i want to send a word of encouragement to all those posters who month after month submit intriguing.
biblical subjects with a positive note.
posters such as slimboyfat, earnest, careful, among others are a bright light in this forum.
I want to send a word of encouragement to all those posters who month after month submit intriguing
biblical subjects with a positive note. Posters such as Slimboyfat, Earnest, Careful, among others are a bright light in this forum. They are not the only ones though, so all those of you who write good serious material deserve kudos. Anyone who submit articles to make people feel better should be commended for it.
on february 21, 2020, the wt society made the announcement in their website of the release of the new world translation in modern hebrew (hebrew scriptures - "tanakh") in haifa, israel.
now, the complete nwt is available in modern hebrew.. some time ago, a poster here said that releasing (in theory, i.e.
) the hebrew bible in a modern version, such as the nwt, would be irrational.
One of the posters here mentioned the modern Hebrew Bible RAM. Well, this Hebrew Bible created a lot criticism in Israel a few years back (starting around 2010, i.e. See links below). Critics mentioned that if its use became widespread, the fear of losing the Hebrew culture was certainly a serious concern for Israelis. Another concern was that the introduction of this Bible would somehow water down the Sacred Text's message.
If this Bible, done by ONE individual, created such a stir back then, you can imagine the impact the newly released NWT in modern Hebrew (by a questionable? religious organization) will create in their country. It already has on this side of the ocean. A few posters on this website have already criticized it to their hearts content. Wait until Israelis find out that their dear Sacred Text has been "tampered with" by a controversial religious organization from the West. I imagine their reaction would be similar to the one in Greece when the NWT was published in modern Greek some time ago, where the Greek Orthodox Church went nuts with it.
https://www.hadassahmagazine.org/2012/02/28/israeli-life-translating-bible-hebrew/
on february 21, 2020, the wt society made the announcement in their website of the release of the new world translation in modern hebrew (hebrew scriptures - "tanakh") in haifa, israel.
now, the complete nwt is available in modern hebrew.. some time ago, a poster here said that releasing (in theory, i.e.
) the hebrew bible in a modern version, such as the nwt, would be irrational.
On February 21, 2020, the WT Society made the announcement in their website of the release of the New World Translation in modern Hebrew (Hebrew Scriptures - "Tanakh") in Haifa, Israel. Now, the complete NWT is available in modern Hebrew.
Some time ago, a poster here said that releasing (in theory, i.e.) the Hebrew Bible in a modern version, such as the NWT, would be irrational. Obviously, any effort to translate the classical Hebrew (Old Testament) into English and then back to modern Hebrew via the NWT didn't make sense to him.
Nonetheless, the WT Publishers released their own version of the NWT Old Testament in modern Hebrew. Why would they do so, if many Israelis can actually read the Hebrew Bible on their own?
Yes, they can, but many find it difficult to deal with. The revival of Hebrew language in Israel (being a phenomenom in itself) led by Ben-Yehuda in the late 19th century and early 20th century was based on Biblical Hebrew morphenes. He used thousands of words from the Hebrew Text and from rabbinical commentaries. Many words were borrowed from Arabic, Yiddish, and other sources. The end result is sort of a hybrid language, although some deny this.
Thus, many modern Israelis cannot read the Tanakh with joy. This is where the Society comes in... they contributed their labor and resources by submitting their own translation to the local community. Here is the announcement they made:
Quote:
FEBRUARY 21, 2020
ISRAEL
Hebrew Scriptures Released at Special Event in Israel
“The Governing Body prepared a special gift for you.” So began Brother Geoffrey Jackson, a member of the Governing Body, as he released the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in modern Hebrew. A total of 2,125 attended the special event held on January 11, 2020, at the Romema Arena located in Haifa, Israel.
Brother David Simozrag, who coordinates the efforts of the Public Information Desk in Israel, commented: “It is estimated that there are more than eight million in our region who speak Hebrew. We believe that providing the Tanakh in modern Hebrew is a valuable contribution to the local community.” This new release is among the very few modern translations available today to Hebrew readers.
