Not sure why most of these flew off into the ether. There were over 25 in all
Arguing that "with" means possession works in English. It doesn't work in Ancient Greek. That's what the genitive case was for.
Posts by TD
-
103Jesus is Michael the Archangel
by Fisherman inonly jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.
“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.
-
-
TD
-
103
Jesus is Michael the Archangel
by Fisherman inonly jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.
“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.
-
-
TD
I don't really care one way or the other. (No theological axe to grind)
Those who believe Jesus to be Michael usually take "ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου" to mean possession (i.e. Jesus possesses the voice of an archangel because he is the archangel)
I don't believe that's correct and the majority of Greek scholars don't either.
In this construction, (locative) the preposition ἐν indicates accompaniment (Or attendant circumstance as some put it) as in, "The President entered the room with the sound of a brass band."
Here is a very, very small sampling of textbooks and reference works on the subject:
-
86
Voter Fraud !
by Sea Breeze indick morris sounds the alert:.
https://www.dickmorris.com/fight-massive-democratice-fraud/ .
-
-
TD
MMM
But I doubt there is tie between the ballot and the ID. That would remove confidentiality.
The connection (Or lack thereof) to a living person is only supposed to be verified by computer. There are people with physical access to the voter database, but they are legally bound to respect confidentiality. One of the objections of the Board of Supervisors to turning over the database to a third party was that (In the opinion of their attorneys) it was technically a violation of the law, as a third party might not respect that confidentiality.
And at one point, the Cyber Ninjas actually did want to canvass votes they thought were suspect. The idea was that ballots that appeared to be filled out too precisely were actually done by machine. That was prevented by threat of legal action.
Another theory of the Cyber Ninja's was that "fake" ballots would contain bamboo fiber (Presumably because they had been produced in Asia) To my knowledge, they did not find any.
At no point did the Ninja's ever seem to understand that the signature is not the primary verification in AZ, as the whole idea was to prevent illegals from voting. The Republicans got what they wanted. They got a system where voter registration must tie to a state issued ID for the vote to be counted. Suddenly, almost overnight some of them have developed amnesia.
Like I said, the system is not fool-proof. There were two people monitoring the drop box I saw, but I only saw one. I don't doubt that some were not monitored properly, but to me, it's a huge jump from that to ballots forged in quantities to tip the election one way or another.
-
86
Voter Fraud !
by Sea Breeze indick morris sounds the alert:.
https://www.dickmorris.com/fight-massive-democratice-fraud/ .
-
-
TD
I can't speak for other states, but this stuff comes unraveled for me at the point when it becomes apparent that the claimant doesn't understand the first damn thing about voting in Arizona.
You have to present photo ID here to vote. If you vote in person, that ID is scanned and a ballot is printed on the spot with a control number tied to that ID. Mail-in ballots have to be requested in writing with a facsimile of your ID. and again, the ballot is specific to you and your photo ID.
I'm not saying the system is fool-proof, but when someone starts making claims about unmonitored drop boxes, it tells me they're clueless.
Hell, we had a hand recount of Maricopa County by a pro-Trump group that in the end, found slightly more votes for Biden than the official tally. They (The Cyber Ninjas) did present some concerns to the Senate, but those have all been answered by Republican election officials here.
-
15
The One Way Speed of Light Could Be Instantaneous
by Sea Breeze inphysics students learn the speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial observers but no one has ever actually measured it in one direction.
assuming that light travels the same speed in all directions is a convention, rather than an experimentally verified fact.
this really challenges what we think we know.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptn6ewhb27k&ab_channel=veritasium .
-
-
TD
That is a round trip, not one way.
Okay, I see what you're saying. And you're right.
The one-way speed of light is unresolvable, because a precise measurement requires a clock at either end and at the level of accuracy that is needed, the two clocks won't give exactly the same reading at two different locations because of the very nature of the universe.
Stephan Hawking I'm not, but I'm not sure "unresolvable" is the same as "unknowable" in the sense of being unable to arrive at a decent working approximation suitable for mundane engineering tasks, like we do with the figure for Pi, which is also unresolvable.
We do in effect "measure" one-way speed of light via satellite, GPS, Webb, Hubble, Perseverance, Lucy, Dart, Voyager, Juno, etc., etc., etc. It's not a measurement suitable for theoretical physics, but a substantial difference in forward and return trip speeds would require a substantial difference between earth clocks and the internal clocks in these devices. In a few of these examples, it would have to be minutes as opposed to fractions of a second.
I guess I can't categorically deny that (Never thought about it before) but if so, it's definitely new to me.
-
15
The One Way Speed of Light Could Be Instantaneous
by Sea Breeze inphysics students learn the speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial observers but no one has ever actually measured it in one direction.
assuming that light travels the same speed in all directions is a convention, rather than an experimentally verified fact.
this really challenges what we think we know.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptn6ewhb27k&ab_channel=veritasium .
-
-
TD
Maybe I'm misunderstanding
Laser measuring devices have become so commonplace that you can buy one at Home Depot for under $100 --You point it at a flat surface and it tells you how far away it is, to the 64th of an inch, by measuring the time delay of the reflection.
Laser scanners have also become very commonplace. Same principle as the measuring device except that it rotates, creating a point cloud. --Useful for an irregularly shaped room.
