Blotty

Joined

• started 13 topics
• posted 153 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Blotty

• 
  79

  John 1:1 in Coptic Translation

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  apparently there has been quite a stir in jw apologetic circles recently about the translation of john 1:1 in the early sahidic version of john.

  i don't know if this has been discussed here before - if someone could give a link to a previous thread they know about on the subject that would be great.

  here is what i gather: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  I think you are omitting some information here...
• 
  27

  Quality of jw.org translation?

  by Wonderment in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  someone asked the following question to an artificial intelligence (ai) website:.

  how does the most translated website ensure accuracy of translations?.

  answer: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  It wouldn't be far wrong as trinitarian translators themselves have translated it similarly... Moffatt and Goodspeed for one, What about Origen on John 1:1? (koine Greek was his mother tongue, he would know)
  (I don't care if these people are universally considered Christians, the answer is related to scholarly/ translation methods, not beliefs)
  
  
  Touchofgrey
  Franz was put in a situation where the question had nothing to do with his translating skills in the first place, not to mention it would not tell us his skills in Hebrew because most who attempt it would get different results for starters and how does his competency in Hebrew account for such in Greek?
  simple, it doesnt My skills in Greek have nothing to do with my native tongue or my Hebrew or Dutch
• 
  56

  Today Dr. Peter McCullough said 'conspiracy theory' (which is in the April 2024 Watchtower) is a propaganda term! 😲

  by was a new boy in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  "misinformation, disinformation, science, this antiscience, uh conspiracy theory, these are propaganda terms.".

  'don't use them' he says.

  @ 19:33. https://youtu.be/miauulndllq?t=1173.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  Slim
  
  With all due respect and no insult is intended:
  It well within the realms of companies to sell things just to make money (look at supermarkets) Im not denying that they would, tho they shouldn't.

  is it proven they know that the drugs are dangerous before distributing them?
  

  I know that underlying conditions can also make matters worse, leading to death. Vaccines have always had side effects (in the hundreds).

  I know of one instance of a vaccine or treatment where deaths are in the 6000's and that is spread all over the internet but it must be considered whether these patients had underlying conditions, known (or unknown) at the time
  
  
  I don't recall any event happening like that where I live, here it is super strict - as far as I am aware anyway, I may be wrong

  (I am not saying where I live in a public forum either - if you know Id rather it not be shared publicly)
• 
  49

  What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

  if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

  the verse says:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  Slim:
  
  I would raise the question of: If any of Jesus' statements like the one in John 8:28 imply shiliach, as looking in the OT we have examples of prophets doing Just as Jesus said he was doing i.e saying something another "greater" person told them to say. - So Why did he make such a claim?
  
  otherwise we raise the question: If Jesus had all this knowledge already, Why did he say he got it from the Father?

  "So the fact that He received all his knowledge from the Father does not prove that He has less knowledge. " - but it raises the question of what the point of him receiving this knowledge is... if he already had it in the first place.. (or so you claim) Why claim something that isnt true of one of his natures? you cant even say it was implied because the two nature doctrine is never even implied at all..
  Justin Martyr does an excellent job on explaining Christs origins (as Wisdom), so does Origen - scripture doesn't call Christ alot of things that you call him.. Some Herbs aren't called Herbs.. but are an exception to the catergory... One Human apparently has no beginning or end.

  and on Jn 21:17 - another scripture claims some humans know everything too - Why are you ignoring that passage, I believe even Tetullian brings this passage up
  
  Iv read through some of the church fathers... they don't claim any of this infact claim to the contrary - Who should I be reading?
  
  Wonderment hit the nail on the head, you are trying way to hard to convince yourself of all this..
  
  
  
• 
  49

  What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

  if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

  the verse says:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  I see AQ is still trying, even though being disproven by everyone here, and using the same arguments experts disproved 20 years ago.
  
  you cant use the "was" argument - a trinitarian admitted 20+ years ago that that's NOT how the verb functions even with "beginning" and is just a matter of the writers perspectives (egeneto is a different case.)
  
  as to the original post - Shiliach... its that easy
• 
  13

  Progress on the NWT Study Bible

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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 .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  "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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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)