Posts by Wonderment

63

Who's the most intolerant religious group?

by Wonderment in

i would like to hear people's opinions on intolerant religious groups?

who wins?.

somehow, i have this notion that pentecostals would win 1st place, followed by baptists, followed by jw's.

Wonderment

I would like to hear people's opinions on intolerant religious groups? Who wins?

Somehow, I have this notion that Pentecostals would win 1st place, followed by Baptists, followed by JW's. What is your take?

33

See John 1:1 with your own eyes: Bible translators have translated Latin, not Greek.

by Wonderment in

.

in principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud deum et deus erat verbum -- latin.

in beginning was verb and verb was with god and god was verb.. .

Wonderment

Some claim: "The world's prominent Gr. scholars and translators..... hundreds more versions.scholars..." etc.

In Jesus's day hundreds of "scholars" were wrong, and did not recognize the promised Messiah was right in the midst of them. Yet, comparatively, a small number of untrained, unschooled individuals were able to see through this. Even Bible writers were perhaps no match in grammar with those folks. Yet, God chose them as writers, not the arrogant ones of the world.

Douglas Stuart: ‘Just because a person has a Ph.D does not necessarily mean he is right and you are wrong.’

33

See John 1:1 with your own eyes: Bible translators have translated Latin, not Greek.

by Wonderment in

.

in principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud deum et deus erat verbum -- latin.

in beginning was verb and verb was with god and god was verb.. .

Wonderment

NomadSoul provided us with a photocopy of Wallace' explanation on John 1:1. Wallace where he states that ‘the evidence is not very compelling to take theós as a definite noun at Jn 1:1c.’ He further writes ‘that to call theós definite as if it had the article would be embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.’ Are you listening godrulz?

Wallace, as a trinitarian, has a problem though when it comes to explaining the singular anarthrous nouns preceding the verb as a possible indefinite. However, in the same page, he does not hesitate to argue that the translation of John 4:19 is most naturally: "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet," similar to the NWT wording. The grammatical construction of John 4:19 is similar to that of John 1:1c. Now, how do most bible translations render Jn 4:19? Like this: "a prophet." When he comes to with Jn 1:1c, he mentions that "a god" translation is "improbable." Notice he did not say "impossible," as it cost Barclay a lot criticism for saying that, and Barclay had to correct himself on that. Wallace's objection is mainly theological, not grammatical, even if he wants to imply that is a grammatical issue. He mistakingly invokes polytheism, but Jesus proved him wrong when he stated that even man of old could be called "gods." (Jn 10:33-36)

NomadSoud did not provide us with the next page of the quoted book, where he asks: "Is [Theós] in John 1:1c Qualitative?" His answer is: "The most likely candidate for [theós] is qualitative." Also, Wallace did admit that "It is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times..." Furthermore, in his quest to belittle the NWT he makes use of R. H. Countess flawed analysis of a rule the WT never made. Not only that, in a way he criticized scholars who made use of Colwell's rule concluding that such "rule" says nothing of definiteness. And Countess was one of the scholars who misunderstood Colwell's rule. This shows that no scholar is above reproach, and theology plays as much bearing as it does in the average JW or other church-goer. I like Wallace's Grammar a lot, but at times he goes overboard with his interpretations.

One poster here keeps saying all over this site, that Jesus being "Son of God" makes him equal to God. If we were to use his reasoning, then it would mean all the "sons of God" (angels) mentioned in Genesis, Job and Psalms would be God's equal. Does that make sense? Of course, Jesus in a way is the Son of God, unlike the others, who are under Christ. But the term itself is no guarantee that the entity is identical with God. By the way, the holy spirit is never mentioned as a "Son of God."

48

No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003

by dgp in

i copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .

it is not necessary for bible translators to know.

by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.

Wonderment

dgp: Thanks for sharing the interesting data about languages. I learned a few things.

You wrote: "Why can't the Watchtower do something like this with its translators? Why is is that, regarding Bible translation, the Harlot puts a lot more effort than Jehovah's (self-appointed) organization?"

My take: Obviously, the WT wants its followers to stay away from academia by setting that example. As to ‘the Harlot putting a lot more effort than JWs organization’ I have to say that is true, but only from the perspective of academic credentials. Putting that aside (i.e. no effort in customary credentials), I cannot say the WT was careless in their translation efforts, or that they didn't spend the energy necessary to do translation work.

The evidence is that originally they spent nearly 14 years in the translation process, that is just for the English edition. After that, they spent a considerable amount of money and energy to further translate the English version into other languages, no easy task itself. The total man-hours spent on the project is mind-boggling. Not to mention the financial amount needed to do so. Yes, they did it for less money, but it is still expensive to produce a bible translation in many languages. Just look around and see how many corporations have been able to pull it off. Add to that the many man-hours to update those versions. The 1984 revision obviously took a lot of effort.