Handheld LIDARs have pretty much replaced the old-fashioned radar guns in police departments. The officer points it at an oncoming vehicle and the device measures the speed of vehicle. Again, same principle as the simpler measuring device, except in this case, it takes a rapid series of measurements and compares the shortening of the distance to the time interval.
The 13 minute and 48 second time interval in radio communication with the various Mars rovers (Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity, Curiosity, Perseverance etc.) and the little Ingenuity helicopter is one of the practical considerations in operating them.
Even the length of traces on a motherboard has become an engineering consideration because of the delay of a longer trace verses a shorter one,
All of this depends upon a known value for speed of light in the respective mediums.
Right?
-
-
-
TD
Grew up within walking distance of a temple.
Played with them, went to school with them, dated them, worked for them.
I've got a leather bound copy of the BOM with my name embossed on it; a gift from a kindly neighbor.
The Latter Day Saints function better in society inasmuch as they value higher education and take civic responsibility very seriously.
But they are every bit as "unique" as JW's in their own way and the BOM is shot through with linguistic and historical problems (IMHO)
Simple example: There's an idiom peculiar to the writer of the Gospel of John that goes like this:
Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν - Amen amen lego hymin - Truly truly I say to you
A modern translator would render the redundancy as "Very truly" or "Most truly" but in the wooden, period English of the KJV, it's "Verily, verily I say unto you"
It's a poor translation of a Greek idiom that should not be in the BOM. (The BOM was allegedly written in "Reformed Hebrew" free from the influence of the Greek conquest.)
Only it is. Many times, in fact.
Not only is that a linguistic problem, it's an anachronism as well and the only way it could have gotten there is to be lifted from the KJV.
-
28
Where did Christendom go? They HATED our bible in 1950...just read...
by oompa inthe articles on the jw-cd which only go back to 1950 where we fought back the attacks.
i do not understand why they did not continue to blast our bible since it is such a fraud....down south in usa churches teach members how to refute dubs at their door.....but why did they stop blasting the nwt?
it is sooooooo easy to show a dub there is a bunch of made up crap in it.....i may have to help my local chruches.....if you need more info about the horrible fraud parts, feel free to pm me.........................oompa......even elders dont know
-
-
TD
Hey Slim,
Because the part of the rendering that WokenfromJWCult and others object to is the “exercising” part, not the “faith/trust” part, which you have missed.
I actually understand better than most why the word "exercising" is objectionable. WokenfromJWCult appears to be paraphrasing Robert Bowman so I understand where the argument comes from as well.
The word I am objecting to is "mistranslation", which would be a violation of the rules grammar and definition
The only time πιστεύω needs to be translated as believe/believes/believing is when it is followed by a dative noun.
When it is followed by a preposition like εἰς or ἐπὶ it means more than simple belief and the translator is free to pick an equivalent English expression.
The word "Faith" in English is a noun which requires a verb to function properly. "Exercising" is a weird choice when there are simpler verbs like "Have", "Put" and "Place" that can be used, but that is a theological, not a grammatical debate.
Narkissos (As you point out) called this "overtranslation"
-
28
Where did Christendom go? They HATED our bible in 1950...just read...
by oompa inthe articles on the jw-cd which only go back to 1950 where we fought back the attacks.
i do not understand why they did not continue to blast our bible since it is such a fraud....down south in usa churches teach members how to refute dubs at their door.....but why did they stop blasting the nwt?
it is sooooooo easy to show a dub there is a bunch of made up crap in it.....i may have to help my local chruches.....if you need more info about the horrible fraud parts, feel free to pm me.........................oompa......even elders dont know
-
-
TD
Slim,
I suspect WokenfromJWCult had verses such as John 3:16 in mind.
It's the same verb in both instances and the same comments apply.
"Believes in him" is probably a better choice than, "Exercises faith in him" but it's not a mistranslation if the rendering still falls within the boundaries of definitions and grammar.
The Complete Jewish Bible, which does not have the same theological axe to grind renders the verse as "trusts in him" which is probably not what people are used to either, but is also not a mistranslation. -
28
Where did Christendom go? They HATED our bible in 1950...just read...
by oompa inthe articles on the jw-cd which only go back to 1950 where we fought back the attacks.
i do not understand why they did not continue to blast our bible since it is such a fraud....down south in usa churches teach members how to refute dubs at their door.....but why did they stop blasting the nwt?
it is sooooooo easy to show a dub there is a bunch of made up crap in it.....i may have to help my local chruches.....if you need more info about the horrible fraud parts, feel free to pm me.........................oompa......even elders dont know
-
-
TD
WokenfromJWcult:
Another word they mistranslate is Believe as Exercise Faith.
I would agree that "believe" "believes" "believing" are good choices for a translation that bills itself as literal, but to claim that "having faith" is a mistranslation is a perfect example of what I was talking about.
Here is an example of the word in question (πιστεύω) as it's used in Romans 1:16:
Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ·, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι
Here's the rendering in the New World Translation and the New Catholic Bible respectively:
For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, since it is the power of God that offers salvation to everyone who has faith—to Jews first, and then to Gentiles as well.Here's Strong's definition of the word:
πιστεύω pisteúō, pist-yoo'-o; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ):—believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
"Believe" is clearly not the only correct choice here. The NWT is not the only Bible to use an alternative that still falls within the rules of definition and grammar. And it's not a mistranslation.