Thanks Nancy, thought I might be a bit paranoid. Many, many years ago (over 20) I attended a Ministerial School. A brother gave a talk on empathy, and he stressed the point, If you don't have empathy, you have a big problem. Don't say, I am a man's man, I'm tough, I don't show emotion or sympathy. Know you've got a problem, and work on it. So what has happened in the mean time? Has empathy become "old light"? Today, I would avoid becoming an elder or MS at all costs. Why? I don't want to end up like them.
Posts by Vidqun
-
28If You Have Had the CO or DO Stay With You...
by A question infor those of you who have had the co/do stay with you for the week:.
how was the experience?.
how did they spend their free time?
-
-
-
32
The biggest lie
by sizemik init's the biggest lie that's ever been told .
a lie i've heard more than any other .
all through my life i keep hearing it.. everybody tells it .
-
-
Vidqun
Agreed. That makes two of us.
-
32
The biggest lie
by sizemik init's the biggest lie that's ever been told .
a lie i've heard more than any other .
all through my life i keep hearing it.. everybody tells it .
-
-
Vidqun
I agree, LoneWolf, my father for one. There was still a lot that he wanted to accomplish. He fought the cancer tooth and nail, but that was one battle he could not win. In my case, I think I have done most things I set out to do, so most of the things on my "bucket list" have been ticked off. A certain school of philosophy beliefs that man's ultimate goal is achieving self-worth and recognition by his peers. Those that feel they have not achieved that in full measure, would not be ready to die either.
-
28
If You Have Had the CO or DO Stay With You...
by A question infor those of you who have had the co/do stay with you for the week:.
how was the experience?.
how did they spend their free time?
-
-
Vidqun
My recent experiences with them were mainly unpleasant. Outside field service, they don't seem to be able to think for themselves. However, this is not a generalization. Some of them had been very pleasant. My parents were overseas, so I had to look after the CO and his wife. I went to a lot of trouble preparing for them and stocking their larder. After the week, I was virtually bankrupt. I breathed a sigh of relief that the week was drawing to a close. After the week they asked if they could stay for another week. My world came tumbling down.
One CO couple expected us to serve them hand and foot. The wife did not lift a finger to help. They never paid for anything, and saved all their money for overseas trips. When we explained to them that some of the poor brothers and sisters would use up their total monthly allowance to prepare a meal for them, they looked at us with blank stares, as though that was the norm. I got the impression they live in a different world, a world without empathy. The last two I confronted with the UN-NGO scandal. The first one went grey with shock. Eventually he said: "We all do stupid things," which was a good answer. The second one took the standard line: "For us is not to reason why, for us to do and die." Well, I told him I felt humiliated and deeply stumbled. Perhaps now I am a marked man? Hopefully they will avoid me in future.
The DO complained that the little bar fridge in their flat froze everything. I went there and showed him the little knob when you open the door. This you can turn up or down. The last round I stocked the flat and fridge with two weeks of supplies. The CO arrived the Monday night. The Tuesday afternoon he came to the house, wondering where their food was. I, as the host, were supposed to feed them according to the program, which I only received the next day. So after all that, never again. But that's what I said last time....
-
32
The biggest lie
by sizemik init's the biggest lie that's ever been told .
a lie i've heard more than any other .
all through my life i keep hearing it.. everybody tells it .
-
-
Vidqun
I have always been relatively unafraid, enjoying pastimes as rock climbing and deep sea diving. Death was never a problem for me, whatever my fate might be. But then I read that’s not completely normal. And seeing that I am a catlover, and having had many cats, the following explanation seems plausible:
Toxoplasmosis (Toxoplasma gondii): It has been found that the parasite has the ability to change the behaviour of its host: infected rats and mice are less fearful of cats—in fact, some of the infected rats seek out cat-urine-marked areas. This effect is advantageous to the parasite, which is able to proliferate if a cat eats the infected rat and thereby becomes a carrier. The mechanism for this change is not completely understood, but there is evidence that toxoplasmosis infection raises dopamine levels and concentrates in the amygdala in infected mice. Estimation: Between 30-65% people have been infected, depending where you live (see Wikipedia on toxoplasmosis).
Bottom line: If you are unafraid, you might have latent toxoplasmosis.
