Posts by Wonderment

15

The word [other] in NWT

by apostate man in

sorry this is so long, but here is a series of e-mails i sent to the jehovah's witnesses united site and their response.

it has to do with the nwt inserting the word [other]in col 1:16,17 and phil 2:9. pick it apart as you may.

you may need an hour or two to read all of it.. (my original e-mail).

Wonderment

The scripture of Col. 1.16 is dealt with extensively here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/209607822/Colossians-1-16-Is-the-translation-all-other-things-appropriate

36

I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT

by yogosans14 in

day after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.

they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .

dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.

Wonderment

yogosans14: "Jesus is both Man and God."

Can you name just one scripture which confirms that?

yogosans14: "If Jesus is a god then isn't that polytheism? If Jesus is a god and Jehovah is the only true God is Jesus a false or true God? If he is a true God then he is NOT the only true God. If Jesus is not God then why does he tell people to come to him and not the father (Matt 11:28)?"

It seems you are attempting to use the term "god" with the narrowed definitions of Trinitarians. But the Bible shows the term "god" has a few more connotations than generally acknowledged by churchgoers:

The International Standard BibleEncyclopedia explains: “This word [elohim] can in fact, be used for other gods (Gen. 31:30) and even for men (cf. Ex. 4:16; 7:1; cf BDB, p. 43)."

Robert Young: " God—is used of any one (professedly) mighty, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc ., e.g. Ex. 7:1 ; ... John 1:1 ; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ...." – Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible.

Was Moses a false god? Were angels false gods? Was Jesus a false god? No, they were not. The term "god" when used of anyone other than God conveys the sense that that someone is in a position of power, is godlike, or is serving as God's representative.

About John 1:1, although there is no hard rule, it should be noted that "when a Greek noun lacks the definite article, it normally will be translated as indefinite." ( A Primer of Biblical Greek) It is not shocking then to read "a god" in various versions of Jn 1.1c.

Harner showed that predicate nouns without the article normally are qualitative in nature. His study was so convincing that nowadays there is hardly any scholar insisting that such predicates are definite, turning around Colwell's earlier premise.

Of John 1.1, doctor BeDuhn had this to say:

" In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but  it is  a  god, or divine being . I know
 that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer. 
 But  thefact remains that that is what John wrote . His purpose in doing so was, at least in
 part, to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ. The one who
 incarnated was somehow distinct from ‘God’ while still being 'a god.' " Truth in Translation.

yogosans14: "If Jesus is not God then why does he tell people to come to him and not the father (Matt 11:28)?"

Jesus never said others should never go to the Father and only to him. He asked his disciples ‘to come to him’ to find relief from the many heavy religious burdens being imposed by religious leaders. Jesus was sent by God with a mission of the salvation of men. The Jewish people as well of the rest of the world needed to recognize that Jesus was ‘the way to the Father.’

This fact can remind us of Moses when as mediator between God and Israel said: " Moses answered him [Jethro], ‘Because the people come to me to seek God's will.’ " (Exodus 18.15) Does this account prove Moses was God?

Polytheism was never an issue when powerful men acted on behalf of God, not even to Jesus, God's Son. (John 10.33-36)

36

I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT

by yogosans14 in

day after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.

they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .

dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.

Wonderment

ecan6:

You made some valid points about the uncertainty of some scriptural statements, and how many today bicker about without substance about many things not clear in Scripture.

yogosans14: "I no longer have to work for my salvation."

Whatever you meant with these words, I suppose you have weighted them carefully against Paul's own at Phil. 2:12, "Keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

A couple of you wisely mentioned one reason why Mantey would carry the KIT translation with him, i.e. having the Wescott & Hort Greek Text handily in a small package. Very good! I missed that one when I made my comments.

Vidqun: Thank u for the J. W. Wenham quote regarding Jn 1.1.

36

I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT

by yogosans14 in

day after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.

they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .

dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.

Wonderment

Mantey: "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament."

According to Walter Martin, Mantey carried the KIT with him as he traveled. This brings up a question. Why would a scholar of his caliber bother to take the WT KIT with him if it was so badly translated? Me thinks, he found a lot of good in it which he did not want to admit publicly. If that wasn't the case, and his motive was to criticise it at every oportunity he got, it would show that Mantey was emotionally obsessed in proving the WT wrong, which would indicate he wasn't much different from WT and Evangelical fanatics.

36

I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT

by yogosans14 in

day after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.

they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .

dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.

Wonderment

Phizzy, you provided various quotes from which I would like to comment briefly.

Metzger, a Presbyterian, focused mainly on the theological slant of the NWT -- particularly those texts which dealt with Christ's deity. On the translation side, he admitted the following:

" On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators ...Frequently an intelligent use of critical information is apparent."

Barclay mentioned ‘intellectual dishonesty’ of the WT for translating Jn 1.1 as they did. But two decades later, Barclay acknowledged that the Greek did allow for such translation. Whether Barclay changed his mind, or whether he himself was ‘intellectually dishonest’ in his initial criticism, I leave you to decide.

Rowley too was not kind to the WT either. His harsh NWT criticism for being so literal could well have been said of other literal translations. He is said to have written his NWT criticism before the actual release of the NWT occurred. What happened here?

And since the time Mantey made his deriding comments about the NWT ‘not being scholarly’ for translating Jn 1.1c as they did, various scholars have openly said that if we go by grammar alone, the rendering "a god" is just as legitimate - a complete turn-around from the previous generation of scholars.

