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 JehovahsWitness]

I don't mean to obsess on Origin. However, I thought I should add this P.S. to what I just said earlier.

The church fathers were not systematic theologians in the modern sense of the word. "Systematic theology' means an attempt to present one's ideas in a logical, coherent whole, making sure everything fits together, that the are no contradictions. This is a very modern idea. In contrast, the fathers tended to write topically, treating each topic as a separate subject. This meant what one might say on the doctrine of God, for example, would stand in sharp contradiction to what that father had to say on the doctrine of salvation, etc. hence, the fathers are noted for being contradictory.

Origen is no exception. Yes, he clearly does make statements that God is way, way above Christ, and wholly other than Christ. Hence, at one point, he ways we should pray to no generate being, not even to Christ, but only to God, who is said to be more above Christ than Christ is above all creatures. However, in material I just showed you from his "Commentary," he does appear to be saying otherwise. That's simply to be accepted. As I said, the fathers can be very contradictory, were nowhere near being systematic thinkers. Of particular inters to my work is the fact that generally Origen depicts God as wholly immutable and passionless. Then he turns around and says, "The very Father is not impassible, not without affection. If we pray to him, He feels pity and compassion. He experiences an affection of love." Then, at another point, he writes that "this loving affection, which is God and takes its existence from Him, loves nothing earthly, nothing material, nothing corruptible. For it is against its nature to love anything corruptible affectionately , since it is in itself the course of incorruption." As I said, consistency in theology is not the strong suit of the fathers.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 149 by hoghead1]

The church fathers were not systematic theologians in the modern sense of the word. "Systematic theology' means an attempt to present one's ideas in a logical, coherent whole, making sure everything fits together, that the are no contradictions. This is a very modern idea. In contrast, the fathers tended to write topically, treating each topic as a separate subject. This meant what one might say on the doctrine of God, for example, would stand in sharp contradiction to what that father had to say on the doctrine of salvation, etc. hence, the fathers are noted for being contradictory.

This raises, for me at least, an interesting thought, which I pose to you in the form of a question.

Would it be fair, would there be a sound basis, for saying that this also applies to what Jesus said, and/or what is found in the NT letters??

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 150 by Checkpoint]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I will say that the Bible can be highly contradictory, and that the teachings of Christ, as reported in Scripture, do evidence sharp contradictions.

[JehovahsWitness]

In his "Commentary on John, Book 1, Chaps. 41 and 42, "Of the Various Ways in Christ Christ is the Logos, what he actually says is are things like, " There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers; and of those, Christ is the highest and best, it is called not only the Wisdom of God, but also His power."

Origen also says, in case you missed it that "...there was the Logos with the article and the Logos without the article, corresponding to God absolutely and a god. - Origen's Commentary on John," Book II, ch.3

Would you agree he said the above. Why do you suppose Origen said this?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Yes, of course. Thank you for reminding me. In the opening sentences, he speaks of other beings who have become gods by participation in him. He adds that " as as then, there are many gods, but to us only one God the Father, and many Lords but to us only one Lord... we...pray to God the Logos."
I think you are suing the same source as I am. So let us continue.
Noted that he says, "But the Logos is the God."

He adds that "there was God with the article and god without the article, then then there were gods in two orders, at the summit of the higher of whom is the Word, transcended himself as God of the universe."

That is why I said earlier that her are passages in Origen which suggest Christ, Wisdom is in fact God, thought transcended by God himself, just as I transcend my wisdom.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 153 by hoghead1]


I am no so concerned withat his theology, only with his explanation which suggests that John 1:1c can fittingly be rendered "a god" the exact opposite of what you have been saying is a legitimate rendition. What is your comment on this?

I repeat my question: Why do you suppose Origen said this?

[marco]

The first thing I did in my studies was to verify the claim by even some Trinitarians
......

You agreed with some Trinitarians regarding the definite article placed before God. Basically you are saying that its absence introduces a new theology, which is a majestic claim.

I think John's opening, exceptional statement is sufficient to allow an exception to some observed practice (if that is what there is): And the word was God is a resounding statement in line with previous theology. Your view is not and grammatical considerations hardly enable us to rebel. In ancient literature there are exceptions, especially in grammatical points, so your argument that because you've not seen such an example in your own reading hardly amounts to anything other than a denial that exceptions do exist. And as I say, this is an exceptional statement.

Since you and others simply ignore my original studies on this issue, you cannot be convincing in your replies against them.

I read your propositions. I didn't choose to enter a grammatical dialogue where I have to rely on the strength of your enquiries. There are enough eminent writers to do that for me. I accept, too, that you have expended lots of effort on your studies. It would be wonderful if such industry invariably led to truth or, indeed, Truth. Life makes no promises.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Well, as I said, I can find no evidence that Origen ever said that. That does not appear to be a direct quote at all from Origen. So why do you continue to ush it?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Well, as I said, I can find no evidence that Origen ever said that. That does not appear to be a direct quote at all from Origen. So why do you continue to ush it?

The direct quote I am presenting is below.

Origen also says, in case you missed it that "...there was the Logos with the article and the Logos without the article, corresponding to God absolutely and a god. - Origen's Commentary on John," Book II, ch.3

Would you agree he said the above. Why do you suppose Origen said this?

Are you contending that the above is not in the commentary? If not why in your opinion did Origen say the words you can read in this post (see above in bold the words I am referring to).

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 130 by hoghead1]

I took no personal jabs. I simply said you're being uncompromising and that is just stating the obvious and not an insult. Also, your question was answered but I think you missed it so I will copy and paste it from my previous post about indefinite articles in Greek.

The truth of this whole conversation is that the Greek of that time didn't have an indefinite article. They didn't use an 'a or an' in their writing. This means if you want to know if an 'a or an' should be used, the translator must figure it out using the context.

Every time we see an 'a' or 'an' in an English translated Bible, every single one of those A's and AN's we read were put there by the translator/s based on the the context of the text around it. In the case of John 1:1 many translators concluded that the second use of the word god could not be referring to the first use of the word God and therefore the second word 'god' has a whole other meaning. Such as 'a god' which many times the Bible refers to as someone mighty in power.