Posts by PetrW

27

Quality of jw.org translation?

by Wonderment in

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

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

answer: .

PetrW

@Wonderment

In the case of Acts 2.46, the Greek structure, although not uncommon, is a bit complicated for readers of other cultures. Furthermore, to translate this text correctly, one must undertake various exegetical problems at hand. From the modern standpoint, is the bread referred to here the type of unleavened bread used in the commemoration of Jesus' death, or is it a term related to a common meal during the first century?

Should the translator render the Greek phrase katʼ oiʹkon (from house to house) literally? Should this expression be understood in the sense that the believers in this context were doing the action at their homes (adverbial), or in the consecutive sense (physically, in walking distance, from house to house), or in the distributive sense, that is, from one house to another, distance apart, not physically together?

---

On Acts 2:46 - they broke bread in houses: there is a 1613 Czech Evangelical translation (Bible of Kralice) that was historically and culturally as important in shaping the language as the 1611 KJV was in shaping English. They had no problem translating the phrase "they broke bread in houses" back in 1613, and it's been going on for 400 years - in the meantime, there were Catholic translations as well, and in the 20th century alone, there are about 5 other translations of the NT in Czech that translate this passage without a problem. The exception is the NWT. Even the Jerusalem Bible, which has a similar history of origin (translation from the original languages into French and subsequent translation into the vernacular languages or translation of footnotes only) and exists in the Czech version, translates this passage completely and intelligibly without problem: they broke bread house by house.

Specifically, in the text of Acts 2:46, both translators of the English NWT and translators from the NWT into other languages are completely and utterly without apology. The problem is in turn compounded by the fact that in the JWs-interlinear translation, this passage is literally translated. But also this thing has a problem: there is a WT study(!) article (September 2017) that questions the benefits of studying biblical languages and refers to an infamous text, again from the WT, from November 2009, where the study of biblical languages by rank-and-file members is negativized to the point of creating some danger ("superficial knowledge"). All those (in the 2009 WT text) reasons against studying are exactly the reasons to remove them by studying...

In the passage Acts 2:46, "bread" (αρτος) and its breaking is mentioned, followed by the general term "food" (τροφη). This last phrase ("they took food"), Luke, as the writer of Acts, also uses in connection with Paul and the time just before the shipwreck, when he urges the passers-by to "eat food" (Acts 27:33). As noted below, it is even "liturgical" bread that is eaten by various people quite freely, without any restraint or restriction, both by Paul and by the other Christians on the ship.

The "breaking of the bread" in Acts 2:46 obviously refers in its wording to Jesus and his miraculous feeding of the multitudes (Matt 14:19), but especially to the situation at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19), which becomes early Christian liturgy - see 1 Cor 10:16 and 24.

JWs have an almost - I would say - paranoid fear of the "breaking of bread" as a particular liturgical element within the general community of early Christian believers, but also of non-Christians(!!!), becoming a pattern. Therefore, in the passages Acts 20:7 and 11, the phrase "breaking bread" (Paul), again translated as "food". But they have not been consistent, nor is that possible, so they finally let Paul (cf. above - the event before the shipwreck) "break bread" Acts 27:35 and even give it to others(!) - v.36.

If they can translate the phrase "take the bread...and break it" in Acts 27:35 with no problem, all the other passages where they don't do it, they do it with intent. There is no other explanation.

Conclusion: the reader of the Bible should be the sole judge of whether such and such a text is important to him or not. No matter how difficult a text it is to translate. If - instead of the reader - translators "censor" the text to suit their own ideas, then they are making a grave error. Sooner or later the trust and legitimacy of such 'translators' will be lost. The same psychological and sociological mechanisms will come into play for the addressees (the audience) as in the case of censorship, misinformation or half-truths in politics...

27

Quality of jw.org translation?

by Wonderment in

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

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

answer: .

PetrW

Translation of the NWT through the eyes of a foreigner - status 2024.

In addition to the oft-mentioned criticism of JWs for adding or, conversely, subtracting words or phrases to the Bible translation: The two examples of the 2019 NWT translation compared to the English version and the local language translation were not discovered by me - they come from another discussion, but are very instructive and are rather indicative of the declining quality of local language translations and, let's say, in the most important area, the text of the Bible. All quotes from the NWT are according to the online-version at jw.org.

Example 1:

Acts 2:46 reads as follows in the English version:

And day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals in different homes and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart.