36

I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT

by yogosans14 in

day after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines.

they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have researched there so called "supporters" and i have found they have tooken what they said out of context to twist the scriptures to there liking.. .

dr. julius r. mantey (who is even recognized by the watchtower as a greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their kingdom interlinear translation): calls the watchtower translation of john 1:1 "a grossly misleading translation.

Wonderment

Quoting Mantey, Bowman, Rhodes is not the solution in search of truth. These guys do quite a bit of twisting quotes themselves. They are not reliable sources. The WT is no saint either. Both parties are right sometimes and wrong other times. Evangelical sources attacking the WT are way off at times that it is surprising there are plenty of takers out there.

The McKenzie quote by the WT in my opinion is fair use. McKenzie was clear with the statement the WT quoted. That he is a Trinitarian, and doesn't agree with the WT interpretation overall is besides the point. Mckenzie is not that all clear on various trinitarian texts to have Rhodes quote it for full support.

Harner too presents a picture somewhere between the WT position and traditionalist views. Actually, Harner says or implies that the traditional translation "the Word was God" is a no-no. The part the WT quoted was done correctly -- to indicate that the predicate of Jn 1.1c is not definite. And I ask, what is the opposite of "definite"?

What about Baptist Mantey? Mantey's letter is more of an embarrasment to his scholarship (his Greek grammar is a favorite of mine) by revealing he let his emotions do the talking in respect to the WT. His letter was not articulately done, not to mention obvious exegetical mistakes within, which even other scholars would dispute.

23

NWT departure from greek meaning

by aintenoughwiskey in

the new jw library app includes the kingdom interlinear.

just by looking up the scriptures at the meeting when i went, revealed the following "departures" from the other translations:.

rev 5:10 "over the earth" vs "upon the earth".

Wonderment

On a previous post (c. 18 months ago), I commented on Mt 24.39, "took no note."

Other translators and commentators have explained the phrase similarly. Check around.

23

NWT departure from greek meaning

by aintenoughwiskey in

the new jw library app includes the kingdom interlinear.

just by looking up the scriptures at the meeting when i went, revealed the following "departures" from the other translations:.

rev 5:10 "over the earth" vs "upon the earth".

Wonderment

Although it is tempting to point out NWT errors based on KIT literal renderings, one should be reminded that accurate translation of any document goes beyond basic meanings, word for word transmission.

Various interlinears have pointed out the dangers of rejecting modern translations based on them. Prepositions, for instance, have a lot of overlap, and the translator must ultimately use his/her understanding of the passage in question to properly convey the meaning into the target language. This explains why we have so many English translations...there are potentially various ways to interpret some biblical accounts, such as Revelation.

The NWT Revised Ed. renders the Greek words in KIT (Rev 20.4), "through [diá] the witness of Jesus and through [diá] the word of the God" as: "for the witness they gave about Jesus and for speaking about God."

The preposition diá with the accusative as it appears in the verse can have a spatial meaning, through, but more likely a meaning of cause: because of, on account of, for the sake of

Bible translator and commentatorRobert H. Gundry explains the clause as: "for testifying about the Testimony who is Jesus and preaching about the Word who is Jesus."

Barclay renders it: "because they had declared their faith in Jesus, and for the sake of the word of God."

Moffatt: "for the testimony of Jesus and God's word"

Goodspeed: "on account of the testimony of Jesus and the message of God"

An Understandable Version: "because they had testified about Jesus and [had proclaimed] the message of God" (Brackets are from translator)

Williams: "for bearing testimony to Jesus and for preaching the word of God"

Weymouth: "on account of the testimony that they had borne to Jesus and on account of God's Message"

NLT: "for their testimony about Jesus and for proclaiming the word of God"

CEB: " because they had told about Jesus and preached God’s message "

GNT: " because they had proclaimed the truth that Jesus revealed and the word of God "

Phillips: " for their witness to Jesus and for proclaiming the Word of God "

NLV: " because they told about Jesus and preached the Word of God "

CEB: " for their witness to Jesus and God’s word "

NWT: "for the witness they gave about Jesus and for speaking about God."

114

Early Evidence for 1 John 5: 7

by Perry in

italic 4th and 5th century.

629 in the 14th century.

429 in the 14th century (margin).

Wonderment

Of 1 Timothy 3.16 (whether to read theós or He, Who), professor Daniel B. Wallace claims :

“As attractive theologically as the reading θεός [god] ” may be, it is spurious .” ( Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics , 342):

Of 1 John 5.7, textual critic Philip W. Comfort, asserts: "John never wrote the following words: in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one."

And Bible translator Byington bluntly stated: "The old version contains forged texts ... 1 John 5.7 ... But those words never were in the Greek... [...] A man who uses the old version as his standard Bible [to support 1 Tim 3.16 & 1 John 5.7] has no right to claim that he is treating the Bible respectfully as the word of God."

All three scholars quoted are Trinitarians.

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

Crazyguy: "Even with all the changes the JW's make in their bible using the word obeisance instead of worship, it is clear in the book of Revelation in the last chapter when Jesus becomes the Alpha and Omega."

Clear?

Professor emeritus at Westmont College Robert H. Gundry understands it a bit differently (as it appears in a footnote to Rev. 1.8 of his Commentary on the New Testament ):

" Since alpha and omega are the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet, saying ‘I am the alpha and the omega’ is like saying in English ‘I am the A and the Z.’ … This language described God the Father in 1:4 and therefore identifies ‘the Lord God’ with him here too [in 1:8] (as clearly also in 4:8; 21:22)."

He, as you did, used the word ‘clear,’ but he sees the words "the alpha and the omega" as a reference to "God the Father," not the Son.