hi all,.
i've been thinking about attempting to learn biblical hebrew through the summer and wondered if any of you scholars out there have a site or resource to recommend?.
paul.
If you want to try a couple of books, try these:
Teach Yourself to Read Hebrew, by Simon & Anderson. It is brief, 92 pages, but big easy to read letters and the basics to get you started. It has received good reviews at Amazon.
For an intermediate introductory grammar: Biblical Hebrew-An Introductory Grammar, by Page H. Kelley, 453 pages. Also at Amazon for reviews.
Sometimes, it's hard to beat the feeling of a good book in one's hands.
i would like to suggest a few books to those sincerely open to one recommendation:.
english interlinears: i find the kingdom interlinear and the word study greek-english new testament by paul r. mcreynolds the most useful of all.
after that, the concordant greek text and the diaglott.
I would like to suggest a few books to those sincerely open to one recommendation:
English Interlinears: I find the Kingdom Interlinear and the Word Study Greek-English New Testament by Paul R. McReynolds the most useful of all. After that, the Concordant Greek Text and the Diaglott. Maybe Marshall's Interlinear too. Most other interlinears are barely useful.Those with Spanish knowledge, check the recently published El Nuevo Testamento Interlineal Griego-Español by César Vidal. I think this is a superior effort than that of Francisco Lacueva's Interlinear that's been around for some time.
For the Hebrew Spanish: Antiguo Testamento Interlineal Hebreo-Español. This work is not the best effort, but there is no other published that I know of for the complete OT in Hebrew-Spanish. On the English-Hebrew side, The Complete Library, and the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament. And for those using the Septuagint and NT, The Apostolic Bible Polyglot which contains the whole bible in interlinear form.
Greek Grammars: Manual Grammar of the Greek NT by Dana and Mantey, and NT Greek by James Allen Hewett.
Hebrew Grammar: Biblical Hebrew, An Introductory Grammar by Page Kelley.
Enjoy!
note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.
for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.
i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
JV
Are you really that gullible? That story of yours which I read somewhere else means nothing. Just because some in Bethel or outside of Bethel think this is a joke, it does not mean it is a joke.
I have checked the NWT directly against the Hebrew and Greek text numerous times, and it shows the falsity of your claim. You also cite other sources that put the NWT down and the transcripts of a court case in Scotland which people wrongly use to belittle Franz and the WT translators. Other sources do not prove conclusively anything. You have also some sources, to a lesser degree as expected, who side with the WTS. By you repeating this anecdote here shows that you have not taken the time to delve into the subject, and expose yourself to the ridicule of others who have done more research. Stop spreading slander!
The Scotland court trascript has been misquoted, misrepresented by WT antagonists for ages. They should be ashamed of their dishonesty. The only thing that the Scotland trial showed in reference to Franz was that he said, 'he was not going to attempt translating Genesis 2:4 from English to Hebrew which is totally different than what Bible translators are accostumed to... which is translating from Hebrew to English. This is misreported time and again by mostly evangelicals with a mission to destroy, not build.
By the way, ALL bible translators use bible aids when attempting translation, and the court floor is not the place to engage in bible textual exercises in dubious tactics of an examiner with questionable motives. Franz was smart enough not to fall in that trap. If Franz was the translator, there is ample evidence by hundreds of observers, that he was competent in the handling of some languages other than English. If he was capable to teach himself those other languages, and have a command of them, as I can testify, there is no reason to doubt his statement that 'he furiously applied himself to Greek and other languages in private.' Yes, there are countless other people saying he had cero knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, which I know it to be false. Any person can go around the web and check these claims, and how others have exposed their lies, or their many inconsistencies.
By the way, you say that Franz all he did was take the Emphatic Diaglott and rephrase it. Again, this shows you have not done your research. The Kingdom Interlinear is evidence that someone (Franz?) had a command of the Greek. Please don't quote me an evangelical scholar who most likely hate JWs. Don 't you understand, that many folks take religion more seriously than politics and could teach politicians a lesson or two on dishonest campaigning. The Kingdom Interlinear is so different from the ED in their translation principles. And what about the Hebrew portion? The ED did not offer a Hebrew translation.Who did the NWT copy for the Hebrew portion? Tell me, please, so I can check it out.
