I myself wish there was a less annoying way to sign in. I would not be surprised if some prospective posters hold back from submitting more posts because of this very thing. Any alrternatives?
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
3
Stupid sign in's
by DwainBowman inmy eye site and all the stupid pictures make it a real pain to sign in!!!!
!.
-
-
-
40
Revised NWT in French released yesterday
by careful inhttps://www.jw.org/en/whats-new/revised-nwt-released-french/ .
it looks like it may only be available electronically, that is, no printed version(?)..
is the german next?.
-
-
Wonderment
Spanish language differences among various countries is akin to the English language varieties found in USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
https://blogs.transparent.com/spanish/the-many-dialects-of-spanish-and-what-they-mean-for-language-learners/: "It’s true that, like in English, most native speakers of the many different dialects of Spanish understand each other with relative ease or by listening just a bit more closely. But also like a non-native learning English in New York City will struggle to understand a thick Scottish brogue, dialects of Spanish often feature differences that present challenges for learners....The majority of vocabulary and grammar differences in the Spanish-speaking world are between European Spanish and the Latin American dialects."
Even so, just as an English speaker form USA can travel to other English speaking countries, and be understood, so can the Spanish speaker from the Iberian peninsula travel to Latin America and communicate fairly well. Of course, there are a lot of local idioms and accents that may pose a challenge at times, but not a major one to prevent adequate communication.
In regards to Bible translations, most publishers make an effort to use universal Spanish, that is, Spanish that can be understood in most countries without much difficulty. There is no way a Bible publisher is going to produce Spanish versions for dozens of countries, when only one or two versions would suffice.
-
23
NWT support of John 1:1. Punching holes in it
by LevelThePlayingField inthis is what they have in the new world translation index 6a to support their version of john 1:1. they are not honest even to their own people.
they list the year of the bible, rendering, and source.
but there's only two sources that actually lend any type of support to their argument.
-
-
Wonderment
Vanderhoven7:
TD is right when he wrote: Whether Thomas was expressing orthodoxy (i.e. Jesus partakes of the Divine nature) or whether he was identifying Jesus with the person of God (Sabellianism) or whether he was using "lord" and "god" simply as honorifics (Arianism) are theological arguments that can't be resolved by translation alone.
Having Thomas exclaim of Jesus: My lord and my god (or, My Lord and my God) is the English way of saying what we have in the Greek text (The lord of me or the god of me; or: The Lord of me and the God of me.) English translations commonly drop the article because it is not necessary in translation, and it would not add any meaningful nuance.
That is why I pointed to Scriptures as John 17.3; 20.31 (we may add John 14.28; 20.17 to those) if we want to make the appropriate sense of Thomas declaration in the light of other Johannine statements. On the other hand, those who seek to portray Jesus as God will refer to John 1.1; 8.58; 10.30, etc., in mainstream versions to make their case.
-
23
NWT support of John 1:1. Punching holes in it
by LevelThePlayingField inthis is what they have in the new world translation index 6a to support their version of john 1:1. they are not honest even to their own people.
they list the year of the bible, rendering, and source.
but there's only two sources that actually lend any type of support to their argument.
-
-
Wonderment
Vanderhoven7: "True in [John] 1:1 and in jn. 20:28 are different. In Jn 20 Thomas is identifying Jesus as The God."
If Thomas really acknowledged Jesus as "The God," should we not expect John the closest one to Jesus reach the same conclusion?
John wrote instead: "But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God [not "The God"], and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." (John 20.31) Jesus being superior to us in every way, including having greater knowledge about the Creator, confessed in prayer: "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." (John 17.3)
Now, if Jesus himself conceded that his Father was "the only true God," why would anyone prefer the bewildering exclamation of Thomas (which has been understood variously - q.v. C.F.D. Moule's quote above) over our Lord's direct and clear confession?
-
23
NWT support of John 1:1. Punching holes in it
by LevelThePlayingField inthis is what they have in the new world translation index 6a to support their version of john 1:1. they are not honest even to their own people.
they list the year of the bible, rendering, and source.
but there's only two sources that actually lend any type of support to their argument.
-
-
Wonderment
venus: "I never knew this, and looked up the interlinear and found Thomas' statement as being literally: "ho theos mou" -- "the god of me." Very interesting point which flatly refutes JW reasoning which plays with article such as "a" and "the."
Not quite! The grammatical construction of John 20.28 and 1.1 are not equal. John 1.1c uses a simple anarthrous nominative form for theós, while John 20.28 combines an articular nominative in a genitive-vocative construct. There is also the matter of Semitic influence in the statement.
C.F.D. Moule explains: "In John xx.28...it is to be noted that a substantive in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense and followed by a possessive could not be anarthrous [without the article]...; the article before [theós] may, therefore, not be significant.... Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense...the use of the article with a virtual Vocative (cf. John xx.28 referred to above...) may also be due to Semitic idiom." (An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, pp. 116-17. Cambridge University Press)
-
17
The Most Hypocritical Talk I've ever heard
by javierjiminy inpimo filmed a marking talk about him.
crazy how the many of things mentioned are the same thing the borg does, like brainwashing and indoctrinating.
what's crazier is how he's saying to the congregation not to do research or look up bad news articles because they are all "fake news.
-
-
Wonderment
The Watchtower conglomerate are using the same tactics the politicians use....Keep repeating a lie until it sticks.
