31 May 13
Originally posted by divegeestermore irrelevancy, look, if you want to discuss the superlative new world translation, this is the thread to do it, if you want to discuss your obsession with Jehovahs Witnesses, then do so some where else.
What is the "cut" in terms of "making it" in the Jehovah's Witness organisation?
31 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://voices.yahoo.com/new-world-translation-errors-jehovah-witness-5366895.html
more irrelevancy, look, if you want to discuss the superlative new world translation, this is the thread to do it, if you want to discuss your obsession with Jehovahs Witnesses, then do so some where else.
Discuss this then.
Why all the differences and text added which should not be there
and more importantly, text left out which should be included?
31 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou just told another poster that he "wouldn't make the cut" in relation entrace to the JW organisation; I think it's a fair question to ask you what the "cut" is set at. Nevertheless I've posted it in your other thread as requested.
more irrelevancy, look, if you want to discuss the superlative new world translation, this is the thread to do it, if you want to discuss your obsession with Jehovahs Witnesses, then do so some where else.
Originally posted by black beetleAgreed. Just want to expand from my own thinking--
Well Robbie my feer, the original Greek verse indicates that Logos (the Word/ the Reason) is (belongs) to the Cause; and the Reason is a characteristic of God, and the Word (Logos/ the Reason) is God (it can do and create everything). Everything came into existence through His Word, and without Him nothing would be existent amongst everything that exist ould rather use the word "Logos" untranslated instead of introducing the English "Word" 😵
I, too, would leave logos untranslated—any single-word translation artificially limits the range of meaning: reason, ratio, coherent principle, etc.—even meaning. The Chinese Bibles translate it as Tao; although Tao has passed into general English usage, unfortunately logos has not.
The usage of Logos in John’s gospel was prefigured by Stoic usage, which also had a kind of “trinitarian” formulation (this is very general, though, as I think there were differences among various Stoics): For the ancient Stoics, theos was synonymous with the rational principle—rationality/coherence—(logos) of nature (phusis) expressed by way of the underlying generative energy, referred to as pneuma—generally translated as “spirit” (or wind or breath), but used by the Stoics to refer to the natural element of fire or the combined elements of air-fire. This is (as I understand it) a wholly naturalistic formulation*, but does represent a kind “trinitarian nondualism”.
I think it was lucifershammer who once pointed out that such trinitarian perspective may be part of how our consciousness has come to arrange things, and is embedded in many (perhaps most, though not all) of our languages—i.e., the more-or-less standard subject-verb-object formulation.
Nevertheless, as Galveston once noted, the road to Chalcedon was a long one (a fact that Orthodox writers readily acknowledge) with early theologies that were both unitarian and binitarian, for example. [Sadly, I no longer have my reference library on this (e.g., Jaroslav Pelikan as well as a number of Orthodox writers).] But the road to dogmatized doctrines (east or west, Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian) was also a long one. Although I think that the trinitarian view is Biblically defensible it is certainly not Biblically obvious. I also think that it is philosophically defensible (as implied above with the discussion of the Stoics),* and the deliberate paradox of the Chalcedonian formulation is defensible as elicitive/evocative language pointing to the mystery (I think that’s a pretty Orthodox view)—and is not intended as actual descriptive language (as such it is nonsensical).
I do not think there is really any such thing as a wholly accurate, or even definitive, translation for either the Hebrew or the Greek. Translators all pick and choose—certainly according to their linguistic expertise, but also their particular interpretive (hermeneutical) framework. No fault there. The fault lies with dogmatic insistence on just this interpretation, in the face of the text’s own, inherently potential or intentional, multivocality. This is an easy fault to commit, especially in the heat of debate, and I am not guiltless.
You are the expert on the Greek, but I believe that grammatically, John 1:1 can be read either way (perhaps especially with the grammatical vagaries of the Koine)—the definite article is not always expressed, and the indefinite article could be implied. [That’s a question.] In any event, there apparently were early disagreements about this text, that led to early divisions (and continuing debate) in the church.
_________________________________________________________
* One Orthodox theologian that I read—I think it was John Zizioulas—claimed (1) that early Christianity had no need for the “supernatural category”, (2) that it was Aquinas who first introduced “supernature”, and (3) that the need arose from the addition of the filioque to the original Nicene Creed in the western church (which was partly responsible for the “great schism” of 1254). I don’t know how accurate those claims are, but it does seem that the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, has no supernatural category (and his diastema is a natural phenomenon—though not one that I fully understand), and is pretty panentheistic.
** This was also noted by the famous Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, in his discussion of the “pre-trinitarian” philosophical formulation: ground-of-being, power-of being, and being-itself (or being-manifest, or form); Kashmiri Shaivism also has a similar trinitarian formulation—Shiva-Shakti-Spanda (ground-power-vibration/form).
31 May 13
Originally posted by divegeesterLol. You know you would neither accept it or understand it, right? Right...
No, there is never a simple answer from you
Why not just address the critical eternal life question in dlimma thread with a simple yes or no Galveston, instead of pretending the answer is so simple but I won't accept it or understand it?