The truth is that the NWT is closer to the Hebrew and Greek text than it is to other versions. Why don't u take up a course in those languages before you make public unsound stories which cannot be sustained.
I have not been to a Kingdom Hall in 20 years or so, my family avoid me as much as possible because I have expressed sincerely where I do not agree with the WT. However, I sincerely believe the NWT is not the main problem of the WT. Putting aside some theological tendencies evident in the book (as is true of every bible version out there), the NWT is actually a good translation.
What you could do instead, is try to communicate how the "faithful and discreet slave"parable is mishandled by the Society, not because of ignorance, but because they knowingly misuse this scripture to demand loyalty from the JW masses. Now there, you would have a rightful claim.
Blessings!
note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.
for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.
i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
Juan Miguel says:
>>"Accurate Even Without Using YHWH in the Text" (in reference to NABRE)
Let's take this further: Let NABRE take Jesus' name away from the NT, and replace it with LORD the nearly 1,000 it appears in the NT. Can we honestly say that NABRE now is "Accurate Even Without Using Iesou' (Jesus) in the Text"? I don't think so!
Is removing Jesus name from the NT text as "bad" as it is for the NWT to add it to the Greek text?
Also, it seems most religious people "babble" some divine name. Jesus' name is being "babbled" about by Catholics and Protestants alike, no less than JWs with the divine name. The question is: Do we see it?
Hey, we all fall short of God's glory!
note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.
for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.
i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
still thinking:
I am glad to see someone with such honest endeavor. If you want to keep me posted with your new experiences, or if there is anything else you would like to discuss, feel free to e-mail sometime, at: [email protected]
Blessings!
note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.
for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.
i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
still thinking:
>>Given a choice of Bibles to just sit down and read. (not for making comparisons, although if you're anything like me you can't help yourself). Which would be your first choice.
This is a very difficult, if not impossible question to answer, at least for me. Why? Because I like a variety of bible versions. If we have a choice, one bible version is not enough to gather the original thoughts from the inspired authors. It is only by comparison, that we can get closer to the inspired expressions. The process of translation always loses some of the original thoughts and nuances. To accomplish an accurate translation, the right understanding of the original writing is essential, and that is where the bible translation dilema comes in. Many of the "original" biblical statements are obscure, and some others are known only by those who lived in ancient times and culture. I don't think any one corporation or individual fully understands the Scriptures as we have them today. There are many missing links. That said, here are some bible versions I use often, but not the only ones.
Study Bibles I like: I like the NIV Study Bible, the NWT Reference Bible, the Life Application Bible, and the Companion Bible.
Literal versions: Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham, Byington, ASV, Concordant, Douay, NWT and Wuest.
Easy Reading: The Message, The Living Translation, TEV, New Life Version.
Interlinears: Kingdom Interlinear, Paul R. McReynolds Interlinear
There are so many I like, and some which are good in a more limited way. If I had no choice but forced to keep only one out of hundreds of bible versions, it would be perhaps be the NWT. Somehow, I have grown to like it despite receiving the greatest of criticism and condemnation from many sources. I do trust it more than I do with other versions. But it does not mean I am blind to its limitations and biased tendencies in some places. That said, I am appalled to see so many folks fall in the trap with the belief that other versions somehow are "safe" and not biased. If I had the time and good eyesight, I would make public the hundreds of instances I find where popular versions deviate from the Hebrew and Greek text. And that is just for the English versions.
Happy reading!
note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.
for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.
i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
Juan Miguel:
You are so right that if a Catholic or Protestant render a controversial scripture (of potential trinitarian interpretation) such as John 8:58 or Jn 1:1 as the JWs do, it does not mean they stopped being Trinitarians. I could not agree more with u on that point. I may have perhaps expressed it wrong in the 1st place. Yes, if a Catholic or Protestant render Jn 1:1 "divine" it does not mean he believes that JWs are right and that they no longer believe in the trinity. The same if they render as Jn 8:58 as I have been, or I was.
