Posts by Wonderment

25

Revised NWT released in Spanish

by Corney in

jw
friends

today in madrid.. jw.org/es-nwt.

photos, videos, comments:.

https://jwtalk.net/topic/16901-new-world-translation-2013-revision-in-additional-languages/page/35/#comments.

Wonderment

Hi Tenacious!

I will answer the 2nd question first:

Question 2:

Now, I'll address (not really me but I'm definitely in agreement) the validity of Colwell's Rule as selectively applied by NWT translators in order to fit their theology and take away the Deity of Christ. The pressing question is posed by ChristianCourier.com:
“Why is it that the word ‘God’ is translated as ‘a god’ in John 1:1b and 18b of the New World Translation, and yet the identical construction is rendered as ‘God’ in verses 2, 6, 12, and 13 in the same context?”

The criticism above has been prominently championed by Robert H. Countess (Presbyterian), and repeated by legions on the internet. But Countess failed to mention the following:

The "a god expression" in verse 1c appears in a simple nominative clause. The other texts are not.

Verse 2 has God preceded by the definite article, "the God." So, it rightly appears as "God" in the English versions.

Verse 6 has God in the genitive form, the "of" case.

Verse 12 has God in the genitive form.

Verse 13 has God in the genitive form.

A Grammar book explains: “The use of prepositions, possessive and demonstrative pronouns, and the genitive case also tends to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 137. Bold & italics added.)

The same idea is expressed by Daniel B. Wallace in the Grammar mentioned below, who also adds:

“The most likely candidate for θεός [at John 1:1c] is qualitative.” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel B. Wallace, Zondervan Corporation)

Question 1: The ESV does indeed translate the verse you cite as "No doubt this man is a murderer." But still yet, the ESV also translates John 1:1b as "and the Word was God." So why did the ESV choose not to translate it as "a god"?

Most Bible translations (ESV and NWT being no exceptions) are done by religious individuals who hold specific beliefs, like the Trinity, immortal soul, hellfire, etc., or the opposite. That is, Evangelicals, like the Witnesses have their own agendas as well, if altogether different.

The ESV makes it plain in their Preface that their version is done by trinitarian evangelical believers for orthodox church-goers:

“The doctrinal perspective of the ESV Study Bible is that of classical evangelical orthodoxy, in the historic stream of the Reformation. The notes are written...within the broad tradition of evangelical orthodoxy, the notes have sought to represent fairly the various evangelical positions on disputed topics…..” (Introduction, p. 10, ©2008) “All [the scholars and advisors involved] are committed to historic Christian orthodoxy. […] “And so to our triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and to his people, we offer our work ….” (p. 12)

Now in answer to question one, Acts 28.4 does not address the deity of Christ, since Paul is the referent. Thus, the translators had no issue applying customary grammatical principles to the clause (NOT a rule, though.) However, at John 1.1 they face the difficulty of whether to describe Jesus simply, qualitatively as "divine," or go further and assuage the reader to believe that Jesus is more than a god or divine, that he must be "God" himself. Hence, their final reading. In the end, our doctrinal preference will dictate which version is preferable.

25

Revised NWT released in Spanish

by Corney in

jw
friends

today in madrid.. jw.org/es-nwt.

photos, videos, comments:.

https://jwtalk.net/topic/16901-new-world-translation-2013-revision-in-additional-languages/page/35/#comments.

Wonderment

@Tenacious

Thank you for addressing my questions in a serious manner.

I would like to make some observations on Frank Luke's (from the Stack Exchange webstie) explanation on the Greek article.

He writes:

" . . . . While the Greek lacks the definite article on theos in the clause under discussion, that doesn't mean the English should be translated with an indefinite article. Greek and English do not enjoy a one-to-one relationship between their words. There are times in Greek when the article is present but not translated into English. Likewise, there are places where the article is not present in the Greek but the English requires it, or in this case, requires something to show the definiteness of the word.

Example 1: John 18:16 in Greek literally says: "...the disciple, the other, the one known to the high priest..." That's horrible English. So it gets translated (rightly) as "the other disciple, who was known to the high priest." As you can see the word order changed coming into English as well as two definite articles dropping out.

I fully agree with paragraph 1. As for example 1 in the following paragraph, his arrived conclusion is correct. However, it should be pointed out that the construction of this verse is different from that of John 1.1c. We are dealing here with a genitive phrase, not purely nominative, as in John 1.1c.

In example 2, he writes: Example 2: John 1:1 contains another example of a time without an article in Greek but needed in English. It says, "en arche 'en o logos..." that is (literally) "In beginning was the Word." Notice that there is no definite article before arche. However, even the New World Translation puts the article there. That is how it should be. To leave it out would cause confusion in the English "In a beginning was the Word..." That implies that there were multiple beginnings to the universe, but that isn't what the Bible teaches. It's a difference in Greek and English. Likewise, the Septuagint of Genesis starts with en arche.

"en arche 'en o logos..." is a prepositional phrase, and in this type of clause, the definite article can be used in English, but not technically required. Again, the construct is different from the third clause of the same verse.

