- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Tim2 @ May 02 2007,07:49) Do you have a link for that, Unisage?
http://www.sabbatarian.com/Content/KuriosTheos.htmlI do hope you take time to read through there stuff.They dont believe Jesus is God Either.. Enjoy…
CB, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Not a clue?
You type: “Find stuff against JW's” in the internet and out it comes. Well done.
Let's actually discuss this, if you can. Let's look at what one of them said, Bruce Metzger.
In “Theology Today” 10.1(April 1953), p.75, Metzger wrote;
“As a matter of solid fact,…,such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an esablished rule of Greek grammar which necessitates, “…and the Word was God.” Some years ago Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb…The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it…”
So, CB, you quote from this “scholar” that the NWT is a “frightful mistranslation” but you forget to explain why he thought so.
Did you notice it?
“It overlooks entirely an esablished rule of Greek grammar which necessitates,” he said. First, this “rule” was not overlooked, and secondly many of the same scholars you quote point out that Greek grammar in no way does necessitate such a thing. It is NOT on grounds of grammer that the NWT is dismissed. Over and over again, scholars have said this.
Basically, this is nonsense and not what scholars actually believe.
Unlike Metzger the NWTTC did not consider the predicate “theos” as definite but qualitative(with an indefinite sense derived from the context).
Were the New World Translation Committee right to do so? Basically, was Metzger or the anonymous NWT Committee right?In 1975 Paul M. Dixon did a study of all the anarthrous predicate nominatives in the gospel of John. “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John” (Dallas Seminary, 1975). It was cited favorably several times in Wallace's recent grammar, “Beyond the Basics”. Below are two quotations from this thesis.
On pages 18, 23 we find;
“The only other conceivable value of Colwell's rule [that is, other than for textual criticism] is to say it is possible to have an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb that is definite (but, did we not already know that?), and that because Colwell apparently found some. Yet, it is most important to see that the rule says nothing about the probability of definiteness (contrary to what Colwell and Blum would have us believe), nor can it, as Colwell has not considered both definite and non-definite nouns. Because Colwell considered only definite predicate nominatives then his rule applies only when definiteness has already been determined, then, the probability of articularity may be ascertained. . . . Assuming the rule is valid, its value is almost exclusively for textual criticism. The rule may not be valid, however, as it's underlying assumptions are hihly questionable.”This is the conclusion,CHAPTER VI, of Paul S. Dixon's Th.M. thesis:
“The use of the anarthrous predicate nominative in John is significant. It is qualitative in 65 out of 74 occurrences, or 88% probability. When the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb it is qualitatative in 50 of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability. When it follows the verb the anarthrous predicate nominative is qualitative 13 of 19 occurrences, or 68%.
The implications of this are equally significant. No longer should Colwell's rule mislead us into thinking that an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb is just as definite as the articular predicate nominative following the verb and that “there need be no doctrinal significance in the dropping of the article, for it is simply a matter of word-order.”(1) Our conclusions show that when John wished to express a definite predicate nominative, he usually wrote it after the verb with the article, 66 of 77 occurrences or 86% probability. When he wished to express a qualitative predicate nominative with the verb, he usually wrote it before the verb without the article, 50 of 63 occurrences or 80% probability.
Finally, we may conclude three things about John 1:1. First, Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule says nothing about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the converse of the rule, and as such is not necessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb usually are qualitative, 94% of occurrences. Second, on the basis of the contrast with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), we conclude that QEOS in 1:1c stresses quality. Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical probability of QEOS being qualitative, rather than definite or indefinite, is quite high, 94%.”
In “Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns”(Sept.,1998) D.E.Hartley of Dallas Theological Seminary partly said in the Introduction:
“Increasingly Colwell is cited as evidence of a determinate semantic reading of John 1:1c. Both orthodox and otherwise utilize Colwell’s rule to promote not only different but contradictory interpretations of this passage—obviously contradictory interpretations cannot at the same time and in the same way be true. Adding to this problem, otherwise careful scholars misstate and misunderstand Colwell’s rule.….The purpose of this article, then, is first to clearly articulate what has become known as Colwell’s rule, including its abuse, …..”
Further along under “Evaluating Colwell's Rule” Hartley informs us correctly by writing, in part:
“There are several problems with Colwell’s method of tabulation as well as statement of rules….
