Posts by TheWonderofYou

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

TheWonderofYou

I dont know Countess and neither Colwell neither will I ever hardly read their books because I am German. So I contributed something what I thought could be helpful.

Generally I wonder if NWT wants to say relating to their texting "a God" that this is to be understand as "identification of the logos" or as "characteristic nature" - predicate nominative before verb - of the logos what is also "Trinitarian view?

I think that latter is from the context the only correct understanding.

Not that the word is this or that god or perhaps any god, or simply a God of more of its kind. But god is the divine nature of the word. And that the word has all attributes of the divine nature, of god

Even if you say Sherlock is a puppet, the question is do you identify it as " a puppet " one from many or as being of puppet nature possessing all attributes of puppets. But puppet is not an adjective

Or e.g. Miss So and So is artist, the artist, or "an artist would be an identifcation: an artist of many or the artist. Definite or indefinite.

Or is "an artist" a predicative noun to be read : artist is what she is. This is what describes her best. Her nature, profession, characteristics.

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

TheWonderofYou

Colwell rule:

(found at:

community/discussion/7905/coptic-experts-and-theologians-john-1-1)

That is Colwell's rule your useing. Wallace argues that the value of Colwell's is not for exegesis since it does not establish definiteness but only suggest probable word order in certain cases. Rather, "it is validity is for textual criticism is as follow: if it is obvious that a pre-verbal pn is definite, the MSS which lack the article are more likely to support the original reading." (Wallace, 188.) This does not help, of course. When the variant involves not just the article, but also word order. See the example (CR 16) were b and evidence this combination pattern
http://www.ntresources.com/documents/colwell.pdf

11

How credible are NWT’s critiques?: R. H. COUNTESS and John 1:1, Part I.

by Wonderment in

pre.western { font-family: "times new roman"; }pre.cjk { font-family: "noto sans cjk sc regular"; font-size: 10pt; }pre.ctl { font-family: "freesans"; font-size: 12pt; }pre::first-letter { float: left; font-size: 0%; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a.cjk:visited { }a.ctl:visited { }a:link { }

TheWonderofYou

Jeff Vickens summed up at 19:35 in the above video

The JW are correct that the missing article can be read as an A so that here it could be read as a god. However they are incorrect in this instance cause the missing article in front of theos -Because it is a subject noun and not an object noun - is actually put to point the reader to the nominative predicate rule and to read God as part of the predicate of the sentence while keeping the meaning "the god". So its the combination of rules that makes the orthodox translation correct.

11

How credible are NWT’s critiques?: R. H. COUNTESS and John 1:1, Part I.

by Wonderment in

pre.western { font-family: "times new roman"; }pre.cjk { font-family: "noto sans cjk sc regular"; font-size: 10pt; }pre.ctl { font-family: "freesans"; font-size: 12pt; }pre::first-letter { float: left; font-size: 0%; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a.cjk:visited { }a.ctl:visited { }a:link { }

TheWonderofYou

Referring to the question: Does " theos "without article in greek perhaps mean not god the father but simply "a God".

Is it possible according to grammar?

Dr. Jeff Vickens says it's complicated. Listen to his answer to JW. Begin listening at 14:40 to come to the core.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH_qV0UcJZs

https://www.youtube.com/attribution?v=i1Lek2-uQvs

Further excerpt from from gotquestions

www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html

There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.
1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.
2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.
3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").
The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.
The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts.

97

Material such as the film at the end of this years convention confirms that I was right to take my kids out the religion

by jambon1 in

jw
friends

it’s quite affirming to see the horrific material that they’re serving up at the convention this year.

aside from blatant homophobia, the scenes at the end of the convention that are discussed on another thread stoop to new levels of fear mongering.

it seems to occur to nobody inside the organisation that this kind of material could trigger fear, deprsssion, anxiety, stress.

TheWonderofYou

Finally after the film and convention one can go out of the stadium and say "Thanks J my God that I am still ALIVE! HUH" and relax. It was a great film wasn't it?

And together with the drama it means so much. The world is getting more brutal and dirty against us. Near to the end of the old world it must be if the GB features that on screen.

Let us go wherever he says now. They may repent. Even if had to choke my fate and would be swallowed by a big fish, in the end I would be preaching and be alive ...

Jehovah---zzzzz ------->>> arrow is stronger unerring!!🎺 Coureageous like Jehovah the organisation draws the bow and so should we draw ours in the service protecting us in the spiritual warfare by using all means of tactics.