What I was trying to get across is that some here in this forum and elsewhere, strongly believe that the NWT is corrupt because they differ from the popularly accepted versions. My point is that there are Catholic and Protestants who, though trinitarians, understand the technical grammatical issues as JWs do, and render it likewise, and hardly no one accuses them of corruption as they do with NWT. And some of these Catholics and Protestants go into lenghty explanations that go against the popular grain, and many folks either don't know about it, or else accept it as "good" and "impartial," but turn around and hastily try to demonize the NWT.
I believe in fairness and balance. I don't think any one religious group has absolute truth, no matter their lofty claims. I believe only that Christ is the way to God and the truth. To the degree that any religious group adhere to Scripture, they will correspondingly reflect divine truth. I see some here, ex-JWs converting overnight into a Catholic or Protestant religion, as if they suddenly saw the light, and everything in their rediscovered world is truth and the WT Society can only represent corruption. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, different religious views CAN be considered as potentially rightful exegesis. I am convinced that 100% of what the WT Society teach is not heresy, just as I feel that Catholic and Protestants or Jewish are NOT 100% right. It is so easy to get caught up in the belief that truth can be franchised.
My main objection to the WT Society's teaching, has do to with their broad effort to manipulate members into their mold... have them serve WT interests slavishly and support their humongous infrastructure. Their cunning manipulation in their shunning practice, their deceit in dragging a virtually "house-to-house" preaching mode with every member is ugly. And Mt 24:45 is the most abused scripture in their arsenal. Of course, many of their doctrines need to be revisited, and changed.
still thinking: I like your attitude. Keep using the versions u already have. Some of my favorites besides the ones u have are: Young's Literal Translation, Jerusalem Bible, Douay, The Message, Schonfield, Today's English Version, NIV, Phillips, The Bible in Living English, American Standard Version, Kingdom Interlinear, Paul R. McReynolds Interlinear, Rotherham, The Living Translation, Kenneth Wuest, The Bible in Basic English and Concordant Greek text. There are many others I could recommend as well.
Just remember, none are perfect. All reflect their personal religious views. And all of them are right and wrong in some places. But comparing bible versions is one of the best things a bible student can do to enrich their spiritual lives.
Blessings!
note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.
for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.
i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
TTSWYF,
Even if Jews understood Jesus was claiming divinity at Jn 8:58, it does not mean they were right for doing so. At Jn 5:18, Jesus was misunderstood by Jews as well, claiming that he was breaking the Sabbath and that by calling God his own Father, was making himself equal to God. Now, the question is, Was Jesus actually breaking the Sabbath? I don't think so? Do you?
Notice, the other accusation Jews brought up: By calling God his own Father, they concluded Jesus was making himself equal to God. Was he? He defended himself not by saying, "You are right, I broke the Sabbath, and I am making myself equal to God." No! Jesus instead tells them that "The Son is not able to do anything of himself...that all may honour the Son according as they honour the Father; he who is not honouring the Son, doth not honour the Father who sent him." (5:19,23, Young'sLT) Verse 30 says that: "I am not able of myseff to do anything...because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me." Later in the chapter, Jesus told them that they were not seeking the glory of the only God (or, God alone) as he himself was doing. (44) Also, they had not heard his voice, or seen his figure or appearance. (V. 37) So, it seems Jesus was not confirming their erroneous take of him, rather, he corrected them by saying in so many words that he was different than the Father, and logically, that he was not making himself equal to God. What is your take?
