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.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 107 by tigger2]

First of all, you are seriously misrepresenting these sscholars and what they ar actually saying. For example, DeBuhn is not a recognized expert on biblical translation, is actually out of his specialty here, as I believe I pointed out in an earlier email.

Secondly, you do not understand Colwell's Rule. Correctly understood, it states that anathrous predicate nominatives take such article as is indicated by the grammatical context. Also, bear in mind that there is no indefinite article in Greek and that the fact it is absent does not automatically mean you can insert it. A literal translation of Jn. 1 would simply read "God was the Word," no "a." So does one insert or omit the indefinite article here? Via a purely literal translation, absolutely no. But the question still remains. Well, what is the grammatical context of the passage? Since Theos initially has a definite article, it makes sense to me that this same idea is being expressed in the second phrase. Hence, the insertion of the indefinite article is wrong, pure and simple.

It seems your whole argument is based on three major fallacies. These are:

1. Persons into higher education are all brainwashed and prejudiced. This is especially true of the vast majority biblical scholars who have all been the dupes of Trinitarian thinking.

2. Scholars such as DeBuhn are qualified biblical experts

3. The absence of the indefinite article automatically means it should be inserted.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to tigger2]

Alright, very well then. Let's for giggles sake throw Colwell out the window. Forget him. Now, we are faced with a situation where a noun has no article. You come along and insist it should take the indefinite article. I come along and say, "OK, fine. But let me ask you this: How, under the circumstances, did you reach that conclusion? What principles of grammar did you follow? How do I know this is a bias-free rendering?" Now, you answer would be what?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 104 by JehovahsWitness]

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

No, we were "going" on evidence. I presented mine, do you have anything to say about that evidence?

JW

[tigger2]

hoghead wrote

First of all, you are seriously misrepresenting these sscholars and what they ar actually saying. For example, DeBuhn is not a recognized expert on biblical translation, is actually out of his specialty here, as I believe I pointed out in an earlier email.

[I have represented them honestly and resent your implication otherwise!

Believe what you wish about BeDuhn (not DeBuhn), but why have you picked him out and ignored C.H. Dodd, W.E. Vine, Murray J. Harris, William Barclay, and Robert Young? ]

Hoghead wrote:

Secondly, you do not understand Colwell's Rule. Correctly understood, it states that anathrous predicate nominatives take such article as is indicated by the grammatical context. Also, bear in mind that there is no indefinite article in Greek and that the fact it is absent does not automatically mean you can insert it. A literal translation of Jn. 1 would simply read "God was the Word," no "a." So does one insert or omit the indefinite article here? Via a purely literal translation, absolutely no. But the question still remains. Well, what is the grammatical context of the passage? Since Theos initially has a definite article, it makes sense to me that this same idea is being expressed in the second phrase. Hence, the insertion of the indefinite article is wrong, pure and simple.

[I not only understand Colwells Rule, but have examined all of the Colwell Constructions which are truly parallel to John 1:1c in all of Johns writings. The anarthrous predicate noun in EVERY ONE OF THEM is indefinite and translated into English Bibles as indefinite and with the indefinite article!

If you would force yourself to actually examine my study (even the condensed version in the link I gave above and in post #2) and discuss what I have discovered there, you would see when the indefinite article is to be understood in ALL the examples which are truly parallel to John 1:1c. Since you wont do this, I see little reason to read any more of your serious research. ]

Hoghead wrote:

It seems your whole argument is based on three major fallacies. These are:

1. Persons into higher education are all brainwashed and prejudiced. This is especially true of the vast majority biblical scholars who have all been the dupes of Trinitarian thinking.

2. Scholars such as DeBuhn are qualified biblical experts

3. The absence of the indefinite article automatically means it should be inserted.

1. Wrong! I happen to be a university graduate and certainly respect those who have studied Bible languages (and other subjects), and I use their grammar texts and lexicons almost exclusively. However, there are very few who do not make some errors, especially in those areas which are important to their trinitarian bias, their trinitarian publishers, and trinitarian readership.

2. Wrong! You again ignore C.H. Dodd, W.E. Vine, Murray J. Harris, William Barclay, and Robert Young. I wonder why?

3. Wrong! If you could just FORCE yourself to actually read carefully my study to which I have given the link above (and in post #2), you would see many of the most important exceptions to inserting the indefinite article just because a nominative noun is anarthrous!!!

Since you simply will not examine it, and, instead, continue with so much erroneous matter that is disproved in it, I will try very hard to ignore your further posts here.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 112 by tigger2]

You are not addressing the question I asked you. I didn't ask you about what authorities have to say, I didn't ask you about your background. I asked you how do you know that the indefinite article must be employed. Normally, individuals who give evasive replies, such as yours, are immediately written off as copping-out, demonstrating they really don't understand the issues involved. But I don't want to give you a quick write-off. I believe in second chances. So let me ask you again: How do you know that the indefinite article must be employed in the passage in question?

[onewithhim]

[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.

Exactly. It is not the Bible that is contradictory. It's when people give their own definitions to what "death" means, and what "resurrection" means. Imagine saying that "death" doesn't really mean that a person dies! That is purely someone's imagination. And it started with the "original serpent," or, "serpent of old," in the Garden of Eden. "The serpent said to the woman, 'You surely will not die!'" (Genesis 3:4, NASB; see also Revelation 12:9.)

[onewithhim]

[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.

Indeed! In fact, Jesus said that he would resurrect people "in the last day." (John 6:44; see also John 11:24.) That "last day" is yet to come.

[onewithhim]

[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

Very nice post, tigger. I have presented a couple of those references previously, but apparently no one noticed. I wonder if anyone bothered to use the link I provided that shows a Coptic translation from about 1700 years ago. I guess I'll never know. From what they say here, I would say they didn't.

I add also the translation of James Moffatt: "The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine." He recognized that the Word was not God. "Divine" doesn't mean "God." As Merriam-Webster says, as to the definition of "divine": "of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god."

There is so much evidence for the validity of "a god" in John 1:1. The only thing that makes so many translators get their shorts in a bunch against "a god" is their own trinitarian thinking, which is not based on Scripture.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to onewithhim]

The Bible is well-known for being contradictory. At least 100 major contradictions re well-documented and recognized in modern biblical studies. In several previous posts here, I mentioned two. However, let's focus on death. The biblical picture of death also presents contradictions. In many passages, Sheol is described just as a resting place for the bones of teh deceased. In other passages, Sheol is seen as full of weak, trembling shades (Isa.14), indiivudals barely alive, but alive nonetheless. Then, later the afterlife becomes richer, more developed. There is a Heaven and a Hell, for example. Then there are two conflicting pictures about when one enters the afterlife. In Lk. 16 and 23, it seems immediate, whereas Paul seems to speak of da delay until the end of the world.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 116 by onewithhim]

This completely ignores a question I raised earlier. Given that we have a noun without an article, how do you know it has to take the indefinite article?