Furthermore, the WT also produced ‘the best Greek-English interlinear on the market.’ No easy task. Some bible translations have offered more than 10 thousand, even 20k footnotes plus some other informative material (after spending thousands of $, if not millions, in some cases), but as good as they are, and I enjoy the notes tremendously, many of those notes are of theological nature. On the other hand, the NWT Reference Bible produced more of a critical apparatus in their footnotes, than a theological kind. To some here for sure, may not be a big thing, but there are many of us who appreciate that kind of critical apparatus the NWT provided. By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia written by scholars of academic credentials described such notes as "an impressive critical apparatus." So, not only JW's appreciate it, but even some outsiders do. It takes considerable knowledge and good judgment to produce a critical apparatus such as that one produced in the NWT Reference Bible of 1984.

You mentioned that dominating a language (not biblical) is no evidence of competence, or the gist of it in reference to Fred Franz. That is basically true, nevertheless, in the case of Fred Franz, is indicative of his intelligence. Remember, he did study some Greek, and passed with good grades (grades of which have been made public), though he dropped the course before he obtained a degree. He continued his language studies in private.

Like I said before, his nephew Ray Franz (though a victim himself of WT shunning) have mentioned to others of Fred's linguistic abilities, and of his "unusually mentally disciplined" nature at it. I have reason to believe Fred Franz was the principal translator of the NWT. Reports from WT insiders also revealed he held correspondence with various Jewish and Greek scholars during translation. Some here have speculated that Fred was careless in his translation effort, and that he based his work on one or other translation. That tells me these individuals have not checked it against the Hebrew and Greek text. A WT insider told me Fred had a special room loaded with bible reference works right up to the ceiling. No, Fred was not a copycat. From my personal studies, I can tell some translators and scholars may have influenced his decision making at the time of translating. It appears he made good use of the Rotherham and Young's Bibles, as well as American Standard Version, Moffat's and Goodspeed's, Concordant Version, Diaglott translations among others, and Soncino's Books. It is evident he made use of German works as well, since he read German. In all, it seems that Fred was on top of it.

On the bad side, Fred was responsible for many of the wacky theological theories he expounded in WT publications. The chronological emphasis was likely his as well, and we know he made many "victims" of us. And he likely was behind the disfellowshipping of his nephew Ray Franz. (at the least, he did not helped him) And likely responsible for disfellowshipping Ed Dunlap (the author of the book of James) after decades of WT service.

But without Fred and Ray, the WT articles have been dumbed down further, to the point that the WT of today with is mindless repetition of faithful and discreet slave (worship) is an embarrasment to the whole religious community. I don't think Jesus deserves such treatment. As a matter of fact, the Father Jehovah may not be happy with this outcome either.

33

See John 1:1 with your own eyes: Bible translators have translated Latin, not Greek.

by Wonderment in

.

in principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud deum et deus erat verbum -- latin.

in beginning was verb and verb was with god and god was verb.. .

Wonderment

Leolaia:

As you suggested or pointed out, Latin lacks both the definite (the) and indefinite article. But Greek lacks only the indefinite article (a).

My point is that because Latin lacks both the definite and indefinite articles, one cannot say "the Verb was a god." But in Greek, you can

make a distinction between the God and the Word being "god."

Thus, it is my belief that English translations are either confused or influenced more by the Latin than what most folks believe. It is known

that early translators, KJV, Reina-Valera, Luther, were more comfortable with the Latin than they were with the Greek.

Today, I find most bible translators are translating the spirit of the latin Vulgate, rather than the Greek. The Greek does show a difference

and it is the job of the translator to reflect that somehow in their translations. Verse 2 indicates a distinction, why not reflect that in v. one?

The early Coptic text (c. 200) used the indefinite article in their translation of John 1:1c.

By the way, I like your carefully submitted posts.

48

No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003

by dgp in

i copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .

it is not necessary for bible translators to know.

by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.

Wonderment

Some of Ray's Franz' friends who alledgedly served as translators (Sanchez?) for the Spanish version of NWT claimed

no consistent consulting with the original languages was done. If that is the case, plus what Paulapollos is claiming and

the Branch Organizational directive indicates, all would indicate that other NWT versions other than English were not done

consulting Hebrew and Greek. If that's the case, I stand corrected.

However, when one sincerely picks up one of these recipient versions, such as Spanish, or other, and compares them with the NWT

in English, and the Hebrew and Greek text, one has to acknowledge that whatever methodology was used in the process, the end

result is impressive. Bible translation work is not easy by any means, and many decisions have to be made, and my working experience

with the NWT in various languages compared with the language "originals" bear the fact that sound decisions were made time and again.

