31 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodysorry i see not a single reason johnny why your translation should be considered accurate? Either produce it or bow to the New world translations superiority! and publicly admit that its pure awesomeness!
I would dispute the reasoning of yours that my King James Bible is 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?
actually we produce in our literature many references to many translations and you never hear the watchtower bible and tract society bashing other translations like the haters of Jehovahs witnesses do.
31 May 13
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI’ve already noted that I think it can be rendered either way—and it obviously was, early on.
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 e Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(1) En arche en ho logos
(2) kai ho logos en pros ton theon
(3) kai theos en ho logos
(4) outos hen en arche pros ton theon.
—Numerals here only for ease of reference.
The definite articles are in bold. In (1) arche (beginning) has no definite article; logos does. In (2) both logos and theon have the definite article. In (3) logos has the definite article but theos does not. In (4) arche still has no definite article while theon once again does (outos, “this one”, referring back to logos).
Of course, this breakdown lends support to your argument. But—if we are going to read something into the existence or not, of the definite article for the meaning of the terms, do we not have to do it across-the-board to be consistent? Does arche have a different meaning in (1) and (4) than it would have with the definite article?
I note that the NWT does not render en arche as “in a beginning”, but as “in [the] beginning” (with the integrity of putting “the” in brackets to show that it is an interpretive insertion) at both (1) and (4)—obviously, the translators did not think that absence of the definite article required translating it as an indefinite noun (which is what you argue here for theos). (Nor does the NWT insist on voicing the definite article attached to theos, although you correctly refer to it.)
As I noted, I think it can be translated either way—so the NW version cannot be said to be textually invalid. We both recall blackbeetle’s lesson on the grammatical “looseness” of the Koine Greek—the Koine is just not as precise as some would like it to be.*
Again, none of this invalidates the NWT rendering. But it is an interpretive translation (like all) that can be defended from the text, but is not made definitive by the text.
_______________________________________
* I seem to recall not too long ago that you (validly) nailed me for being “overly lexical” in my interpretation; can I return the favor? 😉
NOTE: Hmmm. When I think of our agreement on the word aion (and its cognates), maybe en arche could be validly rendered “in a beginning”? (Just a loose thought, not much behind it.) What would be the theological implications of that?
31 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdNo it is not accurate to translate it either way. One way identifies one God and the other way identifies two gods. So to be consistent with the text of scripture "a god" with God, identifying two gods would be incorrect.
I’ve already noted that I think it can be rendered either way—and it obviously was, early on.
(1) En arche en [b]ho logos
(2) kai ho logos en pros ton theon
(3) kai theos en ho logos
(4) outos hen en arche pros ton theon.
—Numerals here only for ease of reference.
The definite articles are in bold. In (1) [i]arc ...[text shortened]... (Just a loose thought, not much behind it.) What would be the theological implications of that?[/b]
The instructor
31 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsBut you are using doctrine to interpret this text, not the other way around (even if that doctrine is supported by other biblical texts).
No it is not accurate to translate it either way. One way identifies one God and the other way identifies two gods. So to be consistent with the text of scripture "a god" with God, identifying two gods would be incorrect.
The instructor
Further, Robbie, too has Biblical reference for “gods”—
NRS Psalm 82:6 I say, "You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you;
NRS John 10:34 Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law [the Torah/Tanach], 'I said, you are gods'? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called 'gods'—and the scripture cannot be annulled—36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Surely, each one of those gods is—a god? You can argue that here the “g-word” is used to refer to different concepts of divinity—and I think you would be right; but Robbie is making pretty much the same kind of argument for Jesus as the logos/Christ. And Jesus’ citing the Psalms text to deny that claiming to be [a/the] son of God can be blasphemy needs to be considered.
(My argument to Robbie is, of course, that the alternative reading, which supports a trinitarian view, is also valid.)
Note that I did not say that either translation is the “accurate” one; my point is that both are textually valid.
31 May 13
Just for interest—as a side note to my posts above—there are apparently 557 references to Christ in the New Testament books. 172 are in the phrase “Jesus Christ”, and another 72 are in the phrase “Christ Jesus” (4 of those with the definite article: “the Christ Jesus” ) . 154 references include the definite article—“the Christ”. That would leave 394 references to Christ without the definite article. (There are also 11 hits for the possessive “Christ’s”, of which one has the definite article.)
—I used Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) for this search.
I don’t think that any Christological conclusion can be drawn at all from this.
