"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    I was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from Dr Beduhn - I can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked)

    But this got me thinking I don't think there is anything in any Bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the Greek" could have. I know Beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.
    ("theologically motivated words" don't count - there is no dictionary where the meanings are significantly different enough to say "they def mean something totally different" - if there is I would love to see them, I know of one which turns out to be a most likely a synonym for the other)

    "For [that] characterization to be correct, [people] would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the [Time period before this written], no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). " (emphasis added)

    (https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/10361/prof-jason-beduhn-letter-on-nwt-kit-part-1#/124000)

    Opinions?

  • BoogerMan
    BoogerMan

    In both of the quoted scriptures from the NWT, "the society" aka "the organization" has falsely translated the Greek word phobos - phobia = fear;

    (1 Peter 3:2) ...together with deep respect.

    (1 Peter 3:15) ....but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.

    Peter was reminding Christians & their wives to maintain their Godly-fear; nothing to do with "deep respect."

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Thayers Greek Lexicon on phobos :

    2. reverence, respect (for authority, rank, dignity): Romans 13:7; 1 Peter 2:18; 1 Peter 3:16 (15); ἡ ἐν φόβῳ ἀναστροφή, behavior coupled with (cf. ἐν, I. 5 e.) reverence for one's husband, 1 Peter 3:2; φόβος with a genitive of the object: τοῦ κυρίου, Acts 9:31; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Χριστοῦ, Ephesians 5:21 (not Rec.); Θεοῦ, Romans 3:18; 2 Corinthians 7:1; (Ephesians 5:21 Rec.); Θεοῦ is omitted as suggested by the context, 1 Peter 1:17; (often in the O. T. יְהוָה יִרְאַת and אֱלֹהִים יִרְאַת). (Synonyms: see δειλία, δέος, at the end; cf. φοβέω.)

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    b. reverence, respect

    α. toward God (Polyaenus 1, 16, 1; LXX; PsSol 6:5 al.; EpArist 159 ὁ περὶ θεοῦ φόβος; 189; cp. φόβος τὰ θεῖα τοῖσι σώφροσιν βροτῶν TGF, Adesp. no. 356 p. 906) and Christ, w. τρόμος Phil 2:12 (s. τρόμος). W. ἀλήθεια 1 Cl 19:1; Pol 2:1. W. ἀγάπη 1 Cl 51:2. W. εὐλάβεια Pol 6:3. W. πίστις, εἰρήνη and other good things and virtues 1 Cl 64. W. ὑπομονή B 2:2. W. ἐλπὶς: εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν 11:11. W. πίστις and ἐγκράτεια Hm 6, 1, 1. W. objective gen. φόβος (τοῦ) θεοῦ (PLond 1914, 12 φόβον θεοῦ ἔχοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ; Philo, Spec. Leg. 4, 199; TestLevi 13:7; TestNapht 2:9; Theoph. Ant. 1, 7 [p. 72, 26]) Ro 3:18 (Ps 35:2); 2 Cor 7:1 (ἀγάπη P46); 1 Cl 3:4; 21:6; cp. 8; B 4:11; 19:5; 20:2; Pol 4:2; Hm 10, 1, 6a; 12, 2, 4bc; D 4:9. φόβος (τοῦ) κυρίου (TestReub 4:1; TestSim 3:4) Ac 9:31; 1 Cl 22:1 (Ps 33:12); 57:5 (Pr 1:29); B 11:5 (Is 33:18 v.l.); Hm 7:4b; 8:9; 10, 1, 6b; 12, 2, 4a; 12, 3, 1. Some place here 2 Cor 5:11 (s. 1b above). φόβος Χριστοῦ Eph 5:21.—For 1 Pt 1:17 s. 2aα beg.

    β. toward humans, respect that is due officials (cp. Byzantinische Papyri [Munich], ed. AHeisenberg/LWenger, 1914, no. 2, ln. 13 p. 43: ἔχοντες τὸν φόβον … τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐνδόξου ὑπεροχῆς=having respect for your esteemed authority) Ro 13:7ab (CCranfield, NTS 6, ’60, 241-49: the ref. may be to God); fr. slave to master 1 Pt 2:18; Eph 6:5 (w. τρόμος); B 19:7=D 4:11 (w. αἰσχύνη); wife to husband 1 Pt 3:2 (cp. SEG XXXV, 1427, 5 [III AD]). Gener. 3:16 (w. πραΰτης).—WLütgert, Die Furcht Gottes: MKähler Festschr. 1905, SBerkelbach v.der Sprenkel, Vrees en Religie 1920, 165ff; RSander, Furcht u. Liebe im palästin. Judentum ’35.—B. 1153. DELG s.v. φέβομαι I. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.

    William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1062.

  • TD
    TD

    Dr. BeDuhn (IMHO) makes a valid point. A verse is not mistranslated when the rendering still falls under the umbrella of what definition and grammar will allow.

    At the same time though, plugging in the dictionary definition that most suits your theological view is not a valid translation practice, especially when we're talking about a far less common usage of the word.

    (In its noun form, we're talking about the name of the Greek god of fear here.)

  • PetrW
    PetrW

    @Blotty

    Interesting thought. I don't think JWs intentionally change the meaning of words - although, I have found at least three examples where the NWT translation changes the meaning of sentences in favor of JW-theology. In hindsight, I would assess this as a deliberate attempt to manipulate the text. The motivation was either a misunderstanding of the meaning (example number 2) or an attempt to subjugate the text to the translation in favor of JW-theology, even though these texts (examples number 1 and 3) for relatively simple. I submit for discussion...