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
Vidqun
In a perfect world, a translation committee would have said: "Let's see what the original languages have to say. Let's compare that to the latest research, commentaries and articles, and translate accordingly. We can then adapt our doctrines to fit the resulting translation." Yes, I know, only in my dreams....
An interesting book to read is Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, by E. Tov. He insists the Bible text we have today has undergone many changes. So the responsible translation committee would have to keep up to date with recent developments and current research. Here NET and ESV are admirable, especially their footnotes. Footnotes in any translation are important in minimizing bias. If there are ambiguities or more than one way to translate, it should be made clear in the footnotes in such a way that the reader can make his own decision on the matter. Here scholarly translations are best, e.g. the Gottinghen Septuagint (for Greek OT), BHQ and The Hebrew University Bible (for Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures), as well as the Nestle-Aland text and footnotes (for NT).
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
Vidqun
Personally I go for very literal translations as well as Interlinears. I have many Bibles. Quite a few are Protestant versions. Others are Catholic. This tells me, each group has its own agenda. Here the Witnesses are by no means unique. Depends on what you want to use it for. Like you said NIV Evangelical version, or NIV, TNIV, RNIV. The same goes for translation methods. Dynamic Equivalence, Formal Equivalence, Functional Equivalence, etc. On the Net there's interesting discussions on the differences between DE translation and interpretation. After the KJV, the NWT is probably the most controversial Bible in circulation, eliciting a lot of Bible study, comments, and criticism, which is a good thing. A lot of people have taken up intensive Bible study because of it.
According to Nida and Taber, one finds three basic types of translation:
(1) An ecclesiastical translation : This is a translation that reflects traditional Church usage with liturgical application in view.
(2) A scholarly translation : This is a current, literary translation aimed at scholars and students.
(3) A popular translation : This is a common (vulgar) translation that uses “general” or “popular” terms, to be read and understood by ordinary people. At the same time, this translation should be accepted as a standard for the printed medium.[i]
[i] E.A. Nida and C.R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden, 1982), p. 31, footnote 1.
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
Vidqun
Allow me to add my pound of flesh. Here’s some of the research on the subject that I compiled a few years ago. As seen, in the discussion of Hebr. 1:8, one needs to look at Ps. 45:7. So, I agree with Leolaia, there is a certain amount of ambiguity involved. She’s right, it’s not bais, rather the tendency towards a low christology. I quote the following people, because I view them as “heavy weights” in their respective fields.
Psalm 45:7 (Ps. 44:6 LXX) : In a note in Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, fourth edition (1981), p. 50, Gesenius gives an alternative explanation to the traditional translation of Ps. 45:7 (MT): ‘Some feel that 'ëlohîm is used in a singular capacity (for the plural see A, 2), or for one king, for bên-'ëlohîm, and they refer especially to Ps. 45:7, where they render kiše'äkhâ 'ëlohîm `oulâm wâ`êdh as “your throne, O God (that is O divine King), will reside for ever” (protected and being made prosperous by God), according to the customary canon of the language, Lehrg. par. 233:6.'
Concerning the genitive, that is a noun followed by a suffix, Gesenius, in his Hebrew Grammar, p. 415, 452, says the following: “In Ps. 45:7 kiše'äkhâ 'ëlohîm (usually explained as thy godly throne), 'ëlohîm might possibly be a late addition. Another explanation is that khei'lohîm stands for ‘as God’s (throne)'. That the language – especially in poetic language – is not unwilling to produce even the most remarkable combinations that strongly emphasize the unconditional relationship between subject and predicate, which is demonstrated by examples like Ps.45:9 your clothingismyrrh and aloe and cassia (they are so saturated by perfume, it is as though they consist of it); Can. 1:15 thine eyesisdoves’ eyes (but 5:12 keyounîm), etc.”
Brown, Driver and Briggs in A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament(1951), on p. 43 B, confirm that differences exist among scholars concerning this verse. Under ‘godlike one’ they say: “Ex. 4:16 (J; Moses as regards Aaron), Ex. 7:1 (P; as regards Pharaoh), 1 Sam. 28:13 (the shadow of Samuel), Ps. 45:7 (the Messianic king), O God: LXX, Syriac, Jerome, most ancient and modern scholars, but your throne is God's = God’s throne: Aben Ezra, Dawid Kimchi (Qamchi), Thesaurus, Ewald, Hupfel cf. 1 Chron. 28:5.”