The historian of church doctrine Jaroslav Pelikan (whose 5-volume work on the subject is considered to be pre-eminent in the field, I think) said that—if any “orthodoxy” could be identified in the earliest post-apostolic church—it was at least a “pluralistic orthodoxy”. That was before doctrinal positions became dogmatized and those with opposing understandings were anathematized.
31 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdGreat one, i count myself fortunate to make my defence before you on this day.
I’ve already noted that I think it can be rendered either way—and it obviously was, early on.
(1) En arche en [b]ho logos
(2) kai ho logos en pros ton theon
(3) kai theos en ho logos
(4) outos hen en arche pros ton theon.
—Numerals here only for ease of reference.
The definite articles are in bold. In (1) [i]arc ...[text shortened]... (Just a loose thought, not much behind it.) What would be the theological implications of that?[/b]
While you correctly evaluate that a definite noun does not of necessity need to have the definitive article to signal its definiteness as in the case of arche, 'theos', in the clause (kia theos en ho logos) is a different word and a different case. In like manner if one examines other instances of the term 'theos', one will find article-less examples (anarthrous) of 'theos', used definitely in the Greek portion of scripture.
While it may be true of anarthrous 'theos', in the genitive and dative cases, two forms that freely dispense with the definite article in a number of uses, it is not the case with the anarthrous 'theos', in the nominative case, the form used in our clause. The nominative case being much more dependent than other Greek cases on the definite article to mark definiteness. There is a very limited range of definitizing elements that may make an anarthrous nominative 'theos', definite, which include the presence of an attached personal pronoun, the use of a noun in direct address and the association of the noun with numeration. (see John 8:48, Romans 9:5 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 respectively) None of these definitizing elements are present in our clause. The remaining eleven examples of an anarthrous nominative 'theos', in the Christian Greek scriptures are all indefinite. (Mark 12:27, Luke 20:38, John 1:18, Romans 8:33, 1 Corinthians 8:4, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Galatians 6:7 Philippians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and revelation 21:7)
It appears to me that the real culprits are the translators of the King James version who working from the Latin Vulgate with no more than a handful of Greek manuscripts would have viewed the text as if it were Latin, which has no definite or indefinite articles, relying solely on the context and thus every theos would have appeared similar and received similar treatment.
Are we in this day and age of more extant codices, manuscripts and papyri than in any epoch of history to be guided by such a lack of resources, may that never be the case! If the Apostle had wanted us to understand the theos in our clause as being definite, then he would have simply written, 'kia ho theos en ho logos', but he did not.
Its always a pleasure my friend, always.
31 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOkay, I'm too wiped to research case now. (I don't have any of my Greek grammar stuff anymore, but I'll take your comments here under advisement--if I'm lazy enough, maybe blackbeetle will venture back in. 😉 )
Great one, i count myself fortunate to make my defence before you on this day.
While you correctly evaluate that a definite noun does not of necessity need to have the definitive article to signal its definiteness as in the case of arche, 'theos', in the clause (kia theos en ho logos) is a different word and a different case. In like manner if on theos en ho logos', but he did not.
Its always a pleasure my friend, always.
Needless to say, you've just up-leveled the discussion, and I will either put up or shut up! 🙂 I've always been studiously agnostic on the whole Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian debate (of which this is a part)--maybe you'll knock me off the fence yet!
EDIT: And, yes, a pleasure for me too.
31 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdlol, i could be in for a lesson, gulp! Yes, let the beetle show his blackened shell, for it in shines the colours of the rainbow!
Okay, I'm too wiped to research case now. (I don't have any of my Greek grammar stuff anymore, but I'll take your comments here under advisement--if I'm lazy enough, maybe blackbeetle will venture back in. 😉 )
Needless to say, you've just up-leveled the discussion, and I will either put up or shut up! 🙂
31 May 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyI don't need to look as the same old accusations have been made for decades and we are very familier with them all.
http://voices.yahoo.com/new-world-translation-errors-jehovah-witness-5366895.html
Why don't you address the differences in this link?
They are only wrong in the eyes of those who want it to be wrong because it does not fit with their beliefs.
For instance John 1:1 is the perfect example. They "have" to make the trinity work but the entire Bible does not teach such a thing. So just by tweeking this one scripture it now seems that Jesus is "God Almighty" himself when in fact nothing in the Bible or the beliefs of those early Christians believed it or taught it.
Consistancy is a trueness in the Bible and it does not lie or contradict itself. So in order for many paganistic beliefs to somehow seem possibly true, they have to do certian little underhanded tricks in their versions of the Bible.
