Serious Research?

[tigger2]

Hoghead1 wrote in post 148 of What is a soul?

FYI: [A] I've done some serious research on the NWT, which is precisely why I say it is bogus. For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were. [C]More importantly, the text, key points, has been unduly corrupted to suit the biases of teh WatchTower Society. For example, in the prologue to JN. the indefinite article "a" is inserted, so that the text is mistranslated as "and the Word was a God." The rules of Greek grammar rule out the use of teh indefinite article here, which is why it is absent in the solid, standard translations. The reason why the WatchTower Society want the "a" in there is that this will support their anti-Trinitarian bias. [D]Also, in passages that speak of Hell and torment, the NWT reads "annihilation." That was done to bludgeon Scripture to fit their bias about the afterlife. It is one thing to disagree with Scripture. I respect that. it is quite another to corrupt the translation so that it agree with your position. [E]Also, "Jehovah" is a serious mistranslation. And that is Hebrew 101 material. So I feel I have very good reason to write off the NWT as bogus and corrupt.

I intend to discuss the individual parts (A-E) of the above.

Ill save part A for last.

B. You wrote:

For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh [sic] Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were.

For the first 30 years at least, the publishers of the NASB kept their translators anonymous:

The Fourfold Aim of The Lockman Foundation
1.These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable to the masses.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; no work will ever be personalized. - page v., NASB, Ref. Ed., Lockman Foundation, 1971.

For many years the names of the NASB translators and editors were withheld by the publisher. But in 1995 this information was finally disclosed. - http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html

Bible translations of the OT and NT texts should be judged according to their accuracy - not the person(s) who did the translation.

[tigger2]

Hoghead wrote (post #50):

The basic of rule of thumb in Greek is that you cannot use an indefinite article with a predicate nominative. Hence, the correct translation is "was God." This is just Greek 101 material. So I would suggest you do some more research on NT Greek.

............
More serious research by you?

How about explaining these translations of predicate nouns in John?:

1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all trinitarian translations I checked.

2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all

3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all

4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer") - all

5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all

6. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all

7. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all

8. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all

9. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all

10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all

11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text

12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (a liar) - all

13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (a beggar) - all

14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (a prophet) - all

15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (a sinner) - all

16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (a hireling/hired hand) - all

17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (a thief) - all

Where did your "serious research" find the 'basic' Greek 101 rule you claim?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 53 by tigger2]

Where did I find this rule? In my graduate work in seminary. I was good with languages and initially though of doing my dissertation in biblical studies, but then switched to theology. To simplify, you have to understand that Greek has no indefinite article. So, in cases of predicative nominatives, the indefinite article is never used, unless the context clearly indicates it should be. In Jn. 1, there is no context that indicates we should use it. Hence, it should be omitted. In other cases, such as ones you indicated, where the context clearly calls for it, then go ahead. This latter is especially true in many cases where omitting it in English simply makes the sentence sound very awkward. But again, there is nothing in Jn. 1 to indicate it should be used. Therefore, "a God" is an illegitimate translation.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 56 by JehovahsWitness]

You did not pay attention to what I said. I said no existent copies of the NT have been found with the tetragrammaton.

[tigger2]

[Replying to hoghead1]

The basic of rule of thumb in Greek is that you cannot use an indefinite article with a predicate nominative. Hence, the correct translation is "was God." This is just Greek 101 material. So I would suggest you do some more research on NT Greek.

Of course there is no indefinite article in NT Greek (Greek 101). When we find a non-count anarthrous nominative noun, it normally has the indefinite article supplied in English. I have shown you all the anarthrous predicate count nouns which come before the verb in the Gospel of John. I have used those which are like John 1:1c by excepting those elements which cause article irregularity.

They ALL are translated with the indefinite article in English.

But John 4:19, for example could easily have been understood to be the Prophet in context since John 1:21 shows people were expecting the Prophet to arrive around this time. But all Bibles translate John 4:19 as "a prophet" simply because the predicate noun is anarthrous!

Your "rule" is false in spite of any graduate work in seminary (or perhaps because of it.).

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 72 by tigger2]

OH, so now you think that because individuals go to seminary, they don't know Greek? C'mon. If that is all the better job you can do of criticizing my opinion, you really must be down and desperate. As I already explained, there is no indefinite article in Greek. Therefore, it can be used only when the context justifies it. there is absolutely no such context in Jn. 1. Hence, "a God" is incorrect. If you don't want to agree with me, OK, fine. Try Bruce Metzger, one of the most influential NT scholars of teh 20th century. He clearly stated that translating Jn. as "the Word was a God" is completely false.

[JehovahsWitness]

You did not pay attention to what I said. I said no existent copies of the NT have been found with the tetragrammaton.

And did you not pay attention to what I posted dealing with that very point

- here in post #56 and ...

- here in post #24] and ...

- here in post #42] and ...

- here in post #44]

Perhaps you will feel inclined to give a detailed answer that shows the same regard for "serious study" (with references and links) that I did in counter argument to the above.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

As I already explained, there is no indefinite article in Greek. Therefore, it can be used only when the context justifies it. [...] Try Bruce Metzger, one of the most influential NT scholars of the 20th century. He clearly stated that translating Jn. as "the Word was a God" is completely false.

If I may be so bold as to interject.

You say that the insertion of an indefinite article may legitimately be done if the context permits it. This is true, however whether the context demands is to a degree a matter of opinion and opinions evidently differ in this regard. You refer to the conclusion of Professor Metzer, but it should be noted the article he wrote on the subject*, that one of the reasons he presents for the rejection of the indefinite article in John 1:1c is that it would essentially be theological unacceptable. This is rather like concluding that your husband could not have murdered someone because that would mean you had married a man that was capable of murder.

* The Jehovahs Witnesses and Jesus Christ:A Biblical and Theological Appraisal, Theology Today 10/1 (April 1953), pp. 65-85.

Apart from this theological argument Metzer seems to base his conclusion that the indefinite article should not be added in this instance, on what has come to be known as "Colwells rule". I am not a Greek scholar, but it seems evident from your posting, neither are you, so we will both have to turn to those that are, to comment on the above. The following quotations are therefore of interest:

"This is not to say that his [Colwell's] rule is invalid. Rather, it is to say that its validity is for TEXTUAL CRITICISM rather than for grammar. Textual criticism was Colwell's real love anyway (he is frequently regarded as the father of modern American NT textual criticism). The rule's validity for textual criticism is as follows: If it is obvious that a pre-verbal PN is definite, the MSS that lack the article are more likely to support the original reading. The issue of meaning is not in view; rather, the presence or absence of the article is." -- Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel B Wallace, page 260, ftn. 18 [emphasis mine]

"Colwell (1933:13) states, 'A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.' [...] The problem in applying the Colwell rule is to determine when the predicate nominative is definite. The rule itself does not establish the definiteness of a noun, an observation sometimes ignored when applying it to John 1:1. We have already mentioned that monadic and proper nouns are definite. The same applies to nouns qualified with a genitive. Colwell notes that proper names in the predicate regularly do not have the article. Other examples of the Colwell rule include Matthew 13:37 (cf. John 5:27), 27:42, John
1:49, and 19:21" (Intermediate NT Greek, p. 65)." - Intermediate NT Greek, p. 65

Thus it seems fair to say, the NWT rendition of John 1:1c is grammatically legitmate since Colwells rule does not itself determine the predicate nominative is definite. This is rather like saying a Greek woman will wear a ring on her left hand if she is married and on her right hand if she is single. This may be true, but the rule doesn't say how we determine if the woman is Greek.

CONCLUSION: While Professor Metzger was indeed a respected biblical scholar his opinion is not one universally agreed upon by everyone in the field. Numerous biblical scholars have chosen to translate John 1:1c in a similar way to the NWT, an evidently no grammatical rule has actually been disregarded in doing so.


Further reading
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/metzgercolwell.htm

[2timothy316]

This is a problematic change to the text since, in context, Paul was almost certainly using the term lord to refer to Jesus.

Paul wasn't speaking of Jesus in 1 Cor 10:9.
"Neither let us tempt the LORD, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents."

Paul was referring to the following:
Deu 6:16
You must not put Jehovah your God to the test the way you put him to the test at Massah."

Numbers 21:6
"So Jehovah sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they kept biting the people, so that many Israelites died."

There are a couple of hundred references like this. Would you like to see more?

