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.

I’ll 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 115 by onewithhim]

Jesus tells the thief that today you will be in Paradise (Lk.23). Also the rich man and Lazarus have obviously already entered the hereafter. How do you explain these passages? How do you explain Isa. 14 and other passages, where Sheol is full of shades, persons maybe barely alive, true, but still alive?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to tigger2]

Look, I seem to have upset you. Sorry. If you do not wish to talk with me, that is your privilege. I'm just suggesting that if you do wish to continue the conversation, we could considerably clear the air by you addressing one simple question. Why do you feel the passage in question requires an indefinite article? Forget what authorities have had to say. One maybe says one thing, another something else. Forget other passages. I'm concerned with this one, not a whole bunch of others. So I ask you again, How did you determine the indefinite article must be inserted? I believe that is a very simple, straightforward question, and then certainly a person with your reported background in biblical studies should have no trouble answering it.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to tigger2]
Forget what authorities have had to say...Forget other passages.

Above are the problems with your research. Asking people to forget things that can't be tossed aside. Why are you asking that? Are you being choosy so that your doctrine will be supported?

Reminds me of the tobacco industry in the 1960's. They hired 'doctors' that were choosy in what research they would provide to the public as to the health dangers of tobacco smoke. The industry didn't want people to know all the facts so that they would think smoking was safe. They wanted the public to forget what they had been told and listen to their 'experts'.

When we see someone asking to forget experts and their findings plus forget other Bible passages, we see it as an attempt to get something by us. It's sneaky and smells of deception. I know of no instance where to 'dumb' down one's self in studying the Bible is a good thing.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

OK, but I don't think you quit grasped the point I am trying to make. Certain individuals here have made some highly inflammatory remarks about the Trinity, the very heart of the Christian religion. They have based these remarks largely on literature published by a religious organization well recognized as a cult. They have cited certain "experts" to back their views, though often misrepresenting what these authorities have had to say. I want to cut to the chase. The issue is how to best translate Jn. 1. Should it read "The Word was God," or should it read "the Word was a god"? The problem is that, in the original Greek, there is no article before the word "Theos" and Greek has no indefinite article, no "a or an," though it does have an indefinite adjective. So, without any article before it, and written in a language where there is no indefinite article, how do we best translate the passage? The standard biblical translation reads "the Word was God." Jehovah's Witnesses, in their own translation of the Bible, want the passage to read "a god," thereby supporting their anti-Trinitarian views. My question, then, to the JW's and it supporters is who do you know how to translate the passage, how do you determine that an indefinite article is the correct one? So far, all I have received are nonanswers and evasiveness. Well, we can cite some authorities that back our opinion, though in point of fact, few of these "experts" actually support the use of the indefinite article. Well, there are other biblical passages where the anathrous noun takes the indefinite article. Now, I am simply saying to these people, let's cut to the chase. Show why you feel the indefinite article should be used. What is your grammatical evidence that is the correct translation. Don't hand me one expert said this, one that, or that there are passages where the anathrous noun is translated with the indefinite article. I'm simply saying to them that these are not satisfying answers. I'm simply asking them to show me why in this particular passage you feel the indefinite article has to be utilized, why you feel authorities who appear, at least in your mind, to agree with you are right. As yet, I have simply been snowballed and received no definite answer.

[tigger2]

[Replying to tigger2]
Forget what authorities have had to say...Forget other passages.

Above are the problems with your research. Asking people to forget things that can't be tossed aside. Why are you asking that? Are you being choosy so that your doctrine will be supported?

Reminds me of the tobacco industry in the 1960's. They hired 'doctors' that were choosy in what research they would provide to the public as to the health dangers of tobacco smoke. The industry didn't want people to know all the facts so that they would think smoking was safe. They wanted the public to forget what they had been told and listen to their 'experts'.

When we see someone asking to forget experts and their findings plus forget other Bible passages, we see it as an attempt to get something by us. It's sneaky and smells of deception. I know of no instance where to 'dumb' down one's self in studying the Bible is a good thing.

hoghead's biggest problem in my case, as I see it, is that he will not examine the original studies (links provided) which would answer his questions, and he either does not (or will not) understand responses to him. I could clear up his latest question/complaint -- "I'm simply saying to them that these are not satisfying answers. I'm simply asking them to show me why in this particular passage you feel the indefinite article has to be utilized" - - quite easily if he would only take the effort to understand.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to tigger2]

I asked you to provide your evidence why you believe that the indefinite article should be used. Recommending links or articles is simply stonewalling and avoiding the issue. You have made the claim that the indefinite article has to be used. OK, fine. Then, the responsibility falls upon you to give your evidence make your case. So far, all you have done is attempt to argue that certain "experts" appear to back you position. OK, but the majority of biblical scholars and Bible translations do not. So why do you feel they are all wrong? Why do you decide with one set of "experts" over the others? If, as you did, you are going to blatantly charge Trinitarians with severe prejudice, who says the anti-Trinitarians also couldn't be biased? So far, you have simply said there are cases in the NT with the indefinite article has been inserted. OK, fine. But what says Jn. 1 is an analogous situation? How did you or anyone else know when and where to properly insert the indefinite article?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to tigger2]
Forget what authorities have had to say...Forget other passages.

