If its provable that Bible chronology of the Hebrew kings is contradictory and inconsistent as you claim, then how is it that the six scholars that I referred to in my previous post, made such chronologies? Besides WTchjronology has long published such a scheme beginning with Russell in his Time Is At Hand and in the 1923 Watchtower under the heading :a Clear Vision of Chronology and not fro the forties as you falsely claim.
Is it not about time that you put up a chronology of the Old and New Testament? You cannot and neither can an any other critics of WT chronology/
Where have you lost your credentials?
Ernest...I am no bible scholar, but what about the difference I posted? What kind of clarification can it be to insert words that merely suit your porpoises and not reflect a better translation?
Valis, I am no bible scholar either...but perhaps I can share what I can find as one non-scholar to another. The differences that you posted were different translations of the same Hebrew word. Sometimes when you translate from one language to another there is only one word which is a suitable translation. At other times there are various words which could be used to give the sense of the original language, and it is not always clear which is most fitting.
In English there is a clear difference between hypocrite and apostate, but the Hebrew word does allow for both. It means properly "to cover," "to hide," or "becloud," hence, to pollute, to be polluted or defiled or impious, to make profane, to seduce. I am not certain about this but I think that when the KJV was translated, the word "hypocrite" probably had religious overtones, like the meaning of "Pharisee" which is a synonym for hypocrite.
When I am unsure about the correct translation I usually check all the verses a word is used and then consider which word would make sense if used in any of the verses. This is not fool-proof as a word can have different meanings in a different context, or when used by a different writer at a different time, but I find it helpful. So, just looking at the verses using this word there are several which definitely suggest apostasy, or at least impiety, rather than hypocrisy :
Job 8:13 "Thus are the pathways of all those forgetting God, and the very hope of chaneph will perish".
Proverbs 11:9 "By his mouth the one who is chaneph brings his fellowman to ruin, but by knowledge are the righteous rescued."
Isaiah 32:6 "Because the senseless one himself will speak mere senselessness and his very heart will work at what is hurtful, to work at chaneph and to speak against Jehovah."
Interestingly, in Clarke's Commentary on Job 8 he makes the point that hypocrite is a very improper translation of the Hebrew because such a person cannot have hope of any good, because he knows he is insincere: but the person in the text has hope.
While it is true that translations other than "apostate" (such as "impious") would convey the sense of the Hebrew, I think that the Jewish nation in Bible times would be just as quick to think of a believer who became impious as an apostate, as Jehovah's Witnesses are today.
Earnest : so it was necessary to have a translation free of that bias to allow readers without a knowledge of the original languages to appreciate the breadth of meaning in ambiguous passages
ellderwho : Are you kidding? What does a Jw conclude after reading Colossians 1:16.NWT...When Col.1:16 is read without brackets a Jw has to reconcile what Christ has created.
ellderwho, I think you may have missed the significance of the italicised word in my sentence that the NWT is free of that [trinitarian] bias. I was not suggesting the NWT is free of bias. All translations are biased to a greater or lesser extent. I was saying that the NWT is free of the trinitarian bias which is evident in the KJV and its successors. The NWT has a unitarian bias. The verse in Colossians which you mention above is an excellent example. The expression used in Colossians 1 regarding the firstborn is prototokos and can denote both "preeminence" and "priority in time". If it means "preeminence" only then the passage can be correctly translated with a trinitarian bias. If it means "priority in time" then the passage can only be translated with a unitarian bias. As I previously said, the best a translator can do when translating an ambiguous passage is to do so in the sense he believes to be true and consistent. The passage in Colossians 1 is ambiguous. All a translator can do is to translate it in the sense he believes was intended by the original writer.
How about 2 Peter 1 " by the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ" NWT. See also KIT Titus 2:13 " glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus. NWT. Note: the KIT shows strongs #4990 as "of savior" in both Peter and Titus, is that not misleading or biased? This is done to convey the thought of seperation of "great God and savior" thus the word "of" is inserted along with brackets for the word "the" these little things done in the NWT, you consider this "to appreciate the breadth of meaning"?
Yes, it is done to convey the thought of separation between "God" and "savior". And just how did the original writer intend it to be understood ? In A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, J.N.D. Kelly writes (p.246, 247) :
It is extremely difficult to decide whether the second half of the verse should be translated (a) as "...the manifestation of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus", or (b) as "...the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus". The following are points in favour of the latter (RV, RSV, NEB): (i) the absence in the Greek of the definite article before Saviour; (ii) the fact that it has the support of the Greek fathers; (iii) the lack of parallels elsewhere in the N.T. to the description of God as "great" and to an "appearing" of God; (iv) the frequent occurrence in pagan texts of "God and Saviour" as a formula applicable to a single personage. If the last point is accepted, the words may be an affirmation of the Christian claim for Christ as against the imperial cult. Some of these considerations are less weighty than others. For example, the absence of the article cannot count as decisive, for "Saviour" tended to be anarthrous (cf. 1 Tim. i. 1), and in any case the correct use of the article was breaking down in late Greek. The fathers, again, were influenced in part by theological motives in choosing (b); and as against them the early versions, which are older, support (a)...The considerations which, in the present editor's view, swing the balance in favour of (a) are (i) that Paul nowhere else, either in these or in his other letters, explicitly describes Christ as God (Rom. ix. 5 may be an exception); (ii) while he regularly speaks of "God" and "Christ" side by side (e.g. 1 Tim. i. 1; v. 21; vi. 13; 2 Tim. i. 1; iv. 1; Tit. i. 4; iii. 4-6), they are invariably distinguished as two persons; (iii) the Christology of the Pastorals seems to suggest that Christ's relation to God is one of dependence, and their stress on the uniqueness of God (e.g. 1 Tim. vi. 16) also militates against (b).