Acts 2:46 in the Czech version:

Every day they were in united attendance in the temple, and they visited each other, and they took their meals together and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart.

---

The first striking thing of a theological nature is the deletion of the passage which literally (see the so-called NWT study edition) reads, "they broke bread from house to house" (κλωντες τε κατ οικον αρτον), and reworded into the neutral took their meals in different homes. Why the JWs did this is open to question, but (more than one) explanation is offered: the members of the church of the day met house to house, presumably doing what bears a striking resemblance to the Lord's Supper, and participation in this "breaking of bread" was not limited in any way, and even took place in different places as need and opportunity arose. It almost tempts one to consider that this was not an annual/calendar celebration, but rather was motivated by a gathering of Christians who came together after some extended period of time and in the course of (beginning/end?) "breaking bread". A New Testament practice that differs from the JWs requirements...

However, the issue doesn't end there. The English part: and they took their meals in different homes, in Czech (and Slovak - they are very similar languages) shortened to the form: "they visited each other". Which, of course, they did when they met, but already in the 2019 revision "house to house" instead of various meetings has completely dropped out, and of course, there is no longer a word about bread in the English translation, so we can expect nothing in the secondary translation...

The 2019 revision of the Czech version differs from the 1999 Czech edition, which also - of course no longer had any mention of bread at that time - but still referred to the place where Christians met ("various houses"). Also the 1999 concordance to the Czech version of the NWT, mentions in the entry: "houses" verse Acts 2:46. Which we can no longer find in the 2019 revision.

Translation from translation tends to degrade the quality of the text and it becomes more of a paraphrase. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is certainly not a good thing either, especially when dealing with a text as sensitive as the Bible and especially in the environment of JWs who claim that "to translate the Holy Scriptures is to translate into another language the thoughts and sayings of Jehovah God, the heavenly Author of this sacred library...". If a member of the JWs consistently used a translation other than the NWT, even though it was available to him, as well as to other JWs, then it would probably not be accepted...

***
Example 2:
Rev 5:14 in the English version reads:The four living creatures were saying, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshipped.
Rev. 5:14 in the Czech version:The four living creatures were saying, "Amen!" And the elders fell to their knees and worshiped God.

At the end of the verse is added "God". No version of the Greek text that we have supports this addition ("God"). Therefore, neither does the modern edition of the Greek text, the NA26 type, nor does the old Westcott-Hort in the JWs-interlinear text. Neither does the English NWT, but neither does the German, French, or Spannish translation. Of the Eastern European languages, only Czech, Slovak and Slovenian have this suffix. Polish does not have the addendum.

--

Again. In the 1999 edition of the Czech version, this addendum ("God") was also not yet present. How did it get there if the original Czech translation (1999) did not have it and the English revision from which it was supposed to be translated does not have it either? It is not a big problem, but rather it shows the quality of the proofreading.

Sometimes (how many more times?) translation notes get into the text, and interestingly enough, in at least three languages (how many more?) in geographically different territories. Did these teams work together anywhere? Or does this point more to the possibility(!?) of a systemic failure of quality control of the work? One could understand if two or three people were working on the translation, but if it is a team effort and the translation is only from English into some "indigenous" language, then the translation task is easier...or is it?

--

I don't want to draw conclusions from two passages, but doesn't this suggest a declining quality of translation and proofreading work...?

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

PetrW

@TonusOH

The claim was that the event (Christ returning) had indeed occurred, but it had happened so quietly that even those who expected it hadn't noticed.

It's the sort of obvious nonsense that we normally see through, when the stakes aren't as high as we believe them to be. If our hopes and dreams are dependent on a prediction coming true, we are willing to extend our credulity surprisingly far.

---

What you write is absolutely spot on! The claim of the invisible(!) arrival of a person cannot be "tested", or rather, it may work for a while, but after a while, it ceases to be interesting. Invisible arrival, then, equals: not here.

For the one who claims that Jesus came invisibly, this is convenient. His statement is somehow not contestable, especially when he hedges it with the "authority" that anyone who questions this statement is the son of the devil...

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

PetrW

@TonusOH

The "invisible presence" is another concept that is very dubious. The word "παρουσια" which means "presence" carries an element of physical presence. Paul in Phil 2:12 makes a distinction between his own physical "παρουσια" to his physical absence, i.e. "απουσια". JWs basically deny the possibility that Jesus ever appeared on earth physically, in the flesh. They literally forbid it in their theology. 😊 In this context, it is interesting that John claims in 2 John 1:7 that those who deny Jesus "coming" ("ερχομενος") in the flesh ( εν σαρκι) are seducers and Antichrist. The participle of present, "coming" is very interesting - it really means an activity that happens (and lasts) in the present. It is very important in the theologically significant passages Mat 24:30 // Mk 14:26 // Lk 21:27 about the coming Christ with the clouds, whom they will(!) see. In the future event (they will see) is the present event (the coming of Christ).