Luke adds: The reason the clause at the end of John 1:1 lacks the article deals with rules of Greek grammar....

The clause in question (which uses a linking verb) literally reads kai theos 'en 'o logos (literally "and God was the Word" but you won't find it translated that way for good reason). Notice that the word order is switched around with "God" at the front of the clause. Because the verb is a linking verb, the subject and object use the same case ending, the nominative. With a linking verb, the part of the clause that would be the object often drops the article (even though it would use it otherwise), especially when it is in front of the verb (as here). When the object of a clause is a noun like this, it is called the "predicate nominative" and Colwell's Rule allows the translation to indicate the definiteness of the word even when the Greek lacks the article.

In English, we don't put "the" in front of God to show definiteness. We capitalize it. That's what Greek scholars recognize in this verse.

In addressing Frank Luke's conclusion here, I must say first that there is no hard rule of the Greek article that can be applied everywhere. Trinitarians though, have been trying to establish a Greek rule here from the moment that John penned his words. A prominent attempt from last century has been the one from E. C. Colwell, a Protestant. In the few decades after his composition, Colwell' rule was quoted by traditionalists as if it were God's own words. Surprisingly, in the last few decades, Colwell's study has lost some respectability. In fact, other scholars say outright that he was wrong. So, in the last 35 years or so, scholars have shifted from promoting a definite nuance for "theos" in John 1.1c in favor of a qualitative nuance for the predicate noun. Some diehards though, refuse to let Colwell's rule die a quiet death. I will point out three factors why Colwell is wrong.

First, context. The context of John chapter one indicates a marked difference between the Word and God. Verse 2 of the same chapter makes this clear: "This one (the Logos) was in the beginning with the God (that is, the Almighty One)." To imply that the Word was the equal of God by adding a definite nuance by means of English capitalization runs opposite to the repeated message by John, i.e. that the Logos was in good company with the supreme God.

Second, Xenophon's Anabasis has a "parallel" construction to that of Jn ch. 1.

Greek:   εμπóριον     δ’     ην    το       χωρíον         
          market     but    was    the      place

Would you translate this clause following Colwell's rule: "and the place was Market"? A logical translation would then be: "and the place was a market.

Third, biblical Greek also disputes Colwell's conclusions.

At Acts 28.4 we find a similar grammatical construction to John 1.1c:

Πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος = Certainly murderer is the man this.

Again, who would translate this clause as: "Surely this man is Murderer"?

No, most translators render this verse as the ESV does: "No doubt this man is a murderer." Other examples could be cited.

Thus, Luke's conclusion, along with that of Colwell's, are questionable.

25

Revised NWT released in Spanish

by Corney in

jw
friends

today in madrid.. jw.org/es-nwt.

photos, videos, comments:.

https://jwtalk.net/topic/16901-new-world-translation-2013-revision-in-additional-languages/page/35/#comments.

Wonderment

Tenacious: "Any so-called translations from their original Greek or Hebrew language by the governing maggots will always be tainted. Those maggots in their effort to take away the deity of Christ even created a non-existent Greek grammar rule. Hahahahaha!!"

Could you be so kind as to describe for us the specific non-existent Greek grammar rule that was created by these "governing maggots"? It would also help if you shed some light on your linguistic reasons for you to reach this conclusion as a critic?

By the way, I am glad that the long-awaited Spanish version of the NWT 2013 is being released. We all benefit from more Bible reading, not less. The Bible has a calming effect on the people the more they read it.

178

...Were Trump`s comments about Obama Racist?...

by OUTLAW in

more backlash: david letterman considers banning trump for his racist comments.

by colby hall | 8:16 am, april 29th, 2011 video .

david letterman and his guest dr. phil discussed donald trumps recent allegations that barack obama was.

Wonderment

Hey guys! Can we tone down the political attacks?

Do I believe Trump loves America? Yes, I do. Do I believe the four freshman congresswomen love America? Yes, I do. Do I believe the Republicans love America? Yes, I do. Do I believe the Democrats love America? Yes, I do.

More likely than not all these people as a group love America. Individually, not necessarily. To argue which group loves America the most is like asking which religious group loves God the most. It is a very difficult question to answer. Only when one takes politics as a religion does the ugly side of an individual comes out.

Many Americans nowadays believe that United States have been in a state of decadence for some time now. Some believe that as a nation we are falling behind in education, technology, environmental-damage control, morality, transportation, even militarily. Again, any of these points can be argued.

However, many Americans are overlooking a bigger problem. The biggest problem of USA cannot be explained by pointing to one of the two main parties doing the wrong things. Minorities and immigrants are not problem number one either. It is the status quo establishment we as a nation have developed over the years. We have let the financial sector with its many corporations take control over the White House and Congress. The decisions coming out from these sources are dependent on the collective rich and the famous crowds.

The other problems may be secondary to the bribing and lobbying going on in Washington. This issue overall affects every facet of the country. Neither party have been successful in putting a stop to this problem. Economic woes, inefficient infrastructure, WHO loves America the most, marginalizing individuals by labels, are just distractions which only benefit the real enemies of America, like Russia, China, Korea, Iran, Isis, etc.