The New World Translation is now available in whole or in part in 186 languages. Similar to the Masoretic scribes, our brothers who made up the Hebrew translation team worked diligently to transmit the Bible’s message accurately. The team dedicated more than three years to finish this modern translation. One of the translators observed: “Many Hebrew readers found it necessary to rely on commentaries or translations from other languages in order to understand particular verses and even entire books of the Bible. This Bible allows modern readers to easily grasp the meaning of the Scriptures.”
One brother noted: “After decades in which the average reader could not understand large parts of the Tanakh, he now can understand the message more clearly and accurately.” Undoubtedly, the 603 Hebrew-speaking publishers among the more than 2,000 publishers in the Israel branch territory will use this special gift “to consult the Law of Jehovah and practice it.”—Ezra 7:10. (End of quote)
we keep seeing posters bringing col. 1.16 and john 1.3 up as proof that christ is excluded from the creative acts.
the proof they submit is that the words "all things [gk., pánta]" appear in these texts.
however, they are missing this important element from the discussion: the word "all" is rarely used in greek, and even in our everyday language to mean literally "everyone" or "everything" under the sky.
JoenB75 said: "Also God made the Son heir of all things and gave him All authority. He must be worshipped as Jesus Christ the highest authority in the universe. He is not making an argument that All things have exceptions or that the Son is a creature. The Son is the Word made flesh, a specific mode of God revealed to reconcile / finish creation."
Your comment about the Son being "a specific mode of God" rhymes with "modalistic monarchianism," a doctrinal belief from the late 2nd and 3rd century. The term "modalism" was first said to be used by theologian Arnold von Arnack to describe the belief that God manifests himself in various "modes" through the Son and the Holy Spirit. By the way, modalism was generally considered a heresy by early Trinitarians. Modalism is not a biblical belief.
Your statement, "He [the Son] must be worshipped as Jesus Christ the highest authority in the universe" needs to be qualified. First, Heb. 1.6 calls on angels to worship Jesus, as many Bible versions put it. However, it should be noted that the biblical term can mean anything from a simple act of physical inclination as a token of respect, to one of full adoration. Context determines the right interpretation of the word.
Is Jesus "the highest authority in the universe"? No, all authority was given to him. If he was already almighty being a "mode of God," it would not be necessary for someone else to give him authority. The same with knowledge. God doesn't need to receive factual information from another because he himself is all-knowing. Yet, Rev. 1.1 shows God giving the heavenly Christ a "revelation" to pass on to others. The text you quoted of 1 Cor. 15.28 itself shows that Jesus is second to God in the universal scheme of things. And yes, Paul stated clearly that the concept of "all things" (Gk: pánta) submitting to Christ EXCLUDES God. Thus, if Christ is subject to God forever, it is reasonable to believe that his own life was caused by God, as Jesus himself claimed. (John 6.57) These biblical concepts counter the factuality of the idea that Christ is ‘the maximum authority in the universe.’
Jesus himself asked others to worship the Father, not him. (John 4.23,24) The rightful conclusion would be one in accord with Paul, who stated that "God is the head of Christ." (1 Cor. 11.3) I would rather believe in Jesus Christ hlmself who said "the Father was greater than him, instead of accepting human doctrines pushed by modalists such as Praxeas, Noetus and Sabellius.
In fact, Jesus did not even foresee a moment in his future Kingdom where he would have enough authority to assign favored seats to others. He said only the Father had that prerogative. (Matt. 20.20-23) Thus, the Son is scripturally shown to have some limitations. (Matt 24.36; Acts 1.6,7)
we keep seeing posters bringing col. 1.16 and john 1.3 up as proof that christ is excluded from the creative acts.
the proof they submit is that the words "all things [gk., pánta]" appear in these texts.
however, they are missing this important element from the discussion: the word "all" is rarely used in greek, and even in our everyday language to mean literally "everyone" or "everything" under the sky.
