"80% of all websites are pornographic"
Translation: 80% of the websites we click are pornographic. It it happens to me, it surely happens to you. And I don't want all of you being tempted with lustful thoughts as I am.
Wonderment
JoinedPosts by Wonderment
-
41
80% of all web sites are pornagraphic
by Sour Grapes induring today's witchtower study there was so much wisdom.
coming forth from the conductor and those in attendance that.
i could only say to myself "can't they hear what they are saying?".
-
-
-
117
Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?
by JCISGOD98 ini asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
-
-
Wonderment
godrulz:
You seem to have a specific trinitarian view of the word woship. But as others have stated with sound arguments, the Greek word can be applied in different contexts, with various connotations. Thus, the bible meaning is more important than the meaning given by "conservative Christians," as you put it. Don't believe me, check some Greek-English dictionaries where most acknowledge what I just said. I even quoted a few in a previous post.
Whatever Thomas meant by the words he pronounced under emotional excitement, it must be accepted at the light of John's words at 20:31, where he stated: ‘All these things are written down that you may believe that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God.’ Why would John go around circles and not just say that Christ is the God instead of just saying, Son of God. I repeat, Jesus spoke in this very same chapter, that ‘the Father was his God and everyone elses’ too. (20:17) I haven't seen any trinitarian explain that here, including yourself. In fact, I asked of you earlier, to just show me ONE scripture that says all the stuff you are claiming here, (that Jesus and the Father and the holy spirit are three persons but one God). To this date, you have not provided ONE scripture yet to prove your point. Most who hold on to views such as yours end up quoting the massive number of scholars who believe in the Trinity. Please, since you argue everything I have stated, all I ask is for you to come up with ONE scripture that explains the Trinity the way you do. I am sure other posters are equally interested to have your answer, instead of rants about how many conservative Christians, or how many super-scholars believe this or that.
In my case, I'd rather stick to simple statements of Jesus such as this one: ‘I seek the glory, not of myself, but that of my Father... because the Father is greater than I am.’ Or this one: ‘that all may honor the Son as they honorthe Father.’ It all ends with the Father, doesn't it?
-
48
No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003
by dgp ini copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .
it is not necessary for bible translators to know.
by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.
-
-
Wonderment
sabastious:
That is funny.
-
48
No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003
by dgp ini copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .
it is not necessary for bible translators to know.
by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.
-
-
Wonderment
Fact: Most bible translators don't "speak" either Hebrew or Greek . Exceptions: George Gangas. George Gangas spoke modern Greek and gave speeches in Greece. He also spoke Spanish, which he learned on his own. Scholar Spiros Zodhiates is of Greek heritage. Zodhiates, however, did not work as a bible translator. He did produce some valuable bible reference works.
George Gangas translated mainly from Greek to English, but what few know outside of Bethel, is that he also translated between Greek, English and Spanish when needed.
Fred Franz' knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was superior to Gangas' knowledge of bible languages. Those who teach bible languages do not generally "speak" either Hebrew and Greek. And it is not expected of bible translators to "speak" the language. They are expected to "read" the Hebrew and Greek text , and with the aid of linguistic aids commit to translation. No bible translator works so casually as to do translation work without linguistic helps. Interestingly, those going around criticizing the NWT, as does "cult experts" Walter Martin, Robert Bowman, Ron Rhodes, who did obtain some credentials, do not "speak" a ny Greek. Even most "experts" with Ph.D's we usually quote, don't "speak" Greek either. But I believe most of these individuals are able to get a good grasp of the Greek by applying themselves to it.
The WT started the practice of anonimity many years before the 1st portion of the NWT was published in 1950. But since 1942, it has been the general rule of not using names of their writers in their WT publications. If Ray Franz is correct about the translators, none of them had a Ph. D, or even a Master´s degree under their belt. Yes, it would be embarrasing before the world to publish a translation without the "necessary" credentials. Notwithstanding, lacking credentials does not necessarily equate with zero knowledge.
Ray Franz was no close buddy of Fred, his uncle. Some say, there was a marked rift between them. Even so, Ray admitted to me and to countless others over the years of his uncle's linguistic capabilities. I myself heard Fred speak in three languages fluently. Ray spent nearly 20 years in the Caribbean, and came to dominate the Spanish language. Ray said that Fred learned Spanish on his own, and not once, he said, did he commit one single errror in all those years he heard Fred speaking Spanish, either in private conversations or public appearances. He did the same with Portuguese, which he spoke fluently.
Now, if he was able to dominate those languages the way he did, why would someone here in this website doubt that he was not able to dominate the bible languages? Remember, there are a number of scholars who admit that the NWT translation committee was up to the task.
I am aware that the number of scholars who praise the NWT are small compared to the number criticizing it. That is to be expected, though, for the simple reason, that the NWT does not support mainstream religion. The theology of the majority will win in such comparisons. Always!
-
48
No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003
by dgp ini copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .
it is not necessary for bible translators to know.
by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.
