Serious Research?

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
tigger2
Sage
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:32 pm
Been thanked: 7 times

Serious Research?

Post #1

Post by 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.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #51

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 42 by JehovahsWitness]

That is not a good argument. It is Yahweh, not Yah. That is why any solid scholar will tell you we do not have any existent Greek NT tests with he Tetragrammaton in them.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #52

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 41 by tigger2]

Sorry, I meant to say "a god." 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. Furthermore, the ancient anti-Trinitarians often used the Bible in defense of their position, true. Never once did they attempt to shoot down the trinity on the notion that we should understand the text to mean "a god." They weren't about to do that, simply because they understood the rules of Greek. Hence, their argument was largely that Christ suffered and changed, but God cannot suffer and change. Therefore, Christ cannot be God. If you wish to be anti-Trinitarian, that is your privilege. But you owe it to yourself to better understand the history of the matter.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 23401
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 930 times
Been thanked: 1349 times
Contact:

Post #53

Post by JehovahsWitness »

hoghead1 wrote: And we know the proper pronunciation was very close to Yahweh.
Indeed, the original pronunciation may well have been close "Yahweh" or, as the as the Jewish encyclopedia also suggests, the three syllable "Yahaweh". However, it is misleading to refer to this as being the "proper" pronunciation as if all other pronunciation are "improper" or "incorrect". The fact of the matter is nobody is suggesting that the original pronunciation was in the English language. Yahaweh (Jehovah) or Yeshoshua (Jesus) or any other number of names are attempts to represent in Roman Letters the Hebrew pronunciation. JEHOVAH is a legitmate attempt to put that Hebrew into recongizable English. This process is often referred to as "anglicisation".

The anglicisation of names is the change of non-English-language personal names to spellings nearer English sounds. Thus " Yhnn the full Hebrew pronunciation, becomes John in the English language. Which then is the "proper" ponunciation? That would depend on which language was being spoken.

CONCLUSION: To suggest the English pronunciation of an English (anglicized) name is "improper" is misleading. Jehovah is a legitimate English rendition of the Tetragrammaton.
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #54

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]

I just explained that "Jehovah" is definitely not the result of some form of Anglicization. It is simply a mistranslation. Please read my previous posts.

User avatar
tigger2
Sage
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:32 pm
Been thanked: 7 times

Post #55

Post by tigger2 »

[Replying to post 50 by hoghead1]

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?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 23401
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 930 times
Been thanked: 1349 times
Contact:

Post #56

Post by JehovahsWitness »

hoghead1 wrote: I just explained that "Jehovah" is definitely not the result of some form of Anglicization.
And what language are you suggesting JEHOVAH to be? Japanese?

Image
The basic church dictionary, p. 19 [pub: Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd]

"Jehovah" is clearly an English transliteration of a Hebrew word ergo it is an anglicization (see above).
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 23401
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 930 times
Been thanked: 1349 times
Contact:

Post #57

Post by JehovahsWitness »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 42 by JehovahsWitness]

That is not a good argument. It is Yahweh, not Yah.
What do you mean "it" is Yahweh not Yah? What is? Are you suggesting that Yah/Jah is NOT a shorterned form of the Tetragrammaton?
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 23401
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 930 times
Been thanked: 1349 times
Contact:

Post #58

Post by JehovahsWitness »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 44 by JehovahsWitness]

We have absolutely no texts to back any of your conjectures up.


[1] Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and his apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text.

Below you will find ten manuscripts [texts] that contain the divine name, along with pertinent information.
(1) LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in square Hebrew characters in the following places: De 18:5, 5, 7, 15, 16; De 19:8, 14; De 20:4, 13, 18; De 21:1, 8; De 23:5; De 24:4, 9; De 25:15, 16; De 26:2, 7, 8, 14; De 27:2, 3, 7, 10, 15; De 28:1, 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 61, 62, 64, 65; De 29:4, 10, 20, 29; De 30:9, 20; De 31:3, 26, 27, 29; De 32:3, 6, 19. Therefore, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs 49 times in identified places in Deuteronomy. In addition, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs three times in unidentified fragments, namely, in fragments 116, 117 and 123. This papyrus, found in Egypt, was dated to the first century B.C.E.