JoenB75 wrote: Most of the watchtower quoted verses are taken out of their context. We would use language in the same way today. “Everybody” came to the show. If you want to use the same criteria for creation and salvation be my guest. Matt 10:22 “you will be hated by everyone” must be limited to those the believer came across and in general the Christians were hated. But the context shows exceptions to “everyone”, namely the one being spoken to. Genesis 3:20? Genesis 3:15. Context. Creation is sustained through Christ (again, Colossians 1:16-20).
The author of Colossians never stated that Jesus is God almighty. He did say however, that "God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1:3) He added that Christ was "the image of the invisible God" (1:15); that "God was pleased that have all the fullness to dwell in him [Christ]." (Col 1.19) If Christ was God, would he have any need for someone else in the universe fill him up with the immensity of wisdom and divineness? (Compare Col 1.19 with 2:9,10)
Christ is further described to be "seated at the right hand of God." (3:1) Someone "seated at the right hand of God" cannot be one and the same as God, who is at the center of it all. Chapter one tells us that "all things [Greek: panta] have been created through Christ and for him." (Col 1.16)
Was the author of these words pushing the idea that Christ is God? Not according to Paul, who wrote both Colossians and the epistles to the Corinthians. Paul, writing as a Jew, knew very well that Christ's gained lofty position would never overtake God's position as Sovereign Lord, as some posters imply here.
Paul wrote: “But when it says that ‘everything’ has been subjected [to Christ], obviously the word [pánta] does not include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah.” (1 Cor. 15:27, Complete Jewish Bible)
Please take notice that the biblical author used the same Greek word in this verse as he did in the controversial passage at Colossians chapter one. What does this mean? Simply that the biblical authors of the Bible frequently assigned to the Greek "panta" the same meaning we moderns give to the word "all" or "everything." In other words, "all" is often used as a hyperbole, an exaggeration. It is like someone saying, "everybody loves football," which is not true, since some individuals want nothing to do with sports. In this example, "everybody" means "many," not "all" individually.
According to Paul, the word "all," when used of Christ, does not include God in the description. God is the ultimate exception to the greatness of Christ. No wonder Christ himself stated that ‘his Father, God, was greater than him.’ (John 14.28)
The rejection of the doctrine of "docetism" (= the belief that his human form on earth was an illusion) can be done entirely without enforcing the concept that Christ is uncreated. Paul does not provide any evidence that the rejection of docetism must require the belief that Christ was uncreated. On the contrary, he makes clear that Christ was "the firstborn of all creation," which in normal language (without seeing this through trinitarian glasses) is taken to mean, like the apostle John did, that he was "the beginning of the creation by God." (Rev 3.14)
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.
Watchtower wrote (see above quote): Of course, we would not leave our precious literature with those who do not appreciate it. (Matt. 7:6) When engaging in public witnessing using a table or a cart, publishers should not display Bibles. However, they may have Bibles available to offer to individuals who request one or who demonstrate sincere interest in the truth. (Emphasis added.)
I have a problem with this statement. The WTS have gone from pushing literature to the public as they did for nearly a century, to this weird situation where ‘they don't want publishers to display Bibles.’ I thought the Bible was their "main" publication, as they have claimed for so long, but now ONLY "individuals who request one or who demonstrate sincere interest in the truth" can get one. So the brothers are forced to discriminate between individuals ‘who demonstrate sincere interest in the truth and those who don't.’ Where does that leave me, a disassociated person who values Bible versions? If I present myself to a local cart in our territory, and request a copy, they will likely deny me one as one who don't deserve it. Would not that be a form of judging? Will Jesus approve such behavior? Even doubting Thomas was accepted by his Lord, and was not denied further biblical instruction.
The Bible is God's Word available to everyone, even to criminals if they so wish to grasp it. But this WT directive sends this message that if someone doesn't meet their religious standards, they must go elsewhere... to Christemdom, if need be, to get one. Oh, they will likely justify this odd behavior by providing their open jw.org website.
among the reasons the watchtower society gives in appendix c of the new world translation for inserting the name jehovah in the new testament is the following:.