At John ch. 10:30 onward, Jews again misunderstood Jesus' statement that 'he and the Father were one thing." Then, they wanted to stone him for blasphemy, because he was making himself "god" (or, a God, without the definite article in Greek). Were Jews correct in interpreting Jesus statements that he was claiming full divinity or equality with God? No! He defended himself by saying 'that if men of old were called gods, and the Word of God came against them,' why would they want to stone him when he was just claimingto be NOT God, but God's Son? (Jn 10:33-36)
At Jn 8:58, many trinitarians do not see Jesus claiming divinity. Many do, but not all. Actually, some trinitarians argue that those who believe Jesus was claiming divinity by using ego eimi are wrong. Here is a sample:
Seventh Day Adventist (Trinitarian): "I existed before Abraham was even born" (The Clear Word)
Evangelical Protestant: "I was alive before Abraham was born" (The NT in Plain English)
Catholic: "Before Abraham existed, I was existing" (Sao Paulo, Catholic Center)
Evangelical Protestant: "Before Abraham was born, I have been" (NASB, 1971, Alternate reading)
Jehovah Witness: "I came into being before Abraham" (21st Century NT)
Evangelical Protestant: "I have existed before Abraham was born" (Moffatt NT)
Jewish: "I existed before Abraham was born" (H. Schonfield)
Modern Israel: "Before Abraham was, I have been" (N.H. Snaith)
Syriac, 4th or 5th Century: "before Abraham was, I have been" (Agnes Smith)
note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.
for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.
i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
Terry:
I agree with u that The Message and Young's Literal Translation are worth obtaining. I use them both quite a bit. I like them both, thought they are apart in objectives. I can't say how much I appreciate these bibles. They are both a breath of fresh air. I recommend them as well to all participants in this forum. Robert Young was a master of semitic languages. Some say he was fluent in 19 languages. If true, he was more than an ordinary scholar.
I am of the opinion though, that the NWT is not as bad as it is portrayed here. It shows a lot of depth in the Hebrew and Greek dpt. I know most here disagree with me. But I really enjoy the NWT as I enjoy Young's, The Message, the NIV or some other version.
I tend to recommend a variety of bible versions from different religious persuasion, instead of sticking with one translation angle, like JWs, and evangelicals tend to do. I recommend a variety of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and of course, don't throw your NWT away. It is good to have balance, and consider different angles of interpretation.
Cheers!
note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.
for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.
i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
ttwsyf said:
ego eimi -means 'I am', it does not mean 'I have been' There is no other place that the WTS translated ego eimi to mean I have been except John 8 ;58. Anyone who disagrees is not informed and is continuing a lie....there's no such thing as lying for the truth. It is a contridiction.
Ego eimi means basically "I am." There is no denying that. But no one can deny as well that in certain contexts it can be rendered with an English perfect indicative, or even a simple past form, I was.
Grammarians Dana & Mantey explain: "Sometimes the progressive present is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present...This use is generally associated with an adverb of time, and may best be rendered by the English perfect...Ye have been with me from the beginning. Jn. 15:27." ( A Manual Grammar of the NT, page 183)
One more example from John 14:9, where Jesus says to Philip: "So much time with you I am (Greek, eimi) and not you have known me, Philip?" Now, how would you translate that into modern idiomatic English? Give it a try, and then check with other bible versions.
NWT rendering of Jn 14:9: "Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me?"
I will show u another example taken from the Septuagint (LXX): Ge. 31:48 where Jacob says to Laban, in Greek, "These mine twenty years I am (ego eimi) in the house of yours." (Or, "These twenty years of mine I am in your residence.") Go over it and see if u can come up with your own translation in modern English that makes sense.
"I have been in thy family these twenty years" (LXX, Charles Thomson)
"These twenty years of mine I was in your household" (A New Translation of the Septuagint)
"These twenty years have I been in thy house" (LXX, Sir Lancelot Brenton)
And Mathew 26:26 reads literally: "This is the body of me." However, lexicons allowthat estin can also be rendered, "means" or "represents" in certain contexts.
NWT: "This means my body"
Mace: "this represents my body"
An Understandable Version: "this is [i.e. represents] my [physical] body" (Brackets his)
New Simplified Bible: "this (represents) (means) (exemplifies) my body." (Parenthesis his)
