Posts by Wonderment

39

The New Testament in Plain English and John 1:1

by Wonderment in

.

the new testament in plain english (published, 2003) translates john 1:1c as: "the word was god.

" however, a footnote on this verse says: "or, deity, divine (which is actually a better translation, because the greek definite article is not present before this greek word).

Wonderment

erbie said:

We know that the Hebrew Scriptures make it clear that Jehovah, or YHWH, is the only true God. Indeed, he says 'other than me there are none'.

Absolutely right!

If there is only one true God, and all others are false, then the Watchtower is saying that Jesus is a false god.

A Commentary on the Gospel of John, by Ernst Haenchen says:

John 1:1: “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Logos” - “In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that [theós] and [ho theós] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same in this period. Philo has therefore written: the [lógos] means only [theós] (‘divine’) and not [ho theós] (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. Philo was not thinking of giving up Jewish monotheism. In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn, as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ho theós; cf 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). […] It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ, and before whom every knee will one day bow. But it should be noted that the Son will eventually return all authority to the Father (1 Cor 15:28), so that his glory may be complete. Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities...” […] [theós] is not the same thing as [ho theós] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’). […] When Bultmann objects that one should then expect theios (‘divine’) instead of [theós] (‘god’) he overlooks the fact that theios says less than what is here affirmed of the Logos and would either make use of a literary Greek entirely foreign to the Gospel of John, or express a different meaning. (Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John [Das Johannese vangelium. Ein Kommentar] . John 1, translated by Robert W. Funk, pp. 108-111.)

39

The New Testament in Plain English and John 1:1

by Wonderment in

.

the new testament in plain english (published, 2003) translates john 1:1c as: "the word was god.

" however, a footnote on this verse says: "or, deity, divine (which is actually a better translation, because the greek definite article is not present before this greek word).

Wonderment

The New Testament in Plain English (published, 2003) translates John 1:1c as: "the Word was God." However, a footnote on this verse says: "or, Deity, Divine (which is actually a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)."

Thank you for all your comments on this post!

I would like to add a thought that came up to mind as I read their footnote on John 1:1c.

If as they say, "Deity, Divine, which is actally a better translation," why not use the "better" translation in the main text, and then choose to use a rendering which admittedly is not as good as the suggested one in the footnote? What? Is it more important to follow tradition than it is to convey the most appropiate reading? Is is more important to be "popular" and perhaps, sell more bibles when the translator prefers traditional renderings which admittedly are not as good as other alternative readings?

39

The New Testament in Plain English and John 1:1

by Wonderment in

.

the new testament in plain english (published, 2003) translates john 1:1c as: "the word was god.

" however, a footnote on this verse says: "or, deity, divine (which is actually a better translation, because the greek definite article is not present before this greek word).

Wonderment

The New Testament in Plain English (published, 2003) translates John 1:1c as: "the Word was God." However, a footnote on this verse says: "or, Deity, Divine (which is actually a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)."

I would like to know what you all think of this comment.

12

"never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him" - 2 John 10

by irondork in

it's us who should be shunning them!.

2 john is talking about the anti-christ.

he describes it:.

Wonderment

Back then, there were some traveling individuals with an opposite religious agenda going from place to place trying to dissuade Christians from the basic teachings taught by Christ and his followers. They would take advantage of the cultural hospitality common in those days, and stay over in people's homes to spread their unhealthful teaching. Hence the warning.

Of course, the WTS applies the warning at 2 John 10 of heretical doctrines to anyone elses teaching, but theirs. But the counsel should be applied to ANYONE who goes around teaching doctrines opposite of what Christ and his disciples taught. The problem is that no one agrees on what true Christian doctrine really is. People would say that that would be as simple as accepting what Christ taught, but even here, not everyone agrees, and there are as many interpretations as there are different subjects related to Christian doctrine. Heck, we cannot even agree on which bible translations, with their different interpretations, are most appropiate for us in our day.

2

There is no ONE Right Answer

by AllTimeJeff in

jw
friends

one thing that has irritated me is the idea that it is "one way or the highway.

" on pretty much anything.. it's one thing to have your own view on things.

i do politically, religiously, sports, etc.

Wonderment

I like your post!

25

"The Scholastic Dishonesty of The WATCHTOWER" as a pdf?

by VM44 in

does anyone know if "the scholastic dishonesty of the watchtower", published by caris, has been made into a pdf?.

there has been so much excellent material posted here as pdf files, but i forgotten if the above has been posted.. if it has been made available, is a currently active link for it that works?.

Wonderment

I have read a lot of material which alledgedly shows WT dishonesty everywhere. Before, when I started reading them, I tended to believe most everything. When I started comparing both sides of the matter, I came to the conclusion that BOTH sides have erred on many issues, and both camps are right with some of their statements. There is no such thing as, the WT is wrong 99% of the times and these critics are right 99% of the times. It is not that simple.

There is evidence that the WT has twisted, misinformed more than a generation of readers. It is sad to see Witnesses who take WT material as if it was written by God's hand. My daughter is one, a loyal Witness herself, who chastised me for sending her money around birthdate time, for wishing her a Happy Birthday. She called me back to tell me she felt uncomfortable with that. I must stop, because when I quoted the Bible, she told me she reads the Bible and she knows her position is right. BTW, she kept the money.

On the other hand, we have tons of people believing these WT critics without question as if they spoke truth all the way. Not true! They too have a problem with facts. They are masters at twisting things, and hiding material relevant to the subject. I have found, at least on the subject of bible translation, the WT to be more accurate than their critics. On other subjects, such as their history, the Society is less accurate. On quoting other references, they omit quite a bit of pertinent material, and they use such material to prove or indicate their current argument without disclosing the authors intended meaning.

The WT critics too give you a one sided view of things as well. The link provided in this thread is indicative of that. The WT critics often place inmense weight on university accreditation when it suits them, even though the material they passionately defend can be understood and rightfully explained differently by other scholars, as is often the case. The Mantey example shows their mishandling of the matter. They keep saying that Mantey, who was a brilliant scholar, proves the WT scholarly dishonesty clearly. But does it? Not nearly in the way the critics paint it.

Most objections of Mantey are doctrinally motivated, not grammar. Have you noticed that? Here we have one of the biggest names of Greek scholarship in the past 100 years, and he dwells on material that is really theologically arguable. And even when he addresses the grammar, he does not acknowledge that his view does not represent all scholars, and a good number of equally trained scholars disagreee with him with some of the very same isssues he brought up. He won't say that of course, because some of these evangelical scholars want to imply that just about everything they teach agrees with the Bible, just as much as the WTS wants all their followers to think that Jehovah is guiding the faithful and discreet slave.

They are both wrong, but if I had to choose who is more honest among the two camps, I think the WT is more accurate, more often, than are some of their critics. Compare for instance, the book Reasoning from the Scriptures from the WTS with similar material printed by countercult movements, and you will find slanted material everywhere, more so with the countercult movement material

26

Compilation of the bible and the NWT translation source.

by trailerfitter in

hi,, i have a curious question about when the bible was actually compiled.

from what i understand it was actually compiled under emperor constantines request in the 4th century ad.

this was the nicene creed.. i also am aware that there quite a few books that were considered for inclusion but weren't.

Wonderment

Mantey wrote: "But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse [John 1:1] as Jehovah's Witnesses have."

There are numerous lists on the Web showing a number of scholars who translate John 1:1 in a way that Mantey would not approve. Yet, he picks on the NWT. Why is he is silent about those other scholars who go against the grain, he even pretends they don't exist. Not very accurate in anyones book.

Mantey: But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and the nature is the highest in existence, namely divine.

In other words, although he states‘ that (the Word was God, i.e., was of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator), he seems to be arguing against describing the Word as "the God," indicating that John believed that the Word and the God are distinct and having separate personalities.’

This argument nulls to some extent the common argument made by many Trinitarians that Christ and God are being identified as one and the same. He goes on to cite some scriptures where quality is emphasized, and identity not the issue. (John 4:24, "God is spirit," (not a spirit); I John 4:16, "God is love," (not a love); I John 1:5, "God is light," (not a light); and Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels,") Yes, God is (a) spirit, or God is (a) light, but not God is the light. Mantey talks about Christ having "equality" with the Father, he, however, holds back from calling Christ, the Supreme God.

Notice this statement of his: But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father," that would be enough to satisfy the seeking soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature.

Yet, he does not translate John 1:1, "the word was God," but "the word was deity [divine]."

41

"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)

by Wonderment in

does anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.

Wonderment

possible-san: I thank you for bringing this to my attention. After I checked the Index and saw Eph 5:33 quoted twice I missed the Imperative section on p. 485 which was being discussed. My apology to you and to the other readers. Rest be assured, it was not a purposely deceitful citation. It was plain human error. I focused at the Imperatival hina section he wrote about on p. 477. At the time, I also was checking other reference works when the mix-up ocurred. I feel there is nothing to gain by being dishonest. I hope this goes both ways. I stand corrected.

Other grammarians, though, do mention the effect of the Imperatival hina at Eph. 5:33 For instance, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by C.F.D. Moule (Cambridge) had this to say:

"An interesting extension of the final hina is the well-known idiom whereby it becomes practically imperative in sense. [...] ii. He [Cadoux] refers to four widely recognized N.T. instances: Mark v:23...; II Cor. viii. 7...; Eph. v. 33 [he de gune hina phobetai...]; and let the wire revere...; Gal. ii. 10... [...] There are some indications that it would be better in some cases to describe the hina as ‘denoting content’ rather than as imperatival [...] But it is clear enough that in many cases the hina is virtually imperatival." (pp. 144-45)

Compare The International Standard Version which you quoted earlier which translated Gal 2:10, thus: "The only thing they asked us to do was to remember the destitute, the very thing I was eager to do." (Greek: only of the poor ones in order that we may remember...hina mnemoneuomen)

A.T. Robertson writes under Eph 5:33: "Let the wife see that she fear (he gune hina phobetai). There is no verb in the Greek for "let see" (blepeto). For this use of hina with the subjunctive as a practical imperative without a principal verb (an elliptical imperative) see Mark 5:23; Matt. 20:32; I Cor. 7:29; II Cor. 8:7; Eph. 5:33..." (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol IV, p. 547)

41

"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)

by Wonderment in

does anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.

Wonderment

possible-san: Sorry, I don't take any stock in Dr. Joseph Murphy's explanation as you quoted him.

On the subject of the Greek expression hina phobetai at Eph 5:33 , Dr. Daniel B. Wallace wrote under, "Specific Uses, In Dependent (Subordinate) Clauses [...] b. Hina + the Subjunctive [...] 7) ImperativalHina...Eph 5:33... The parallel with the imperative agapáto in the first half of the verse shows the independent force of the hina clause." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 477)

On page 486 he adds: "A number of passages could be easily misunderstood as mere permission in most English translations [...] The Greek is stronger than a mere option, engaging the volition and placing a requirement on the individual:...Eph 5:33..."

41

"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)

by Wonderment in

does anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?.

Wonderment

possible-san said: First of all, in this thread, you would want to say that we should not apply that trashy advice (Eph 5:33), won't you? You said, "Does anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?"

You are actually saying something I never stated. I merely posted the question above in this thread because I was really curious to see how many on this board interpret the passage today. And I got the answer. A good number of posters think it does not apply today, and some others have stated that it still applies, others stated that it applies conditionally, only if a man is deserving of respect.

I believe the counsel still applies, but unfortunately, many men today abuse their position of headship, making it challenging for many women to love and respect their men.