· " in greek, is the definite article missing from before kyʹri·os (lord), where it would normally be expected grammatically, thus indicating that a proper name may originally have appeared in the greek text?
d. does anyone know if this is a valid argument?
Further to my earlier postings and the (many!) comments elicited, especially those about the use of “kyrios” in the LXX, I point readers to an excellent essay by John Wevers:
John William Wevers, “The Rendering of the Tetragram in the Psalter and Pentateuch: A Comparative Study,” in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma, ed. Robert J. V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 21-35.
First, he registers agreement with Albert Pietersma’s argument that the use of the Hebrew YHWH in some Old Greek manuscripts (as well as other devices, e.g., ΙΑΩ, ΠΙΠΙ), represents “a revision” that took place within the textual transmission of the Greek of the Hebrew scriptures. Then Wevers gives details of the use of “kyrios” as equivalents of YHWH and other terms in the LXX.
His particular focus is on the Psalter, but he prefaces that analysis with a helpfully detailed survey of data from the Pentateuch (book by book), confirming that YHWH is overwhelmingly rendered by forms of kyrios without the definite article (“anarthrous” forms). In contrast, forms of the word with the definite article (“articular”) are preferred to translate references to other figures who hold a lordly position in the narratives. As one example, check out Genesis 39:2-3, where the LXX has κυριος (without article) for YHWH consistently, and articular forms of κυριος to translate references to the human/Egyptian “master” in the narrative. The few exceptions, where an articular form of kyrios refers to God are translations of prepositional phrases and/or a very few cases where the Greek syntax requires a definite article (“post-positive” uses of the Greek δε, for Greek “techies”).
And remember that we’re talking about hundreds of instances on which to build the observation that the “anarthrous” forms of kyrios are preferred in the Pentateuch. This pattern suggests that in these texts kyrios is being treated as if it is a name, not the common noun for “Sir/Lord/Master”.
In the final part of his essay, Wevers also makes brief notice of the pattern of usage in the “former prophets” (called “historical books” often by Christians), and it’s the same clear overwhelming dominance of the anarthrous kyrios as substitute for YHWH.
But the main/middle part of the essay is given to the translation practice in the Psalter, and here the pattern differs somewhat. Wevers observes that it is “clear that the translator of the Psalter has not followed the strict pattern established by the translators of the Pentateuch. To be sure, Κυριος does continue to represent the proper noun, ‘YHWH’, and it remains unarticulated in the majority of cases, but this is not a hard and fast rule” (p. 33). And Wevers judges that in a number of instances the translator may be rendering the “qere” (the Hebrew oral substitute for YHWH that had become popular by the time of the translator, “adonay“), which the translator regularly renders with articular forms of kyrios.
As one example of the Psalter data, consider LXX Psalm 134 (Heb 135). The Hebrew “halelu yah” is rendered Αλληλουια (“hallelujah”), but cf. the translation of the same expression in v. 3, αινειτε τον κυριον (the articular form). It appears, however, that the translator didn’t take the “yah” to be the same thing as YHWH fully spelled out (as also the case in v. 4). For in the psalm otherwise, he tends to use anarthrous forms of kyrios to render YHWH (5 times in vv. 1-5). In vv. 19-21, however, the articular (accusative) forms of kyrios render Hebrew phrases with the particle signalling an accusative phrase, the Hebrew accusative phrasing here influencing the translator’s decisions (a translation-choice that we can observe in other Psalms too).
This clear dominance of the anarthrous kyrios as Greek equivalent of YHWH, a dominance exhibited already in the Pentateuch (which were the earliest Hebrew scriptures translated), suggests strongly that it had become a widely-used oral substitute for YHWH among Greek-speaking Jews. I.e., the anarthrous kyrios served as virtually a proper name for God, a reverential substitute for YHWH.
we keep seeing posters bringing col. 1.16 and john 1.3 up as proof that christ is excluded from the creative acts.
the proof they submit is that the words "all things [gk., pánta]" appear in these texts.
however, they are missing this important element from the discussion: the word "all" is rarely used in greek, and even in our everyday language to mean literally "everyone" or "everything" under the sky.
