Posts by Blotty

13

Progress on the NWT Study Bible

by slimboyfat in

the society has been working on the nwt study bible since the revised nwt was released in 2013. so far they done the nt up to philemon.

that makes about 17% of the entire bible including the hebrew/aramaic scriptures.

at that rate the study edition of the whole nwt will be completed sometime around the year 2077. .

Blotty

I wonder what Benjamin Kedar kopfsteins opinion on this would be.
an observation I have of the previous comment is the NWT never uses uses Lev 5:1 as a cross reference to any of the commented on scriptures which is interesting because they are 2 entirely different contexts
(this may be an error on my part, I did a very quick search and may have missed something)

From what I can see it hasn't been altered at all in meaning rather in NWT style has changed the wording slightly - but all translations do this, e.g Romans 12:11 - which is another not translated literally at all, and infact is one where I would argue the meaning is distorted.

55

Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze in

dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

Blotty

I will just add here that "Friend of peace" basically is just translating a common Hebrew idiom "son of peace" or as Cambridge puts it " a son of peace, i.e. a man of peaceful heart. Comp... Luke 16:8, Luke 20:36; John 17:12; Ephesians 5:6; Ephesians 5:8."

(https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/10-6.htm)

does "son" always literally mean "son" - well kind of, it means literal offspring but can also mean the idiom or in other words "son of specified group" - you are "ruled" or "parented" by the modifying noun.

In this case a peaceful man.. "a friend of peace" while not a literal translation is justifiable based on not only context but also the meaning to the idiom.. but then again if we take one look at the KJV or NIV we will find quite a few non-literal translations in other places.

Just because the NWT is a "literal" translation, does NOT mean it will translate everything literally.. (research how translation works.) When needed it may need to clear up the meaning of the text for English readers - We know where literal translations get us with the NWT, stilted and wooden translations which others complain about. This argument may sound familiar, and it should be I'm recycling an older argument used on ones who did the same with "theos" in 1:1c (The ONLY singular, nominative, non-prepositional instance of Theos in 1)

NIV uses "someone" that's not a literal translation of the word "huios", is the NIV wrong? no - nor is the NWT
"a friend of peace" simply means the same as "son of peace" but is a better word picture in English, someone who is peaceful or who likes peace, exactly what this verse is trying to convey.

Lets look at John 18:37, you would be out of your mind to say the NWT translates this wrong. the literal text (in focus) is:
"“Ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου"

"By "of this world" we are to understand that the nature and origin of His kingdom are not of this world, not that His kingdom will not extend in this world."

(https://biblehub.com/texts/john/18-36.htm)

- or in other words as the NWT puts it "part of this world" Christs Kingdom is not from this world, nor has any involvement in it as can be seen from 6:15 and Jesus' actions.

breaking it down we have ouk meaning "not" "ek" meaning "out of" which is used in the sense of "part" as well in some cases and lit "the world"

If you want to try and this is a distortion, please go and learn Greek and how ek functions (not just for theologically important texts), as it functions in a variety of ways.

In sum does [Friend of peace] change the meaning? no, not really. If you want a hyper-literal translation, go and use one.. If you want a paraphrase go and use one.. (I use about 7 different translations) it is by far in the realm of a possible meaning of the text.

A T Robertson says "It means one inclined to peace, describing the head of the household." - consequently if you are inclined towards something, are you not technically a "friend" of it. (James 4:4)

anyone who says it (or John 18:36) is not, is either wilfully ignorant or just simply dislikes the NWT for some reason.. Which for the second, may I remind of Golden rule in the Bible?

sidenote: translate Eph 4:14 literally, then tell me the meaning has been changed or that any bible translation uses a literal translation (not one translates it "literally" - see: Strong's - not even the KJV does, which is odd as I expect it would)

21

What does this even mean?

by Blotty in

"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.".

Blotty

Cool, who asked?

I have no respect for you.. considering you cant even be bothered to do what multiple people on this forum have asked.. The only thing you have proven is your theologically motivated and not willing to actually have a discussion, only dominate the conversation..
Or you just want to attack a denomination - not very Christian like, if that's the case.
you and your "quote-mining" accusations (toward me) can fuck off

No wonder the Witnesses don't come out and prove anything anymore - I'm not a witness and you piss me off

You are not worth my time to prove anything too (not that your actually interested anyway)

nice selective quoting as well and deceptive arguments :D

Now do me a favour and go away..

No I don't find it ironic that I say the "Nicene theology" was influenced by philosophy because it quite obviously was/ is.. That is also not hard to prove if you actually read something other than Nicene content..

considering you make no specific claims about "Arian" theology and what philosophy they "took" - your statement is at best questionable, then again your whole divine name "book" is questionable and full of misleading content.

I don't want to know from you anyway, because knowing what your like it will be either a blatant lie or misleading.

(regarding: "Arian" theology and what philosophy they "took")

I wont reply to you again nor will I ask again

77

Disfellowshipped for Fornication

by TxNVSue2023 in

hi i want to tell my story and get advice.

i'm a single sister ( in usa) that has been baptized for 20 years.

i came from the world, so did not grow up in the truth and i have no family in the truth -- i am alone.. last year i met a brother & we did have premarital sex while we were dating.

Blotty

@Vandihoven

To my knowledge it is looked down upon, but is not bad enough to be disfellowshipped - take this with a grain of salt if you like, I know witnesses who do celebrate birthdays (for reasons I'm not aware of.) and are still in good standing and active in "the work"

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

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.

Blotty

PetrW

(nicest way possible)

I would advise taking a look at Goodspeed and Moffatt's translations - before commenting further and commentaries
I'm going to address these quickly with not alot of detail.

If I am thinking of the correct passages they are technically correct, there is more than one way to render a passage

"My argument is that we don't know exactly what was going on with the resurrected "bodies"(!) for 3 days," - if they were in the tombs it would imply they are dead, as every other occurrence has someone in the tomb when they are dead - not alive.

While it is not explicitly stated you are 100% correct - I would take it as this. (^ above)

you also forget tho Jesus is Firstborn of the dead (temporal) it is in a different sense t the ones he resurrected as they all died again

John 11:26 - COULD be taken in the present -> future perspective as in the statement you cite may be the point of view of ones who are resurrected on the last day. rather than in the present.

in a similar fashion Wallace states about John 1:1 [paraphrase] "John was speaking from his own perspective."

I agree it is not the best way to render the text, but it certainly is not a distortion of it IMO. Far from it.

Rev 20:5 - I'm not sure how to comment

point:
if a phrase has implications of a future time, the present tense, it is most likely to be taken in the perspective of the future rather than the present, due to the time implication

(Just incase you didn't see my other comment to you, would love to see your research)

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

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.

Blotty

TD

"especially when we're talking about a far less common usage of the word."

you have a point however I can think of atleast 3 examples where the context would dictate that meaning, grammatical rules or the meanings implying similar

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

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.

Blotty

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

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

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.

Blotty

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?

11

Greek and antecedents (draft)

by Blotty in

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.

Blotty

let me know when you post it, and Ill def take a look :)

19

Why are aqwsed12345 post`s so long ?

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

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.

Blotty

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