Posts by dabster

5

are many of these changes in the last 2 years inline with christedom?

by Crazyguy in

if so, its amazing that jah's chariot moves slower then satan's and i think we could use this argument to maybe get people thinking.

thoughts.

.

dabster

Hi Crazyguy. Not only do I doubt what you're saying but I also wish you'd say "slower than". Say than, then your grammar will be more correct than it is at the moment. (I guess, Crazyguy, that this was a typo - don't take me too seriously - just feeling a bit pedantic right now).

99

Leaving the JWs, experiencing Christianity and finding freedom! (But it took awhile)

by im_free in

this is my first post here.. i was raised in "the truth", and am an ex-bethelite who worked in brooklyn for several years back in the 90's.

a few years after i left bethel, i started to become disillusioned after doing research about the society and reading crisis of conscience (i know..i wasn't supposed to do that lol).

i eventually stopped attending meetings and going out in service.

dabster

Hi im_free, and welcome. Great to read your posts. It's really good to have you with us.

All this talk of atheism reminds me of what C.S. Lewis said when asked, "Materialists and some astronomers suggest that the solar planetary system and life as we know it was brought about by an accidental stellar collision. What is the Christian view of this theory?"

to which he answered,

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., of materialism and astronomy – are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape made by the splash when you knock over a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was knocked over."

C.S. Lewis, Undeceptions (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1971), p.30

If life, the universe and everything came about by chance, my view on anything is as good as yours. There is no ultimate point to anything and there is therefore nothing to be gained in taking any course of action in particular. I was struck by Bill’s appeal to you:

"Please be cautious about those who want to reinforce your faith through Private Messages that may include criticism of myself and other atheists - I know this goes on. The only honest way to discuss these things is in public where our assertions can be held up to scrutiny."

Bill wants there to be honesty in our exchanges and no criticism of him. This is the sort of thing the French secular thinkers of the late nineteenth century did, who dispensed with the idea of a God but wanted to retain Christian morality. Sartre said that the true atheist cannot cheat in this way. It is inconsistent. His view was expressed in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Kamarazov: ‘If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.’ Dishonesty and criticism included. I have only ever met one person, a former atheist, who spoke of having been as consistent as Sartre and spent some years in prison for attempting to murder his sister. My friend said he had believed it just as okay to help an old lady across the street as to push her under a bus. His life was later radically changed when he encountered God and salvation through Jesus. He is now a pastor in Austria.

Why wouldn’t the atheists among us understand, given what I presume would be their view that there is no ultimate meaning to anything, the views of Christians and atheists (and heck, even the views of the JWs, for that matter) to be equally valid?

20

Three Types of People and Their Destinies!

by Kalos in

[christiansincluding jwstried very hard with their evangelism among the hindus, but did not accomplish much.

because the hindus are in possession of something better.

the actual name of hindus is sanatana dharma (eternal duty) which is defined as taking delight in the welfare of all beings (bhagavat gita 12:4, 20) hindus (which literally means those who live by the sides of indus river) is a superficial and geographical name given to them later.

dabster

If there was a 'Like' button I'd like FlyingHighNow's comment.

46

my first post! (long read sorry in advance)

by Letts Party in

long time lurker, first time poster here finally looking to get some things off my chest.

i've always been a very curious person with tons of questions about everything, and i also care deeply particularly about societal issues like social injustice, racism, and homophobia.

that, coupled with how boneheaded all the elders in my congregation are (except for one), led me to ask even more questions that led me to find ttatt.. .

dabster

Welcome Lett's Party, great to read your post(s) and to have you here. May I make a suggestion? If I were you, once I'd read Dawkins' The God Delusion, I'd also read Alister and Joanne McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. McGrath was evidently an atheist himself before becoming a Christian theologian and "subjects Dawkin's critique of faith to rigorous scrutiny" (http://www.amazon.com/The-Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism/dp/0830837213).

I look forward to reading more from you!

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

dabster

Thanks HTBWC, for all of this. I can help wondering though, what any of this would matter to an atheist?

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

dabster

Wonderment:

Thanks for your exhaustive explanation. What we can't get away from though, is the fact that the writer to the Hebrews uses μονογενὴς (in the accusative) to refer to Isaac, who was not Abraham's only-begotten son but who was unique. The term would still be in currency 20 or 30 years later when John wrote his Gospel. It would be fair to say that John considered Jesus unique, a later development of the doctrine of the Trinity notwithstanding. In fact, I don't see how that doctrine has any bearing on this aspect of the present discussion. It may have, but with 5% battery left on my iPad I can't think of any.

I'm finding it difficult understanding your use of a couple of synonyms, "correct" and "accurate". You weren't saying the translation in the ESV was not correct but that by translating μονογενὴς as they did, its accuracy was affected.

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

dabster

Whoa! I haven't been able to spend any time here in a few days - and have some catching up to do. This is fantastic, even where the thread unravels a bit. Thanks everyone, very much.

Someone may have mentioned this, Wonderment, but μονογενὴς wasn't incorrectly translated in the ESV at all. The word means only, only-begotten, only one of a kind (unique). Two German NT dictionaries, Bauer and Preuschen also have 'begotten by the one and only' (vom Einzigen erzeugt).

Someone at a hermeneutics site (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com) wrote,

'The "begetting" of Jesus did not proceed in the normal way. As S. Michael Houdmann observed,

"So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is 'pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship.' This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 [where] the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's 'only begotten son' (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use ofmonogenes in that context." (Note: my emphasis.)

"The second definition is 'pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind.'This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he usesmonogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s 'one and only' Son." (Note: my emphasis.)

From the perspective of John the Evangelist, both definitions (i.e., unique within a specific relationship, and unique in class or kind) applied to Jesus Christ. A Latin phrase which perhaps provides an excellent synonym for monogenes is sui generis, which means one of a kind, unique, singular.

In His relationship to the Father, the Word is utterly unique. Just as Isaac, the child of promise, was utterly unique (though Abraham had other offspring), so also the Word of God was uniquely the child of promise.'

So the translators of the ESV were perfectly justified in translating the word here as they did. How accurate is the translation? Very.

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

dabster

Thanks Apognophos, I see what you mean.

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

dabster

Thanks everyone. I appreciate all your comments - and links.

Agno, you say, "... no translation can be very accurate and also very clear. They're largely at opposite ends of the translation spectrum." I'm no Greek scholar or New Testament text critic but understand the ESV to be very faithful to the original texts and very readable (getting off-topic here, but doesn't matter). I look forward to watching the clip on the NIV 2011 translation - haven't had the opportunity yet - to hear the views on the ESV.

60

Accuracy of the Revised NWT

by dabster in

i was speaking with a jw yesterday.

i'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete.

during our chat he said that the previous edition of the nwt was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation.

dabster

I was speaking with a JW yesterday. I'd previously mentioned the removal of the brackets around 'other' in Colossians 1 making the mistranslation complete. During our chat he said that the previous edition of the NWT was the more correct one, that the revised version was simply more readable and that it shouldn't be considered the best translation. He was saying in effect that the translators had sacrificed accuracy for readability.

Have any of you heard this sort of thing or was this a bit of nimble side-stepping on this guy's part to avoid the inconvenient conclusion that there is a bit of trickery going on? The Foreword of the Revised NWT seems not to agree with him: ' Our goal has been to produce a translation that is not only faithful to the original texts but also clear and easy to read.'

Thanks in advance!