“Third, Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a logical blunder.Colwell’s rule “Definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article” came to be seen as “Anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.” We have affirmed, based on our study, that Colwell’s original rule is valid but the converse of his rule is inductively falsifiable. …. this converse is neither true of the whole nor of its parts. So although definiteness is a possible semantic category, it is certainly not the probable one regarding anarthrous constructions. In addition, although the converse of Colwell’s rule is not formally illogical, it is inductively falsifiable.
“Fourth, Colwell seems to have misunderstood what a definite semantic to the noun entailed linguistically. His improper method of prescription, based on his analysis, led him to commit a category mistake by foisting a semantic upon a certain group of nouns (pre-copulative PNs) that he failed to appreciate on their own terms. Because of this, and apparently without considering the ramifications of what the semantic suggested, he applied it to John 1:1c and argued against the indefinite or qualitative sense. But this was an improper use of his own rule, for his rule was only to be applied post hoc to nouns clearly understood to be definite from context.
“Where he regarded his rule most important, in the area of translation and interpretation, is exactly where it is in fact most irrelevant yet ironically most dangerous, especially the latter. When his rule is applied prescriptively in the fashion he and others since him have, it is most damaging to the semantics of the pre-copulative anarthrous construction as a whole.
For when it is determined that most pre-copulative anarthrous PNs are in fact not definite, then one has to ask what use the rule serves at all in determining such. It is one grand question begging venture, therefore, to cite his rule for ascertaining any semantic preponderance anywhere, not to mention disputable passages like John 1:1c.”Then under the sub-heading “Illegitimate Usage of Colwell”:
“Thereafter Colwell’s conclusions were accepted nearly unanimously in the scholarly world.Many evangelicals, because of the implications to John 1:1, unwittingly assumed, as Metzger did, the converse of Colwell’s rule which led to its abuse. His actual rule states, “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.” This statement, however, was taken to imply that anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite. This type of abuse bled into the commentaries on John as well. Later research seriously questioned this consensus of opinion by attempting to demonstrate that pre-copulative anarthrous PNs were predominately qualitative in nature, a fact not considered seriously enough within the semantic range of some, including Colwell.”
The editors of this page cannot come to any other conclusion with Metzger's stated position(and also William Barclay-Expository Times 65, October 1957, pp.31-32; Julius M. Mantey-Letter to the WTB&TS, July 11, 1974; Robert Countess- 'The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, 2nd,1987 who all likewised used Colwell's Rule to condemn the NWT at John1:1c) that the New World Translation proved the more scholarly in this matter.
That may well come as a surprise to many but it appears to us to be an inescapable fact.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….ell.htmhttp://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/JWs%20and%20Jn1_1.htm
Hence, Jesus is either the true God or he is a false god. But since the NT emphatically denies that the Lord Jesus is a false god, the only option left is that he is the true God. To help clarify the implication that De 32:39 has on our exegesis and understanding of John 1:1, as well as on the person of Christ, we present the following syllogism:
1. There are no other Gods besides Yahweh.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh God.
John’s prologue doesn’t stop there but goes on to distinguish the Lord Jesus from another who is called God. Again:
