Posts by Nowhere

32

Question on the NWT translation

by Nowhere in

one intresting thing is that both the kingdom interlinear and the nwt is based on the greek text of westcott & hort.

that is a good text, and was the text for about two generations.

but today no one except the watchtower society bases their translation on that text.

Nowhere

the Committee have not used God's name in the NRSV

I never said NRSV was the ultimate and final in bible translations. I just mentioned that it was updated in a new version, when a more accurate greek text were available. The NWT has not been that in the same way. The main differences in the new versions of NWT is that nowdays they put the extra words that WTBTS has inserted in the text in brackets [ ]. The first version didn't. The first version was as you see, an addition to what was written as you can read about in rev 22:18-19. And more they have 'revised' the translation in John 1:1 to beginning instead of origin, because origin wasn't a good choise in rev 3:14, and WTBTS still wants to hold people in the dark concerning the meaning of the bible.

But it is not and no wishful thinking will make it a quotation.

That is your view. It is not wishful thinking. If it isn't a quote, then it is a improbability, and obviuosly then, with your reasoning, Paul goofed.

What I wrote was the Greek text of the words: It is the Lord your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service which is what Jesus was quoting.

The 'alone', mono, isn't in LXX. There is nothing wrong with it, but it isn't a word by word quotation, thats my point. It's a quote, even if the exact words aren't used, it's the meaning that is important. Now you have two differences, mono and proskuneseis.

Can I ask you a question? Are you still an active JW?

Edited by - Nowhere on 7 November 2002 14:31:30

32

Question on the NWT translation

by Nowhere in

one intresting thing is that both the kingdom interlinear and the nwt is based on the greek text of westcott & hort.

that is a good text, and was the text for about two generations.

but today no one except the watchtower society bases their translation on that text.

Nowhere

"It is also true of the Revised Standard Version, printed after world war 2 (1946)"

Have you ever heard of the New Reviesd Standard Version? There is a reason for making that update. Why doesn't WTBTS print a New NWT, based on the newer texts available? Thats my point.

Earnest wrote:

"Many of the principles derived by Westcott & Hort are equally valid today."

Yes, but as you probably know, the principles are more complex today, than in the time of W&H.

Earnest wrote:

"I don't really know what more you want me to say of Jesus' quotation at Matthew 4:10. Jesus clearly believed that he was quoting what was written. A comparison of the Greek text you provide for Deuteronomy with that in Matthew only differs in one word "

Now you are getting somewhere! As you said, it only differs in one word (which of course is wrong, you only quoted half the sentence). Exactly as Paulus did when he quoted Isaiah, even if it wasn't a word for word quotation, he certainly knew what he quoted and then applied to Jesus. I think you are getting it now. As you said "it only differs in one word".

32

Question on the NWT translation

by Nowhere in

one intresting thing is that both the kingdom interlinear and the nwt is based on the greek text of westcott & hort.

that is a good text, and was the text for about two generations.

but today no one except the watchtower society bases their translation on that text.

Nowhere

Earnest wrote:

"Your thread was about the text behind the translation which you (incorrectly) suggested was limited to Westcott & Hort."

No. The thread was about why the bible is based on W&H, I never said it was limited to W&H, but based on W&H, which is an outdated text. I don't believe WTBTS is educated enough to by them self use the W&H text, and then by them self 'update' it with other newer texts. My question is, why not start from the beginning with a text that is recognized today as the best?

Earnest wrote:

"Quite clearly, it is a quotation because Jesus says "It is written..."

Ok, but where is it written then? Not in the Bible I can tell you. You mentioned Deuteronomy 6:13 as the source, but is it really written there?

"Jehovah your God you should fear, and him you should serve, and by his name you should swear." (NWT)

" kυριον <2962>τον<3588>θεον<2316>σου<4771>φοβηθηση<5399>και<2532>αυτω<846>λατρευσεις<3000>

και <2532>προς<4314>αυτον<846>κολληθηση<2853>και<2532>τω<3588>ονοματι<3686>αυτου<846>ομη

"

(LXX, you maybe need greek font installed to view this, but strong's numbers are included)

As you see, it is not a direct quotation.

Earnest wrote:

"I should add that I am not personally convinced the Translation Committee were justified in every instance that they use God's name in the NT."

Do you also believe that God's name is omitted where it indeed could be inserted (the watchtower way)?

Edited by - Nowhere on 5 November 2002 17:52:30

32

Question on the NWT translation

by Nowhere in

one intresting thing is that both the kingdom interlinear and the nwt is based on the greek text of westcott & hort.

that is a good text, and was the text for about two generations.

but today no one except the watchtower society bases their translation on that text.

