- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ May 04 2007,21:00) On second thought, you're right. It is late, and it took me about 10 minutes just to copy and paste the first section in. And I actually do work during the day. david
Don't work too hard, no body ever lies on their death bed wishing they had spent more time in the office.
Quote You spend quite a bit of time trying to discredit the NWT based on the fact that it translates John 1:1 differently from the majority of other Bibles–a fact so evident that it is the very basis of the question. I was just reading this over. After this, I'm sleeping. I just thought this sentence was quite amusing.
Quote Like I said before, I'll probably use John 1:1-4 as a proof text in the debate (if t8 ever responds!!)…feel free to make comments to anything I write there. I dind't know you were still doing that debate thing.
Ok, I'm turning the ocmpuer of f noww…..Quote (david @ May 04 2007,21:06) Quote You spend quite a bit of time trying to discredit the NWT based on the fact that it translates John 1:1 differently from the majority of other Bibles–a fact so evident that it is the very basis of the question. I was just reading this over. After this, I'm sleeping. I just thought this sentence was quite amusing.
“a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” (Winston Churchill, 1939)Quote (david @ May 04 2007,21:07) Quote Like I said before, I'll probably use John 1:1-4 as a proof text in the debate (if t8 ever responds!!)…feel free to make comments to anything I write there. I dind't know you were still doing that debate thing.
Ok, I'm turning the ocmpuer of f noww…..
I'm hoping we are still doing it, it's the slow boat to China with t8…..Quote That means they believe in the trinity and see things in that perspective. Believing in the trinity means you are inclined to look at scripture with a trinitarian perspective, does it not? Whether you do so fairly or unfairly determines if it is trinitarian “bias.” But they all did have inclinations towards trinitarian beliefs. We KNOW that some of them definitely did have a trinitarian bias. The real question is, did any of them not? David.
So the hundreds of scholars that all seemed to agree that the proper translation of John 1:1 was as we read it, yet somehow they all were wrong and biased or disingenuous.
And the NWT which has no credible scholars and is alone among the credible translations is the right translation?
Right!!!
It does seem strange that the NWT stands out alone as being the only Bible with that translation of John 1:1, and the people supporting that version are, according to their beliefs, the only ones going to make it to Heaven. Tough luck for the rest of us.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 06 2007,06:46) Hi Oxy,
Do men go to heaven?
Yep, and I think women are allowed in too.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 06 2007,06:46) Hi Oxy,
Do men go to heaven?
Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.Mat 5:12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for your reward in Heaven is great. For so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Mat 5:20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 19:23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, Truly I say to you that a rich man will with great difficulty enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 22:23 On that day the Sadducees came to Him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked Him,
Mat 22:24 saying, Master, Moses said, If a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up seed to his brother.
Mat 22:25 Now there were with us seven brothers. And the first, when he had married a wife, died. And, having no issue, he left his wife to his brother.
Mat 22:26 The second also did likewise, and the third, to the seventh.
Mat 22:27 And last of all the woman also died.
Mat 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be, of the seven? For they all had her.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven.
Mat 22:31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying,
Mat 22:32 “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.So my question is here, if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, where are they if not in Heaven?
Luk 6:23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy. For behold, your reward is great in Heaven. For so their fathers did according to these things to the prophets.
Php 3:20 For our citizenship is in Heaven, from which also we are looking for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
Php 3:21 who shall change our body of humiliation so that it may be fashioned like His glorious body, according to the working of His power, even to subdue all things to Himself.Hi,
Many say that we should rely on the thousands of theological experts to know the meaning of Jn 1.1
If you do you will not be guided by the teacher.Quote It does seem strange that the NWT stands out alone as being the only Bible with that translation of John 1:1 –Oxy.
In what sense does it stand alone?
Please read this thread.
Quote David. So the hundreds of scholars that all seemed to agree that the proper translation of John 1:1 was as we read it, yet somehow they all were wrong and biased or disingenuous.
And the NWT which has no credible scholars and is alone among the credible translations is the right translation?
Right!!!
–WJ
Sorry, WJ, but the majority is not always right. I could use the exact same logic to prove that evolution is right and therefore none of this Bible stuff makes any difference anyway.
The fact is, though, that even though the majority of evolutionary biologists feel that evolution is a fact, it in fact not. THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE, SO they make the facts support them. Whole groups of people are capable of doing such a thing.EXAMPLES:
” * Since 88% of the people polled believed in UFOs, they must exist.
* Since citizens have to pay taxes and are ruled by governments, the state must be a judicial reasoned and rightful institution.
* Since most of the world believes in God, he must exist.It is sometimes committed when trying to convince a person that widely unpopular theories are false.