1. The Person with Jesus is identified as God
2. There is only one God.
3. God must subsist in at least 2 Persons.
How does the Watchtower respond to this? In the Watchtower, 1975, p. 63, this is what they write:
“Viewed in their proper setting, these texts in no way contradict each other. They are discussing entirely different matters. At Deuteronomy 32:39, the point being made is that the false gods of the nations have no share with Jehovah in his saving acts. They are unable to deliver their worshipers from disaster. This is evident from the preceding two verses 37, 38,which read: “Where are their gods, the rock in whom they sought refuge, who used to eat the fat of their sacrifices, to drink the wine of their drink offerings? Let them get up and help you. Let them become a concealment place for you.” Other parts of this song likewise indicate that these false gods had no share in the expressing of Jehovah's saving power. With reference to the nation of Israel as represented in its forefather Jacob, De 32 verse 12 says: “Jehovah alone kept leading him, and there was no foreign god along with him.” Apostasy, however, set in among the Israelites, as De 32 verses 16, 17 and 21 tell us: “They began inciting him to jealousy with strange gods; with detestable things they kept offending him. They went sacrificing to demons, not to God, gods whom they had not known, new ones who recently came in, with whom your forefathers were not acquainted. They, for their part, have incited me to jealousy with what is no god.” Against this background, we can appreciate that none of such false gods were 'together with Jehovah' in anything that he did. He alone is the true God, whereas the false gods are an unreality, nonexistent and powerless to help their worshipers in time of calamity. As for the reference to the Word's “being a god,” it does not disagree with the statement at Deuteronomy 32:39. Why not? Because the Word does not stand in opposition to Jehovah nor is he a rival, as was the case with the false gods. Then, too, in the phrase rendered “the Word was a god,” the term “god” is a predicate noun that describes the Word. Says the noted scholar Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures: “It describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person.” In view of the descriptive nature of the predicate noun for “god” in the original Greek, An American Translation renders John 1:1: “The Word was divine.” The New World Translation, however, retains the predicate noun and indicates the significance of the omission of the definite article by using the indefinite article. Being God's firstborn Son, “the Word” could rightly be described as a “god” or powerful one, even as are God s other angelic sons at Psalm 8:5. (Compare Hebrews 2:6-8.) But neither the firstborn Son nor the other faithful angelic sons of God stand in opposition to their Creator, or try to equal him or substitute for him, as do false gods. They all recognize that worship is properly directed to Jehovah God alone.- Phil. 2:5, 6; Rev. 19:10.” (http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/john11deut32.htm; bold emphasis ours)
Commenting on the Isaianic denials of the existence of other gods, JW apologist Greg Stafford writes:
In view of the consistent condemnation of idol gods in Isaiah, it is certainly understandable for us to view Isaiah 43:10 in the same light. There is nothing in the context of Isaiah 43:10 that suggests, let alone conclusively proves, that Jehovah’s words are meant not only for the idols of man, but also for any heavenly beings who serve Jehovah, and who are elsewhere considered ‘gods.’ No living god has been ‘formed’ by the hands of the idol-worshiping nations. Which is why Jehovah goes on to condemn the idols and those who ‘form’ them in Isaiah 44:8-10.
The context of these texts shows that such denials are directed against the gods of the nations, not the angelic gods of Jehovah’s heavenly court. In fact, Isaiah 43:10 uses the same verb for ‘form’ that we see used in Isaiah 44:10. Using such scriptures in an effort to deny that the angels are gods, when in fact the Bible clearly refers to them as ‘gods,’ is to ignore the purpose for which these denials were written. As stated by Yehezkel Kaufmann: ‘We are constrained to offer the embarrassing reply that nowhere in the Bible is the existence of god denied, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Even the polemic of Second-Isaiah attacks the idols with no word at all for the gods.’” (Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended An Answer to Scholars and Critics [Elihu Books, Huntington Beach, CA: second edition 2000], pp. 101-102)
Hence, Jesus is either the true God or he is a false god. But since the NT emphatically denies that the Lord Jesus is a false god, the only option left is that he is the true God. To help clarify the implication that De 32:39 has on our exegesis and understanding of John 1:1, as well as on the person of Christ, we present the following syllogism:
1. There are no other Gods besides Yahweh.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh God.
John’s prologue doesn’t stop there but goes on to distinguish the Lord Jesus from another who is called God. Again:
