i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).
but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.
i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.
Boogerman
I'm afraid you are wrong as pointed out not only by the dictionary's cited but also commentaries
Deep respect and "fear" go hand in hand do they not we "fear" our parents but also have deep respect for them (see Biblehub)
thus "deep respect" does fall in the range of meaning for the word "phobo"
longshot: if by some chance you mean they used 2 words in English for one Greek word, this is common translation practise
i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).
but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.
i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.
I was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from Dr Beduhn - I can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked)
But this got me thinking I don't think there is anything in any Bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the Greek" could have. I know Beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.
("theologically motivated words" don't count - there is no dictionary where the meanings are significantly different enough to say "they def mean something totally different" - if there is I would love to see them, I know of one which turns out to be a most likely a synonym for the other)
"For [that] characterization to be correct, [people] would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the [Time period before this written], no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). " (emphasis added)
(https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/10361/prof-jason-beduhn-letter-on-nwt-kit-part-1#/124000)
Opinions?
natural antecedents (essay) + meanings to certain words.
i posted about 5 months ago a study done by daniel wallace called “greek grammar and the holy spirit” (see: source), which i have cited numerous times since – which focuses heavily on greek antecedents.
ending), and she (fem.
let me know when you post it, and Ill def take a look :)
there is no way i will even try to read such long posts and i`m sure many others here would agree with me.. smiddy3.
troll or theologically motivated imo
if you CR his language with similar ones, most if not all are one of the two - neither can be reasoned with on a logical level
natural antecedents (essay) + meanings to certain words.
i posted about 5 months ago a study done by daniel wallace called “greek grammar and the holy spirit” (see: source), which i have cited numerous times since – which focuses heavily on greek antecedents.
ending), and she (fem.
PetrW
very interesting - your observations are wonderful
However I will point out (I may be wrong) but In Rev 12:5, admittedly we have disputed examples but its safe to use the neuter as we know the child's gender based on the use of uion and hos so the neuter would make little difference as the hos naturally refers back to uion rather than the neuter. - most bibles interpret the neuter as emphasis (see biblehub) and its root word seems to imply "strong" so could function as an adjective - though thats doubtful as adjectives must match the word being modified in gender
(I am ommiting arsen for easier typing)
the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.
the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).
he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.
Seabreeze:
" He is not someone that would mislead people, he is the TRUTH." - actually like this, may steal it one day.
No he wouldn't mislead anyone, However he (from our point of view is cryptic) + we are missing many ancient texts which would help us make sense of those times.
People can jump to conclusions however - in essence they mislead themselves
"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.
the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.
so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".
What you deem as "leftist" (or whatever other term) is common behaviour and is logically required - why?, because people lie all the time (especially on the internet) I could make a claim right now, I guarantee at least five people would ask me for a source..
Why do trinitarians in their written books provide sources?
you failing to provide [scholarly] sources makes your claims not only suspicious at best (since it isn't articulated in the text, no thats not hypocritical - you can stop being misleading now) but also with no "expert backing" they fall flat.
debating theology is useless, theology is merely what one believes - but what does the text say? the text will win every time.
I could believe the angels to be God if I wanted too, or Joseph to be Jesus (they have 10+ things in common)
Now I know what you'll say about the Witnesses, however whether you accept it or not - most of their beliefs are hinted at in the text.
The only one which isn't, which you are also very misleading on, is what they call "the gentile times" - HOWEVER notice what other religions have done?
The name is in the Hebrew text - you yourself admit this, yet most religions DO NOT put the name in their OT scriptures why? you cant say it had no relevance in that time. Edwin Palmer wrote a letter (that is public) on why the NIV didn't include the name - and what is the reason you may ask? money..
your meme about 2+2 =4 is off point as when has anyone ever denied that? if they have they are stupid.
On top of all of that, you are so obviously theologically motivated its not even funny..
else explain
- the long posts (which people have asked you stop)
- the use of terms (or concepts) that the bible doesn't even define
- the citing of publications that are not reflective of what the society believes at all
- unwilling to have "scholarly" discussions
Your either a troll or theologically motivated, simple as that
"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.
the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.
so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".
Punkofnice
I did not specify where the quote is from.. for reasons that should be self evident - if the person would like to reveal themselves they are welcome too.
As for the smoking or eating shrooms part... idk, you can ask them, when/ if they reveal themselves... (I will verify if they do)
However - I will not do it due to Potential (emphasis on potential) unwanted attention or harrasment of said individual.
I ask people for sources, I say when they are being an idiot - However I will NEVER "shame" someone by making a thread with a quote of theirs and a name, I wouldn't want it done to me so I refuse to do it myself to them (Matthew 7:12, I believe this can be taken in multiple senses)
philosopher-teacher Confucius (551-479 B.C.E.) said: “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” (while I disagree with philosophy in general, for reasons that are apparent - this quote is a principle I live by)
i guess you could say jesus was the first christian, since he was the christ.
and as the first christian, jesus spoke more about hell that any other biblical figure.
but, he is also the figure that said that he didn't come to condemn the world, but to save it.
Ill note Eccl 10:19 should be taken in its context, not in the misleading way its being addressed here...- The OT contradicts this in many places if this were true
it hasn't occurred that a lot of the things mentioned as "evidence" are actually just Greek and Hebrew idiom - for "everything you have"
for examples in the following scripture it uses soul in the sense of a dead body (Bible hub) Num 6:6 - How can a soul be dead? simple an idiom, we use "soul" in the sense of a person "poor soul"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/poor-soul
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/poor+souls
(Just 2 dictionaries of many)
see also: Pr 23:2; Isa 56:11; Hag 2:13.
alot of important information has been omitted here.
have you ever wondered why john 1.1 reads somewhat differently in koine and modern greek?
i will briefly address this question for the curious ones.
below you will find three greek readings, one from the nt greek text, followed by two modern greek versions: the nwt-2017 edition, and the other by spyros filos (wikipedia: a revision of the vamvas translation of the bible into the modern vernacular (demotic greek) by spyros (spiros) filos (σπύρος φίλος) was first published in 1994. this translation is used in the greek evangelical church and is also recognized by the orthodox church.
illustrates a point I made in a paper I wrote about languages evolving
In modern Greek (I'm better in koine) is there any difference in placing Theos before or after the verb? since modern has a form of an indefinite article.