* It's silly for you to claim that Hitler would not have attacked the United States if they hadn't entered World War II. Everyone knows that he planned to conquer the world.
The fallacy is commonly found in arguments over ethics:
* Most Americans hold that the Vietnam War was morally wrong. Therefore, the Vietnam War was morally wrong.
The fallacy is also commonly found in marketing:
* Brand X vacuum cleaners are the leading brand in America. You should buy Brand X vacuum cleaners.
Other examples:
* Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
* Christianity is believed in by the greatest amount of people in the world, so it must be true.
* “Every society but ours believed in magic; why should we think otherwise?” “Every society but ours thought the sun revolved about the Earth, rather than the other way round. Would you decide the matter by majority vote?” – Isaac Asimov.
* In a court of law, the jury vote by majority, therefore they will always make the correct decision.”* Since 88% of the people polled believed in UFOs, they must exist.
* Since citizens have to pay taxes and are ruled by governments, the state must be a judicial reasoned and rightful institution.
* Since most of the world believes in God, he must exist.It is sometimes committed when trying to convince a person that widely unpopular theories are false.
* It's silly for you to claim that Hitler would not have attacked the United States if they hadn't entered World War II. Everyone knows that he planned to conquer the world.
The fallacy is commonly found in arguments over ethics:
* Most Americans hold that the Vietnam War was morally wrong. Therefore, the Vietnam War was morally wrong.
The fallacy is also commonly found in marketing:
* Brand X vacuum cleaners are the leading brand in America. You should buy Brand X vacuum cleaners.
Other examples:
* Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
* Christianity is believed in by the greatest amount of people in the world, so it must be true.
* “Every society but ours believed in magic; why should we think otherwise?” “Every society but ours thought the sun revolved about the Earth, rather than the other way round. Would you decide the matter by majority vote?” – Isaac Asimov.
* In a court of law, the jury vote by majority, therefore they will always make the correct decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populumI wonder if what Jesus said was true, about the apostasy, false teachers, etc, the weeds? Because if it was, it's possible that the vast majority of those claiming to be Christian are all completely utterly wrong on a lot of things.
THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, ISN'T IT?
Yet, you would go with the majority.
This is extremely unfortunate for you. (Mat 7:14)Again, WJ, it doesn't matter what the majority of people say if those people are wrong or if they are “blinded” by the “god of this world,” the “ruler of this world.”
Would a ruler of this world have any influence over the world?
While the facts remain, the vast majority of people on this planet are under the influence of the world's ruler, and show his spirit, and will believe the lies he tells.
It doesn't matter how many people are deceived, the vast majority can and are often wrong.
You continue to use fallacious arguments. I can't help but wonder why.I remember in biology class, how we were told what the right answer was, in the beginning of the experiment and then we had to do the experiment and achieve that results. Any idea how many people fiddled with the numbers to make it work, to come up with the right or expected answer?
To be taken seriously, and accepted into any group of “scholars” doesn't it seem you have to accept what “they” (the professionals) say? You are taught to believe the experts and you ahve to go with the establishment. If you don't you will have no credentials, won't be allowed or helped along the way, won't be taken seriously. It's just the easier path.And so we have things like “lucy” sitting in a museum for decades. Why didn't any of them “see” the obvious truth? Because “they” (the scholars) wanted to believe in evolution.
Quote So my question is here, if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, where are they if not in Heaven?
Hi Oxy. There is a thread on this. I was suprised to learn that many on here don't think that anyone goes to heaven ever. You will find a lot in the heaven thread.Quote (david @ May 06 2007,08:23) Quote So my question is here, if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, where are they if not in Heaven?
Hi Oxy. There is a thread on this. I was suprised to learn that many on here don't think that anyone goes to heaven ever. You will find a lot in the heaven thread.
Thanks DavidJohn 1:1
A footnote in the New American Bible says regarding John 1:1 in translating it “Was God.”:
“Was God: lack of a definite article[HO]with “God” in Greek signifies predication[WHAT the Logos was] rather than identification[WHO the word was].I find that extraordinarily interesting. Don't you?
Also, just an observation:
“you may participate in the divine nature..”-New International Version.
2 PETER 1:4
“Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in DIVINE NATURE, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.”Those who are to share with Christ as joint heirs of the kingdom will have a divine nature.
Jesus too has a divine nature, as does God Almighty.The divinity of Jesus is not in question. But those who will be given a “divine nature” are not part of a trinity and not God Almighty.
Neither is Jesus, just because he has a divine nature or is in a divine class or category.Looking at the NWT,
“The intention was to translate the Greek so that the “Word”, or LOGOS, was not the “God”(HO THEOS)he was said to be with[GK: PROS]. This is the problem with those translations(a legitimate translation according to grammar)that read “and the Word was God.” Because this might indicate that the word “God” here is who the Word was, it is necessary for a translator to explain, as the footnote in the New American Bible does: “Was God: lack of a definite article[HO]with “God” in Greek signifies predication[what the Logos was] rather than identification[who the word was].”