1. The Person with Jesus is identified as God
2. There is only one God.
3. God must subsist in at least 2 Persons.
How does the Watchtower respond to this? In the Watchtower, 1975, p. 63, this is what they write:
“Viewed in their proper setting, these texts in no way contradict each other. They are discussing entirely different matters. At Deuteronomy 32:39, the point being made is that the false gods of the nations have no share with Jehovah in his saving acts. They are unable to deliver their worshipers from disaster. This is evident from the preceding two verses 37, 38,which read: “Where are their gods, the rock in whom they sought refuge, who used to eat the fat of their sacrifices, to drink the wine of their drink offerings? Let them get up and help you. Let them become a concealment place for you.” Other parts of this song likewise indicate that these false gods had no share in the expressing of Jehovah's saving power. With reference to the nation of Israel as represented in its forefather Jacob, De 32 verse 12 says: “Jehovah alone kept leading him, and there was no foreign god along with him.” Apostasy, however, set in among the Israelites, as De 32 verses 16, 17 and 21 tell us: “They began inciting him to jealousy with strange gods; with detestable things they kept offending him. They went sacrificing to demons, not to God, gods whom they had not known, new ones who recently came in, with whom your forefathers were not acquainted. They, for their part, have incited me to jealousy with what is no god.” Against this background, we can appreciate that none of such false gods were 'together with Jehovah' in anything that he did. He alone is the true God, whereas the false gods are an unreality, nonexistent and powerless to help their worshipers in time of calamity. As for the reference to the Word's “being a god,” it does not d
isagree with the statement at Deuteronomy 32:39. Why not? Because the Word does not stand in opposition to Jehovah nor is he a rival, as was the case with the false gods. Then, too, in the phrase rendered “the Word was a god,” the term “god” is a predicate noun that describes the Word. Says the noted scholar Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures: “It describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person.” In view of the descriptive nature of the predicate noun for “god” in the original Greek, An American Translation renders John 1:1: “The Word was divine.” The New World Translation, however, retains the predicate noun and indicates the significance of the omission of the definite article by using the indefinite article. Being God's firstborn Son, “the Word” could rightly be described as a “god” or powerful one, even as are God s other angelic sons at Psalm 8:5. (Compare Hebrews 2:6-8.) But neither the firstborn Son nor the other faithful angelic sons of God stand in opposition to their Creator, or try to equal him or substitute for him, as do false gods. They all recognize that worship is properly directed to Jehovah God alone.- Phil. 2:5, 6; Rev. 19:10.” (http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/john11deut32.htm; bold emphasis ours)Commenting on the Isaianic denials of the existence of other gods, JW apologist Greg Stafford writes:
In view of the consistent condemnation of idol gods in Isaiah, it is certainly understandable for us to view Isaiah 43:10 in the same light. There is nothing in the context of Isaiah 43:10 that suggests, let alone conclusively proves, that Jehovah’s words are meant not only for the idols of man, but also for any heavenly beings who serve Jehovah, and who are elsewhere considered ‘gods.’ No living god has been ‘formed’ by the hands of the idol-worshiping nations. Which is why Jehovah goes on to condemn the idols and those who ‘form’ them in Isaiah 44:8-10.
The context of these texts shows that such denials are directed against the gods of the nations, not the angelic gods of Jehovah’s heavenly court. In fact, Isaiah 43:10 uses the same verb for ‘form’ that we see used in Isaiah 44:10. Using such scriptures in an effort to deny that the angels are gods, when in fact the Bible clearly refers to them as ‘gods,’ is to ignore the purpose for which these denials were written. As stated by Yehezkel Kaufmann: ‘We are constrained to offer the embarrassing reply that nowhere in the Bible is the existence of god denied, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Even the polemic of Second-Isaiah attacks the idols with no word at all for the gods.’” (Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended An Answer to Scholars and Critics [Elihu Books, Huntington Beach, CA: second edition 2000], pp. 101-102)
To summarize the JW position:
1. The passages in Isaiah and Deuteronomy where Yahweh is said to be the only God do not rule out the existence of angelic gods. The context deals with refuting the existence of the false gods and/or idols of the nations.
Quote (david @ May 02 2007,18:59) CB, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Not a clue? You type: “Find stuff against JW's” in the internet and out it comes. Well done.
Let's actually discuss this, if you can. Let's look at what one of them said, Bruce Metzger.
In “Theology Today” 10.1(April 1953), p.75, Metzger wrote;
“As a matter of solid fact,…,such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an esablished rule of Greek grammar which necessitates, “…and the Word was God.” Some years ago Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb…The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it…”
So, CB, you quote from this “scholar” that the NWT is a “frightful mistranslation” but you forget to explain why he thought so.
Did you notice it?
“It overlooks entirely an esablished rule of Greek grammar which necessitates,” he said. First, this “rule” was not overlooked, and secondly many of the same scholars you quote point out that Greek grammar in no way does necessitate such a thing. It is NOT on grounds of grammer that the NWT is dismissed. Over and over again, scholars have said this.
Basically, this is nonsense and not what scholars actually believe.
Unlike Metzger the NWTTC did not consider the predicate “theos” as definite but qualitative(with an indefinite sense derived from the context).
Were the New World Translation Committee right to do so? Basically, was Metzger or the anonymous NWT Committee right?In 1975 Paul M. Dixon did a study of all the anarthrous predicate nominatives in the gospel of John. “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John” (Dallas Seminary, 1975). It was cited favorably several times in Wallace's recent grammar, “Beyond the Basics”. Below are two quotations from this thesis.