Nowhere

Earnest wrote:

Believe what you wish but the critical apparatus and footnotes in the NWT makes it abundantly evident that a large number of texts including UBS and Nestle-Aland were consulted and used. Bruce Metzger observes in an article in The Bible Translator of July 1964:

"On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators (their names are not divulged). They refer not only to modern translations, including various English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese translations, but to ancient versions as well, including the Old Latin, Old Syriac, Vulgate, Armenian and Ethiopic versions. Frequently an intelligent use of critical information is apparent..."

Bruce Metzger? I think you forgot to quote these quotes, also made by Bruce Metzger when he talks about the NWT translation:

"A frightful mistranslation."

"Erroneous"

"pernicious"

"reprehensible"

Any idiot with knowledge enough to copy different texts from different tranlations and with a little knowledge on how to use a greek dictionary can come up with a new 'tranlation' of the bible. This is exactly what the WTBTS has done. And when they can't find other translations that supports thier own ideas, they invent words to put in the greek text. You cannot say that you have consulted other texts, when you only use them as you see fits. They have instead manipulated the meaning of those other texts that were 'consulted'. They have not used other translations and texts, thay have misused them. And I will prove it to you.

Earnest wrote:

"while Phillipians uses similar language it is not a quotation and there is no reason to treat it as such"

No reason? Can you show me the quotation and the reason to use 'Gods proper name' in this verse for example?:

Mathew 4:10 - "Then Jesus said to him: 'Go away, Satan! For it is written, It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'"

I say there is reason. Do you think Paul was unaware of what was written in Isaiah?

"to me every knee will bend " and "every tongue will swear",

when he implied it on Jesus in Phillipians,

"in the name of Jesus every knee should bend " and "every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord/Jehovah "

32

Question on the NWT translation

by Nowhere in

one intresting thing is that both the kingdom interlinear and the nwt is based on the greek text of westcott & hort.

that is a good text, and was the text for about two generations.

but today no one except the watchtower society bases their translation on that text.

Nowhere

Earnest wrote:

"other Greek texts were also consulted"

Yes, that is my point. Why just 'consult' other texts, why not use them?, and not base thier translation on an outdated greek text? Beside, I don't really believe that other texts really was consulted, maybe they checked some words to see which greek text that bests supports thier own interpretaion and use that word from a different text, a little cut'n paste job.

I've ordered some greek texts and I will compare them, If I find anything peculiar or different in the kingdom interlinear, I will post it here.

"I should also add that I do not believe there is any credibility in the suggestion that the WTS does not want to admit recent textual evidence."

I would like to see that with my own eyes first... then I will believe it.

And one more very interesting thing you can explain to me earnest: Why doesn't the NWT translation use "Gods proper name" in Philippians 2:11? The NWT use the word Lord here for the greek kyrios, while according to their own kingdom interlinear translation, the correct translation should be Jehovah, not Lord.

See for yourself, KIT page 11-12: "How may modern tranlators determine when to render the Greek words Kyrios and Theos as the divine name? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then they must refer back to the Hebrew text to locate whether the divine name appears there."

So then, lets take a look at Philippians 2:9-11:

"For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

and compare it with the qouted text from the Hebrew (Isaiah 45:22-23):

"22 "Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else. 23 By my own self I have swornout of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not returnthat to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear,"

Now we know that the correct translation would be :

"and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Jehovah to the glory of God the Father"

You might also wonder why Jesus would be given the name that is "above every name", isn't that Jehovah? Why has the NWT inserted the word 'other' here? it's not in the originals, that's a fact.

7

Russels view of disfellowshiping

by Nowhere in

"since the autumn of 1878, there has been a very clearly marked difference of opinion on the subjects of atonement, resurrection and restitution.

while we have not felt disposed to disfellowship anyone on account of a difference of opinion on these things, or for any other opinion as long as we are satisfied of the christian integrity of brethren, there has been difference enough to prevent the same hearty co-operation as formerly, especially as there has been manifested a disposition to urge these disputed points as test questions.

paul and barnabas separated in their work for a reason not half so important, but christ was not divided, and we do not read of either one calling each other hard names or disfellowshipping each other as christians.

Nowhere

"Since the Autumn of 1878, there has been a very clearly marked difference of opinion on the subjects of Atonement, Resurrection and Restitution. While we have not felt disposed to disfellowship anyone on account of a difference of opinion on these things, or for any other opinion as long as we are satisfied of the christian integrity of brethren, there has been difference enough to prevent the same hearty co-operation as formerly, especially as there has been manifested a disposition to urge these disputed points as test questions. Paul and Barnabas separated in their work for a reason not half so important, but Christ was not divided, and we do not read of either one calling each other hard names or disfellowshipping each other as Christians."