Somehow, the WT process, criticized by some here, has resulted, to use Ray's Franz' wording, in a "creditable" translation.

By the way, I have seen some posters here claiming that the NWT process of translating the English version into other languages is flawed,

suggesting that other versions don't have that problem. Let me tell you, The Jerusalem Bible, Today's English Version, and the NIV versions

to foreign languages, to name a few, were not done totally from the originals. A careful look at these will show that they borrowed heavily from

the English version. One could say, they were translations from the English to other target languages consulting the Hebrew and Greek text.

In fact, these translators say so in so many words. I don't think most corporations working with these translations will have a translation team

equately prepared with the same Hebrew and Greek expertise as the original team. They all adapt to the process. If you translate the NIV

to French, one can be almost certain that the French translation team will not have 100 scholars to work with, and they will not repeat the heavy

work done by the original team. That makes sense to me.

I will give you an example where mistakes can be made by even professionals with credentials. At Genesis 45:14, the NIV in English renders

the state of the Hebrew verbs (for wept, weeping) backwards, while the same edition of the Spanish NIV (NVI) deals with it correctly. Why?

It seems that some here have this belief where the NWT is all bad for you, and the rest of bible versions done by professionals are true light.

It is not that simple. All these bible versions have their virtues and their faults. All it takes is to "get some grease in your hands" and go deep

into the guts of these bible versions and you will find lots of errors or discrepancies.

I will personally use any bible translation that can add to the richness of bible words. Whether its NIV, NWT, or Jerusalem Bible, I will use

them for what they are worth.

33

See John 1:1 with your own eyes: Bible translators have translated Latin, not Greek.

by Wonderment in

.

in principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud deum et deus erat verbum -- latin.

in beginning was verb and verb was with god and god was verb.. .

Wonderment

In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum -- Latin

In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb.

En arche en ho lógos, kai ho lógos en pros ton theón, kai theós en ho lógos

I n beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the G od, and god was the logos.

– (John 1:1) – GREEK

Now, which of these two readings appear closer to the one found in most bible versions today?

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

One cannot use Isaiah and Hosea scriptures out of its context to support the notion that there is no savior other than God? Why?

Because the Scriptures mention some humans called "saviors" other than Jehovah and Christ. The same hebrew word for all three. Check it out.

And as to Christ being "Savior," the Bible makes it clear that it was God who made him so. What it does prove is that the Supreme Savior is Jehovah.

Any other serving in the capacity of "savior" is due to God allowing it for a special purpose.

Acts 5:31: “God exalted him [Christ]at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel.” (NRSV)

And as for John 1:1 being "definitive" because of the Word being called "God," one needs to look at the context,

where it describes the Word being "with" God, so, the Word "God" is not exactly the God he was with.

It is used as an adjective, i.e. as "divine," "a divine being." John clears up any potential confusion by saying,

that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not "God" (20:31)

41

80% of all web sites are pornagraphic

by Sour Grapes in

during today's witchtower study there was so much wisdom.

coming forth from the conductor and those in attendance that.

i could only say to myself "can't they hear what they are saying?".

Wonderment

"80% of all websites are pornographic"

Translation: 80% of the websites we click are pornographic. It it happens to me, it surely happens to you. And I don't want all of you being tempted with lustful thoughts as I am.

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

godrulz:

You seem to have a specific trinitarian view of the word woship. But as others have stated with sound arguments, the Greek word can be applied in different contexts, with various connotations. Thus, the bible meaning is more important than the meaning given by "conservative Christians," as you put it. Don't believe me, check some Greek-English dictionaries where most acknowledge what I just said. I even quoted a few in a previous post.

Whatever Thomas meant by the words he pronounced under emotional excitement, it must be accepted at the light of John's words at 20:31, where he stated: ‘All these things are written down that you may believe that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God.’ Why would John go around circles and not just say that Christ is the God instead of just saying, Son of God. I repeat, Jesus spoke in this very same chapter, that ‘the Father was his God and everyone elses’ too. (20:17) I haven't seen any trinitarian explain that here, including yourself. In fact, I asked of you earlier, to just show me ONE scripture that says all the stuff you are claiming here, (that Jesus and the Father and the holy spirit are three persons but one God). To this date, you have not provided ONE scripture yet to prove your point. Most who hold on to views such as yours end up quoting the massive number of scholars who believe in the Trinity. Please, since you argue everything I have stated, all I ask is for you to come up with ONE scripture that explains the Trinity the way you do. I am sure other posters are equally interested to have your answer, instead of rants about how many conservative Christians, or how many super-scholars believe this or that.

In my case, I'd rather stick to simple statements of Jesus such as this one: ‘I seek the glory, not of myself, but that of my Father... because the Father is greater than I am.’ Or this one: ‘that all may honor the Son as they honorthe Father.’ It all ends with the Father, doesn't it?