01 Jun 13
Originally posted by galveston75Yes, Satan is brilliant enough to fool you with his Watchtower Society and New World Translation. This is what Yahshua (Jesus) said:
Actually, spiritually, man has not done good overall the last 2000 years Manny.
What Jesus taught was truth with no influance at all of pagainistic teachings. Right?
So understanding that and then he and the apostles cleary said that after their deaths, false teachings would begin to enter into the congregations and teachings of Jesus and mislead man ...[text shortened]... chance of being altered, why the warning in Revelation to tell humans not to do that?
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew 16:18 NKJV)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Instructor
01 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie😉 I half expected that, personally as a Christian I found the paper to be very edifying, not so much because of the NWT stuff but because of the whole language translation process.
looking at the preface, i don't think ill bother. If he had sought to make a comparison of other translations as well it at very least could purport to be objective, but seeing that he has singled out not only the translation, but its motives for being produced as well as the translation committee, i don't think ill bother. If you wish to state reas ...[text shortened]... st why we translate particular verses then feel free, be my guest, otherwise, please spare me.
It really matters not to me if you read it, it was more for the thread than anyone in particular. Although I did wonder if a JW would read it in light of other things I had read and control.
I thought it to be a good paper and wanted to share it, and now I have.
BTW. Your spared. 🙂
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by kd2aczHe would rather go to hell than to admit that his Watchtower Society is a deceiver of Satan. Hell is not a bad place according to him anyway, because he will just be there with all his JW buddies. Too bad.
😉 I half expected that, personally as a Christian I found the paper to be very edifying, not so much because of the NWT stuff but because of the whole language translation process.
It really matters not to me if you read it, it was more for the thread than anyone in particular. Although I did wonder if a JW would read it in light of other things I had ...[text shortened]... thought it to be a good paper and wanted to share it, and now I have.
BTW. Your spared. 🙂
The Instructor
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't think anyone would rather go to hell, do you really believe that? I think the organization has tight control is all.
He would rather go to hell than to admit that his Watchtower Society is a deceiver of Satan. Hell is not a bad place according to him anyway, because he will just be there with all his JW buddies. Too bad.
The Instructor
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by black beetleMethinks John’s verse in Koine is clearly a tautology, and therefore the subject of the finite verb and that of a participate/ infinitive are the same.
We do are interested in accuracy; however we do not pay attention solely to the differ grammatical structures, but also to the pattern of the formation of sentences and phrases. Methinks John’s verse in Koine is clearly a tautology, and therefore the subject of the finite verb and that of a participate/ infinitive are the same.
However I am aware of th ...[text shortened]... pse, we are not merely in front of linguistics. We are forced to dive deep into exegesis.
😵
I agree about the tautology—exactly. I also recall something about the nominative case being used to designate identity between two nouns—such as in kai theos en ho logos, and in the following:
pneuma ho theos (John 4:24)
ho theos agape estin (1st John 4:8)
kai gar ho theos hemon pur katalaniskon (Hebrews 12:14)
—Note: My transliteration may be faulty, or at least not standard; best I can do from memory.
I see each of these as using what I recall as the “nominative of identity”. I think all of these say—even if metaphorically—something about the essence of ho theos (definite article in each instance, designating the principal subject of the nominative pair). I would say that in theos en ho logos, with ho logos as the subject carrying the definite article, that John is identifying the essence of this logos as theos.
In none of those examples does the second nominative seem to beg for the indefinite article.
Note: The NWT applies the indefinite article in John 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29, but not in 1st John 4:8. I suggest that this demonstrates your point about exegesis, and that the NWT translators—like all translators—have to employ some extra-textual hermeneutical guidelines. (Again, no fault there.) By the way, there is a good searchable version of the NWT here: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/hebrews/12/#v-29.
Now, I still owe Robbie some work on noun case, but I think the above provides at least circumstantial evidence that the text does not require inserting the indefinite article. Robbie presented the following (and I hope he will consider this post to you a provisional response to him as well, without my duplicating it)—
Robbie: 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.
However, I don’t think the issue here is one of “definitizing” theos (or any of the similar terms in the other examples), if by that is meant that a definite article ought to be inserted (as the NWT, as well as others, do with arche in John 1:1), but whether or not absence of the definite article requires insertion of the indefinite article, rather than leaving the noun general. For example, one does need to say either “God is the/this agape” or “God is a/an agape”—both of which suggest a singular agape, one definite (the/this), the other indefinite (a/an: e.g., “of some kind or other” )—but one can choose the third, general noun: just agape, which can indicate essence or substance.
Also, I don’t see that any of these examples conform to the examples Robbie cites of instances where, absent the definite article, the definite article should be inserted.
Again, this is all circumstantial and provisional: I still need to do more research on case in the Koine, and I need to confirm my recall on the “nominative of identity” (as I noted early, I, sadly, no longer have my bookshelf tools on this—so online I have to go . . . ). Will take me some time, but I will try not to be too tardy . . .
