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.

tigger2 · Post by **tigger2** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:29 am

[Replying to hoghead1]

Hoghead still is apparently unable to read what I have written:
(I did not mention Youngs Literal Translation) instead:

1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint. [65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc.]

I could have added Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 55 (The New Covenant section): AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit[erally] and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.

Hoghead wrote to JehovahsWitness:

Stating as you did that the clause reads "the Word was a god" is incorrect, as there is no indefinite article in Greek, to start with

It has been stated over and over (even in the Seven Lessons which he continues to denigrate even though he will not read nor discuss it point by point) that there is no indefinite article in NT Greek!!!

That is why translators must add indefinite articles with nominative Greek count nouns (which have no added prepositional modifiers) when rendering them into English.

Otherwise how can he explain the following? (of course he will ignore or obfuscate rather than give a proper answer):

All the uses by John (except 9:16a which has the Greek definite article) of the nominative "man" (anthropos):

John 1:6; 3:1; 3:4; 3:27; 5:5; 7:23 [UBS text (3rd ed.) and Received Text]; 7:46; 9:16b; 10:33; 16:21. All except 9:16a are properly translated as "a man"!

And,

Colwell Constructions:

1. John 4:9 (a) - (a Jew)
2. John 4:19 - (a prophet)
3. John 6:70 - (a devil/a slanderer)
4. John 8:44 - (a murderer/a manslayer)
5. Jn 8:44 (b) - (a liar)
6. John 8:48 - (a Samaritan)
7. Jn 9:8 (a) - a beggar
8. Jn 9:17 - a prophet)
9. John 9:24 - (a sinner)
10. Jn 9:25 - (a sinner)
11. John 10:1 - (a thief and a plunderer)
12. Jn 10:13 - (a hireling)
13. John 10:33 - (a man)
14. Jn 12:6 - (a thief)
15. John 18:35 - (a Jew)
16. John 18:37 (a) (a king)
17. John 18:37 (b) - (a king) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - a liar

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:47 am

hoghead1 wrote: Stating as you did that the clause reads "the Word was a god" is incorrect

It is not incorrect, as the clause includes the indefinite article in a number of translations, for this reason I placed the article in brackets (a) to indicate that that was not always the case. Whether it is incorrect is the matter of debate.

hoghead1 wrote: there is no indefinite article in Greek to start with

however there is an indefinite article in ENGLISH the language I was posting in.

hoghead1 wrote:plus the preceding clause makes it clear the author is speaking of God, not gods or a god,

That point has been addressed here, restating your position without any additional information is redundant

hoghead1 wrote: plus Greek usually omits the definite article when the noun is used in the predicate nominative, as is here the case.

The question under discussion therefore is how should the corresponding English be translated in John 1:1.

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:43 am

[Replying to post 188 by tigger2]

Well, why didn't you mention the YLT? It clearly rules out the notion that Young thought the best translation was "a god." Also, I don't think you quite understand what "literal" means when used by commentators. What Young and others mean when they say "literal" is not a word-for-word translation. Otherwise, you would have to translate without the indefinite article, as none is given in the original text. Rather, what they mean is that a noun standing alone, in and of itself, no article, such as Theos or God, is ambiguous could take a definite article or could take the indefinite article. However, when it comes to actually translating the passage, going on its grammatical context, the passage is best rendered as "and the Word was God," which is why the YLT translates it as such.
The other examples you bring up here are passages Colwell and other NT scholars were and are well aware of and are not analogous or relevant to the topic at hand.
Another issue you need to consider is that of bias. You seem fond of claiming the the Trinitarians are all biased. OK, let's introduce the possibility of religious bias into the translation process. Now the questions is, "Why do you assume that the anti-Trinitarians could not be very biased in what they say? If you smear mashed potatoes on one side of the equation, you have to smear potatoes on the other, as my old algebra teacher used to say. If your opponents could be biased, then maybe you, too, are biased. Ever think of that?
Also, I asked y9ou earlier about what major Trinitarians you have read and am still waiting for an answer.

hoghead1 · Post by **hoghead1** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:53 am

[Replying to post 189 by JehovahsWitness]

The only major Bible translation with the indefinite article is the NWT, however. You neglected to mention that. What you might find said in commentaries does not constitute an official translation of the Bible in major usage.

You say it is "not incorrect," then you say it is a matter of debate. Well, if it is a matter of debate then you can't be sure wither it is correct or not. Also, a matter of debate among whom? Certainly not among the majority of major NT scholars.

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:41 am

[Replying to post 183 by tigger2]

From your reply it appears you have no other passage to cite but Psalm 82 - where Elohim is used to refer to a people under the true Elohim's judgement. That to me is a pretty fragile basis for interpreting John 1:1 as referring to 'a god'.

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:12 am

JehovahsWitness wrote:
dakoski wrote: My point was, and Jehovahs Witness agreed with me, I'm only aware of Elohim/Theos being used in the Bible only of Jehovah in a positive manner as the true God - all other references I'm aware of are either ironic as in Psalm 82 or are referring to false gods.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with you. Firstly, Jesus, faithful angels and godly appointed judges are all referred to as "gods" in scripture. You asked for examples of "theos"/"El (Elohim)" being referred to in a positive manner and that was supplied; even Jesus himself didn't disputed that such ones had the legitimate right to hold that title, since it was by divine appointment; as indeed was he (Jesus) - see Isaiah 9:6; John 10: 34, 35

Given the above, that only Jehovah is referred to as the True God, and that "the plural of excellence" is consistently applied to Him alone in the positive sense, does not imply that any other application of Elohim must by default be "ironic" or inappropriate but rather reflects the fact of His unique position. Other gods are not false because they are not called elohim (since some of them are), they are false *if* they claim his unique position as supreme God of the universe. Since Jesus, faithful angels and the ancient judges that did their job correctly usurped no such position they could be identified by the same generic term and its derivatives without being "false" and without a trace of "irony".

To Illustrate: A man writes profile about his family and consistently refers to his partner by the title "wife". Does that mean that every other time the word is mentioned if it his not his wife there must be "irony" or some kind of falsehood involved? If by far the overwhelming occurrences of the word apply to this couple, does that mean that every occurrence must apply to the same woman? No, the generic term wife may well apply legitimately to others even if it is not common and those others become "false" wives only if they claim to be married to the man in question.

In a similar way the unique position elohim/theos JEHOVAH, does not impose negativity by default of the same word when not applicable to Him.

dakoski wrote:The point I was making was simply why use a word theos which is exclusively used to describe Jehovah ...
Because "theos" is not exclusively used to describe Jehovah, Jehovah is exclusively used to describe Jehovah, Almighty God is exclusively used to describe Jehovah, The One True God, is exclusively used to describe Jehovah... but theos is not exclusively used to describe Jehovah (see above).

The supposition that if The Word is not a false god he must by default be the God of John 1:1(b) is therefore premature, especially as The Word cannot be "with" God if he *IS* God

Firstly, you misunderstood I was not speaking of all JWs - I was simply saying you had agreed that Elohim was only used in a positive way of Jehovah - although you have now further elaborated on your position which is helpful.

So to summarise:
1) You have given a reference to Jesus being called Elohim in Scripture - I'm not sure how that helps your argument as that just gives further backing to the position that Jesus is called God in both the Old and New Testament. It doesn't help tigger's argument at all. Further you've agreed in the past that references like Exodus 33:11 actually refer to Jesus as Jehovah (although you may now backtrack from that which is fine). So if Jesus is called both Elohim and Jehovah in the Bible - why do you refuse to call him either?

2) You and tigger are still not able to provide a positive reference to anyone other than Jesus being referred to as Elohim. Psalm 82 is talking about a people under the judgement of Elohim - it gives absolutely no evidence that faithful servants of God were called Elohim. I say Elohim is used ironically because its using a term of high status to a people who have a condemned status before God. In some senses it similar to the idols in the sense they have put themselves in the place of Elohim by neglecting his wisdom and following their own way - for that they must be judged. This verse can't be generalised in the way you want it to. To make the case you need to provide Scriptures that show Elohim was a common term for faithful servants of God other than Jesus.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:01 am

dakoski wrote:So if Jesus is called both Elohim and Jehovah in the Bible - why do you refuse to call him either?

Jesus is never called JEHOVAH in the bible. Only Almighty God is called by the Divine Name YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh)

Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem recognizing Jesus as "a god", he is called such in Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1c

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:34 am

JehovahsWitness wrote:
dakoski wrote:So if Jesus is called both Elohim and Jehovah in the Bible - why do you refuse to call him either?
Jesus is never called JEHOVAH in the bible. Only Almighty God is called by the Divine Name YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh)

Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem recognizing Jesus as "a god", he is called such in Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1c

In Exodus 4:16 Moses served as God (Elohim) to Aaron.

"He will speak for you to the people, and he will be your spokesman, and you will serve as God to him."

So the title god can be given to anyone or anything with mighty power. Moses was 'a god' so too Jesus is 'a god'. In Philippians 3:19 even a person's belly can be 'a god' (theos). However, as JW pointed out there is only One Almighty God.

tigger2 · Post by **tigger2** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:16 pm

hoghead wrote:

The other examples you bring up here are passages Colwell and other NT scholars were and are well aware of and are not analogous or relevant to the topic at hand.

Ridiculous! The many uses of the indefinite article by all translators (especially in ALL proper 'Colwell Constructions' in John) is exactly what it is all about. Your refusal to even acknowledge specific factual evidence from John's writings is the reason I chose to ignore you in the first place. But I was drawn in by your overwhelming ignorance in the post I answered.

Obviously you are unable to defend your Trinitarian bias for John 1:1c and simply decide to find some minor thing (like your misunderstanding of ONE [Young's Concordance] of the many scholarly sources I listed) to "correct." Or you simply throw out generalized fluff when specifics are needed. For example, you can't explain how Colwell or any noted scholar 'explains' all the listed Colwell Constructions.

I hope to ignore your pseudo-scholarship and meaningless generalizations and obfuscations in the future, but my willpower isn't as strong as it used to be.

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:32 pm

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Jesus is never called JEHOVAH in the bible. Only Almighty God is called by the Divine Name YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh)

Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem recognizing Jesus as "a god", he is called such in Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1c

Who then is called Jehovah in Exodus 33:11 'The Lord [Jehovah] would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.' ? It can't be the Father (John 1:18).

Is not Exodus 33:20 distinguishing between Jehovah who Moses speaks face to face with in v11 with another who he cannot see face to face: "But, he said, you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.?