Koehler and Baumgartner, p. 51B, view this kind as a divine destroyer, he that comes to be Am. 4:11; Ex. 21:6; 22:7, 8; Ps. 45:7 [that is judge(s) that execute judgment], etc. All agree that the Psalmist is here talking of a human king. Therefore, did he refer to him as: 1) an exalted, divine being [NAV, LB]? 2) Alternatively, as God’s kingly representative [TEV]? 3) Alternatively, that God guarantees his prosperity, his figurative throne [Harrison, RSV]? 4) Alternatively, his throne can be compared to that of God’s throne [NEB]? The author of the book of Hebrews applies this verse to the future rule of the Messiah. Any of the above explanations fit the context and would therefore be acceptable.
Hebrews 1:8 : Here the author of the book of Hebrews quotes from Ps. 45:7. For some reason the Committee, responsible for the ‘Standard Text’, overlooks some of the basic rules of textual criticism in their handling of Hebr. 1:8. The first rule they ignore is that ‘internal criteria can never be the basis of a critical decision, even more so when it is in opposition to external evidence’, and secondly that ‘the more difficult reading is usually the correct reading’, according to The Text of the New Testament by Kurt and Barbara Aland. Bruce M. Metzger, on p. 663, of his Corrected edition of A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament discusses the reasons why they prefer the easy reading.
Although the reading autou, which has early and good support (p46, Sinaiticus 01, Vaticanus 03), may seem to be preferable because it differs from the reading of the Old Testament passage that is being quoted (Ps. 45.7 [=LXX 44.7] sou), to which, on this point of view, presumably the mass of New Testament witnesses have been assimilated, a majority of the Committee was more impressed by (a) by the weight and variety of the external evidence supporting sou, and (b) by the internal difficulty of construing autou. Thus, if one reads autou the words ho theos must be taken, not as a vocative [“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.”] (an interpretation that is preferred by most exegetes), but as the subject (or predicative nominative), [“God is thy throne (or, Thy throne is God) forever and ever, and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of his [i.e., God’s] kingdom.”], an interpretation that is generally regarded as highly improbable. Even if one assumes that kai, which is absent from the Hebrew and the Septuagint of the Psalm, was inserted by the author with the set purpose of making two separate quotations, with ver. 8a in the second person and 8b in the third person, [“‘Thy throne O God, is for ever and ever,’ and ‘the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of his kingdom.’”] the strangeness of the shift in persons is only slightly reduced.
The Committee, responsible for The Greek New Testament (third corrected edition), therefore chooses “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.” [Cf. RSV, NASB] instead of the more complicated “‘God is thy throne (or, Thy throne is God) forever and ever,’ and ‘the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of his kingdom’” [cf. Moffatt, Goodspeed] to be closest to the original reading. In spite of this, the latter reading is attested by older and more reliable MSS and satisfies all internal and external prerequisites. The second edition of Ei Kainei Diatheikei (‘The New Covenant’) of the British and Foreign Bible Society (1965 reprint), containing the Greek New Testament text of Dr. Eberhard Nestle (4th edition, 1903), gives the quotations as: “Ho thronos sou ho Theos eis ton aiounos , kai hei rabdos teis euthuteitos rabdos teis basileias autou.” He refers us to Ps. 44:6 (LXX) to confirm this reading.
The LXX by Brenton, based on Codex Alexandrinus, and that of Rahlfs, based on Codex Vaticanus no. 1209, differs in their use of the article. This is a timely reminder that above quote is taken from Ps. xliv. 7-8 (LXX). From a LXX perspective this seems to be an open and shut case. Kenneth J. Thomas, in New Testament Studies II, p. 305, writes:
As indicated above, this citation is part of the author’s argument that the ‘Son’ is superior to the angels. The changes from the LXX A/B text indicate that the author of Hebrews is using it to show the ‘Son’s’ association with God to the extent of sharing God’s power and authority. This is not done by calling the ‘Son’ ‘God’. [Footnote 2: Since the author of Hebrews is not concerned to address ‘the Son’ as God, the additional kai cannot be considered a separation of two quotations as suggested by Kistemaker, op. cit. p. 25.] The key to this interpretation is in the understanding the first line to mean ‘God is thy throne for ever and ever’. This is indicated by the use of basileias autou [Footnote 3: Autou is accepted as the original reading of Heb. i.8 because of the strong witness of the N.T. P46 a B (which, in eleven other instances of minority readings in Hebrews, where they are together, are considered to have the original reading), the scribal tendency to use sou to avoid difficulties of interpretation, and the tendency to retain sou as found in the LXX.] instead of basileias sou and the change to kai ei rabdos teis euthuteitos rabdos [Footnote 4: Parallel to change of word order found in LXX 142. Parallel to additional kai in LXX 39, 142.] from rabdos euthuteitos ei rabdos. The use of autou forces ho theos to be the subject so as to give an antecedent. The change of word order clearly establishes the parallelism of the two clauses indicating that the Father’s sceptre is also the ‘Son’s’: ‘Thy (the Son’s) throne is God (the Father) for ever and ever and the sceptre of uprightness (the Son’s) is the sceptre of his (the Father’s) kingdom.’ Thus, through the use of these changes the author of Hebrews has indicated that it is the ‘Son’ who is addressed and who is in closest association with God the Father, reigning with the power and authority of God over all, including the angels.