On pages 18, 23 we find;
“The only other conceivable value of Colwell's rule [that is, other than for textual criticism] is to say it is possible to have an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb that is definite (but, did we not already know that?), and that because Colwell apparently found some. Yet, it is most important to see that the rule says nothing about the probability of definiteness (contrary to what Colwell and Blum would have us believe), nor can it, as Colwell has not considered both definite and non-definite nouns. Because Colwell considered only definite predicate nominatives then his rule applies only when definiteness has already been determined, then, the probability of articularity may be ascertained. . . . Assuming the rule is valid, its value is almost exclusively for textual criticism. The rule may not be valid, however, as it's underlying assumptions are hihly questionable.”This is the conclusion,CHAPTER VI, of Paul S. Dixon's Th.M. thesis:
“The use of the anarthrous predicate nominative in John is significant. It is qualitative in 65 out of 74 occurrences, or 88% probability. When the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb it is qualitatative in 50 of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability. When it follows the verb the anarthrous predicate nominative is qualitative 13 of 19 occurrences, or 68%.
The implications of this are equally significant. No longer should Colwell's rule mislead us into thinking that an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb is just as definite as the articular predicate nominative following the verb and that “there need be no doctrinal significance in the dropping of the article, for it is simply a matter of word-order.”(1) Our conclusions show that when John wished to express a definite predicate nominative, he usually wrote it after the verb with the article, 66 of 77 occurrences or 86% probability. When he wished to express a qualitative predicate nominative with the verb, he usually wrote it before the verb without the article, 50 of 63 occurrences or 80% probability.
Finally, we may conclude three things about John 1:1. First, Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule says nothing about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the converse of the rule, and as such is not necessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb usually are qualitative, 94% of occurrences. Second, on the basis of the contrast with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), we conclude that QEOS in 1:1c stresses quality. Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical probability of QEOS being qualitative, rather than definite or indefinite, is quite high, 94%.”
In “Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns”(Sept.,1998) D.E.Hartley of Dallas Theological Seminary partly said in the Introduction:
“Increasingly Colwell is cited as evidence of a determinate semantic reading of John 1:1c. Both orthodox and otherwise utilize Colwell’s rule to promote not only different but contradictory interpretations of this passage—obviously contradictory interpretations cannot at the same time and in the same way be true. Adding to this problem, otherwise careful scholars misstate and misunderstand Colwell’s rule.….The purpose of this article, then, is first to clearly articulate what has become known as Colwell’s rule, including its abuse, …..”
Further along under “Evaluating Colwell's Rule” Hartley informs us correctly by writing, in part:
“There are several problems with Colwell’s method of tabulation as well as statement of rules….
“Third, Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a logical blunder.Colwell’s rule “Definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article” came to be seen as “Anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.” We have affirmed, based on our study, that Colwell’s original rule is valid but the converse of his rule is inductively falsifiable. …. this converse is neither true of the whole nor of its parts. So although definiteness is a possible semantic category, it is certainly not the probable one regarding anarthrous constructions. In addition, although the converse of Colwell’s rule is not formally illogical, it is inductively falsifiable.
“Fourth, Colwell seems to have misunderstood what a definite semantic to the noun entailed linguistically. His improper method of prescription, based on his analysis, led him to commit a category mistake by foisting a semantic upon a certain group of nouns (pre-copulative PNs) that he failed to appreciate on their own terms. Because of this, and apparently without considering the ramifications of what the semantic suggested, he applied it to John 1:1c and argued against the indefinite or qualitative sense. But this was an improper use of his own rule, for his rule was only to be applied post hoc to nouns clearly understood to be definite from context.
“Where he regarded his rule most important, in the area of translation and interpretation, is exactly where it is in fact most irrelevant yet ironical
ly most dangerous, especially the latter. When his rule is applied prescriptively in the fashion he and others since him have, it is most damaging to the semantics of the pre-copulative anarthrous construction as a whole. For when it is determined that most pre-copulative anarthrous PNs are in fact not definite, then one has to ask what use the rule serves at all in determining such. It is one grand question begging venture, therefore, to cite his rule for ascertaining any semantic preponderance anywhere, not to mention disputable passages like John 1:1c.”Then under the sub-heading “Illegitimate Usage of Colwell”:
“Thereafter Colwell’s conclusions were accepted nearly unanimously in the scholarly world.Many evangelicals, because of the implications to John 1:1, unwittingly assumed, as Metzger did, the converse of Colwell’s rule which led to its abuse. His actual rule states, “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.” This statement, however, was taken to imply that anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite. This type of abuse bled into the commentaries on John as well. Later research seriously questioned this consensus of opinion by attempting to demonstrate that pre-copulative anarthrous PNs were predominately qualitative in nature, a fact not considered seriously enough within the semantic range of some, including Colwell.”