In 1944 a fragment of this papyrus was published by W. G. Waddell in JTS, Vol. 45, pp. 158-161. In 1948, in Cairo, Egypt, two Gilead-trained missionaries of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society obtained photographs of 18 fragments of this papyrus and permission to publish them. Subsequently, 12 of these fragments were published in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, pp. 13, 14. Based on the photographs in this publication, the following three studies were produced: (1) A. Vaccari, Papiro Fuad, Inv. 266. Analisi critica dei Frammenti pubblicati in: New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Brooklyn (N. Y.) 1950 p. 13s., published in Studia Patristica, Vol. I, Part I, edited by Kurt Aland and F. L. Cross, Berlin, 1957, pp. 339-342; (2) W. Baars, Papyrus Fouad Inv. No. 266, published in the Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, Vol. XIII, Wageningen, 1959, pp. 442-446; (3) George Howard, The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy, published in the Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. XLII, Cincinnati, 1971, pp. 125-131.

Commenting on this papyrus, Paul Kahle wrote in Studia Evangelica, edited by Kurt Aland, F. L. Cross, Jean Danielou, Harald Riesenfeld and W. C. van Unnik, Berlin, 1959, p. 614: Further pieces of the same papyrus were reproduced from a photo of the papyrus by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the introduction to an English translation of the New Testament, Brooklyn, New York, 1950. A characteristic of the papyrus is the fact that the name of God is rendered by the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square letters. An examination of the published fragments of the papyrus undertaken at my request by Pater Vaccari resulted in his concluding that the papyrus, which must have been written about 400 years earlier than Codex B, contains perhaps the most perfect Septuagint text of Deuteronomy that has come down to us.

A total of 117 fragments of LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 were published in tudes de Papyrologie, Vol. 9, Cairo, 1971, pp. 81-150, 227, 228. A photographic edition of all the fragments of this papyrus was published by Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen under the title Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy, in the series Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, Vol. 27, Bonn, 1980.

(2) LXXVTS 10a renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in the following places: Jon 4:2; Mic 1:1, 3; Mic 4:4, 5, 7; Mic 5:4, 4; Hab 2:14, 16, 20; Hab 3:9; Zep 1:3, 14; Zep 2:10; Zec 1:3, 3, 4; Zec 3:5, 6, 7. This leather scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Naal ever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. The fragments of this scroll were published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, Leiden, 1963, pp. 170-178.

(3) LXXIEJ 12 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in Jon 3:3. This shred of parchment, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. It was published in Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 12, 1962, p. 203.

(4) LXXVTS 10b renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in the following places: Zec 8:20; 9:1, 1, 4. This parchment scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Naal ever, was dated to the middle of the first century C.E. It was published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, 1963, p. 178.

(5) 4Q LXX Levb renders the divine name in Greek letters (IAO) in Le 3:12; 4:27. This papyrus manuscript, found in Qumran Cave 4, was dated to the first century B.C.E. A preliminary report of this manuscript was presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p. 157.

(6) LXXP. Oxy. VII.1007 renders the divine name by abbreviating the Tetragrammaton in the form of a double Yohdh in Ge 2:8, 18. This vellum leaf, dated to the third century C.E., was published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part VII, edited with translations and notes by Arthur S. Hunt, London, 1910, pp. 1, 2.

(7) AqBurkitt renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in the following places: 1Ki 20:13, 13, 14; 2Ki 23:12, 16, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27. These fragments of the Greek text of the version of Aquila were published by F. Crawford Burkitt in his work Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila, Cambridge, 1898, pp. 3-8. These palimpsest fragments of the books of Kings were found in the synagogue genizah in Cairo, Egypt. They were dated to the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the sixth century C.E.

(8) AqTaylor renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in the following places: Ps 91:2, 9; Ps 92:1, 4, 5, 8, 9; Ps 96:7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13; Ps 97:1, 5, 9, 10, 12; Ps 102:15, 16, 19, 21; Ps 103:1, 2, 6, 8. These fragments of the Greek text of the version of Aquila were published by C. Taylor in his work Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, Cambridge, 1900, pp. 54-65. These fragments were dated after the middle of the fifth century C.E., but not later than the beginning of the sixth century C.E.

(9) SymP. Vindob. G. 39777 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in archaic Hebrew characters in the following places: Ps 69:13, 30, 31. This fragment of a parchment roll with part of Ps 69 in Symmachus (68 in LXX), kept in the sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, was dated to the third or fourth century C.E. It was published by Dr. Carl Wessely in Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, Vol. XI., Leipzig, 1911, p. 171.

Here we reproduce the fragment of this papyrus containing the divine name.