Be well!
____________________________________________________
EDIT: I am not, once again, claiming that the NWT translation is invalid, or that it can’t be correct on this point. I don’t think the text—even with context—can be decisive on this theological issue. Extra-textual hermeneutics is necessary, and is always (in part) what “tradition” was/is about. Unfortunately, most Protestants (following Luther’s sola scriptura) tried to abandon the longstanding (from origins) Christian oral tradition—forgetting that even sola scriptura, and the related notion of the text-as-a-whole being “self-interpreting”, are themselves extra-textual hermeneutical principles. Among Protestants, the Anglicans are an exception.] In my opinion, “text versus tradition” is a false and illusionary dichotomy—and demonstrably so.
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by galveston75But the really big point here is none of the Bible supports the trinity on any level.
But 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.
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..
A ...[text shortened]... entire Bible if John 1:1 did actually say he was God Almighty or the same being as his Father.
I disagree, in that I think that the Biblical texts clearly can be supportive of some version of a triune god. (Note how carefully I have phrased that.) I also disagree with those trinitarians who claim that the Biblical texts clearly point to a triune god. Nor do I think that either view—trinitarian or non-trinitarian—forces the texts beyond reason.
The point of this discussion (a bit removed from the OP, but still examining the NWT and the whole issue of translation and exegesis) is that whether or not the texts support trinitarian or non-trinitarian theology depends—in part—on this very issue of where and when and whether certain “anarthrous” nouns require insertion of an indefinite (singular) article. [See my post to blackbeetles reply to Robbie, above.]
One of the examples that I gave, that bears on the trinity question, is John 4:24—where the NWT inserts the indefinite article (“a” ), while others do not. Contrarily, the NWT translators do not insert the indefinite article in 1st John 4:8, which has the same grammatical structure as John 4:24. Clearly, their decision is not based solely on the instant text, but on other considerations—which are likely drawn from their interpretation of Biblical texts, an interpretation (right or wrong) that is in no way trinitarian.
NOTE: There are different theological versions of a trinitarian/triune god—some of which have been declared “heretical” by other trinitarians. I am not referring to the specific “personalistic” trinity—and I’m not sure that “person” (persona) was the best translation of the Greek hypostasis in the West.
I am a father, a son and a lover—are those three “persons”? Are those three hypostatses? Suppose I remove the indefinite article—I am father, son and lover. Now I am speaking somewhat differently; I am speaking functionally. Those are certainly not three persons; are they three hypostases? Am I a unity that has multiple aspects? How about body-mind-spirit (whether one uses those terms in an actual or a metaphorical sense-however one uses them)? There is multiplicity in unity, and the unity (the whole—which in Greek Christianity is the “father”, since they never changed the Nicene Creed as they did in the West) can express/manifest itself in multiple forms (three essential ones in trinitarian theology).
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsFirst of all, I agree with Galveston about Isaiah (and once did a very detailed exegesis here on the subject, which I will not repeat). Second, the proper reading of John 1:1-3 is precisely what is at issue here, and I have been unwilling to assume either reading a priori. That leaves Titus and Revelation: I will take a look at them.
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]... ll mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen. [/b]
(Revelation 1:7 NIV)
The instructor[/b]
01 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdNote: The NWT applies the indefinite article in John 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29, but not in 1st John 4:8
[b]Methinks John’s verse in Koine is clearly a tautology, and therefore the subject of the finite verb and that of a participate/ infinitive are the same.
I agree about the tautology—exactly. I also recall something about the nominative case being used to designate identity between two nouns—such as in kai theos en ho logos, and in the follow my opinion, “text versus tradition” is a false and illusionary dichotomy—and demonstrably so.[/b]
1 John 4:8 has the definite article in both instances,
ho me agapon, ouk egno ton theon hoti ho theos agape estin
he that not loves, not knew, [the] God, because [the] God, love is
http://interlinearbible.org/1_john/4-8.htm
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by vistesdYou said it all, my friend!
[b]Methinks John’s verse in Koine is clearly a tautology, and therefore the subject of the finite verb and that of a participate/ infinitive are the same.
I agree about the tautology—exactly. I also recall something about the nominative case being used to designate identity between two nouns—such as in kai theos en ho logos, and in the follow ...[text shortened]... my opinion, “text versus tradition” is a false and illusionary dichotomy—and demonstrably so.[/b]
Be well🙂
01 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWithout rearranging or adding or subtracting words from the Greek, the English version of John 1:1 would read as follows:
Note: The NWT applies the indefinite article in John 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29, but not in 1st John 4:8
1 John 4:8 has the definite article in both instances,
ho me agapon, ouk egno [b]ton theon hoti ho theos agape estin
he that not loves, not knew, [the] God, because [the] God, love is
http://interlinearbible.org/1_john/4-8.htm[/b]
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.
The above consists of three phrases connected by two conjunctions (kai - Greek, and - English).