There are some textual variations in the Greek for v9 - some do say Lord but the majority use the Greek word for Christ. Either way the context of 1 Corinthians 10 is clear Paul is refering to Jesus. Paul is saying Jehovah who accompanies his people through the wanderings in the desert is Christ see particularly verses 1-4.
v1-10 (NWT):
Now I want you to know, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud+ and all passed through the sea+ 2 and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food+ 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink.+ For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant* the Christ.+ 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, for they were struck down in the wilderness.+
6 Now these things became examples for us, in order for us not to desire injurious things, as they desired them.+ 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: The people sat down to eat and drink. Then they got up to have a good time.+ 8 Neither let us practice sexual immorality,* as some of them committed sexual immorality,* only to fall, 23,000 of them in one day.+ 9 Neither let us put Jehovah* to the test,+ as some of them put him to the test, only to perish by the serpents.+ 10 Neither be murmurers, as some of them murmured,+ only to perish by the destroyer.+ 11 Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us+ upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.

Another great tool with the NWT of the Bible are all those plus (+) signs you see next to a scripture. These are pointing to reference scriptures. Where you see 'rock meant the Christ' is speaking of Numbers 20:11. Paul was giving us insight into the meaning of the 'crag' that the Hebrews and their livestock drank from to keep them alive. In the same way, the Christ, like that crag keeps us spiritually alive. Saying that the rest of the scripture is referring to Jesus is not true. The reason we even know to look at the Hebrew scriptures to know what Paul was talking about is in verse 11. "Now these things happened to them as examples and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come." It is clear that Paul was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures. The only reference to the Christ is the crag, all the other references to the Lord or God are to Jehovah. Context is important in scripture but actually reading what it says is very important too. Like in this case Paul is telling us exactly what he is explaining. The Hebrew Scriptures didn't omit God's name in Paul's time and there is no reason that Paul would omit it when he was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to hoghead1]

The basic of rule of thumb in Greek is that you cannot use an indefinite article with a predicate nominative. Hence, the correct translation is "was God." This is just Greek 101 material. So I would suggest you do some more research on NT Greek.

Of course there is no indefinite article in NT Greek (Greek 101). When we find a non-count anarthrous nominative noun, it normally has the indefinite article supplied in English. I have shown you all the anarthrous predicate count nouns which come before the verb in the Gospel of John. I have used those which are like John 1:1c by excepting those elements which cause article irregularity.

They ALL are translated with the indefinite article in English.

But John 4:19, for example could easily have been understood to be the Prophet in context since John 1:21 shows people were expecting the Prophet to arrive around this time. But all Bibles translate John 4:19 as "a prophet" simply because the predicate noun is anarthrous!

Your "rule" is false in spite of any graduate work in seminary (or perhaps because of it.).

I love your excellent post! I have presented information myself about how John 1:1 has been translated by others, besides the NWT, and yet ones who disagree with you and me will not put forth effort to check the info out. Your reasoning totally correlates with Dr. Jason BeDuhn's superlative book, Truth in Translation; the rendering by Benjamin Wilson in the Emphatic Diaglott, and the translation by the Coptics of Egypt.... http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html


[/i]

[tigger2]

[Replying to hoghead1]

The basic of rule of thumb in Greek is that you cannot use an indefinite article with a predicate nominative. Hence, the correct translation is "was God." This is just Greek 101 material. So I would suggest you do some more research on NT Greek.

Of course there is no indefinite article in NT Greek (Greek 101). When we find a non-count anarthrous nominative noun, it normally has the indefinite article supplied in English. I have shown you all the anarthrous predicate count nouns which come before the verb in the Gospel of John. I have used those which are like John 1:1c by excepting those elements which cause article irregularity.

They ALL are translated with the indefinite article in English.

But John 4:19, for example could easily have been understood to be the Prophet in context since John 1:21 shows people were expecting the Prophet to arrive around this time. But all Bibles translate John 4:19 as "a prophet" simply because the predicate noun is anarthrous!

Your "rule" is false in spite of any graduate work in seminary (or perhaps because of it.).

I love your excellent post! I have presented information myself about how John 1:1 has been translated by others, besides the NWT, and yet ones who disagree with you and me will not put forth effort to check the info out. Your reasoning totally correlates with Dr. Jason BeDuhn's superlative book, Truth in Translation; the rendering by Benjamin Wilson in the Emphatic Diaglott, and the translation by the Coptics of Egypt.... http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html


[/i]

And Origen's Commentary on John, Book 2, (especially when translated correctly).

As for Colwell's Rule, my study the 'Seven Lessons' (and especially the 'DEFinite John 1:1c') shows the worthlessness of it as a proper rule. In cases parallel to John 1:1c it is always incorrect, and all proper examples show the predicate noun to be indefinite (with the indefinite article used in English translations). But, of course, it is just too much to expect Trinitarians to actual examine these studies (or even just the first lesson)!