We keep seeing posters bringing Col. 1.16 and John 1.3 up as proof that Christ is excluded from the creative acts. The proof they submit is that the words "all things [Gk., pánta]" appear in these texts. However, they are missing this important element from the discussion: the word "all" is rarely used in Greek, and even in our everyday language to mean literally "everyone" or "everything" under the sky. For instance, let's take this one example from medicalartsradiology.com: "Even out the breast thickness so that all of the tissue can be visualized." Did the technicians mean here "all" the tissue from the buttocks, or calves? "All" here is contextually limited in meaning, is it not? The same principle applies in Scripture. The word "all" as in "all things" can have exceptions, and frequently does.
The Greek word for "all" is "pas." From this word we get these forms: pánta, pántes, pántõn, etc., and then some. The word appears over 1,200 times in the NT, and over 7,000 times in the Septuagint (LXX).
John Parkhurst gives one meaning of pas: “All, in a qualified sense, i.e. All, in general, though not each individual, most, a great many: Matt. 4:24; 10:22; Mark 1:37; Luke 15:1; John 12:32; Phil 2:21. Compare Matt. 3:15; 23:3; Luke 21:35.” (Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament)
Robert Young explains under “Illustrations of Bible Idioms” -- “Idiomatic Expressions”: “‘All and Some’ – The meanings of these words are frequently reversed in Scripture. The word all can mean some, and vice versa.” (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible)
Jason BeDuhn adds: “‘All’ is commonly used in Greek as a hyperbole, that is, an exaggeration. The ‘other’ is assumed. [...] All translations ‘add words’ in an effort to make coherent English sentences out of Greek ones.” (Truth in Translation, pp 84,86)
Matt. 10.22: "All men [Others: everyone] will hate you because of me..." (NIV; Gk., pántōn) The NIV Study Bible acknowledges the meaning here: "All. Hyperbole." Will "all people" hate you if you follow Christ? Many will, but not everyone. In fact, some may love you for it.
Mark 1.37, When Jesus went out very early in the morning while it was still dark to a solitary place, Simon Peter and his companions hunted him down, and when they found him, they exclaimed: "All are looking for you." [Gk., "pántes" (or, "everyone")] Was "everyone" in Galilee looking for him? No, it was the four disciples Jesus had called who searched for him. And perhaps Philip and Nathanael with them. So at most, a half-dozen or so individuals are summed up in this "all."
In the Septuagint we read in Ge. 3.20 that Eve was "the mother of all [pántõn] the living." (NETS) We should not assume that Eve was the mother of Adam, the angels, or even of the animals. What about God and Jesus, where they sons of mother Eve?
Did you know that even some modern Greek versions add the word "other" when the original text did not. One modern Greek version reads: “κι όλοι οι άλλοι μαθητές [Translation: and all the other disciples].” (Acts 5.29, Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, ΕΓΧΕΙΡΙΔΙΟ ΜΕΛΕΤΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΖΩΗΣ)
Some scholars have pointed out the following: “The omission of the notion ‘other, whatever’...is specifically Greek.” (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pp. 160, 254. ©1961, The University of Chicago) Could this apply to Colossians 1.16 and John 1.3? Yes, Scripture is clear that God is an exception to the "all things" said to be created by Christ. Where?
"For the scripture says, ‘God put all things under his feet.’ It is clear, of course, that the words ‘all things [Gk., pánta]’ do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:27, Good News Testament)
The Greek pánta is thus being defined in Scripture itself. Hence, it is not Scriptural to conclude that the expression "all" or "all other things" is always all-encompassing. Often it has limits or exceptions. It does not always indicate the inclusion or exclusion of everyone or everything else.
would it be all-right with you if a translator removes "jesus'" name completely from the new testament and replaces it with a substitute, like "master" throughout?.