64

Please convince me I'm wrong!

by StinkyPantz in

since i have stopped attending the meetings, i have had a loss of faith in god.

i consider myself an agnostic teetering on being a full blown atheist.

while in school this last semester i have been taking courses that emphasize evolution.

Nowhere

StinkyPantz wrote:

So if the universe had a beginning, did God? And if so, did he just appear one day, did he evolve, or did our creator have a creator? Doesn't an almighty God defy the laws of chance?

No, God whoever or whatever he/that is, did not have a beginning if he/that exists. Else there can not be a "God". If God didn't existed, the universe evolved by mere chance. God may have changed his apperance though after the universe was created, he was maybe not even "alive" before the universe was formulated, but if he had a creator, he is no longer God, that "creator" would instead be God, hence the reasoning here would apply to him.

Does an almighty God defy the laws of chance? Well, if He defined those laws, there is no such thing as chance in the universe. Everything happens as planned by that almighty God. But if there is no God who made those rules, we can say that things happens by chance.

We are back at square one. If you want to believe in a God, do that. But you will never live to see if there really really really exists a God.

32

Question on the NWT translation

by Nowhere in

one intresting thing is that both the kingdom interlinear and the nwt is based on the greek text of westcott & hort.

that is a good text, and was the text for about two generations.

but today no one except the watchtower society bases their translation on that text.

Nowhere

One intresting thing is that both the kingdom interlinear and the NWT is based on the greek text of Westcott & Hort. That is a good text, and was the text for about two generations. But today no one except the watchtower society bases their translation on that text. All major bible translations (I think) made after world war 2 are instead based on the greek text by Nestle-Aland or the text provided by UBS.

So the question is: How come that JW's claim to have the best tranlation available today, and it isn't even based on the greek text that is recognised as the best and most accurate greek text today? And more, is there anything in those newer texts that the watchtower doesn't want to admit?

(KJV is based on another text, the oldest one, the textus receptus, which some scholars still holds for as the best text available, but when comparing the text critical versions; W&H with Nestle-Aland or UBS greek text, the W&H greek text is outdated today. Period.)

59

Stupid Rules - LIST!!!! ( CONTEST )

by breeze in

stupid rules list....

i will start.... number 1) two people have to witness a sin before it is reported to the superior authorities....making me the org the last word in all areas.. the most stupid rule gets to post it once the gb has judged it the most stupid?

maybe simon will be one of the judges..... breeze

Nowhere

Always trust in the FDS, even if you know they are wrong.

64

Please convince me I'm wrong!

by StinkyPantz in

since i have stopped attending the meetings, i have had a loss of faith in god.

i consider myself an agnostic teetering on being a full blown atheist.

while in school this last semester i have been taking courses that emphasize evolution.

Nowhere

StinkyPantz wrote:

So, I wonder is there anyone out that that can: 1) intelligently and preferably scientifically refute that the Earth has been around for millions of years and that humans have evolved over millions of years and 2) prove with only a reasonable doubt that there is a God.

Answer no.1: The earth has been around for millions of years. Thats a fact. You can always say that the earth is young, but only if you pretend that science don't exist. First of all, we already have a very good explanation of the universe. And that models starts just after big bang. We know how the sun works, how long it must have been out there to behave the way it does, we know how the sun was born and we know by measuring the velocities and placement of galaxies to know at least that the universe is older than we can imagine. Billions of years old. And of course we also have the various metods of radiactive dating to measure ages here on earth.

I know the witnesses and many other religious groups try to discredit science and physics, by misqoutings and by relying on obscure "scientists" (often members of other religious groups) that has thier own ideas of how things work, for thier sources. But not one respected scientist would give support to thier ideas. Period.

But were does that put God? Personally I believe in God. I think that someone or something must have started all this. Something made up the rules that we now obey, whether if we like it or not.

Answer no.2: x + y = a, therefor God exists! We can never prove that God exists, and we can never prove that he doesn't exist. But the number of lucky "coincidenses" required to produce an environment in which life as we know it is possible, seems to defy the laws of chance (and I'm not talking about evolution, evolution seems very possible compared to the chance of a universe as we know it). There can only be two explanations, either God made the rules for the universe or there are an infinite number of different universes. I prefer the first explanation. Most scientists prefer the latter.

And does it really matter if God personally created us or if he made the rules in a way that would lead to human life on planet earth through evolution? I don't think so.