In the first phase there is no definite article before beginning, but to make it sound better in English the translators have chosen to add the definite article (the) instead of the indefinite article (a). There is no fight by the Watchtower Society to insist that the indefinite article must be used because the Greek text omits the definite article. Why?
But when it comes to the third phrase that reads "God was the Word", they insist that an indefinite article (a) must be added before God even though one is not needed to make it sound right in English. It seems obvious that God in the third phrase is referring immediately back to the God in the middle phrase. So what's the problem?
John apparently wants to maintain the subject of this sentence as being the Word, even with the three joining phrases. If he had added the definite article in front of God in the third phrase wouldn't that have changed the subject of that phrase to God instead of the Word?
The Instructor
01 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1st John 4:8, NWT : He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.
Note: The NWT applies the indefinite article in John 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29, but not in 1st John 4:8
1 John 4:8 has the definite article in both instances,
ho me agapon, ouk egno [b]ton theon hoti ho theos agape estin
he that not loves, not knew, [the] God, because [the] God, love is
http://interlinearbible.org/1_john/4-8.htm[/b]
From http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/1-john/4/#v-8
You’re right, in that theos has the definite article in the Greek, but the version I was using of the NWT (cited above) does not include that definite article in their translation.
However, my point was about the indefinite article (though I phrased it clumsily) not being inserted for agape in what appears to be the same grammatical construct as John, where the translators insert the “a” for theos. (Note: word order is not of any grammatical import in the Koine, as I recall.) It makes sense either way in John, but it would make little sense to say that “God is a love” (well, accept as a highly idiosyncratic way, as the British might say, “Ah, he’s a love” ). So it seems not to be the grammar that dictates the use of the indefinite article (which, as you note, has to be supplied by translators, as they deem proper, because it doesn’t exist at all in the Koine).
My whole point can be illustrated (simplistically) by the following:
(1) I am a son, a lover and a father. [indefinite]
(2) I am the son, the lover and the father. [definite]
(3) I am son, lover and father. [qualitative]
There are three alternative constructions, not two—each with somewhat different sense, or at least a broader possibility of alternative sense than any two would (such possible alternative expressions add richness to the language). My trinitarian construction would be closer to type (3), which might be heterodox (type (2) might be acceptable in some archetypal sense, not sure).
01 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuziannePoint well taken, but—
I think what it boils down to is:
Does the Dogma come from the Word, or does the Word come from the Dogma? I think the JWs like to have their cake and to eat it as well.
(1) I’d counsel care on the use of the word “Word”. The logos we’re talking about—the “Christological Logos” is not the word(s) of a collection of books. (I’m not saying that you’re confusing them; I’m only saying that I have seen them confused.)
Greek Orthodox bishop and theologian John D. Zizioulas writes (in a book that I used to have):
“The problems which the use of the term logos as ‘word’ for Christ created in the early church show how dangerous the application to Christology of the notion of ‘word’ as spoken or written can be. As a reaction against Sabelleianism and Arianism, the Fathers were forced to deny entirely any association of these two senses of logos and thus replace definitely the connotation of spoken or written word with that of the person [hypostasis] exclusively.” (Being as Communion, p. 190.)
—I possibly lean toward Sabellianism. At the same time, for similar reasons as those mentioned by Zizioulas, I have always had problems with references to the Biblical collection as "the word of God".
The “Word” (logos) as the Christ is not the Bible.
(2) I agree with the Episcopalian (Anglican) principle of the “three pillars”: text (biblical scripture), tradition (the ongoing Christian oral and hermeneutical tradition), and reason—which always seemed to me to be quite dialectical. Although I am aware that the word “dogma” has a technical definition, I do tend to use it in the more pejorative sense. And so would rather think in terms of a dialectic between text and tradition, than “word and dogma”.
Again, though, point well-taken.
01 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdNo, I get that, I do.
Point well taken, but—
(1) I’d counsel care on the use of the word “Word”. The logos we’re talking about—the “Christological Logos” is not the word(s) of a collection of books. (I’m not saying that you’re confusing them; I’m only saying that I have seen them confused.)
Greek Orthodox bishop and theologian John D. Zizioulas writes (in a book t alectic between text and tradition, than “word and dogma”.
Again, though, point well-taken.
I was using the play of words to get my point across. My usage of the "Word" in my post meant the Bible ('God's Word' ). I also used the "Word" to play off the words of John 1:1-3, which is a point of contention between JWs and other Christians.
I understand your preferring the use of dogma in the perjorative sense, but my use of dogma was as the entirety of a church's beliefs.
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by SuzianneGotcha.
No, I get that, I do.
I was using the play of words to get my point across. My usage of the "Word" in my post meant the Bible ('God's Word' ). I also used the "Word" to play off the words of John 1:1-3, which is a point of contention between JWs and other Christians.
I understand your preferring the use of dogma in the perjorative sense, but my use of dogma was as the entirety of a church's beliefs.