So, yes, a contrast of these verses in the NWT with translations of a trinitarian nature does assist the reader to appreciate the breadth of meaning contained in the original language. Earnest
Now if that editor would only speak up, Scholar might be semi-tempted to believe you.
You're naive if you really believe that.
I bring that up because it's clear that there's a world of difference between gossip and first-hand accounts!
Well, it may be thirdhand but you are as close-minded as Scholar if you think it's gossip. I actually met the editor and discussed a number of issues with him. It's true I didn't discuss the author of the NWT but other subjects such as chronology and the blood issue. So I have firsthand experience with the source and his ability to tell the truth and his degree of openness as a Watchtower "higher-up" who would be in the know.
Naive? No. I know that Scholar it too busy defending his point to the death to see the ludicrous nature of his dilemma.
As for the comment on gossip, it was from Scholar's perspective. He's not going to accept your testimony as it has a couple of degrees of separation from "first-hand". This is why Norm and Ray's testimony is so hard to dispute. It's the "first-hand" source, and ample testimony froma biblical perspective as well as a contemporary legal one.
Personally I have no difficulty accepting what you say.
Scholar, unfortunately, attempts to bring into question everyone's veracity except his god's - the WTS.
scholar : WT chronology from earliest times have had no problem in presenting an intelligent, cohererent list of kings for the Divided Monarchy.
AlanF : One example of the incorrect older chronological claims involves the question of whether there was a period of 430 or 530 years in a critical area of their claimed OT chronology. According to Freddie, it was the former number, whereas the Watchtower had been using the latter number until Freddie changed the teaching.
*** w74 8/15 p.507 (footnote)
Man?s creation was placed in 4128 and sin?s entrance in 4126 B.C.E. Such chronology followed an incorrect manuscript rendering of Acts 13:20 in The Emphatic Diaglott, which said that God gave Israel judges "about four hundred fifty years, till Samuel the prophet." A footnote stated that this was at variance with 1 Kings 6:1, where the Hebrew letter daleth (thought to represent the number 4) supposedly had been mistaken for the similar character he (5). Hence, it was suggested that 580 (not 480) years elapsed between Israel?s exodus from Egypt and the time that Solomon began building Jehovah?s temple. But the oldest manuscripts spell out all numbers. So a transcriber?s visual error could not have occurred at 1 Kings 6:1, which gives this period correctly as 480 years. This harmonizes with a correct reading of Acts 13:20, which indicates that the period of "about four hundred and fifty years" there mentioned preceded the era of the Judges.
In 1943 the Watch Tower Society?s book "The Truth Shall Make You Free" did away with the nonexistent extra 100 years in the period of the Judges and placed the end of 6,000 years of man?s existence in the 1970?s. It also fixed the beginning of Christ?s presence, not in 1874, but in 1914 C.E.
As I previously said, the best a translator can do when translating an ambiguous passage is to do so in the sense he believes to be true and consistent. The passage in Colossians 1 is ambiguous. All a translator can do is to translate it in the sense he believes was intended by the original writer.
Im refering specifically to Col 1:16 not verse 15. "firstborn is prototokos" I dont have a problem either way, "preeminence" and "priority in time" that is. Although "preemince" when reading seems to fit with the following word "creation."
This is the question, what did Christ create? All things or all [other] things? The latter relagating Christ role in creation.
I'm refering specifically to Col 1:16 not verse 15...This is the question, what did Christ create? All things or all [other] things? The latter relegating Christ role in creation.
ellderwho, the translation of verse 16 is dependent on the meaning of verse 15. If verse 15 was intended to mean that Christ was firstborn in the sense that he was the first of many (i.e. priority in time), then quite clearly all other things were created by him, as he did not create himself. An analogous passage is 1 Corinthians 15:27 where Paul quotes Psalm 8:6 "God subjected all things under his feet". He then explains that of course when it says God subjected "all things" it doesn't include God in that phrase. Likewise, when it says all things were created by Christ of course it doesn't include himself. That is self-evident.
There are other scriptures where it is self-evident that the expression "all things" means all [other] things. The parable of the mustard seed relates that when it is sown it becomes greater than all [other] vegetables. (Mark 4:32) It cannot become greater than itself. Christ cannot create himself. In both verses it clearly refers to "all other...", especially if prototokos refers to the first of many.
Again, the NWT assists the reader to appreciate the meaning of Colossians 1 is not limited to that conveyed in the KJV and its successors. The KJV is a perfectly legitimate translation of this passage, especially if prototokos is understood in the sense of preeminence. But the meaning is not restricted to that sense of the word, as the NWT demonstrates.