11

How credible are NWT’s critiques?: R. H. COUNTESS and John 1:1, Part I.

by Wonderment in

pre.western { font-family: "times new roman"; }pre.cjk { font-family: "noto sans cjk sc regular"; font-size: 10pt; }pre.ctl { font-family: "freesans"; font-size: 12pt; }pre::first-letter { float: left; font-size: 0%; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a.cjk:visited { }a.ctl:visited { }a:link { }

TheWonderofYou

Watchtower wrote to Caris:

Dear Friend,
We have your recent letter in which you ask why the New World Bible Translation Committee felt justified in using the quotation from A Manual Greek Grammar of the New Testament by Dana and Manty [sic] on page 1158 of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures in support of their translation of John 1:1.
Of course, for us to quote them and to show that their work allows for a certain understanding is quite different than saying that Dana and Manty [sic] personally agree with that view. Dana and Manty [sic] may have their personal views about the trinity, but their work allows for the rendering found in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1.
In their grammar, Dana and Manty [sic] set out the rule. From that rule they attempt to argue in support of the trinity. The rule, however, that they propose is plainly and unmistakably stated in their book. In the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and also in the Interlinear, the same rule was taken that they used and accept for just what it says. It was shown that it is possible to argue in favor of the fact that the Word of God was "a god" or a divine personality. Of course, Trinitarians do not like this. But it must be borne in mind that in quoting a person's statement or presentation of the facts, one does not have to agree with the interpretation put on those facts....We, in quoting the facts, do not oblige ourselves to agree with the conclusions or interpretations presented by the authorities we quoted. Similarly, in quoting the "rule" set out by Dana and Manty [sic], we are not obliged to accept their interpretation of how this rule might bear on the trinity concept. We can take the plainly stated "rule" and with it show that the rendering of John 1:1 in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is consistent and reasonable.
....Despite the claims of some that Colwell's rule is inflexible, he himself recognizes that it cannot be. Rather, how the translator interprets the surrounding verses, and, indeed, the whole Bible, is what will determine how he translates John 1:1.
....However, Jehovah's Witnesses believe the simple, clear words of Jesus when he said: "The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28).
....Incidentally, Bishop Westcott, co-producer of the noted Westcott & Hort Text of the Christian Scriptures said: "It is necessarily without the article (the'os not ho the'os) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." (Quoted from page 116 of An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by Professor C.F.D. Moule, 1953 ed.)
Sincerely in Jehovah's service,
Watchtower B&T Society of New York, Inc.
(an excerpt from the entire letter, published in The Scholarly Dishonesty of the Watchtower ©1976 by Michael Van Buskirk)
And this is Mantey's reaction to this letter to Caris
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm
You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence...theos en ho logosemphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in your letter to Caris.
You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence...theos en ho logosemphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in your letter to Caris.

http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/1manteyletter.html

11

How credible are NWT’s critiques?: R. H. COUNTESS and John 1:1, Part I.

by Wonderment in

pre.western { font-family: "times new roman"; }pre.cjk { font-family: "noto sans cjk sc regular"; font-size: 10pt; }pre.ctl { font-family: "freesans"; font-size: 12pt; }pre::first-letter { float: left; font-size: 0%; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a.cjk:visited { }a.ctl:visited { }a:link { }

TheWonderofYou

Referring My take is that the “principle” on the article expressed by the NWT Committee in the Appendix was borrowed from Dana & Mantey’s Grammar. The NWT Committee was fully aware there were no rules for the use of the article, but they agreed with Dana & Mantey on the fundamental principle underlying its significance, giving rise to a normal usage. I find it disingenuous that Countess would only target the NWT for criticism for expressing a principle on “normal usage” of the article, and not tell his readers that the NWT was merely echoing Dana & Mantey’s Grammar. Is that honest?
Dr. Mantey the world famous bible translator when JW made up the NWT disagreed with the Watchtowers miscitation of him and protested against the NWT and publicly urged the Watchtower not to use his name as support for the translation.

"Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article." http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/1manteyletter.html
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Mantey.Overview.htm

The following is a 2007 thesis by Baumgarten which I found thematizing the NWT and also relating to Mr. Countess . Perhaps this might be interesting in this regard.