-
-
Wonderment
dgp:
Excuse me, but I don't understand your question. Is the "individual consulting G & H originals" a reference to the NWT Committee?
-
117
Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?
by JCISGOD98 ini asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
-
-
Wonderment
VanderHoven7: "it is clear that Jesus accepted the title God (Ho Theos) as part of worship of himself (John 20:28)"
No, it is not that clear. In the same chapter Jesus speaks of ‘his God’ and ‘the God of everyone else.’ (20:17) Just 3 verses later, John sums up the correct message for all: "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God..."
Previously, he had stated the ‘he owes his existence to the Father’ (6:57), ‘the Father being greater than him’ (14:28) and that ‘the true worshippers will worship the Father [not the Son] with spirit and truth.’
John 20:28 has been controversial among leading scholars. Some see it as hebraistic idiom addressed to God in a moment full of emotional drama. We humans say, or hear others say all the time, Oh my God! when something dramatic happens, as when the Twin Towers came crashing down 9/11. Just about everyone was saying: Oh my God!
Thus for Thomas to experience Jesus' appearance after his death was no less dramatic. What do u expect him to say? "Oh, Son of God"? That is not what humans say under shock (though some in America say, "Jesus Christ!") But generally, in a shocking or dramatic situation it is not unusual to invoke "God" in such manner. And in hebraistic fashion, Thomas saying "the God of me and the Lord of me" would be the acceptable jewish statement to make without making Jesus identical with God. Remember, John cleared the matter by his main statement: "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." John could easily have said that Jesus is ho theos. We should not change this statement otherwise. I will stick with Jesus' statement that "true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth." And don't forget as previously posted, that Christ gave the creation credit to God, not himself.
-
117
Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?
by JCISGOD98 ini asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
-
-
Wonderment
GOrwell:
That is fine with me.
-
117
Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?
by JCISGOD98 ini asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
-
-
Wonderment
It should be noted that in Rev. 5:12 it says that the Lamb "is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing," but it does not mention proskyne'o as one of them. A similar statement is made in -v. 13- by every creature in heaven and earth in regards to the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb. Again it does not mention proskyne'o as one of them. It is in v. 14 that it says: "And the four living creatures went saying 'Amen!' and the elders fell down and worshipped."
So, it does not say directly that God and Christ both received worship. If you understand it in a way that both should receive it, that is fine. But v. 14 does not say that Christ received woship, at least not directly.
However we understand who is the object of proskyne'o (worship or obeisance) being done by by elders in v. 14, what is true is that Christ is portrayed as subordinate in the book of Revelation. In the very first verse, it makes a difference between God and Christ by saying that Christ received a "revelation" from God to pass on to "his slaves" the things that must take place. Does God ever need someone to give him a "revelation."? I don't think so! Verses 4 & 5 shows a distinction between "the One who is and who was" and Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness and the Firstborn from the dead. One can argue that God can be a Witness, but God dead? No! God does not die! Ch. 3:14 talks about Christ being "the beginning of the creation by God." Some oppose the translation "creation by God," but is there really that much difference between saying that Christ is the beginning of the creation of God, or by God? It does not matter! God is the creator, not Christ. Other scriptures show that Christ was the agent of creation of everything else. Christ attributed the creation to God. See previous post. Ch. 5 supplies a vision of the One sitting on the throne and the Lamb subordinately. Ch. 14 gives us another vision where Christ is NOT depicted as the Supreme Being. Ch. 19 again describes the Word as "of God," not God Supreme. And the last chapter of Rev. speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. If Jesus was identical to God almighty, why portray him always as subordinate. Never mind holy spirit!. It is not seen anywhere in the throne, or close to it.
Interestingly, Jesus himself applied the word proskyne'o when a slave who owed the king a lot of money asked for mercy, and rendered him worship or obeisance. (Mt. 18:23-35) Some in this forum would like to believe that proskyne'o is rendered only to God, hence, Christ is God. Well, Jesus himself shows us one way we should understand proskyne'o. And to me, Christ is a higher authority than some "scholars" claiming the contrary.
-
48
No need to know Hebrew and Greek for Bible Translation, according to the Watchtower's Branch Organization Manual revised 2003
by dgp ini copied this from page 153 of the branch organization manual, effective: december 15, 1977, revised: february 2003. .
it is not necessary for bible translators to know.
by using this file, such scriptures will be ren-.
-
-
Wonderment
dgp:
I must have touched a raw nerve. You even accuse me of "lying". Why does it bother you so much that some in this forum actually enjoy using the NWT among the many versions available?
Somehow, you are twisting my statements, or taking them out of context. Yes, it is clear to both of us, I think, that other editions of the NWT into other languages were done from the English one. Notice, though, the WTS never said that the other NWT editions were done from the original languages, only the original English version. I never claimed either that they were. Ever! What they say is that the other multi-language editions were done from the English translation, but consulting the Hebrew and the Greek originals. To what extent they consulted the originals in those other versions, we will probably never know.
