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.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:03 am

Talishi wrote:
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.

It's not every time they mention God that the name Jehovah is used though. They were careful to add it only where it was most certainly used. Like when quoting from their Bible of the time.

So you're saying it's ok for some copiest to change the quote from the Hebrew Scriptures? Why are you ok that some unknown copiest granted themselves their own 'license' to change it? But its not ok to add it back...even though you know it in the Hebrew Scriptures they are quoting from, God's name is there... even though it doesn't change the meaning of the text. Truly there is no reason for God's name not to be in the Greek Scriptures, unless a person hates God's name. I can find no other reason why someone would fight so hard with so little reasoning against it.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:38 am

Talishi wrote: As I indicated in a post up-thread, the only instance of YHWH is when a character in the gospels quotes from Torah.

There dozens of quotations from the Hebrew scriptures that contain the Divine Name, so you are correct, there should normally be many instances of the Divine name in the Chritian bible. The NWT (and many other translations like it) have just done what should reasonably have been done by all translations, namely include the Divine name in when quoting from the Hebrew bible passages where it would have appeared.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:59 pm

A shortened form of God's name is in the Greek Scriptures. 'Jah'.

Hallelujah

Strong's Concordance
halllouia: hallelujah, alleluia (an adoring exclamation)
Original Word: -
Part of Speech: Hebrew Form (Indclinable)
Transliteration: halllouia
Phonetic Spelling: (al-lay-loo'-ee-ah)
Short Definition: Hallelujah, Praise the Lord
Definition: Hallelujah, Praise the Lord.
HELPS Word-studies

239 all"louia " literally, "praise Yahweh, transliterated hallelujah" (BAGD).

This word which literally means 'praise Yahweh' can be found in Revelation 19:1-6, four times.

http://biblehub.com/greek/239.htm

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:27 pm

[Replying to Checkpoint]

Look, I am not a mind reader. That is why I asked to if you could clarity your position. If you are unwilling to do that, then there is no point in any further discussion.

In answer to your point about Jn. 6, I find the Bible presents conflicting pictures of the hereafter, case in point being ne of them. Some have argued there is an immediate resurrection at one's death, followed by a later, final one. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on that one.

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:29 pm

[Replying to post 96 by JehovahsWitness]

I thought we were talking about the NT.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:33 pm

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 96 by JehovahsWitness]

I thought we were talking about the NT.

We were talking about evidence to support the inclusion of the divine name in the Christian bible. This evidence can be from non-biblical sources, the Hebrew tradition or any historical document. I have provided references from various sources, do you feel inclined to give a detailed studied response to the documentation I provided?

The posts you will be providing a detailed counter-argument, should you choose (including references) are as follows:
Post #24
Post #42
Post #44
Post #56

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:15 pm

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

No, not at all. Perhaps my wording confused you, so let me clarify. Colwell's Rule is often misunderstood, especially by persons in the JW camp, to mean that anathrous predicate nominatives automatically take the definite article. Since one can find exceptions to that statement, JW's argue that anathrous predicate nominatives automatically take the indefinite article. Nut that is also a false assumption. You cannot assume that the absence of an indefinite article means it should be inserted into the text. The correct understanding of Colwell, is that anathrous predicate nominatives take either a definite or indefinite article, depending on the grammatical context, which, in the case of John 1:1, calls for the definite article.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:16 pm

[Replying to post 105 by hoghead1]

So are you refering us to Metzer or not? Because his chief arguement against the JW position is based on Colwell. If his conclusions are not irrelevant then why did you refer to him, and if they are relevant please see my post here.

JW

tigger2 · Post by **tigger2** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:34 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 105 by hoghead1]

So are you refering us to Metzer or not? Because his chief arguement against the JW position is based on Colwell. If his conclusions are not irrelevant then why did you refer to him, and if they are relevant please see my post here.

JW

There are a number of Trinitarian NT Greek grammarians who admit that "and the word was a god" is a literal translation, but they don't like what it says and prefer the Trinitarian interpretation instead.

Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that it is literally translated a god was the Word.- p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, The Word was a god. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted. - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd still rejects a god as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of Johns Gospel! - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, the Word was a god, but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that Johns monotheism will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
And the Word was a god. The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar supports this translation. - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word - p. 54, (New Covenant section), Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: the Word was a God; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong. - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

You see, in ancient times many of Gods servants had no qualms about using the word god or gods for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

Colwell's Rule as used by most Trinitarian apologists is completely false as can be seen in my study of EVERY "Colwell's Construction" which is truly parallel to John 1:1c.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... r_21.html

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:10 pm

[Replying to post 104 by JehovahsWitness]

Look, sorry, I said I thought we were going on the NT.