This is a thesis I found relating "Countess". Perhaps this might be interesting in this regard.
A CRITIQUE OF THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES' TREATMENT OF NINE TEXTS EMPLOYING ΘΕΌΣ IN REFERENCE TO JESUS CHRIST. by KENNETH J. BAUMGARTEN
https://www.sats.edu.za/userfiles/Baumgarten%20K,%20MTh%20Thesis%20(Final).pdf

Countess (1967:160), in regard to John 1:1, has noted that “a prior ‘preferred religious view’ on the part of the witnesses” has motivated the NWT translators to disregard and violate the rules of Greek grammar as a “grammatical means to a doctrinal end” (page 1)
It is not the specific bias of the translators that renders the NWT unsuitable for academic or devotional use; rather the fact that this bias came to exert a controlling influence which resulted in erroneous translation (p. 146 ff
John 1: 1 treated at page 40

more: "I conclude that (1) the theological biases of the translators have caused them to violate their own stated philosophy of translation and the rules of Koine Greek grammar and exegesis, (2) resulting in a treatment of the original text that can be objectively determined to be erroneous, and (3) the NWT must therefore be deemed untrustworthy as either an academic or devotional resource. These conclusions confirm my original hypothesis. It might be inferred from the amount of and nature of the supporting documentation in the NWT that the translators believed themselves to be conveying an accurate translation. However, the tendency to embrace readings which deliberately conceal other plausible readings has resulted in the promotion of a “preferred religious view.” One can only conclude that the consistency shown in this regard betrays a strategy designed to subvert possible interpretations which conflict with Jehovah's Witness doctrine. All translators have biases, and these biases are only problematic if and when they become a controlling influence in the translation process, as they have in the case of the NWT. Jehovah’s Witnesses, catholics, protestants, atheists, or Buddhists are equally capable of producing an accurate and trustworthy NT translation, if they adhere to the rules of Greek grammar and exegesis, and sound values and philosophy of translation. It is not the specific bias of the translators that renders the NWT unsuitable for academic or devotional use; 150 rather the fact that this bias came to exert a controlling influence which resulted in erroneous translation. Page 148 ff

page 40 ff:
The NWT advocates one translation for each major Greek word, without changing the meaning of the text. Countess (1982:54-55) notes that of 282 anarthrous occurrences of θεός in the NT, the NWT only translates 16 of these occurrences “a god, god, gods, or godly.” This means that in regard to what is arguably the most “major word” (NWT 1950:9) in the NT, the NWT was inconsistent with its stated philosophy 94 percent of the time.9 In its treatment of John 1:1, the 1950 NWT violates every aspect of it’s stated philosophy and values of translation. The revised edition corrects the issues related to John 1:1a, but does not remedy the (a) “preferred religious view,” (b) inconsistent application of Greek grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, and (c) inconsistent translation of major Greek words (θεός) observed in the treatment of John 1:1c.

14

Hospital refuses surgery on JW patient - Switzerland

by TheWonderofYou in

switzerland - .

jw files a suit because his surgery was refused!

supreme court decides against jw.. in the present case, the dilemma to which the hospital refers is not at all.

TheWonderofYou

The Supreme courts refers in the text to the case "JW of Moscow and RUssia" at the Eurpean court for humen rights

https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2Faza://07-03-2018-6B_730-2017&lang=de&zoom=&type=show_document

2.6. reads

2.6. Kollisionen im Gesundheitswesen mit der Autonomie des Bürgers können in den Anwendungsbereich von Art. 8 EMRK fallen. Den Staat trifft eine positive Schutzpflicht. Art. 14 EMRK spielt hier eine subsidiäre Rolle (WILLIAM A. SCHABAS, The European Convention on Human Rigths, 2015/2017, S. 371, 407). Der zur Neutralität verpflichtete Staat hat ferner vernünftige und angemessene Massnahmen zur Sicherung der Rechte aus Art. 9 EMRK zu treffen (a.a.O., S. 428 f.). Verwiesen werden kann hierzu auf die Rechtsprechung des EGMR im Urteil in Sachen Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow and others v. Russia vom 10. Juni 2010, Verfahren 302/02, besonders Ziff. 133-136) :