Would it be all-right with you if a translator removes "Jesus'" name completely from the New Testament and replaces it with a substitute, like "Master" throughout?
following are three excerpts from wikipedia; liturgy.co.nz; & https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/05/an-overview-of-revised-new-jerusalem.html hopefully, this will give you an idea of the latest translation effort of the jb.. wikipedia notes: the revised new jerusalem bible (rnjb) is an english translation of the bible published by darton, longman & todd.
the new testament and the psalms,[1] were released in february 2018,[2] with the full bible released in july 2019.
[3] it is a revision of the jerusalem bible and the new jerusalem bible done by the british biblical scholar and ampleforth abbey monk henry wansbrough.
Following are three excerpts from Wikipedia; liturgy.co.nz; & https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/05/an-overview-of-revised-new-jerusalem.html Hopefully, this will give you an idea of the latest translation effort of the JB.
Wikipedia notes: The Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB) is an English translation of the Bible published by Darton, Longman & Todd. The New Testament and the Psalms,[1] were released in February 2018,[2] with the full Bible released in July 2019.[3] It is a revision of the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible done by the British biblical scholar and Ampleforth Abbey monk Henry Wansbrough.[4] (End of quote)
____________________________________________________________________
And https://liturgy.co.nz/the-revised-new-jerusalem-bible:
The Revised New Jerusalem Bible (New Testament and Psalms
Edited By Henry Wansbrough OSB
(Darton, Longman & Todd, 768 pages)
The Jerusalem Bible is an English translation of the Bible published in 1966. It is the text mostly used in Roman Catholic Masses. It was beautifully presented with wonderful notes and introductions. J. R. R. Tolkien was a contributor. It drew on the scholarship of École Biblique, and it kept a strong eye on the French La Bible de Jérusalem of 1956.
Henry Wansbrough OSB, however, contended, “Despite claims to the contrary, it is clear that the Jerusalem Bible was translated from the French, possibly with occasional glances at the Hebrew or Greek, rather than vice versa.” He edited a revision: The New Jerusalem Bible in 1985. [Thanks for the correction].
The New Revised Jerusalem Bible has come out first with the New Testament and Psalms.
The language, concepts and imagery of the original scriptures are presented more accurately by the RNJB than the colloquial approach of many other modern translations.
The message of the Bible is for all people, so care has been taken to avoid traditional male bias of the English language, while remaining faithful to the meaning of the original scriptures.
The book of Psalms is based on the text of the 2010 translation of The Revised Grail Psalms.
Ancient systems of measuring and timing have been replaced by modern, metric equivalents.
The notes, cross-references and book introductions of the JB and NJB are replaced in the RNJB by new materials which reflect the fruit of the most up-to-date and ecumenical scholarship.
I have already reviewed the The Revised Grail Psalms (here and here). I see nothing in the NRJB New Testament translation that would make me prefer it to the NRSV. On occasions when the NRSV and RNJB differ, it is the RNJB that appears to be the poor translation. If they haven’t bothered to produce a Revised New Jerusalem Bible version of the psalter, why did they produce the rest? I confess to a natural aversion to the endless iterations of English-language Bible translations. The introductions and notes may have been updated to more contemporary scholarship than the earlier Jerusalem Bible, but they are also much reduced. So what it looks like we have is a bible that is little different from the NRSV with notes little different to a good NRSV study bible.
If Roman Catholics (who are currently using the Jerusalem Bible) are working towards a new translation to use at Mass and for the Offices, I suggest and hope that – as is already the case in many places – they use the New Revised Standard Version rather than the Revised New Jerusalem Bible. I can see no significant benefits to using RNJB and lots to using NRSV.
(End of quote from website listed above.)
______________________________________________
Timothy O'KeefeOctober 13, 2018 at 6:42 PMFrom the comparisons I've made, the RNJB is not a substantial improvement over the NJB, and its inclusive language is more grating. Regarding the footnotes, I consider the NJB's to be far superior and far more extensive.
ReplyReplies
Heinz SchmitzOctober 14, 2018 at 4:36 AMI agree with you. The NJB will continue to be my "go to" Bible. Since buying the RNJB a half year ago, I never really use it. In fact, I often forget that it is on my shelf.
(End of website page)