So if the apostles were asking about his "παρουσια" they were interested in how they would identify him again - physically - in the future. "Invisibility" would have been the direct opposite of what the apostles expected and also what Jesus assured them would come. And John even links the denial of Christ's physical (second) coming with the Antichrist. So it is clear that only the possibility of Christ's physical - second - coming opens up the possibility of false Messiahs appearing. And also the Antichrist himself (i.e., instead of Christ). And that is why Christ warns against them.

---

But I think your question was mainly directed at whether Christ was somehow deliberately hiding the time of His coming. I don't think so. The answer to when His second coming will occur is really tied to when God Himself decides. The human answer to the timing of Christ's coming is - in my opinion - intimately connected to the question of God's love and justice, the "theodicey" question. Why didn't Jesus come in the 5th or 13th or 18th or 20th century? Will he come only in the 23rd century? It's a complex question and beyond the scope of the discussion...

But one can ask other things: did Jesus warn that his coming would not come immediately, within a generation or two after the apostles? That is a simpler question. 😊 At the end of Jesus' answer to the question of the time and the sign of his (physical) presence, he also communicates (Mat 24:42): watch, for you do not know in what day your Lord will come. He then communicates to them three parables that have a common, characteristic element: they always contain a moment in which the "actors" of these parables are responding in some way to the fact that the Lord is not coming (Mat 24:48), that He has tarried (Mat 25:5), or that He is returning only after a very, very long time (Mat 25:19). As in the first parable, it is again also emphasized that the (evil) slave will not know when the Lord is coming (Mat 24:50), so also in the second parable, the call to watchfulness is repeated (Mat 25:13). And in the third parable, the "unexpectedness" of the coming of the master after a very long time is actually the main source of trouble, for the "useless" slave.

In Rev. 1:1, we do encounter the statement that events will occur "soon," but the Greek phrase ( εν ταχει) has more of a "speed" meaning. The events that are described there will happen in rapid succession - if the 1260 days of preaching by the two witnesses who are killed by the Beast, who will be active for 42 months, then in terms of the 2000 years that have elapsed since this text was written, it would be very "quickly" indeed. The question is, did the Christians in Ephesus, who were one of the recipients of this Revelation, understand it that way as well? For in Rev. 1:3 it is written that "the time is at hand." What time? I assume that the Christians at that time had at least the same information as we do today: they knew that if they were the "generation that would not pass away", then the latest possible time for the second coming of Christ would be sometime between 130 and 140 AD. But Jesus did not come. So they had to pass on the information to their descendants or younger fellow believers that they may be the generation that will not pass away, so they have to be vigilant, but it is still true that they may not be the generation that will not pass away either. In fact, all that remains is the call to be vigilant. The question of why it's taking so long is addressed by the answers within theodicy... so we go back to the beginning again😊 It can be answered, but ugh, it's really quite a large area...

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

PetrW

The dispute over the year 607 BCE or 587/586 BCE is, in my opinion, unnecessary, if(!) this date would be decisive, to calculate (chronological speculation) 2520 years and determine the beginning of the reign of Jesus Christ.

The entire theological construction (more accurately: chronological speculation) concerning the "2520" years is flawed, or if you will, problematic. Every single point of this calculation is problematic, and the possible collapse at one single point of the entire calculation leads to the inevitable collapse of everything else, or the impossibility of continuing the calculation. With some irony one could say that you will never even get to the question of 607 BCE or 587/586 BCE, because the earlier calculation steps already fail and do not allow (non-violently and rationally!!!) to proceed further...

Single points:

1. Jesus made it clear in Acts 1:7 that neither χρονους (times) or καιρους (appointed times), nor the day or hour (Matt. 24:36) of His own coming can be known. If anyone attempts to overcome this, such as Russell, who claimed that in 1914 faithful Christians would be raptured to heaven and the reign of Christ would begin, this is a false prophecy. It does not change the fact that many others tried to do this long before Russell. As early as the 2nd century, for example, Hippolytus of Rome was converting 70 weeks to 490 years from the book of Daniel (system: a day per year) - he began a series of experiments with Bible numerals that successively alternated: from 666, through 1000, 1260. All of these early medieval attempts failed, so as time increased, it was necessary to duplicate these numerals or shift the starting date, etc., etc.