So no need to ask me again.....
31 May 13
Originally posted by vistesdExcellent post😵
Agreed. Just want to expand from my own thinking--
I, too, would leave logos untranslated—any single-word translation artificially limits the range of meaning: reason, ratio, coherent principle, etc.—even meaning. The Chinese Bibles translate it as Tao; although Tao has passed into general English usage, unfortunately logos has not.
T ...[text shortened]... sm also has a similar trinitarian formulation—Shiva-Shakti-Spanda (ground-power-vibration/form).
31 May 13
4 edits
Originally posted by black beetleOk now that i have finished a horrendous day, let me explain the position. We are interested in accuracy, is that not correct? When we translate from one language into another there are certain grammatical structures that we need to observe, therefore let us look at the Greek text, of particular interest is the phrase,
Excellent post😵
kia theos en ho logos (and god was the word)
Greek does not have an indefinite article, it only has as definite one. A Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article 'ho' and when translated into English will become, 'the'. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article and will be translated into English using 'a or an'. We are not adding anything, we are simply obeying the dictates of language. For example, you can see in the above clause, 'ho logos', accurately translated from Greek into English as 'the word', for it has the Greek definite article 'ho'. If it was simply written as 'logos', it would be translated as 'a word'.
similarly in John 1:1:2 we have a form of 'ho theos', which lexically should be translated as 'the God', but if written without the definite article as it is in the clause above (kia theos en ho logos), it should be translated as 'a god', for it is without the definite article and is an indefinite Greek noun.
English has both a noun 'god', and a proper noun 'God', without a definite article even though a name is a definite noun. As a definite noun, the Greek, 'ho theos', corresponds to the English proper noun 'God'. The indefinite theos in the clause (kia theos en ho logos) being an indefinite noun must correspond to the English 'a god', if one obeys the rules of accurate translation.
In leaving out the definite article in the clause (kia theos en ho logos) the apostle clearly would assume that his readers would understand the theos in the above clause to be 'a god'.
Not a single translation except the superlative New world translation of the Holy scriptures has marked this difference and rendered the text from Greek to English accurately. All other translations have ignored it because of religious bias.
(John 1:1) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
31 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://voices.yahoo.com/new-world-translation-errors-jehovah-witness-5366895.html
Ok now that i have finished a horrendous day, let me explain the position. We are interested in accuracy, is that not correct? When we translate from one language into another there are certain grammatical structures that we need to observe, therefore let us look at the Greek text, of particular interest is the phrase,
kia theos en ho logos (an ...[text shortened]... other translations have ignored it because of religious bias.
What about the differences seen here in the above link?
Lot of Scripture verses that have been changed, added to or even worse,
omitted. What answer have you for that?
31 May 13
4 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyPlease i am discussing these details with people who know what they are talking about, not with someone who thinks that by scouring the internet and posting links to third part sites means anything. I do not read your links they are entirely wasted on me.
http://voices.yahoo.com/new-world-translation-errors-jehovah-witness-5366895.html
What about the differences seen here in the above link?
Lot of Scripture verses that have been changed, added to or even worse,
omitted. What answer have you for that?
If you have a reason why we should not translate the text in John 1:1,2 as we have done then let your reasons be known, but i am not discussing it with you if you have no idea what you are talking about. It saves my time and yours.
In fact, here is a case in point, i have stated that in the case of John 1:1,2 our translation is the most accurate, seeing that you are interested, why don't you tell me why its not. That is your assertion after all, is it not.
31 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn the beginning the word was with God and the word was God.
Please i am discussing these details with people who know what they are talking about, not with someone who thinks that by scouring the internet and posting links to third part sites means anything. I do not read your links they are entirely wasted on me.
If you have a reason why we should not translate the text in John 1:1,2 as we have done then ...[text shortened]... re interested, why don't you tell me why its not. That is your assertion after all, is it not.
That's what it says.
It does not say that the word was a God as your translation declared it to be.
31 May 13
5 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodythat's what it says in your translation because its religiously biased and has ignored the very basic dictates of accurate translation. Why don't you look at the Greek text Johnny and tell me why it should read,
In the beginning the word was with God and the word was God.
That's what it says.
It does not say that the word was a God as your translation declared it to be.
In the beginning the word was with God and the word was God.
I provided details of why our translation is accurate, why don't you provide details telling us why your translation is accurate? I say its religiously biased.
31 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would dispute the reasoning of yours that my King James Bible is biased.
that's what it says in your translation because its religiously biased and has ignored the very basic dictates of accurate translation. Why don't you look at the Greek text Johnny and tell me why it should read,
In the beginning the word was with God and the word was God.
I provided details of why our translation is accurate, why don't you provide details telling us why your translation is accurate? I say its religiously biased.
If that was the case then you could say that your Bible is biased
in favour of the moguls who inhabit the Watchtower HQ.
They tell you what to do and how to think. No doctrine is
acceptable only theirs. That's what they tell you.
Why would you not agree with all the other translations and only
accept theirs?