θεός is qualitative or indefinite over definite.

The fact that it is an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb, and these normally are translated in English versions as indefinite or qualitative. Of course, I’m referring to constructions where the nominative is not accompanied with prepositional phrases, or genitives, etc., which may require a definite sense.

We have John 8:.48 as one example of such: ὅτι Σαμαρίτης εἶ σὺ = that Samaritan are you. Here most English Bibles render the predicate nominative as: "that you are a Samaritan," not definite, "the Samaritan."

One other example is taken from The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 10:1, Greek: μετὰ παρρησίας ἄκουε· Χριστιανός εἰμι = with boldness be hearing Christian I am . This should not be translated: "with boldness be hearing the Christian I am." Roberts-Donaldson translated this so: “Hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian.” The indefinite article is used to point out the qualitative nuance of the predicate.

In Spanish, one could translate as: "Escúchame declarar con valentía, soy [un] cristiano." The indefinite article "un" can be dispensed with to emphasize the qualitative force of the noun. But in English one would expect, "I am a Christian."

The same can be said of John 4.19, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ = I perceive that prophet are you = I perceive that you are a prophet. NOT: the prophet. Again, in Spanish, one can translate both ways: Tú eres profeta," or "Tú eres un profeta." In English, is not normal to say: "I see that you are prophet." Thus the indefinite article is used to bring out the qualitative notion of the predicate. Of course, I am not suggesting that qualitative and indefinite are exchangeable concepts. But that often, the distinction is not so easy to determine. They are not mutually exclusive. Hence, Wallace labeled this one as "indefinite-qualitative."

The other reason is context. John is speaking of two individuals, not one. John uses an anarthrous predicate theós sandwiched between two other instances of arthrous theón in verse one and two. I think that’s done intentionally. John differentiates between God and the Logos throughout chapter one. In verse 18, John makes clear that" the only begotten Son" is the one able to explain the invisible Father.

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Wonderment

Slim,

No, I have not read Frank Shaw’s book. I don’t have it. It’s very pricey, so I am not sure if I will buy it.

How would you like me to send you the copies of the pages (Countess’) on the divine name?

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Wonderment

Slim:

In Countess' book, in chapter 3, he discusses the divine name (21 pp.). He also provided four Tables in the Appendix in relation to it. I bring this up, because you have done quite a bit of research on the subject, and you seem to be fair when addressing polemical themes.

By the way, I value and respect God's name. I am willing to make copies of those pages for you, if I'm allowed to.

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Wonderment

First, a needed correction in next to last paragraph, I wrote:

It would have been equitative if Colwell gave the NWT translators some leeway in this matter. Colwell said of the NWT: “At some points it is actually dishonest.” (p.93) It is Colwell’s misrepresentation of the WT position on the article which I find dishonest.

Is supposed to be "Countess" instead of Colwell in all three instances.

bennyk: John 15:1b would appear to violate Colwell's "rule"...

Yes, according to Colwell, a predicate noun ahead of the verb is expected to be definite by its word order, like in John 1.1. In John 15.1, the article was used with the predicate nominative though it precedes the verb (Lit., the Father of me the farmer is). If the article is removed, it becomes: my Father is a farmer, not my Father is farmer.

TD: E.C. Colwell was almost certainly biased, but he doesn't come across as incompetent or stupid.

Colwell was considered a very competent scholar. However, in his drive to prove Torrey (who asserted Semitic influence in various Scriptures) wrong, or not completely right, plus having a personal wish to bolster Christ’s deity made him overlook some important matters, like the force of qualitative nouns in many of the Scriptures he considered. Somehow I get the impression that some scholars are seeking to reduce the incidence or impact of indefinite nouns in the translation of some Scriptures.

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Wonderment

TD,

What I meant was that Colwell focused on pronouncing a noun as either definite or indefinite by the presence or absence of the article and its word order. One cannot make such a broad conclusion. Acts 28.6 has theós (although in the accusative) before the verb and some manuscripts after the verb. The interpretation is the same. Isn’t it?

Not sure if you have Machen’s book, but this is what he said in context: "But Greek can vary the order for purposes of emphasis or euphony much more freely than English. Thus the sentence, an apostle says a word, is in Greek normally [apóstolos légei lógon]. But [légei apóstolos lógon] and [lógon légei apóstolos] are both perfectly possible. The English translation must be determined by observing the endings, not by observing the order." (p. 27)

And Alfred Marshall: "So in Greek --within limits-- the order of words is a matter of style and emphasis; the verb may come first or last, which are the two emphatic positions." (New Testament Greek Primer, p. 22)