Many people say they don't trust politicians one bit. However, they tend to fall for it, and engage in preaching the same lies as they do. Obviously, repeating lies works. The more a politician or religious preacher repeat the lie, the more likely is going to get embedded in people's psyche. Elections are won or lost based on misinformation. And religious bodies retain their members by the same practice. Speaking truth don't take you so far, nor preaching love will get you the free publicity.
-
53
Fred Franz Former Training in Ancient Greek
by Wild_Thing inhas anyone been able to verify that fred franz received the minimal training in ancient greek that he claimed gave him the expertise to translate the bible?
you would think that would be fairly easy to verify or disprove in this day and age.
what college did he attend?
-
-
Wonderment
Diogenesister: As wonderful as Ray Franz was I'm afraid we all love our family legends, as we bathe in the reflected glory, and I'm afraid his was that uncle Fred was this great scholar.
Ray Franz and Fred his uncle didn´t get along. They were no close buddies, though having family ties. Ray Franz never said his uncle was "a great scholar."
Ray was though convinced that his uncle had the intellectual capacity to learn languages in a disciplined manner. He stated that he felt confident that Fred was able to produce "a creditable translation." When he went to Israel with Fred, he mentioned that this native woman from the country who was the Societyś English-Hebrew translator had a long chat with Fred on Hebrew's idiosyncracies and difficulties. She came away impressed with his knowledge of the language.
Ray was not in agreement with many of the NWT renderings, particularly those involving organizational beliefs. And he did not approve of some of Fred´s tactics within the governing body. I think this is a fair assessment of Ray´s views on the matter.
-
53
Fred Franz Former Training in Ancient Greek
by Wild_Thing inhas anyone been able to verify that fred franz received the minimal training in ancient greek that he claimed gave him the expertise to translate the bible?
you would think that would be fairly easy to verify or disprove in this day and age.
what college did he attend?
-
-
Wonderment
Why the obsession to prove the NWT is horrible? What do we get from this?
Hate can make us go blind, and not see the good or bad from other sources. Many in the WT can´t see the many wrongs the corporation have done through the decades. It´s like "Jehovah" is behind every human action in the borg. Nonsense! WT critics fare no better. They distort facts no less, and actually go one step further than the WT in misconstruing facts.
Whoever believes that a human who doesn´t have an academic degree is unable to translate the Bible needs to have their head checked. Yes, I know... scholars have an edge over those who don´t have degrees. No doubt. However, an accreditation of itself does not make a good translator. Doctrinal beliefs, intelligence, common sense, honesty, financial status, and other factors all play a role. Dishonesty is found throughout the religious world, not just by JWs.
Centuries ago, the Catholic Church made it look that unless you learned Latin, you were not able to translate, read the Bible and understand it. To a certain degree they succeeded. But not completely. They were those who individually proved them wrong. Eventually, the Catholics lost that battle, and now we have many versions of the Bible. The thing is that now Protestants are claiming, like the Catholics of long ago, that unless you go to their schools, you are stupid. They make it sound like you need a long list of requirements to translate the Bible. Only they can do it. They too make the original languages appear unattainable to common people. Only they are smart enough. Nonsense.
The fact is that many individuals through the ages have translated the Bible without university accreditation. What? You think all those translators used by United Bible Society were all accredited? Some of those translations in other countries were done by pastors or diligent students with UBS financial support.
Also, the NWT is despised by the masses, but quite a few have been impressed by it, like Alan Duthie. Goodspeed once made favorable comments about the NWT. Christian churches sent their dogs to have Goodspeed recant his statements. All they got from him was a criticism of the un-English renderings of the Old Testament, like in Judges 14.3. The critics were just hoping Goodspeed would condemn the NWT NT translation. It didn´t happen. The same thing happened with Benjamin Kedar. Kedar spoke well of the NWT, and he got tired of responding to NWT critics to the point that he ended up writing a general statement for future inquiries. Kedar never recanted his favorable comments on the NWT. He criticized both the traditional Western Christian religions and the WTS for its restrictive policies. But he kept his view on the NWT Hebrew translation.
In all, if the NWT is horrible in your view, why not focus on the translation flavor of your choice, and share your experiences from that with us. I will be delighted to hear those.
-
53
Fred Franz Former Training in Ancient Greek
by Wild_Thing inhas anyone been able to verify that fred franz received the minimal training in ancient greek that he claimed gave him the expertise to translate the bible?
you would think that would be fairly easy to verify or disprove in this day and age.
what college did he attend?
-
-
Wonderment
vienne: I did not suggest that Franz couldn't translate; I suggested his English language word choices were not best grammar.
I agree with you.
-
53
Fred Franz Former Training in Ancient Greek
by Wild_Thing inhas anyone been able to verify that fred franz received the minimal training in ancient greek that he claimed gave him the expertise to translate the bible?
you would think that would be fairly easy to verify or disprove in this day and age.
what college did he attend?
-
-
Wonderment
vienne: Examples of poor grammar? Use of reflexive pronouns, especially in the OT. ie: He himself.
This example is an indicator that the translator was translating from the Hebrew text (not from an English version), because the Hebrew in some cases brings out emphasis by doubling on pronouns.
Leviticus 5:2,3 for instance, has the literal reading: "from him" "and he" (pronominal suffix & personal pronoun) back to back, which the NWT renders as "he himself" The NWT translation is not alone doing so.
The NWT 2013 has done away with many of those Hebraisms compared to pre-2013 NWT. Another example of Hebrew emphasis is clearly seen at Ezequiel 18:4, particularly in the early versions.
There is a group of people who like those distinctions brought out in their Bibles. Others do not. That's what's good about the English language which has so many bible versions opposed to other languages that don't have as many choices to bicker about.