Can we imagine how cheerful the Russians and the Chinese must be, to name two, when they see us targeting the wrong groups, minorities, immigrants and the other party, whoever is in charge. Divide and conquer! We all have heard these words. Divisions weaken any country, and in the end no one benefits from it.

So, please, let's show a bit more love and dignity to our fellowmen. EVERY person on the planet is valuable in God's eyes.

41

Why Aren`t The G.B Members Representive Of All Nations ? and not just America ?

by smiddy3 in

are all of the governing .body .members american citizens ?

shouldn`t they at least represent a greater proportion of nations in light of jesus being a saviour of all the world ?.

god loved the world of mankind right ?

Wonderment

Not only are the majority of GB members white, but guess who are (or, have been ) in charge of WT Branches throughout the world. Are these Branches not governed by mostly white brothers? If this is the case, it would indicate that the mostly white GB do not even trust their own brothers from other ethnicities to be in charge.

9

Hellfire justifies torture = Armageddon justifies shunning?

by slimboyfat in

a few weeks ago the watchtower study condemned the teaching of hellfire, among other things, because some religions have used the hellfire doctrine as a justification for torture:.

the false teaching of hellfire has been used to justify torture, including the burning at the stake of those who opposed church teachings.

according to a book on the spanish inquisition, some of those responsible for this cruelty may have believed that they were only giving heretics “a taste of what perpetual hellfire would be like” so that they would repent before dying and be saved from hellfire.. it occurs to me that jws justify disfellowshipping on a similar basis.

Wonderment

SB: "So if Christendom is condemned for having used hellfire to justify physical torture, doesn’t Watchtower stand condemned for using Armageddon to justify the psychological torture of disfellowshipping and shunning? Is that a fair comparison to make?"

Fear of Armageddon (or, hellfire) used to justify extreme measures of psychological torture via disfellowshipping and shunning is a fair comparison, but more likely COMBINED with the common inherent belief within the organization that Jehovah's Witnesses are exclusively God's people, which in their mindset truly justifies all the corresponding detrimental actions (authoritarian control, lack of free speech, etc.) brought about the concept of "unity at all costs."

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.

we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.

we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.

Wonderment

To Adam Levi,

Thank you so much for pointing out to us the confusion of many between the two scholars named Benjamin Kedar of Israel. I myself made that blunder.The one who wrote about the NWT was Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein.

Anyways, those who criticized me in the previous page for mentioning this scholar's positive comments on the OT portion of the NWT claiming he had no authority whatsoever to talk about linguistic issues criticized too soon. Their motives have been revealed.

14

Active JW'S - Are YOU "exercising faith?"

by The Fall Guy in

on pages 27 & 28 of the august 2019 study watchtower, it perverts the translation of scriptures yet again, in order to drum it into jw's minds that they have to work for their salvation.

“on the evening before his death, jesus told his disciples: “exercise faith in god; exercise faith also in me.” (john 14:1).

according to strong's lexicon, the greek word pisteuō is translated thus - “to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in, of the thing believed, to credit, have confidence.”.

Wonderment

The Fall Guy: "It's sad that the ‘only true religion’ on planet earth doesn't have God's spirit guiding them when it comes to translating the Christian Greek scriptures – but Christendom has it! :( "

This statement has to be one of the boldest (Or say, oddest) affirmations I have seen on this website. The belief that ‘Christendom has God's spirit behind their Greek translations of the NT’ is wishful thinking. Their record in mistranslations is out there. No translation is perfect. They all have unintended errors.

The Fall Guy: "Is fear a synonym for 'deep respect?'"

It can be one of its meanings. In fact, one can argue that that is the intended meaning. Surely, Paul wasn't advising women to be walking around with "fear" in the presence of their husbands.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible: "And the wife see that she reverence her husband - The word "see" is supplied by our translators. The meaning is, that it was the special duty of the wife to show respect for her husband as the head of the family, and as set over her in the Lord; see on Ephesians 5:22, note 28, note. The word rendered "reverence," is that which usually denotes "fear" - φοβῆται phobētai. She is to fear; i. e., to honor, respect, obey the will of her husband. It is, of course, not implied that it is not also her duty to love her husband, but that there should be no usurping of authority; no disregard of the arrangement which God has made; and that order and peace should be secured in a family by regarding the husband as the source of law."

A. T. Robertson: "‘Fear’ (phobetai, present middle subjunctive) here is ‘reverence.’” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, IV, p. 547)

NIV: However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The Greek word phobētai has a strong connotation which implies deep respect or reverence with accentuated consideration to their mates.

13

Age when parents should stop bathing their children

by Wonderment in

by what age should parents stop bathing and wiping their children's bottoms?

when are these actions a definitely no-no?.

Wonderment

Thanks 4 your comments. But let me rephrase the question:

At what age would you consider extreme for parents to be bathing their kids, and/or wiping their bottoms?

10

How would you react if you learn that some participants in this forum are "undocumented" in your country?

by Wonderment in

how would you react if you learn that some participants in this forum are "illegally" in your country?.

Wonderment

How would you react if you learn that some participants in this forum are "illegally" in your country?