The editors of this page cannot come to any other conclusion with Metzger's stated position(and also William Barclay-Expository Times 65, October 1957, pp.31-32; Julius M. Mantey-Letter to the WTB&TS, July 11, 1974; Robert Countess- 'The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, 2nd,1987 who all likewised used Colwell's Rule to condemn the NWT at John1:1c) that the New World Translation proved the more scholarly in this matter.
That may well come as a surprise to many but it appears to us to be an inescapable fact.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….ell.htm
DavidYour precious NWT goes against hundreds of Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic scholars who were the translators of all the major and credible translations that we have today.
NWT stands alone.
I have already asked you to please give me some info on the translators of the NWT and their credentials.
You have not presented any.
Who were the translators?
And what were their qualifications?
If you you cant answer these questions, then how can you make arguments about scriptures found in our Bible when your Bible does not match or line up to or agree with the translations and scriptures that we have?
David, I have to agree with WJ. Here is just one quote from a page I have been reading:
If a Jehovah's Witness Would Say…
“Our Bible is Reliable.” The Christian should respond that no reputable Greek or Hebrew scholar has given an endorsement of the New World Translation. The Society has at times used both out-of-context quotations from scholars and antiqued statements to make it appear that there are those who give credence to this translation, but this version is only used by Jehovah's Witnesses to promulgate their doctrines.
WJ, these are reportedly the translators of the NWT
Translator/ QualificationsFranz, Frederick
Probably the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati:
21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin.
Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year.
Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and AramaicGangas, George
No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek. Translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.Henschel, Milton
No training in biblical languages.Klein, Karl
No training in biblical languages.Knorr, Nathan
No training in biblical languagesSchroeder, Albert
No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.http://www.contenderministries.org/jehovahswitnesses/nwt.php
Quote (Oxy @ May 04 2007,18:04) WJ, these are reportedly the translators of the NWT
Translator/ QualificationsFranz, Frederick
Probably the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati:
21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin.
Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year.
Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and AramaicGangas, George
No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek. Translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.Henschel, Milton
No training in biblical languages.Klein, Karl
No training in biblical languages.Knorr, Nathan
No training in biblical languagesSchroeder, Albert
No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.http://www.contenderministries.org/jehovahswitnesses/nwt.php
OxyThanks!
Blessings!
WJ:
Quote Your precious NWT goes against hundreds of Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic scholars who were the translators of all the major and credible translations that we have today. FALLACY #1: Yes, that's called an appeal to authority, and apparently, it proves nothing.
For if it did prove anything, evolutionary biology would clearly be true. Wait, didn't the “experts” in that field think that “lucy” was the missing link for several decades, and didn't it turn out to be the head of a human and the body of monkey? It's all about being in the club. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to accept what “we” say because we won't give you any respect if you don't. You won't be taken seriously unless you conform.
Needless to say, appeals to authority mean very little. Yes, there were scholars, many of them….Jason DeBuhn:
“Certainly Metzger is a giant in my field, and he has made very important contributions that are unimpeachable. I can hope to accomplish only a fraction of what he has accomplished in his eighty years, and I am still relatively early in my career. The fact remains that in his published remarks on John 1:1c, Metzger argues primarily on the basis of theology, rather than language. His only linguistic argument is “Colwell's Rule,” which he misunderstands, just as you recognize. So on this particular topic, Metzger fares rather poorly, despite his expertise and accomplishments in other areas.Responce by Robert Hommel:
“I agree that he misunderstood the application of Colwell's rule (as did Colwell himself, and scads of other scholars).However, I'm not sure that I agree that his other reasons were on “the basis of theology.” At least not entirely.”Yes, it is possible that SCADS OF SCHOLARS follow the mistake of another scholar. We find some bones of a monkey and the skull of a human and we assume. Some “expert” says it's the truth. Once this is accepted, it takes forever to correct, in that case many many decades if I remember correctly.
Quote NWT stands alone.