(10) Ambrosian O 39 sup. renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in square Hebrew characters in all five columns in the following places: Ps 18:30, 31, 41, 46; Ps 28:6, 7, 8; Ps 29:1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3; Ps 30:1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 10, 12; Ps 31:1, 5, 6, 9, 21, 23, 23, 24; Ps 32:10, 11; Ps 35:1, 22, 24, 27; Ps 36:Sup, 5; Ps 46:7, 8, 11; Ps 89:49 (in columns 1, 2 and 4), Ps 89: 51, 52. This codex, dated to the end of the ninth century C.E., has five columns. The first column contains a transliteration of the Hebrew text into Greek, the second column has the Greek version of Aquila, the third column has the Greek version of Symmachus, the fourth column contains the LXX and the fifth column contains the Greek version of Quinta. A facsimile edition of this palimpsest, together with a transcript of the text, was published in Rome in 1958 by Giovanni Mercati under the title Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae . . . Pars prima. Codex Rescriptus Bybliothecae Ambrosianae O 39 sup. Phototypice Expressus et Transcriptus.

Source: The Divine Name in Ancient Greek Versions, Reference Bible NWT App. 1C
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060075
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

dakoski
Scholar
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:44 pm
Location: UK

Post #59

Post by dakoski »

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]
The majority of the early respected manuscripts that contain this passage do NOT have the Greek word for Christ in 1 Cor 10:9 (see below)

Quote:

LORD
(Aleph) Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
B Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S
C Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., Paris, H.S., G.S.

GOD
A Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.

CHRIST
P46 Papyrus Chester Beatty 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Dublin, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A., G.S
D Bezae Codices, Gr. and Lat., fifth and sixth cent. C.E., Cambridge, England, G.S.


Indeed Adam Clarke Commentary states: Instead of , Christ, several MSS and a few versions have , the LORD, and some few , GOD [...] some respectable MSS have the LORD instead of Christ.
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/1 ... /10-9.html

Quote:

OTHER COMMENTARIES

Pulpit Commentary
Another reading is "the LORD" "Christ" may have come in from a marginal gloss.

Vincent's Word Studies
For Christ read the LORD

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
the Alexandrian copy reads, "neither let us tempt GOD

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
It is not certain that the apostle meant to say that the Israelites tempted Christ.



Further, there can be no doubt that Paul is alluding in 1 Cor 10:9 to Deuteronomy 6:16 and Numbers 21:6. In both scriptures, God (YHWH)/The LORD are mentioned rather than Christ in the original Hebrew (see below all CAPs mine)

Nor let us try the LORD, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents - 1 Cor 10:9 New American Standard Bible
Quote:

DEUTERONOMY 6:16

Ye do not try JEHOVAH your God as ye tried in Massah - Young's Literal Translation
Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah. - Webster's Bible Translation
You shall not tempt YAHWEH your God, as you tempted him in Massah. - World English Bible

NUMBERS 21:6

Then JEHOVAH sent fiery serpents among the people - Darby Bible Translation
And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people - English Revised Version
YAHWEH sent fiery serpents among the people - World English Bible


CONCLUSION: Although the word "christ" does appear in some early greek manuscripts, the most respected of them read LORD or GOD. The reference in the Hebrew scriptures which most bible commentaries agree Paul is alluding to, make no mention of Christ and universally state it was The Lord GOD (YHWH) Jehovah that struck the Israelites with serpents.
I'll check the manuscript data - haven't had a chance to look yet. Either way its secondary to the main point of my previous post which you missed.

The most important point of my argument was the context of 1 Corinthians 10 which I gave from your own NWT. I actually like that the NWT translates v9 Jehovah - because it makes the connection that this person who accompanies the Israelites referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures is Christ. Read 1 Corinthians 10 again - particularly v1-4. Clearly the context is that Jehovah who was with the Israelites is Christ. If not, why not?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 23401
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 930 times
Been thanked: 1349 times
Contact:

Post #60

Post by JehovahsWitness »

dakoski wrote:I'll check the manuscript data - haven't had a chance to look yet.
dakoski wrote: I actually like that the NWT translates v9 Jehovah [...] Clearly the context is that Jehovah who was with the Israelites is Christ. If not, why not?
I'm not interested in addressing the question of who JEHOVAH is, I am only here to address the point as to whether the NWT has inserted the Tetragrammaton where it would not have appeared in the original text.

The scripture in question is 1 Cor 10:9, and the references I provided is that there is a strong argument that the word "christ" was not in the original text. Check the references provided and get back with a counter-argument if you are so inclined in regard to the accurate translation of the verse in question.



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply