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.

[JehovahsWitness]

What I was asking the listener to do was to focus on the fact that in the immediately preceding clause, the definite article was used. Hence, it makes sense to assume this carries over into the next.

This is garbage, the use of a definite article in a preceding clause does not impose it on that which follows, if this "rule" existed anywhere outside your imagination it would result in translating nonsense of numerous bible passages and a distorted meaning in any target language. .

JW

[hoghead1]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Yes, I will be bringing it up. You seem to feel that because I advised to forget the rule for the moment that I meant throw it out the window permanently. I didn't. As I explained, I meant it was getting in the way, due to misunderstandings lay persons have about it and also is not the only matter to consider in the situation in question, as I explained in my previous post. When you are translating, you bear in mind the immediate situation you are in and also the rules. here, the immediate situation tells you plainly that the author of teh passage has in mind the "God, not "god." He or she has used the same word, with the definite article, immediately following, and has given absolutely no indication the subject has suddenly changed. So any competent translator looking at the passage, even if they didn't know about Colwell, would translate the passage, without the indefinite article, as none is indicated.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 168 by JehovahsWitness]

No way on that one. There are not numerous NT scholars who translate the passage, with the indefinite article. True, you can point to some translators who have done that, such as those of the Watchtower society, but they were certainly not recognized NT scholars, not by a longshot. That's the key point here that you appear to be overlooking. True, the Watchtpwer Society has generated some misleading propaganda claiming some major scholars have backed them. For example, Rowley is often cited by the Watchtower as supporting their view. However, what he actually has to say is that "from the beginning to the end, this volume is a shinning example of how the Bible should not be translated. He adds, "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their doctrine."

[dakoski]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I'm having trouble following the logic here...

If you go back to the post I replied to from 2 Timothy 3:16 - you'll see the quote I was responding to.

As far as I understand their argument - both Tigger and 2 Timothy 3:16 have argued Elohim is commonly used to describe powerful beings who aren't Jehovah. So when John 1:1 uses theos (Greek equivalent of Elohim) to describe Jesus this is supposed to be following a common pattern in Scripture.

You appear to agree with me that the logic of their argument breaks down since:

Indeed Elohim used in a positive sense when speaking of The true God Jehovah (YHWH) and negatively when speaking of the false.

So I'm asking are there Scriptures that fit Tigger and 2 Timothy 3:16' s argument that its common to address someone who is not Jehovah as Elohim or Theos? As I said the only examples I know of are speaking of the false - but John 1:1 isn't condemning Jesus as a false god or condemning his pride - in fact the very opposite. So if all other positive uses of theos/elohim refer to Jehovah - then why is John using this word to describe Jesus.This of course is strengthened further - since if John had wanted to say Jesus was powerful, divine, but not God he could have used the Greek word theios.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 169 by JehovahsWitness]

So maybe you say, but that is not the case in actual NT scholarship.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

He or she has used the same word, with the definite article, immediately following, and has given absolutely no indication the subject has suddenly changed.

Obviously the subject changed, it changed from John 1:1b (God) to "The Word" in John 1:1c.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I'm having trouble following the logic here...

If you go back to the post I replied to from 2 Timothy 3:16 - you'll see the quote I was responding to.

As far as I understand their argument - both Tigger and 2 Timothy 3:16 have argued Elohim is commonly used to describe powerful beings who aren't Jehovah. So when John 1:1 uses theos (Greek equivalent of Elohim) to describe Jesus this is supposed to be following a common pattern in Scripture.

You appear to agree with me that the logic of their argument breaks down since:

Indeed Elohim used in a positive sense when speaking of The true God Jehovah (YHWH) and negatively when speaking of the false.

So I'm asking are there Scriptures that fit Tigger and 2 Timothy 3:16' s argument that its common to address someone who is not Jehovah as Elohim or Theos?

While elohim as a plural noun is fairly common in scripture, I would say it is not common to use Elohim associated with a singular verb, indeed this "pluralization of excellence" is almost exclusively used in the Hebrew bible for Jehovah.

I don't know about theos, but I would think LXX would reflect the above.

As I said the only examples I know of are speaking of the false - but John 1:1 isn't condemning Jesus as a false god ... So if all other positive uses of theos/elohim refer to Jehovah - then why is John using this word to describe Jesus.

Because evidently the writer is trying to communicate something unique about the nature of The Word.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 174 by JehovahsWitness]

No way on that one. The Word is also the subject in the preceding clause.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 176 by hoghead1]

If you would be so kind as to identify the clauses clearly by quoting and present your evidence for the in relation to each.

JW

[dakoski]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

While elohim as a plural noun is fairly common in scripture, I would say it is not common to use Elohim associated with a singular verb, indeed this "pluralization of excellence" is almost exclusively used in the Hebrew bible for Jehovah.

I don't know about theos, but I would think LXX would reflect the above.

You're attempting to answer a different question to the one I was asking, but you're free not to answer it if you don't want. The point I was making was simply why use a word theos which is exclusively used to describe Jehovah (with the obvious exceptions we discussed above i.e. idols or sarcasm) when there is a less confusing Greek word (theios) which communicates what you think it should (that Jesus is divine but not Theos/Elohim).

Anyway, I won't have time for further replies as I'm away at the moment.

Because evidently the writer is trying to communicate something unique about the nature of The Word.

I think you're still misunderstanding the context of what I'm responding to. Its fine its a fairly common thing in these types of forums.

Clearly if John was wanting to communicate that the unique nature of the Word is that he is divine but not God - then clearly theios is the appropriate word and not theos? Do you commonly refer to the Word as God - or do you think people might find that confusing? You have words that can clarify your position in English, New Testament Greek also has such words. But instead John preferred to use theos. If John uses theos to describe Jesus, shouldn't you also use the English equivalent to describe him so?

Have a good day.