“….the translation of “and the Word was God” could be construed as saying that the “Word” was the “God” whom he was “with”-John 1:1b, 2.
As the “God” whom the Word was “with” is the Father then the English translation “and the Word was God” could mean “and the Word was the Father”!! But this is not what those who advocate such a translation understand it to be saying. Hence, some explaining has to take place. But as has already been said, this “explaining” is really an attempt to read into John 1:1c thoughts and concepts that were not only of a much later date(3rd and 4th centuries AD) but wholly alien to the Jewish Christian John! So we can see at once that the translation of John 1:1c as “and the Word was God” has problems of it's own! (e.g., P. Harner, Journal Of Biblical Literature, 92, March, 1973, p.78)”
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….1.1.htmDavid.
The New World Translation bible was written by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses. Its translation is biased toward Jehovah's Witnesses church arian doctrine.
No serious theologian outside the JWs use it. Most serious theologians denounce it for the dishonesty of its translation.
See again the following.
Taken from
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j01.html
What Greek Scholars Think of the New World Translation
This collection of quotes, found on many Christian Bulletin Boards, primarily addresses the Jehovah Witnesses mistranslation of John 1:1
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
“A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'”
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):“A frightful mistranslation.” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:“This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'”
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:“The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:“I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:“I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses…I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”
Dr. Walter R. Martin (who did not teach Greek but has studied the language):“The translation…'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention.”
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '…the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…'a god' would be totally indefensible.” [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' – John 20:28”
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:“The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word “THEOS” is places at the beginning for emphasis.”
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:“No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct….I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian.”
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:“With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek.” [Responsible for the Good News Bible – The committee worked under him.]
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):“So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Hi CB,
But you are not following and preaching these men are you?
Surely you have some light of your own?Quote David. The New World Translation bible was written by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses. Its translation is biased toward Jehovah's Witnesses church arian doctrine.
No serious theologian outside the JWs use it. Most serious theologians denounce it for the dishonesty of its translation.
See again the following.
Taken from
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j01.html
What Greek Scholars Think of the New World Translation
This collection of quotes, found on many Christian Bulletin Boards, primarily addresses the Jehovah Witnesses mistranslation of John 1:1
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
“A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'”
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):“A frightful mistranslation.” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:“This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'”
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:“The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:“I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:“I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses…I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”
Dr. Walter R. Martin (who did not teach Greek but has studied the language):“The translation…'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention.”
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '…the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…'a god' would be totally indefensible.” [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' – John 20:28”
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:“The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word “THEOS” is places at the beginning for emphasis.”
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:“No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct….I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian.”
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:“With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek.” [Responsible for the Good News Bible – The committee worked under him.]
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):“So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”
Yes, Cult person, you've already given this post before. And I responded. Can you respond back?
No. You can only post your anit-JW quotes that have little meaning.
Question: Do you believe in evolution? I have to assume that logically you must. Either that, or you are very inconsistent.
Please go back and respond to the post I've already given in responce to this post that you keep posting. Thanks.
ACTS 28:22
“But we think it proper to hear from you what your thoughts are, for truly as regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.””You only have to go outside and throw a rock to find someone who wants to speak badly about JW's. So it's not greatly suprising that you state:
“No serious theologian outside the JWs use it.”
I'm more so interested in what those who know Greek have to say, and preferably, those who know Greek and don't have much of any theology. And so, while theologians might not use it,
Greek language experts do.See my next post for someone who uses our interlinear translation to teach Greek!
Cult guy, (first, please go back a page and look at my last post)
If appeals to authority is how this is going to work and we're going to throw rational out, here goes:
“It Is The Best Interlinear New Testament Available”
This is what Jason Debuhn said of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures as translated by JW's.
Why does Dr. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear Translation in teaching his college courses?
He answers:
“Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done it's job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today.”
See:
]http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….B]So again, the KIT (Kingdom Interlinear Translation)
“It Is The Best Interlinear New Testament Available”
And it is what this professor uses to teach Greek.
Quote No serious theologian outside the JWs use it.
i'm not really interested in what theologians think of the NWT. I'm more interested in what Greek grammar suggest should be the proper translation. Of course, theology does come into it. (Take it out and it's obvious that the NWT is correct.) You need your theology (the trinity belief) to support your translations. If not for this theology, there would be NO QUESTION.So I can understand you're pointing out that no one agrees with the theology of the NWT. But it's the Greek that I'm interested in.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