    Example 1: the well-known passage from Matt 27:52-53, which the NWT translation - incomprehensibly - puts verse 53 even in parentheses. Yet the translation is quite clear, unproblematic in the sense that the "bodies" of the saints - after the resurrection of Jesus - so these saints entered the Holy City.

    In the discussion with JWs, the counter-argument was repeated to me several times that even if they were resurrected, then what would they have been doing among the tombs for 3 days? My argument is that we don't know exactly what was going on with the resurrected "bodies"(!) for 3 days, what exactly were these people (were they naked, hungry and thirsty ? did the angels care to tell them they were only temporarily alive?), were doing, surely cannot be a reason to rewrite the text, change the meaning and try to reconcile the fact that this verse supposedly contradicts the claim that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead... he is, but Matt 27:52-53 does not dispute that he was the firstborn from the dead. In my opinion, Matt 27:52-53 was a small fulfillment of John 5:25 when the dead (some) heard Christ's final voice on the cross - that cry of his, and therefore came back to life. Again the same thing occurs later...

    Example 2: In John 11:26, the translators were not clear about Jesus' statement about the dead and αιων, so they used the unfortunate and completely wrong translation that "he will never die," which is nonsense. Jesus was talking about the fact that the person who dies will not be dead (almost) indefinitely (that is the meaning of αιων), but that one day, after a very long time, the αιων will end and be resurrected. This is, after all, what Martha was telling Jesus, that her brother Lazarus would be resurrected on the last day, that is, at the end of the αιων.

    Example 3: Rev. 20:5 and again the round brackets, as if the text were a sort of insertion. The text of Rev. 20:5 makes it perfectly clear that the first resurrection will occur before the 1000-year kingdom. Thus, all the pictures and texts in JW-literature about happy people being reunited after the resurrection during the 1000 year kingdom are false prophecy and a promise that will not be fulfilled.

    Rev. 20:5 clearly and indisputably states: the rest of the dead will not be resurrected until after the end of the 1000 years of Christ's reign. The first resurrection concerns only those - in my opinion, and measured by the vast New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:15-17), where the gates are nearly 2,200 kilometers long - rulers and priests with Christ, and there will indeed be millions and millions of them, men and women, including the last 144,000 who, like the others, the millions, are among the 12 new tribes of the new Israel. Every living Christian ("...he hath an ear, hear...he that overcometh shall not suffer the second death" Rev. 2:11) has the chance and the right, to seek to be with Christ in heaven. And over the 2000 years - I believe - millions of people have succeeded.

    Armageddon will be survived by the billions of people who will be on this planet. Survival is not just for some exclusive group of people in some church, but for all who will show basic humanity, or are they the ones who will ask, when have we seen you naked, in prison, sick, hungry or thirsty?

    Conclusion: here's my interpretation of the twisted, incomplete Word of God: when Jesus hung on the cross, many began to mock Him. He was mocked by the people who stood around, the soldiers, and in the beginning, even the two criminals. We know from the Gospels that they mocked him for coming down from the cross, for saving himself, for saving others and not himself. They, in effect, repeated the entire gospel. They had plenty of time for that. Jesus had been dying for about six hours - and sometime in the afternoon, after those miracles with the darkness, one of the criminals, based on what he had heard and what he had seen, began to realize that he was indeed the King of the Jews. So he said, "Remember me when you are in your kingdom...

    Thus even the corrupt, incomplete, weak word of God is stronger than the word of man (1 Cor. 1:25).

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    Boogerman

    I'm afraid you are wrong as pointed out not only by the dictionary's cited but also commentaries

    Deep respect and "fear" go hand in hand do they not we "fear" our parents but also have deep respect for them (see Biblehub)

    thus "deep respect" does fall in the range of meaning for the word "phobo"

    longshot: if by some chance you mean they used 2 words in English for one Greek word, this is common translation practise

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    TD

    "especially when we're talking about a far less common usage of the word."

    you have a point however I can think of atleast 3 examples where the context would dictate that meaning, grammatical rules or the meanings implying similar

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    PetrW

    (nicest way possible)

    I would advise taking a look at Goodspeed and Moffatt's translations - before commenting further and commentaries
    I'm going to address these quickly with not alot of detail.

    If I am thinking of the correct passages they are technically correct, there is more than one way to render a passage

    "My argument is that we don't know exactly what was going on with the resurrected "bodies"(!) for 3 days," - if they were in the tombs it would imply they are dead, as every other occurrence has someone in the tomb when they are dead - not alive.

    While it is not explicitly stated you are 100% correct - I would take it as this. (^ above)

    you also forget tho Jesus is Firstborn of the dead (temporal) it is in a different sense t the ones he resurrected as they all died again

    John 11:26 - COULD be taken in the present -> future perspective as in the statement you cite may be the point of view of ones who are resurrected on the last day. rather than in the present.

    in a similar fashion Wallace states about John 1:1 [paraphrase] "John was speaking from his own perspective."


    I agree it is not the best way to render the text, but it certainly is not a distortion of it IMO. Far from it.

    Rev 20:5 - I'm not sure how to comment

    point:
    if a phrase has implications of a future time, the present tense, it is most likely to be taken in the perspective of the future rather than the present, due to the time implication

    (Just incase you didn't see my other comment to you, would love to see your research)

  • TD
    TD

    ...however I can think of atleast 3 examples where the context would dictate that meaning, grammatical rules or the meanings implying similar

    Yes. My comment was specific to one's theological view (i.e. bias)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit