Posts by NCC-1701

13

Going to Vancouver soon, What places should I visit?

by Quarterback in

i always wanted to visit the west part of this great continent.

if you are familiar with this city, what part should i avoid, and waht are good places to eat and visit?.

NCC-1701

Another note for Quarterback.

I should have given you more clarification. The Sea to Sky Highway is the road to Whistler. The rapid transit I mentioned is called the Sky Train.

NCC-1701

13

Going to Vancouver soon, What places should I visit?

by Quarterback in

i always wanted to visit the west part of this great continent.

if you are familiar with this city, what part should i avoid, and waht are good places to eat and visit?.

NCC-1701

Quarterback wrote;

NCC, is that Sky highway some type of transit system?

No it's not. It's a much improved road that was upgraded for the Olympics we had a few years ago.

Other sites to see.

The Capilano Suspension Bridge and sky walk (they built little suspension bridges between trees that you can walk along. A little pricy, though)

Granville Island - Market and shops

English Bay has a beach and is a good spot to relax.

Lois is right, there are some really great restaurants downtown. If you're not staying in the downtown area, there is some rapid transit that will take you there.

13

Going to Vancouver soon, What places should I visit?

by Quarterback in

i always wanted to visit the west part of this great continent.

if you are familiar with this city, what part should i avoid, and waht are good places to eat and visit?.

NCC-1701

Hike up Grouse Mountain

Walk along the sea wall at Stanley Park

There's a new "Soaring ovenr California" type attraction at Canada Place called something like"Flying over Canada"

Hang out at Jericho Beach

It's about a 2 hour drive to Whistler up the scenic Sea to Sky highway

Rent bicycles and pedal the sea wall around False Creek

Hope you have a wonderful and safe time here.

NCC-1701

11

Looking for feedback on this approach

by NCC-1701 in

here's something i've brought up into conversation with a couple of witnessess and i was curious about what other thought.. let's say a witness goes into a coffee shop and sits between an athiest and a christian.. the witness starts a conversation with the athiest about the bible.

the athiest poses the question about the reliability of the bible.

the witness explains that the bible is completely trustworthy because of it's historical accuracy, meticulous transmission, etc.. the athiest says that's interesting and thanks him for the information.. the witness then turns to the christian and begins the same conversation he had with the athiest.

NCC-1701

Leaving quietly wrote

"I thought there was documented evidence of at least 134 changes made by the Sopherim."

I have read about that in the NWT reference bible and have looked at some other references about it. It's been a while so I should look into it again.

In my scenario, I probably should have said there's no documented trail of changes in the New Testament.

Thanks.

11

Looking for feedback on this approach

by NCC-1701 in

here's something i've brought up into conversation with a couple of witnessess and i was curious about what other thought.. let's say a witness goes into a coffee shop and sits between an athiest and a christian.. the witness starts a conversation with the athiest about the bible.

the athiest poses the question about the reliability of the bible.

the witness explains that the bible is completely trustworthy because of it's historical accuracy, meticulous transmission, etc.. the athiest says that's interesting and thanks him for the information.. the witness then turns to the christian and begins the same conversation he had with the athiest.

NCC-1701

Here's something I've brought up into conversation with a couple of Witnessess and I was curious about what other thought.

Let's say a Witness goes into a coffee shop and sits between an Athiest and a Christian.

The Witness starts a conversation with the athiest about the Bible. The athiest poses the question about the reliability of the Bible. The Witness explains that the Bible is completely trustworthy because of it's historical accuracy, meticulous transmission, etc.

The athiest says that's interesting and thanks him for the information.

The Witness then turns to the Christian and begins the same conversation he had with the athiest. The Christian explains that he shares his view of the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. Later, the Witness shares a scripture from the New Testament that has the name Jehovah in it. The Christian says that's an interesting translation and that none of the existing Greek manuscripts that we have today contain the Divine Name. The Christian then asks the Witness why the Name should be translated from the Greek Kurious. The Witness then says that he believes that the Name was written in the original Christian Greek Scriptures but that copyists, over a period of a couple of hundred years, replaced the Name with Kurious. He believes this was an attempt by the churches to hide the Divine Name. The Christian then asks if he knows of any documented evidence to support this supposed change in the manuscirpts. The Witness says (and I have heard it from one) that currently there is no documented evidence, but we are confident that some time in the future, it will be found.

Meanwhile, the athiest, who has been listening in on the converstation, says to the Witness, "Hold on, didn't you just tell me that the Bible is completely accurate and reliable. How then can you now say that changes have been made and still maintain that the Bible we have today is accurate?"

The Christian then asks, "If something as important as God's name has been removed from original the Greek scriptures and you don't have a trail of evidence to that effect, then what else may have been changed in the Bible that you don't know about? Is it then possible that all the written accounts of the resurrection of Jesus have been altered?"

It seems to me that the Witnesses want it both ways. I don't know how you argue for absolute trustworthiness of the Bible while at the same time holding that it has been altered. When I used this with a Witness, he at least a little bit, conceded that I had a point.

I was wondering if any one else had tried this and if it had any validity.

Thanks. You've been a "great crowd"

10

Truth in Translation and Phillip Harner's JBL article

by NCC-1701 in

if this topic has appeared in the forum before, please accept my apologies.. just wanted to share what i wrote about jason beduhn's handling of phillip harner's article in the journal of biblical literature (1973) in the book, "truth in translation" for those who may have their own copy of it.. it's a bit lenghthy, but i wanted to record as much of harner's thoughts as possible to understand his position.

i hope it is helpful to someone.. .

a friend recently offered his copy of jason david beduhn's "truth in translation" for me to read.

NCC-1701

Leolaia - You're way ahead of me. Thank you for the additional information.

Bobcat - I hope you found it helpful.

10

Truth in Translation and Phillip Harner's JBL article

by NCC-1701 in

if this topic has appeared in the forum before, please accept my apologies.. just wanted to share what i wrote about jason beduhn's handling of phillip harner's article in the journal of biblical literature (1973) in the book, "truth in translation" for those who may have their own copy of it.. it's a bit lenghthy, but i wanted to record as much of harner's thoughts as possible to understand his position.

i hope it is helpful to someone.. .

a friend recently offered his copy of jason david beduhn's "truth in translation" for me to read.

NCC-1701

Hey again Hortensia.

Thanks for the note.

10

Truth in Translation and Phillip Harner's JBL article

by NCC-1701 in

if this topic has appeared in the forum before, please accept my apologies.. just wanted to share what i wrote about jason beduhn's handling of phillip harner's article in the journal of biblical literature (1973) in the book, "truth in translation" for those who may have their own copy of it.. it's a bit lenghthy, but i wanted to record as much of harner's thoughts as possible to understand his position.

i hope it is helpful to someone.. .

a friend recently offered his copy of jason david beduhn's "truth in translation" for me to read.

NCC-1701

Hey Hortensia

It was orginally written for a friend who thought that since he couldn't find any critical reviews of "T in T", BeDuhn's translation of certain key texts must be solid. I wanted him to look a little more closely at what was written.

I just posted it for anyone who may be interested translation issues.

10

Truth in Translation and Phillip Harner's JBL article

by NCC-1701 in

if this topic has appeared in the forum before, please accept my apologies.. just wanted to share what i wrote about jason beduhn's handling of phillip harner's article in the journal of biblical literature (1973) in the book, "truth in translation" for those who may have their own copy of it.. it's a bit lenghthy, but i wanted to record as much of harner's thoughts as possible to understand his position.

i hope it is helpful to someone.. .

a friend recently offered his copy of jason david beduhn's "truth in translation" for me to read.

NCC-1701

Hi all. If this topic has appeared in the forum before, please accept my apologies.

Just wanted to share what I wrote about Jason BeDuhn's handling of Phillip Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1973) in the book, "Truth in Translation" for those who may have their own copy of it.

It's a bit lenghthy, but I wanted to record as much of Harner's thoughts as possible to understand his position. I hope it is helpful to someone.

A friend recently offered his copy of Jason David BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation" for me to read.

What follows is my observations of a portion of BeDuhn's treatment of Phillip Harner's artictle, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" which appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1973.

On page 123 of "T in T", BeDuhn records, "Harner points out that if John had wanted to say 'The Word was God,' he could have written ho logos en ho theos. But he didn't. If he wanted to say 'The Word was a god,' he could have written ho logos en theos. But he didn't. Instead John took the anarthrous predicate noun and placed it before the verb, which to Harner suggests that John was not interested in definiteness or indefiniteness, but in character and quality."

On the next page, BeDuhn quotes Harner as writing, "There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite," and "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite." (Harner 1973, pages 85 and 87).

Let's see how Phillip Harner uses these thoughts and statements in his JBL article.

On page 84, Harner lists five ways that John could have written the final clause of John 1:1. He writes, "In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following (transliterated):

A ho logos en ho theos

B theos en ho logos

C ho logos theos en

D ho logos en theos

E ho logos en theios

On page 85 of JBL, Harner gives his explanation as to why John did not write, ho logos en ho theos. He writes, "Clause A, with an anarthrous predicate , would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that ho logos en pros ton theon. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of 'personal' differentiation, between the two."

Next, he explains why he believes why John did not write, ho logos en theos. He says, "Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean the the logos was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos."

Harner then continues to explain why John did not write Clauses D and E by saying, "Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was 'divine,' without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos."

Immediately after this, he says, "John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E. Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos." Then he writes the first sentence that BeDuhn quoted above, "There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." Harner concludes that thought by next saying, "This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1."

"As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean the the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos has the same nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis."

Turning back to BeDuhnn's book, on page 124 of "T in T", he writes, "Harner rejects outright the renderings 'the Word was God' (KJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, NIV) and 'he was the same as God' (TEV) as inaccurate translations of John 1:1c (Harner, page 87)"

Harner has the following to say about the above renderings.

On page 87 of JBL, he writes, "These examples illustrate the difficulty of translating the clause accurately into English. The RSV and The Jerusalem Bible translate, 'the Word was God.' The New English Bible has, 'what God, was the Word was.' Good News for Modern Man has, 'he was the same as God.' The problem with all these translations is that they could represent clause A, in our analysis above, as well as B. This does not mean, of course, that the translators were not aware of the issues involved, nor does it necessarily mean that they regarded the anarthrous theos as definite because it precedes the verb. But in all these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.'"

It doesn't appear as though Harner "rejects outright" the renderings, "the Word was God." And, "he was the same God" as BeDuhn believes he does.

Further down page 124, BeDuhn then writes, "So if the meaning of 'the Word was a god,' or 'the Word was a divine being' is that the Word belongs to the category of divine beings, then we could translate the phrase as 'the Word was divine.' The meaning is the same in either case, and is summed up well by Harner as 'ho logos...had the nature of theos' (Harner, page 87)."

It is informative to see the entire sentence from which BeDuhn quotes above. It comes immediately after Harner had written, "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' He then says, "This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos."

By quoting only part of the sentence, BeDuhn seems to misrepresent what Harner was actually saying about the nature of the logos.

Also on page 124 of "T in T", BeDuhn says, "He (Harner) gives qualified approval to the translation 'the Word was divine,' at the same time offering other suggestions."

The other suggestions that Harner gives are recorded above from page 87 of the JBL article. The qualification that Harner gives begins on page 85 where he quotes Bruce Vawter from his book, "The gospel according to John" (JBC;Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1968) pg 422.

He writes, "Bruce Vawter explains the meaning of the clause succinctly and lucidly: 'The Word is divine, but he is not all of divinity, for he has already been distinguished from another divine Person.' But in terms of our analysis it is important that we understand the phrase 'the Word was divine' as an attempt to represent the meaning of clause B rather than D or E. Undoubtedly Vawter means that the Word is 'divine' in the same sense that ho theos is divine. But the English language is not as versatile at this point as Greek, and we can avoid misunderstanding the English phrase only if we are aware of the particular force of the Greek expression that it represents."

Harner also writes in footnote #24 on page 84 in reference to clause E (ho logos en theios) that "The word theios appears only a few times in the NT: Acts 17:27 (v. 1.), 29; Tit 1:9 (v. 1.); 2 Pet 1:3, 4. It is not used in the Fourth Gospel. But presumably John could have used it, or some other word meaning 'divine,' if he had wished to do so."

The last statement of BeDuhn's that I wish to address is also from page 124 of "T in T". He writes, "What Harner calls the 'qualitative' function of Greek predicate nouns , and what I call the Greek 'expression of class' amounts basically to the same thing."

On page 87 of JBL, Harner does say, "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite." But he immediately adds, "In interpreting clauses of this type it is important to recall that Greek writers also had other types of word-order available. If a writer simply wished to represent the subject as one of a class, he could use an anarthrous predicate noun after the verb. If he wished to emphasize that the predicate noun was definite, he could supply the article. The availability of these other types of word-order strengthens the view that in many instances we may look primarily for a qualitative emphasis in anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb."

It would seem that Harner does not regard the final clause of John 1:1, theos en ho logos, a clause that uses an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb interpreted as being qualitative and distinguished from being either definite or indefinite, as representing the subject as being "one of a class" as does BeDuhn.

17

Vancouver, BC. Canada (bound volumes from 1940-2000) approximately - to Give Away!!

by RAYZORBLADE in

i am acting as an in-between for a good friend who is not part of this site.

his family were a century involved in the wtbts in the lower bc mainland; not to mention nw washington state.. he is no longer a member of the jw's.

we're great friends; i knew him 25 years ago, long before i discovered this site (love it simon: yes, still all those years later).. anyways, he wants to get rid of bound volumes from approximately from the years: 1940 - until - 2000.. he asked me to intervene.

NCC-1701

Follow up. I'll try to keep it brief

I arrived at the location where the volumes were kept. I was met at the door by a real nice guy and he had the books in boxes stacked just inside the door. There was a stack of 4 boxes, which I thought was a little low for the amount of volumes that I thought were availabe. But, they were giving them away for free, so I didn't worry too much about it. I loaded them in the car and drove home.

I began to unload the 4 boxes. I opened up the last box and couldn't believe what I was seeing, In there were 6 bound volumes of Watchtowers from 1879 - 1919 with a 5 year gap between 1900 and 1905 I think.

I noticed that I had a phone message. It was from the person who Rayzorblade was in contact with. He apologized that I wasn't given all the volumes and offered to deliver them to me. I called him back and mentioned that there was a box of really old volumes included. He said that they were handed to me by mistake as he had wanted to keep them. I returned them and picked up the rest of the other volumes.

I actually had the original Watchtowers in my hand, in my house but had to return them. It was a bitter-sweet day.

But, I received all the bound Watchtowers and Awakes from 1954 - 1999 which is an incredible resource. Plus, they came with a number of indexes.

So, a big thank you to Rayzorblade and his friend.

NCC-1701