This is a false statement if you're saying that it stands alone in not translating it: “the Word was God”. I've already listed a dozen or so Bible's that see the need to translate it differently.The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text (1808), published in London:
“the word was a god.”The Emphatic Diaglott (1864; as printed in 1942), Benjamin Wilson’s Interlinear reading:
“and a god was the Word.”The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed, by James L. Tomanek. (1958):
“and the Word was a God.”Todays English Version:
“and he was the same as God.”The New English Bible (The Revised English Bible):
“and what God was, the Word was.”The Bible—An American Translation (1935), J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed.
“the Word was divine”
(The translation by Hugh J. Schonfield is the same.)?A New Translation of the Bible (1934), James Moffatt:
“the Logos was divine”La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel (1928):
“and the Word was a divine being.”The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey:
“and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.”Reflecting an understanding of Jn 1:1 with the New World Translations' :
“and the Word was a god,” we also have:
The New Testament in Greek and English(A. Kneeland, 1822.)
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament(H. Heinfetter, 1863)
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R. Young, 1885)
The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G. W. Horner, 1911)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)FALLACY #2. So, as we can see, when you say: The NWT stands alone, you are committing another fallacy. First, it's just not true, but secondly, you're trying to scare people into “going with the crowd,” “peer pressure” afraid of being different.
Please! I feel like I've alread pointed this out to you a while ago.Quote I have already asked you to please give me some info on the translators of the NWT and their credentials. I have a question: If there are other Bibles where those who translated them didn't devulge their identities, would you consider these Bible's credible or unscholarly? Because there are such Bible's and once again, the NWT doesn't stand alone in this respect.
James Parkinson has said on his webpage,”The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT, 1950) offers a relatively accurate translationfrom a different theological perspective. Like Rotherham, though, it is often not smooth reading.” (Not smooth reading comes from it being largely a literal translation.)
Alan Duthie, in his book already quoted from ('How To Choose Your Bible Wisely'), said:”..for detailed word studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a very literal version like the N[ew] A[merican] S[tandard], N[ew] W[orld] T[ranslation…”p.225.
One has to wonder how Duthie could recommend the New World Translation in relation to a study of the “original languages”, that is, both the Hebrew and the Greek, when “it is questionable if any Hebrew or Greek scholar worked on it[the NWT]?” What is questionable then, is the veracity, the credibility, of the critic?
Let us listen to what Jason BeDuhn has said:“Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate” may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that “all reputable scholars,” “every Greek or biblical scholar,” etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between. For [this]characterization to be correct, [a critic] 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 last month, no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). The fact is that the NWT is what I call a “hyper-literal” translation, it sticks very close to the Greek, even making awkward English reading. Ther
e are a few places where the translators seem to have gone far out of their way, sometimes to clarify something suggested by the Greek, often for no apparent reason (maybe my ignorance of fine points of Witness theology prevents me from grasping what they are up to). And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek.”Dr Jason Beduhn had used the Kingdom Interlinear Translation,which in his words is,”Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available,” in instructing a class of students in Biblical Greek. Obviously, it must have a scholarly status for him to do so. The KIT was produced by the NWT Translation Committee in 1969. So what does this indicate about those behind both the NWT and the KIT? That they must have had a good grasp of Kione Greek. That they must have been scholars in their own right.
“If, however, you want an objective assessment of bible translation, don't ask theologians, ask secular bible scholars at public universities.”–Debuhn.
“If, however, you want an objective assessment of bible translation, don't ask theologians, ask secular bible scholars at public universities.”
Quote If you you cant answer these questions, then how can you make arguments about scriptures found in our Bible when your Bible does not match or line up to or agree with the translations and scriptures that we have?
So you're really actually saying and believe that majority is right and minority is wrong? (Please read the Greek scriptures.)Quote David, I have to agree with WJ. Here is just one quote from a page I have been reading: If a Jehovah's Witness Would Say…
“Our Bible is Reliable.” The Christian should respond that no reputable Greek or Hebrew scholar has given an endorsement of the New World Translation.
I'm sorry Oxy, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.
I'm guessing you have spent somewhere around 5 or 10 minutes searching this on the internet and of course, had no problem finding anit-JW sites.Oxy, why don't you explain to my why the scholars you believe in are right.
The jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the
New American Standard Bible states:
“We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.”
We're in the wrong thread. There is an actual thread on this. Any comments made to me should be addressed there.