Bible scholar B.F. Westcott summarizes it this way: “It seems highly improbable that 'ëlohîm in the original was directed at the king... Thus, in its entirety, it would be best to accept the following reading in the first clause: God is Thy throne (of Thy throne is God), meaning ‘Thy kingdom had been established by God.’”
TDNT, vol. III, p. 164, under The Throne of David, puts it another way: “In the NT the only real reference to an earthly thrones is in Lk. 1:52 [katheilen dunastas apo thronoun, cf. Sir. 10:14.] The throne of David in Luk. 1:32 is the throne of the Messianic king. God has granted it to the son of Mary as the throne of David, His father, that He may exercise eternal dominion over the house of Jacob, according to the prophecy of 2 Sam. 7:12 ff (cf. Is. 9:6), which is applied to Him in Acts 2:30. There is also reference to the throne of the king of the last days in Ps. 45:6a, which is used in Hb. 1:8 to prove the superiority of the Son over the angels. What is meant is the sovereign majesty of Him who sits on the throne with God (cf. 1:3). Here “the idea of the Davidic monarchy achieves its definitive realisation.”
-
9
Has anyone learned how to read hebrew?
by EndofMysteries inif so, did you take a class, use a program, and how long or how many hours of study/learning would it realistically take to be able to read the bible in hebrew from when you begin to learn?
.
i am trying to decide if it's something i want to pursue since bible translations and even interlinears seem to cloud out some key messages and phrases.
-
-
Vidqun
EndofMysteries, I forgot to mention, there are wonderful computer programs out there that can assist. I use Logos, an extensive library program, and BibleWorks, more of a technical, analytical program. Unfortunately somewhat expensive, but worth one's while to save up for them. To me, absolutely undispensable.
-
9
Has anyone learned how to read hebrew?
by EndofMysteries inif so, did you take a class, use a program, and how long or how many hours of study/learning would it realistically take to be able to read the bible in hebrew from when you begin to learn?
.
i am trying to decide if it's something i want to pursue since bible translations and even interlinears seem to cloud out some key messages and phrases.
-
-
Vidqun
EndofMysteries, I have a working knowledge of Hebrew. I took a year course. This satisfied my need, being able to refer to Dictionaries, Lexicons and Theological articles. Like Witness2Witness says, it's a full time job, and hard work.
First the alphabet, then the right to left, then aspect/tense. What I found especially difficult were the derived stem formations. Seven main: Qal, piel, hiphel, hithpael, hophal, pual, niphal. These have a basic meaning, also active and reflexive. Some of them are intensive/causative. A lot of memorizing involved with the different prefixes, suffixes, etc. You've got to learn each one for sing., 1st person I, second person you, third person, he or she, then the plurals.
A Rabbi put it this way: Reading a translation from the Hebrew is like kissing your bride through a veil. It's not the real thing. I found it to be worth while. I would encourage anyone to do it. Learning (developing the brain) is good. An eye opener were the theophoric compound names. These are names that are combined with the Tetragrammaton or God. A study field on its own. Also what it tells one about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, e.g. Yehonatan vs. Netanyahu. Both mean "given by YHWH", but notice the different pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton: Yeho- vs. -yahu. This indicates a dual pronunciation. My hypothesis on this is called "the Albright-Reisel Hypothesis."
While you tackle the Hebrew, do the Greek, also a mine of information. Feel free to air your queries. I will do my best to answer.