Serious Research?

tigger2 · Post by **tigger2** » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:32 pm

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 · Post by **hoghead1** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:35 pm

[Replying to post 88 by Checkpoint]

OK, thanks for clarifying your position on annihilation. So your argument is that biblical passages referring to the shades are not to be taken literally, are just figures of speech? I want to make sure I understand you clearly here. For me, I see no reason to write these off as merely something the biblical writers intended as parables. I think the writers mean them to be taken literally. You said Sheol is not a place of annihilation. So I am puzzled why you then imply they are, saying these are all just parables.

Checkpoint · Post by **Checkpoint** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:54 am

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 88 by Checkpoint]

OK, thanks for clarifying your position on annihilation. So your argument is that biblical passages referring to the shades are not to be taken literally, are just figures of speech? I want to make sure I understand you clearly here. For me, I see no reason to write these off as merely something the biblical writers intended as parables. I think the writers mean them to be taken literally. You said Sheol is not a place of annihilation. So I am puzzled why you then imply they are, saying these are all just parables.

I know something of where you are coming from, and more of where I am coming from.

In some key respects our differences stem from what each of us takes literally and what we don't take literally.

Death for most believers is the gateway to being in heaven, rather than an enemy.

I take death literally as the absence of life, others say it is the start of a new life.

The Bible is contradictory on the matter we are discussing?

Rather, people are contradicting themselves and making death and resurrection mean something other than what they do mean.

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:04 am

[Replying to post 90 by Checkpoint]

That does not even begin to answer my question. The Bible speaks of teh afterlife in contradictory ways. In many OT passages all live on, but as weak, trembling shades. Later, a more a richer picture of teh afterlife is brought in, with a Heaven and a Hell. Jesus speaks of an immediate resurrection or entrance into the hereafter. Paul seems to delay matters until the end of the world, say8ing nothing about what happens meantime. Either way, Scripture clearly speaks of a life beyond death. So I don't see where you are coming from. Again, I ask you, Are you saying the biblical material on life in the hereafter is purely a figure of speech?

Checkpoint · Post by **Checkpoint** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:40 am

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 90 by Checkpoint]

That does not even begin to answer my question. The Bible speaks of teh afterlife in contradictory ways. In many OT passages all live on, but as weak, trembling shades. Later, a more a richer picture of teh afterlife is brought in, with a Heaven and a Hell. Jesus speaks of an immediate resurrection or entrance into the hereafter. Paul seems to delay matters until the end of the world, say8ing nothing about what happens meantime. Either way, Scripture clearly speaks of a life beyond death. So I don't see where you are coming from. Again, I ask you, Are you saying the biblical material on life in the hereafter is purely a figure of speech?

No, I am not saying that. Far from it.

I am saying that what you perceive Paul as saying does not contradict what Christ said, and is what I believe.

Any contradiction you see comes from how you take what Jesus says.

Your statement "Jesus speaks of an immediate resurrection", is clearly a claim that cannot be verified.

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:46 am

[Replying to Checkpoint]

Well, then, how do you explain Lk. 16 and 23?

Checkpoint · Post by **Checkpoint** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:42 am

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to Checkpoint]

Well, then, how do you explain Lk. 16 and 23?

In much the same way as others who think like me on this issue.

You are surely familiar with that, and there is no point in telling you the same, knowing you have already rejected what I would write.

Rather, the onus is on you to explain why your take on those passages is in contradiction to things Jesus specifically said elsewhere that agree with Paul.

For example, John 6:39-44.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:17 am

hoghead1 wrote:For example, Colwell's Rule isn't the main issue here.

Then why did you refer to Professor Metzer whose main argument against the NWT translation of John 1:1c was based on Colwell's rule? Are you not invalidating your point?

hoghead1 wrote: 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 · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:29 am

hoghead1 wrote: The material in the references you refer to here all refer to the OT, not the NT.

The request was for texts to support the hypothesis; no limit was put on where those texts should be sourced (see below). You charged

hoghead1 wrote: We have absolutely no texts to back any of your conjectures up.

Response was provided here (post #56)
---> As yet not studied counterargument has been provided.

Post # 24 (here) provides extra (non) biblical references to support conclusions drawn
--- >As yet no studied counter-arguments have been provided

Post # 42 (here) references the Christian Greek scriptures (NT).
---> As yet no studied counter-arguments have been provided

Post # 44 (here) referenced manuscripts of the Christian Greek scriptures (NT).
----> As yet no studied counter-arguments have been provided.

CONCLUSION: You might feel inclined to address the posts above with studed and referenced responses.

JW

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:08 am

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 76 by 2timothy316]

But there are no references to the Tetragrammaton in the NT texts that we have. So, there is no hard evidence to back your conclusions.

Jesus said to Satan It is written You shall do reverence to the Lord your God, and worship him alone. - Luke 4:8 (Byington)

Jesus was referring to the scriptures when he said 'it is written'. The scriptures he was referring to were Deuteronomy 6:13 and 10:20. Both have the Tetragrammaton in them. So yes there are references to God's name in the NT. So what conclusion can we draw from this seeing that Jehovah was replaced with 'Lord'?

A. Those that copied Luke's letter left out God's name.
This explanation is most likely. Due to the fact it is known that there was a lot of superstition surrounding the use of God's name. For a time Jews would even rip their outer garments when God's name was spoken. Of course this practice stopped when it started getting costly to replace their clothes. At any rate this superstition bled into the Christian congregation soon after all the Apostles died.

B. Luke himself left out God's name.
This explanation is very unlikely. Luke was a disciple of Jesus and knew how much his teacher loved his Father. Luke certainly knew God's name and there is no record explaining that Luke was afraid to use it.

C. Jesus when referring to the scripture intentionally left out God's name.
This is the most unlikely explanation of all. In the Bible Jesus said, "I have made your name known to them" in John 17:26. To say Jesus didn't make God's name known is to call the Bible a liar. Which makes both Jesus and his Father a liar. This is unacceptable.

So evidence? Yes there is a lot of evidence. Above is one example and there is more evidence that the name Jehovah should be in the Bible verses the evidence that it shouldn't. For me, with this sort of evidence and the fact my faith tells me that God can teach mankind a simple name though people have tried to hide it, this is all the convincing I need. Jehovah is the creator of language in the first place, so of course He can teach people His name in any language. I speak English, so in my language God's name is Jehovah. God must be accepting of this name because it's spreading fast despite efforts to keep it hidden. If it was not acceptable it would disappear from from the English lexicon and the efforts to hide it would be successful, but they are not.

Talishi · Post by **Talishi** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:24 am

2timothy316 wrote:
hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 76 by 2timothy316]

But there are no references to the Tetragrammaton in the NT texts that we have. So, there is no hard evidence to back your conclusions.
Jesus said to Satan It is written You shall do reverence to the Lord your God, and worship him alone. - Luke 4:8 (Byington)

Jesus was referring to the scriptures when he said 'it is written'. The scriptures he was referring to were Deuteronomy 6:13 and 10:20. Both have the Tetragrammaton in them. So yes there are references to God's name in the NT. So what conclusion can we draw from this seeing that Jehovah was replaced with 'Lord'?

As I indicated in a post up-thread, the only instance of YHWH is when a character in the gospels quotes from Torah. That must not be taken as a license to change the text to YHWH every time they mention God, particularly since the original language was Greek.