Help please

by jhine 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TD

  I guess I'm not quite understanding that assertion that, "all means all."
  

  Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged gives 13 basic definitions for the English word, "all" plus another 20 prepositional/adverbial constructs, for a total of 33 different definitions.

  Johnston divides the use of the Greek word, πᾶς in the NT into two broad categories, which he calls the, "summative" and the, "distributive." The former would be the entire item or set of items taken as a whole, while the latter would be a set of items taken as individuals. He then develops the thesis that usage is based on a combination of syntactical-semantic and exegetical-contextual elements, which strikes me as a teeny, tiny bit more complicated than a singular definition.

  Don't misunderstand. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the NWT does not, in your opinion, accurately convey the writer's overall message. There's nothing wrong in believing that other translations do a much better job in this regard. Most xjw's do..
  

  What's wrong is the idea that the JW's have "changed the verses to alter the meaning." This assumes there is only one possible way the text can be understood, which is simply not true.
  
• 

  Doug Mason

  The people who wrote Colossians were using words and expressions in terms of their idioms in use at their time. We must not interpret their ideas through definitions written in our day in terms of our idioms.

  The vast majority at that time were illiterate and they received the messages orally through a literate person, at times the person who travelled with the written scroll. It was meant to be heard, not read. Theirs was not a time of books in common use as exists today. The printing press changed communication even more than has the www.

  It is unwise to hang onto the meaning of a single word, or to think that what we have is precisely what was initially written. The initial went through several drafts, just as happens today, each scroll was individually hand written and was subjected to deliberate and accidental changes.

  The NWT makes changes to suit its preferred outcome. In doing so, it sits comfortable with history, starting at least 2600 years ago with the Hebrew text. When the Pentateuch was compiled in the 4th century BCE it was an amalgum of several different sources.

  All of the texts were fluid and in a constant state of flux. Even 2 Corinthians is a compilation of at least two letters.

  When the material was defined in the 4th century CE as sacred text, there was no universal agreement on which writings to accept or reject -- and that lack of agreement persists today.

  The words were not written in stone, like archaeological tablets or carvings. Even the text of the Ten Commandments, supposedly written on stone tablets, comes to us in at least three different versions.

  Doug
• 

  JoenB75

  Actually in 2 Corinthians 5:19 we have again that all things were reconciled in Christ and Paul obviously think of that as salvation. He speaks of the preachers as messengers of the reconciliation.
• 

  jhine

  TD , the Greek word for all that is used in this passage is panta , which is given in Strong's as meaning all , everything , the lot etc . So different to the English word all .

  To me it should be seen as that because it would appear that , as l said earlier , Paul is refuting the Gnostic teaching about Christ , that he is a created being . Which is the WT standpoint on this .

  l stand by my thinking , and not just mine , that putting in the word other does alter the meaning because it then puts Jesus in the category of created things , i.e. Jesus and all the other created things .

  Jan
  
• 

  jhine

  Doug , only for the same reasons as above . If the early church was being corrupted by Gnostics then the literal meaning of the passage would make sense , IMHO . Paul is refuting Gnostic teaching by saying that Jesus was not a created being .

  That is my reasoning , plain and simple .

  Jan
  
• 

  Earnest

  jhine : the Greek word for all that is used in this passage is panta , which is given in Strong's as meaning all , everything , the lot etc . So different to the English word all .

  Wonderment started a thread recently on the use of the word "all" [Gk., pánta] which is worth reading in full. In part, he says :

  John Parkhurst (Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament) gives one meaning of pas: “All, in a qualified sense, i.e. All, in general, though not each individual, most, a great many:

  Matt. 4:24 [... and they brought him all (pantas) those faring badly ...];

  Matt. 10:22 [And you will be objects of hatred by all (panton) ...];

  Mark 1:37 [...All (pantes) are looking for you.];

  Luke 15:1 [Now all (pantes) the tax collectors and the sinners kept drawing near to him ...];

  John 12:32 [I...will draw all men (pantas) to me.].

  Compare Matt. 23:3 [Therefore all (panta) they tell you, do and observe ...];
  

  Parkhurst also adds (p.653):

  1 Cor. 6:18, "Flee from fornication. Every (other) sin that a man does is [external to, Gk. ektos] the body," ...
  The word is also obviously often qualified by the circumstances under which it is used. On Mat. 27:45 much has been written, but the prevailing opinion is, that by ["all the earth"] there, the land of Judaea only is meant. Again, in Acts 2:5 ["from every nation of those under heaven"], the expression evidently denotes only very many ... [The footnote reads : "Erasmus asks, whether they who defend the opposite opinion would affirm that there were any English or Scotch present."].
  In John 10:8 ["All those that have come before me are thieves and plunderers..."] it is clear that Christ does not mean to reflect on the prophets and teachers really sent by God...

  Wonderment further wrote :
  

  Robert Young (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible) explains under “Illustrations of Bible Idioms” -- “Idiomatic Expressions”: “‘All and Some’ – The meanings of these words are frequently reversed in Scripture. The word all can mean some, and vice versa.”
  

  Robert Young writes (p. viii):
  

  54. Some particles such as ALL, are frequently used for SOME or MOST, e.g. -

  Ex. 9: 6 LXX [...and all (panta) the Egyptians' animals died...];
  

  Matt. 3 5 [... all (pasa) Judea and all (pasa) the country around the Jordan made their way out to him.];
  

  Matt. 26:52 [... all (pantes) those who take the sword will perish by the sword.];
  

  John 15:15 [... all (panta) the things I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.].

  Quite clearly, then, as John Parkhurst says, the word "all" is obviously often qualified by the circumstances under which it is used.

  The facts are that the early Christians, the Bible writers, did not hold a trinitarian belief as it was eventually defined at Nicaea and subsequent councils. They were Jews. When you read John 1 or Colossians 1 you read it with a background of hundreds of years of the trinity doctrine being formulated and refined. Those early Christians who read this had no such prejudice, in fact for the Jews it would have been anathema to them.

  Most translations are translated by trinitarians, whether singularly or by committee. They show their bias in their translation. Those translators who believe otherwise also show their bias in translation. In both cases the translators think that is the way the Bible writers intended us to understand it.

  The fact that your beliefs are not supported by a translation does not make it wrong. It should make you wonder whether your belief has the foundation you assumed.
  
• 

  JoenB75

  Earnest,

  Were the Jews Arians? Did they believe that "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:21) had created the world? Where is this outragious doctrine taught?
• 

  Earnest

  JoenB75 : Were the Jews Arians?

  Of course not.. Arius and his followers lived hundreds of years later.

  JeenB75 : Did they believe that "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:21) had created the world?

  Philo, who lived in the first century prior to the writing of the Gospel of John, identified the logos as God's instrument of creation. Psalms 33:6 says "By the word of the Lord [logo tou kuriou, LXX] the heavens themselves were made...".

  He also describes this logos as "the archangel".

  In On the Confusion of Tongues 146 he refers to "... his first-born word (logos), the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names..."..

  See also Who is the Heir of Divine Things 205 where it speaks of "his archangelic and most ancient Word (logos)".
  

  Both "Michael, the prince of you people" (Dan.10:21) and Philo's logos are archangels, both are described as leader of the heavenly host, both perform High Priestly roles, both are identified as the angel of the Name (Ex.23: 20,21). Clearly, some Jews at that time believed that the archangel Michael had been used as God's instrument of creation.

  Whether or not that included Jewish Christians is difficult to say, but it is noteworthy that John's use of logos is very similar to that of Philo. It should also be said that we know there were Christians in the second century who thought of Jesus as an archangel, but this wasn't universal.

  I should add a disclaimer that I don't consider that Jesus being the archangel Michael is a core doctrine of JWs. Although they both clearly share similar heavenly roles, it is not explicit in scripture.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Earnest—interesting information about Philo.
• 

  TD

  jhine

  The word is πᾶς (pas)

  "πάντα" (panta) is the neuter plural form. Perhaps this is unfamiliar because English is a relatively uninflected language.

  At any rate, I don't quite know what to say.

  Zητήσατε βοήθεια....

  Κάποιος εξοικειωμένος με τη γλώσσα προσπάθησε να σας βοηθήσει και θέλετε να διαφωνήσετε. Τελείωσα. Ίσως ο Earnest να σας βοηθήσει.