Quote (Oxy @ May 04 2007,18:04) WJ, these are reportedly the translators of the NWT
Translator/ QualificationsFranz, Frederick
Probably the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati:
21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin.
Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year.
Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and AramaicGangas, George
No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek. Translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.Henschel, Milton
No training in biblical languages.Klein, Karl
No training in biblical languages.Knorr, Nathan
No training in biblical languagesSchroeder, Albert
No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.http://www.contenderministries.org/jehovahswitnesses/nwt.php
David,
I wonder if I could have a comment from you on the specific information in this post? Is there anything in the quoted section that is factually incorrect?What do you think?
Quote (david @ May 04 2007,19:45) Quote David, I have to agree with WJ. Here is just one quote from a page I have been reading: If a Jehovah's Witness Would Say…
“Our Bible is Reliable.” The Christian should respond that no reputable Greek or Hebrew scholar has given an endorsement of the New World Translation.
I'm sorry Oxy, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.
I'm guessing you have spent somewhere around 5 or 10 minutes searching this on the internet and of course, had no problem finding anit-JW sites.Oxy, why don't you explain to my why the scholars you believe in are right.
Hi David. The JW's that I am familiar with are a sect. They make no apologies for believing that they are the only true church. Any one church that excludes everyone else from God's grace by their beliefs and teachings is simply wrong.The JW's that I have spoken to (and there have been quite a few of them) have no relationship with God, but are obviously indoctrinated.
You appear to be different David. From previous discussions I get the impression that you have been born again. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You strike me as being a man of learning, even though I don't agree with your doctrine, therefore I wonder at you being so loyal to the JW's
Quote David,
I wonder if I could have a comment from you on the specific information in this post? Is there anything in the quoted section that is factually incorrect?What do you think?
Since the translators have never been made known by the translation committee, I wonder how I could comment on it?
Quote You appear to be different David. From previous discussions I get the impression that you have been born again. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sorry, but yet again, you are wrong, without question. Please see the “born again” thread. I make many comments in that thread.
This is the “God (Elohim) thread.
Quote (david @ May 04 2007,20:00) Quote You appear to be different David. From previous discussions I get the impression that you have been born again. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sorry, but yet again, you are wrong, without question. Please see the “born again” thread. I make many comments in that thread.
This is the “God (Elohim) thread.
You're not born again? I'm amazed! I was born again in 1978 and without being born again I would have no relationship with God. This is a fact!What is the kingdom?
Actually, I'm not having this conversation here. There is a thread on this exact subject.
Quote (david @ May 04 2007,20:09) What is the kingdom? Actually, I'm not having this conversation here. There is a thread on this exact subject.
If you were having this conversation I could tell you that because you ask this question you have obviously not been born again. Had you been born again, or if you dare to be born again, the Kingdom will be obvious to you.Quote If you were having this conversation I could tell you that because you ask this question you have obviously not been born again. Had you been born again, or if you dare to be born again, the Kingdom will be obvious to you. I'm not asking this question because I don't know the answer. I'm asking this question because Jesus linked entering the kingdom with being born again. therefore, it's a very appropriate question.
Secondly, many who think they are born again, when asked this question, will say:
1. Heaven
2. Something inside of me.
3. Not sure.
4. Don't know.
5. You ask too many questions.
6. etc, etc, etc.Some of these people either aren't born again. Not only do they not know what they'll be doing in the kingdom or why they have been chosen to be kings, priests and judges, but they don't even know what a kingdom is.
Quote (david @ May 04 2007,20:43) Quote If you were having this conversation I could tell you that because you ask this question you have obviously not been born again. Had you been born again, or if you dare to be born again, the Kingdom will be obvious to you. I'm not asking this question because I don't know the answer. I'm asking this question because Jesus linked entering the kingdom with being born again. therefore, it's a very appropriate question.
Secondly, many who think they are born again, when asked this question, will say:
1. Heaven
2. Something inside of me.
3. Not sure.
4. Don't know.
5. You ask too many questions.
6. etc, etc, etc.Some of these people either aren't born again. Not only do they not know what they'll be doing in the kingdom or why they have been chosen to be kings, priests and judges, but they don't even know what a kingdom is.
I'm curious. How can one who has not been born again possibly understand it?Being born again is one of the most outstanding experiences I have ever had, superceeded only by a spiritual experience I have had since
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