That said, my experience as a NWT user, shows that what the WTS have claimed is what I found to be true. Mind you, I don't want to sound like I am a WT supporter. I am not. I have been victimized enough to know the pain and foolishness of following men who claim to have a special divine knowledge. The WTS claims that the NWT English version was done directly from the originals. My experience with the English NWT supports that claim. The WTS also claims that the other multi-language editions of the NWT were based on the NWT English base, but faithfully consulting the original languages. Again, my experience with these other verisons supports that claim.
I repeat what I stated for the benefit of others following this thread: I said that "in many cases,"in some cases," "when that is the case" the translation team chose to follow the Hebrew or Greek original instead of the English base. I have no doubt about that.
I mentioned John 8:58, where the French (add the Italian version) teams in some editions did not translate "I have been" literally, but went with their own rendering, "I was." I also mentioned that the modern Greek team chose to render that same expression as "I exist." That team did not go with "I have been," "I was," or, even with the modern Greek equivalent "I am" (Modern Greek: ego' eimai). By the way, modern Greek have equivalents for those renderings. But these teams surely knew the equivalents of the original English edition, but they chose other. Why? Would you look into this? And in Genesis 31:38, the modern Greek translation team translated the words of Jacob to Laban saying: "These twenty years of mine I was with you." The LXX here has: ego' eimi (I am). And the Hebrew here reads: "I with you" ('anokhi 'immak). And the English NWT? "I have been." Other versions do the same. Now, why are NWT teams showing this flexibility if they don't know what they are doing? Or, if they could not read the originals? Somehow, the translation teams have some individuals who know what they are doing, and apparently there is a team of translators who bridge differences between the English, the originals, and the target languages.
Take the Spanish edition, itself a translation from the English version. That team had knowledge of language peculiarities. Whenever singular anarthrous (without the article, the) predicate nominatives precede the verb, the English NWT usually uses the indefinite article (a) to complete the thought. For instance, at John 4:19 the Samaritan woman says to Jesus according to the English NWT: "I perceive you are a prophet." The Spanish version reads literally: "I perceive you are prophet," with no indefinite article. [...percibo que eres profeta]. The same is done at John 6:70 and 10:1, where they show "calumniador" and "ladrón y saqueador" with no indefinite article. Of course, Spanish has the indefinite article just as English does. Why, then, did the NWT teams chose to render many of these anarthrous nouns with no indefinite article when the English NWT does? Simply because Spanish does not require it to sound natural, as English does. And that is sometimes true of French and Italian languages as well.
At John 10:36, the NWT cleverly chose to render the literal Greek expression, "Son of the God I am" as "I am God's Son." This rendering shows sensitivity to the original, since in English is not so easy to transmit the Greek sense correctly. Now, observe how the NWT Spanish edition renders it: "...Soy Hijo de Dios? [Lit. ...I am Son of God?]." A careful look at this Greek expression shows it is easier to transmit the correct thought in Spanish than it is in English. Many English versions render this incorrectly: "I am the Son of God." However, a few, such as NIV render it correctly. There is no Greek article (the) before "Son" in the original.
Thus, at least to me, it is obvious that the NWT English edition was carefully done by competent translators. Other NWT versions of recipient languages also had some within their translation teams who knew what they were doing, contrary to the belief that some hold here, that they had zero knowledge. The Branch Organizational directive is clear they want to have uniformity across their many multi-language editions, thus, the statement about foreign translators not required to know the original languages. But it does not mean there is no competent communication between those teams and the WT writing staff and translation directors.
-
117
Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?
by JCISGOD98 ini asked a jw last week the following question, "is revelation 5:11-14 a worship act to the lamb or an act of obeisance?.
revelation 5:11-14 nwt states and i saw, and i heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: the lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.
because it's an act of worship and it is not allow in your kingdom hall.
-
-
Wonderment
A poster here sustains that Jesus must be God because "worship" is addressed to him. Hello! Worship is a translation from the Greek, and the Greek word meaning is more broad than our understanding of the English term worship. It could range from bowing down in respect before a human, to full reverence, worship to God. Thus, Jesus rightfully could be the object of proskyneo , as well as God the Father. Hence, the sense of proskyneo itself does not prove that the object receiving it must be the Supreme God. Many folk s have a problem understanding this most basic meaning. The context ultimately is the determining factor for the right exegesis.
Another word that is equally misunderstood is the original word(s) for "God." Some here erroneously conclude that God can only be spoken of the Supreme God. But that is not the case. The term God, of itself, does not signal whether a god is true of false. There is a "family" of heavenly beings, called "gods" in the bible. Most of the members of this family are not false gods, they are "gods," that is, powerful divine beings who reflect God Almighty in "godness." There are also false or evil gods, such as Baal and Satan. Those who restrict the meaning of the original words of God to just one entity do so perhaps under a trinitarian premise. I argue that trinitarianism is in itself in conflict with Jewish monotheism.