31 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdBut the really big point here is none of the Bible supports the trinity on any level. Those early Christians or the Jews not believe it nor did they teach it as neither did Jesus.
But you are using doctrine to interpret this text, not the other way around (even if that doctrine is supported by other biblical texts).
Further, Robbie, too has Biblical reference for “gods”—
NRS Psalm 82:6 I say, "You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you;
NRS John 10:34 Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law [the Torah/Tanach t either translation is the “accurate” one; my point is that both are textually valid.
Not once did Jesus call himself " God Almighty" and even said he was lower then his father and would never do anything of his own accord but only the will of his Father..
And the forgotten Holy Spirit is another story. No where is this mentioned by Jesus or his Father Jehovah that it is a god of anykind.
So nothing in the Bible supports the trinity so why should John 1:1 say he is God as in God Almighty and not just a god which he is a god which is just a title that we should honor? It would be a contradiction of the entire Bible if John 1:1 did actually say he was God Almighty or the same being as his Father.
01 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThe following are just a few statements in the Holy Bible concerning Christ Jesus. How can these verses all be true without Christ Jesus being the one creator God and Savior of mankind?
Just for interest—as a side note to my posts above—there are apparently 557 references to Christ in the New Testament books. 172 are in the phrase “Jesus Christ”, and another 72 are in the phrase “Christ Jesus” (4 of those with the definite article: “the Christ Jesus” ) . 154 references include the definite article—“[b]the Christ”. That would leave 39 ...[text shortened]... doctrinal positions became dogmatized and those with opposing understandings were anathematized.[/b]
This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
(Isaiah 44:6 NIV)
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."
(Revelation 1:17-18 NIV)
This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself.
(Isaiah 44:24 NIV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
(John 1:1-3 NIV)
Declare what is to be, present it-- let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me.
(Isaiah 45:21 NIV)
While we wait for the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
(Titus 2:13 NIV)
Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen.
(Revelation 1:7 NIV)
The instructor
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJohn could not write it like you suggest, because that would be like saying the Son is the Father. What John was trying to say is that the Son, before being manifest in flesh, was with God the Father as the divine Word and was also God, but not another as you JWs want to interpret it.
Great one, i count myself fortunate to make my defence before you on this day.
While you correctly evaluate that a definite noun does not of necessity need to have the definitive article to signal its definiteness as in the case of arche, 'theos', in the clause (kia theos en ho logos) is a different word and a different case. In like manner if on ...[text shortened]... theos en ho logos', but he did not.
Its always a pleasure my friend, always.
The Instructor
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsOh my....You just can't pick up on it can you? It really still amazes me how you can read a scripture or many scriptures and not see what you are truely reading.
The following are just a few statements in the Holy Bible concerning Christ Jesus. How can these verses all be true without Christ Jesus being the one creator God and Savior of mankind?
[b]This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
(Isaiah 44:6 NIV) ...[text shortened]... because of him.” So shall it be! Amen. [/b]
(Revelation 1:7 NIV)
The instructor[/b]not once.
YES Jesus is "a" GOD. But NO where does it ever say he is "Almighty God" nor does he ever say his is "Almighty God". NO WHERE. NOT ONCE.
The scripture in Isaiah is NOT speaking of Jesus as he had not been born yet and had not become our saviour. His Father gave him that honor after he proved faithful to the death. Hence Jesus under his Father Jehovah is now given the role of our king and saviour.
Absolutley no different then a King here on earth of some country giving someone who proves faithful to that King, special privileges and respondsabilities.
Jesus who is God's SON, not himself, proved faithful and as a reward he has temporarily handed the Kingdom and the rule of it to his SON, not himself.
Just as a King may let another rule his Kingdom for a time. BUT they are NOT the same person just as Jesus is god's SON, not God himself.
Read the scriptures for what they say..not what you think they say!!!!!!!!!
01 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds"was with God the Father as the divine Word and was also God"
John could not write it like you suggest, because that would be like saying the Son is the Father. What John was trying to say is that the Son, before being manifest in flesh, was with God the Father as the divine Word and was also God, but not another as you JWs want to interpret it.
The Instructor
On what planet could this statement possibly make any sense?
"I was with my friend David but I am David!"
No idea how dumb that really sounds do you?
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by galveston75That is exactly what John was avoiding by wording it the way he did and not by robbie's suggestion.
"was with God the Father as the divine Word and was also God"
On what planet could this statement possibly make any sense?
"I was with my friend David but I am David!"
No idea how dumb that really sounds do you?
The instructor