"It ist generally known that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood, which is sacred to God, and that this prohibition extends to transfusion of any blood or blood components that are not the patient's own. The religious prohibition permits of no exceptions and is applicable even in cases where a blood transfusion is deemed to be necessary in the best clinical judgement to avoid irreparable damage to the patient's health or even to save his or her life" (Ziff. 133). - "The Court recognises that the refusal of potentially life-saving medical treatment on religious grounds is a problem of considerable legal complexity, involving as it does a conflict between the State's interest in protecting the lives and health of its citizens and the individual's right to personal autonomy in the sphere of physical integrity and religious beliefs" (Ziff. 134). - "In the sphere of medical assistance, even where the refusal to accept a particular treatment might lead to a fatal outcome, the imposition of medical treatment without the consent of a mentally competent adult patient would interfere with his or her right to physical integrity and impinge on the rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention" (Ziff. 135) - "The freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, is vital to the principles of self-determination and personal autonomy. A competent adult patient is free to decide, for instance, whether or not to undergo surgery or treatment or, by the same token, to have a blood transfusion. However, for this freedom to be meaningful, patients must have the right to make choices that accord with their own views and values, regardless of how irrational, unwise or imprudent such choices may appear to others" (Ziff. 136).

Der Beschwerdeführer konnte sich auf sein Selbstbestimmungsrecht berufen und die angebotene Behandlung in der Klinik ablehnen ("the freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment") und der angebotenen Alternative im Spital zustimmen ("the freedom [...] to select an alternative form of treatment"). Der Facharzt, sein eigener Arzt und Chirurg, wies ihn unverzüglich in ein Spital mit entsprechendem Angebot ein und operierte ihn nach dem Behandlungswunsch. Die Leistung wurde, wie die Vorinstanz feststellt, vollumfänglich und termingerecht erbracht. Somit ist nicht zu erkennen, inwiefern der Beschwerdeführer eine Verletzung von Art. 8, 9 und 14 EMRK geltend machen will. Ebenso wenig ist eine Verletzung einer "positive obligation" des Staates ersichtlich (Urteil 2C_613/2015 vom 7. März 2017 E. 5.3 in fine). Die gewünschte Behandlung wurde im öffentlichen Spital effektiv komplikationslos durchgeführt. Auch der Rechtsweg zur Geltendmachung seiner Ansprüche ist ihm nicht verwehrt worden.

15

They are increasingly appealing to emotion

by cookiemaster in

they always have but lately, they've taken it to a whole new level.

the new convention video about the end, the many videos at conventions and meetings, the new songs, all highly emotionally manipulative.

and they're working.

TheWonderofYou

Are you trapped in this kind of ROUTINE, hamster wheel than you are really stuck in the rut?

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/426012445982093546/

JW children are stuck in the religions fear of Jehovah mud.

Is the Governing body (Faithful slave) showing any of the following traits of behaviour?

8

Previous sect in the Watchtower lineage

by GLTirebiter in

here is an article talking about william miller's great disappointment and a utopian settlement established by one of his followers, peter armstrong.

the author's statements reveal several similarities between the millerites and their successors, the watchtower bible and tract society:.

founded in pennsylvania.

TheWonderofYou

Refering to

When Armstrong started his religious colony "The land itself was deeded to 'Almighty God, who inhabiteth Eternity, and His heirs in Jesus Messiah,' thus making it God’s own property" (similar to Beth Sarim and Beth Shan being deeded to the Old Testament prophets.)

Peter Armstrong founded Celestia.
Quote: CELESTIA, Laporte, Sullivan County — In the early 1850s, a religious community was founded there. Those who lived there believed that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was going to come again. A papermaker from Philadelphia by the name of Peter Armstrong was the founder of Celestia. Earlier, in about 1840, he became a Millerite. They devoutly believed that Christ would make a second coming on October 22, 1844.

CELESTIA

Detailed History > sullivan county historical society http://www.scpahistory.com/museum/history_of_celestia

More here: http://outtaway.blogspot.co.at/2013/09/ghost-town-of-celestia-pennsylvania.html

google map: https://www.google.at/maps/place/Sullivan+County+Historical+Soc/@41.423759,-76.4996376,1554m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89cf8adb8a7d9afd:0x9a4c3260b77b6d69!8m2!3d41.4232101!4d-76.4945679

Goals:

1. divine communism of believers united in their faith,

2. a perfect theocracy on earth where Gods rule was ultimate, and

3. construction of a physical temple (picture)

Now owned almost entirely by private entities, Celestia has returned to wilderness. A 5 acre portion of the original site was donated to the Society, and a walking tour was developed to assist visitors in visualizing this lost utopian community.