Above are the problems with your research. Asking people to forget things that can't be tossed aside. Why are you asking that? Are you being choosy so that your doctrine will be supported?

Reminds me of the tobacco industry in the 1960's. They hired 'doctors' that were choosy in what research they would provide to the public as to the health dangers of tobacco smoke. The industry didn't want people to know all the facts so that they would think smoking was safe. They wanted the public to forget what they had been told and listen to their 'experts'.

When we see someone asking to forget experts and their findings plus forget other Bible passages, we see it as an attempt to get something by us. It's sneaky and smells of deception. I know of no instance where to 'dumb' down one's self in studying the Bible is a good thing.

hoghead's biggest problem in my case, as I see it, is that he will not examine the original studies (links provided) which would answer his questions, and he either does not (or will not) understand responses to him. I could clear up his latest question/complaint -- "I'm simply saying to them that these are not satisfying answers. I'm simply asking them to show me why in this particular passage you feel the indefinite article has to be utilized" - - quite easily if he would only take the effort to understand.

Yes. Your excellent research and JehovahsWitness's and 2timothy's likewise thorough explanations would convince anyone who is humble, honest, and hungry for truth. When someone obviously doesn't even take the time to read your posts, why keep beating your head against a wall? It's in vain, trying to make a horse drink after you have led it to beautiful, clean, crystal clear water.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Speak for yourself. I, too, am humble, honest, and seeking the truth, and yet I sure remain unconvinced. None of the posts to date have addressed my question as to what grammatical principles one follows to know that the indefinite article has to be inserted. Telling someone, "Well, here are some links," simply is an admission that one doesn't understand, therefore cannot put it in their own words, and therefore is content to blow everyone off. Furthermore, I am not discussing matters with those sources on the links, I am discussing matters with individuals here. Telling me something like, "Well, there are some passages where the indefinite article is used" is no answer. Why did they translate as such and who says the current passage is analogous in any way? Telling me Colwell's Rule o is all wrong is irrelevant. It is totally irrational to assume the fact his rule is wrong makes yours right. I am trying to be fair and make sure everyone gets their day in court. I withhold judgment until I hear the case why the indefinite article must be inserted, and that means telling me what principles of Greek grammar are you using to prove your side of the argument. Short of you are he or someone doing that, putting that on the table, I'm simply going to throw the case out as simply based on claims being made by individuals who have no real knowledge of Greek and frankly don't know what they are talking about.

[tigger2]

For anyone who wonders what all fuss is about.

I have researched John's use of "God/god" (theos in NT Greek) for decades. I wrote up my thorough results in a 50-page study ("DEFinite John 1:1c" on my Blog). I have more recently tried to condense that study into the "John 1:1c Primer" and even more recently "seven lessons for understanding the translation of John 1:1c" both of which I also posted on my Blog.

The latter study may be found here: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html It is this study of mine which no one seems willing to examine. I have asked people to just take it one lesson at a time and ask for clarification if needed. It never happens.

Please have a look at it and see if it is truly so difficult to understand. If you find that I could have made the same points more simply, please let me know. If I made a specific error, please let me know where and what it is.

It begins by showing that there are some grammatical exceptions (which I outline), but when these are not allowed as examples, we find John (and the other Gospel writers) ALWAYS use the definite article (ho in Greek; 'the' in English) with the word 'god/God (theos) when they intend the meaning of 'God Almighty.'

I have also addressed the twentieth century 'rules' by Trinitarians that the word order in John 1:1c makes it possible for them render theos as "God" even though it does not have the definite article with it.

For those who want to see the lists of all John's (and the other Gospel writers') uses of theos which I painstakingly compiled (before computer days) and all of John's uses of clauses which are parallel to John 1:1c - see http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... otes.html (end note #5)

and

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

[hoghead1]

[Replying to tigger2]

That still avoids answering my question. If you have all this knowledge of Greek, it should be no problem for you to state clearly and right here and now your case that the indefinite article has to be used. Saying, "Well, go and read my material elsewhere" is simply a major cop out. Maybe if you were a major, established scholar, it might make sense for you to simply say, for you to say, "Well, go look at my extensive, published research." But established scholar you ain't, my friend. And I and others here don't have the time of day to waste going off on a venture to read through some huge amount of material generated by a source with a questionable reputation. Saying, "Well, in other cases, he uses the definite article" is bogus. Who says this is an analogous case? Saying that John does not use the definite article here is equally bogus. He definitely does: " pros ton theon. " Sorry, pal, but as judge, I say case dismissed for lack of evidence.