If you take seriously (you don't have to!) Jesus' own words about the impossibility of knowing the exact time of his coming and the sign of his coming, and not the attempts of various "Russells", then even the year 607 BCE or 586 BCE need not trouble you in this regard...

Let's move on.

2. JWs claim that the Aramaic term "idan" used in Dan 4:16 (25) (NWT) means year. The seven "idan" should be "seven years" when the government of Nebuchadnezzar was taken away. If the writer of the book of Daniel had wanted or should have used the Aramaic term for a year, then he would have written "schena" as in Dan 6:1 (62 years of life) or Dan 7:1 (the first year of the reign), likewise the Aramaic passages in the book of Ezra e.g. Ezra 4:24; 5:11 or 6:3 etc. But the Aramaic term for "year" in Dan 4:16 is not found. That alone, is enough to seriously doubt the "seven years" in Dan 4:16.

The mere occurrence of the word "idan" in the book of Daniel, does not make it possible, to determine exactly what chronological length the word "idan" expresses. The LXX Greek version usually translates the term as καιρος (see Acts 1:7 above), which would correspond to the meaning of "a certain period of time," with only the context determining the approximate duration.

Thus, for example, in Dan 2:8 (first occurrence), Nebuchadnezzar threatens his counselors that they want to get "idan" i.e. "time" (cf. the following verse 9 - and the synonym "seman") before he, the king, forgets his dream. In any case, it was so long before the king's work tasks would make it impossible to return to this riddle. It probably couldn't have been long, and even shorter than "idan", the king is annoyed. He decides in less time than "idan", namely, to kill all his advisors. Daniel then in Dan 2:16 begs for "time" i.e. "seman", a time roughly equivalent to "idan", to explain the dream. According to Dan 2:19, the "seman" lasted only one night. In one night God reveals the content of the dream and its interpretation.

Another example: Dan 3:5. Nebuchadnezzar builds a golden statue and commands that at the time of "idan" when everyone hears music playing, they must bow down to the statue. Then in Dan 3:7 it is stated that "at the time" when the music began to play, the writer used for the concept of time, a synonym for "idan" as in Dan 2:9 and in the form of the Aramaic "seman" i.e. time. At the appointed time of "idan" or "seman" the music plays. Does "idan"//"seman" refer only to the time when the music is playing? Probably yes, because the punishment for not fulfilling the extortionate listening to music was to come, according to Dan 3:6, "at that time"//"at that hour". And the denunciators, according to Dan 3:8, came to the king at "seman" (cf. LXX: καιρος) to complain against the Jews.

Also in the passages of Daniel chapter 4, we find a similar picture: Dan 4:16 (25) The NWT uses "idan" to establish the time limit of the seven "idans". Were they weeks, months, or the risings/setting of a star or constellation? In any case, it was not one "idan" to grow long hair and fingernails, but seven "idans", a time limit which according to Dan 4:34 (NWT) is made up more of "days" ("at the end of those days").

Conclusion: in terms of the meaning of the Aramaic "idan", it can be seen that it is a temporal concept that expresses an arbitrarily fixed length of time, usually in (hours) days (for night prayer or when music is playing and shortly thereafter), weeks (the king's work tasks) or months (hair and nail growth). Only the context determines how long the "idan" lasts.

From this perspective, if the "idan" in Dan 4:16 (25) NWT does not have to be a year long, and apparently it does not, then the consideration of counting the 2520 years further is completely unnecessary.

3. JWs (and some others in the present and past) claim that the 42 months and 1260 days in Rev 11:2-3 must be recalculated in the "day=year" formula. Nowhere is the necessity for any recalculation given this text of Rev 11:2-3 stated. And if this calculation worked in biblical times, it was at God's direct instruction. It is up to the one making this claim to prove that God told him to do so...

But to judge the accuracy of the "day=year" conversion in Rev 11:2-3, a simple thing will suffice: if JWs claim that 1260 days is 1260 years, then they have the following problem: In the passage regarding the two "witnesses" of Rev 11:3 and the duration of their prophesying i.e. 1260 days, it is further written (Rev 11:9 (11)) that their dead bodies will lie in the "great city" for "three and a half days". The JWs in their interpretation of Revelation claim that these "three and a half days" are "three and a half years", from 1916 to 1919, and of course refers only to selected persons among the JWs of the time.

But then, the two witnesses who preach 1260 days according to Rev 11:3 must also preach 1260 years!!! Or do they not? Or do they? Or how? 😊 The dead will be dead for 3.5 years because day=year and 1260 days is also actually 1260 years, but no, it's 1260 days, no, it's 1260 years. So how many? 😊 And if we take into account that the apocalyptic locusts that the JWs identify as their preachers are supposed to do damage for 5 months (Rev 9:5), then they are supposed to do damage for 150 years, right? Or is there no day=year conversion here? Not to mention that the Beast from the Sea is supposed to work for 42 months (Rev. 13:5), which, keeping the day=year conversion, again conflicts with the JWs' interpretation of who this beast is.

The whole "day=year" recalculation is completely confusing and betrays JWs exegetical arbitrariness.

4. Astrophysical problem. Let us concede, despite the above arguments, that the 2520 days=year calculation is correct. Then the astrophysical problem arises. The 2520 "years" is actually the claim that it is 2520 "rotations of the Earth", around the Sun. And we come to the problem of determining the year: what type of astronomical year should be used? A tropical year with a duration about 20 minutes shorter (365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds) than a sidereal year (365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, 9.45 seconds)? Without accounting for the variable length of each type of astronomical year, that 20 minutes over 2520 years makes a difference of about 35 days. Ironically, this confirms what Jesus said in Mat 24:36: no one knows about the hour and day.

And the main question: do we even know which type of year Jesus will follow when He comes? If we include another claim of the JWs, namely their calculation of the Passover, in addition to their reasoning about year types, or more accurately, calendarism, then the question becomes even more complicated. The JWs use a kind of luni-solar calendar, based on Jewish tradition, to prove that their calculation of Passover, and their calculation alone, is the accurate one. As a result, they celebrate the original, annual feast according to the solar calendar twice a year according to the lunisolar tradition... I'll leave the conversion of 2520 years back according to the lunisolar calendar to the Gregorian calendar to them.

Result: there's really no need to bother with 607 BCE. For those who argue that the chronological speculation with the 2520 year year is correct, there are so many obstacles and problems ahead, in my opinion, that proving 607 BCE may not even happen.

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. .

PetrW

I remember some article in WT or some other literature (sometime between 1990 and about 2005 when I read it) that mentioned the case of some medieval applicant for admission to some Catholic order. He couldn't get in somehow, so he memorized(!!!) the entire(!!!) Bible. The article came out - as I recall - negatively, in the sense that the person in question had made an unaddressed effort but had chosen the wrong church...or something like that.

The main point of why I recall this is that something similar is now - a few decades later - being attempted in the WT as well. They think that by accurately translating, they will achieve something better. In part, yes, but I think they are just repeating what they were giving decades ago as an argument against unnecessary bigotry.

The text of the Bible more accurately: megapixels or printing ink and paper - the "letter" becomes an idol.

47

The First Holocaust

by nicolaou in

please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.

the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.

as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.

PetrW

@nicolaou

Let's make the assumption as many Christians do that the Bible is historically accurate. The Noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.

That means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation. As if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children God killed.

***

The only connection I see with the flood and the holocaust (rather: I am forced to use your comparison...) is that the flood of the world removed the perpetrators of the holocaust not the victims. The flood of the world swept away the then "Mengele" with his pseudo-medical experiments on humans. If there were "unclean" animals in the time before the Flood, then the question is what all that society was doing for animal and human experimentation... what experiments on children it was committing, what disgusting bestialities it was committing...

Nobody feels sorry for the perpetrators of the Holocaust. No one feels sorry for the Japanese doctors who experimented on people, no one feels sorry for the end of the German extermination camps, where people went straight from the freight trains to their deaths by suffocation... it doesn't matter if there were 15, 20 or a million Mengele. They created conditions that were unbearable for life and lost all humanity.

The flood was survivable, and it was survivable because people were warned. Only Noah and his family took it seriously.

11

Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15

by peacefulpete in

acts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here i will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of xtianity.

the deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential.

this theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from jerusalem traveling back to antioch to share with paul and barny, named judas (yes another one) and silas.

PetrW

@peacefulpete

The verb απολυω has a wide semantic field. And indeed it can mean "to send someone away" as many translations use this meaning in Acts 15:30/33. But it can also indeed mean "separate" see Acts 28:25 - here it is explicitly stated. Staying still in the realm of how the writer of Acts used this verb, compare the same form of απολυω in Acts 15:30 and Acts 4:23. The exact same verb form (participle in the aorist passive) is translated according to context: in Acts 15:30 as "to send away" and in Acts 4:23 as "to let go". Certainly - even without any special knowledge of the Greek - it can be seen that the "blame" for the confusion lies, to some extent, rather with the translators or the emendation of later centuries. One of the many reasons for this is the decline of knowledge of Greek. It is common to refer to the 2nd century AD as the linguistic turning point in the "Western" Church, when Latin came in and its dominance lasted essentially until the European Renaissance. By the time Greek studies resumed...

But I think there's more to it than that. Rather, these - apparent or real - ambiguities in the NT text serve as an argument for you to question the text. I think you made the right choice! I would even add another. For example, the question of why God Almighty did not take care to preserve the quality of his text? We still have extant, extensive inscriptions from the time of, say, the Emperor Augustus. Even in Latin and Greek. And nothing in the Bible. A few torn papyri or manuscripts missing this or that...

From a rational point of view, then, the Bible would be on a par with other ancient works that are indeed interesting, in many ways can still inspire us today (see Roman law) or are important for the historical identity of Europe (Herodotus, Thucydides), etc., etc., but that's about the end of it.

I honestly don't know how else to answer you, but I think that despite the objective state of affairs, which you rightly criticize in many ways, I think it all makes sense. Jesus, as a historical figure, simply influenced billions of people. And while many chose to bestially murder, burn, torture, enslave, and commit senseless crimes in his name, there were also those who lived out his example, covertly, quietly, often subtly. Many have suffered great injustices for his name's sake from the very ones who took his name. This too is true.

Maybe it's worth trying again, a second time, a third time. But with that, one is extremely cautious and distrustful. But even the little one truly believes Jesus is worth it, I think.

12

Watchtower May 2024 Who is being referred to as 'we'?

by Listener in

this is the magazine that presents some of the 'new light' from the oct. 2023 annual meeting.

it discusses some of the things they have now decided they don't know and revised some of the things they do know, or think they know.

when they start discussing some of the things they do know, most of them are still guesses and they use qualifiers.

PetrW

Listener, thanks!

What I like about it is that it's possible to watch "online" as WT slowly turns into a moloch. They are tangled up in their lies because 110 years since 1914, nothing is working the way they think it should.

It's becoming more and more obvious - only the lazy fail to notice.

I don't think it necessarily has to end badly, that there is no way back, to honesty, to repentance, to a change of mindset, to an apology. From time to time, a country or political party will apologize for their past, but let's just say it often takes them decades since they did those things.

But in the case of the WT, a clear apology for the past would lead to disintegration. That's something that's hard to expect. I'm anxious to see how they manage to pick those turns!

11

Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15

by peacefulpete in

acts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here i will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of xtianity.

the deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential.

this theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from jerusalem traveling back to antioch to share with paul and barny, named judas (yes another one) and silas.

PetrW

@peacefulpete (Act 15)

I'll return briefly to your original post regarding Acts 15:

The modern versions of the Greek NT omit verse 34 (see NA28), only reporting a variant.

I think verse 34 unnecessarily addresses the question of where Silas was, and the problem is only apparent and stems from an incorrect translation at the previous verse 33.

The translation you quoted (v. 33):

After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out.

supports the unnecessary question.

A literal translation of v. 33, keeping with the grammatical order, would be:

"They had done (loosely: spent) some time, they were parted (απελυθησαν) in peace from the brethren to those (who) sent them out."

Of crucial importance here is the translation of the verb "were parted" (aorist passive of απολυω) and the missing addition of the decision to return to Jerusalem (which does not appear until v. 36).

The meaning of "were parted" is specified shortly before in v. 30, which literally reads something like this:

"These then, being parted (απολυθεντες, also aorist passive of απολυω) , went down to Antioch...."

Conclusion: the whole (apparent) problem is solved, in my opinion, by a careful reading of the Greek text, which in v.33 only(!!!) communicates that the four (Paul, Barabbas, Silas and Mark) greeted the brothers at Antioch as a farewell (literally: were parted), but the decision to leave Antioch was made "a few days later" (v.36).

Neither Silas nor Mark went to Jerusalem alone, and in all probability they did not leave Antioch for such a time or distance that they could not contact Paul and Barnabas again. Emendation of the text by v. 34 is unnecessary.