God has proved his love for you

[kjw47]

Gods plan = mortals to live in an Eden( Paradise) knowing only good, never sick, never without. To live forever not aging like now. That is what Gods plan began, it is still his plan. He created all things with variety for us to enjoy. His word says, he knew us before our kidneys were formed, he knows the exact number of hairs on our heads. Think about that. God could easily see us as we see little ants scurrying about. The creator of all creation thinks about us individually and wants to be our friend. He sent his son to die on our behalf's. He asks us to use our free will out of love for him to listen to his advice. Which benefits us not him. He gave us his written word. Few have bothered to read it and learn about how merciful and loving he is. His son showed us that side while he was on earth. But he also stands for justice. And those who cant be bothered to learn about him and listen to him are choosing not to enter his kingdom and gain eternal life. His name is YHWH(Jehovah) the only true God.
Will you learn to be his friend?

[Difflugia]

You're just saying that a paraphrase that agrees with you is "accurate."

In the Greek, it's the same word in both places. If someone wanted to do a word study, for example, the NWT obscures that relationship. In one place, Luke says that προσκυνέω should only apply to the Lord God. In another, Luke says that the disciples did προσκυνέω to Jesus. Whether it's an "accurate" doctrine or not, the NWT translators are adding that doctrine into the text where it wasn't before. That's fine for a liturgical paraphrase, but that's not what the NWT translators claimed about their translation philosophy and not an accurate representation of what Luke wrote in Greek.

I think your understanding of what Luke wrote in Greek is out in left field.

I'm sure you do.

I think he spoke of that that you put in italics as referring to Jesus, as does the other verse.

Luke 4:8:

And Jesus answered him, “It is written,

“‘προσκυνήσεις the Lord your God,
and him only shall you serve.’”

Luke 24:52:

And they προσκυνήσαντες him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy

Luke 4:8 refers to worshipping "the Lord your God." Luke 24:52 refers to worshipping Jesus.

Actually, It's hard for me to answer this because you don't give the verses' locations.

It was in the thread I linked. I'm sorry if that was too much homework for you.

Also, I can't see where any of your comparisons are different in meaning.

Maybe. I hope not, but maybe.

And the NWT is indeed as close to the meaning that the writer intended as any version.

So you keep asserting. Your only justification so far, though, is that you personally agree with the NWT's choice of paraphrase.

They don't add doctrine to the text. They harmonize their translations with the rest of the Scriptures.

Those two sentences can't simultaneously be true.

[onewithhim]

You're just saying that a paraphrase that agrees with you is "accurate."

In the Greek, it's the same word in both places. If someone wanted to do a word study, for example, the NWT obscures that relationship. In one place, Luke says that προσκυνέω should only apply to the Lord God. In another, Luke says that the disciples did προσκυνέω to Jesus. Whether it's an "accurate" doctrine or not, the NWT translators are adding that doctrine into the text where it wasn't before. That's fine for a liturgical paraphrase, but that's not what the NWT translators claimed about their translation philosophy and not an accurate representation of what Luke wrote in Greek.

I think your understanding of what Luke wrote in Greek is out in left field.

I'm sure you do.

I think he spoke of that that you put in italics as referring to Jesus, as does the other verse.

Luke 4:8:

And Jesus answered him, “It is written,

“‘προσκυνήσεις the Lord your God,
and him only shall you serve.’”

Luke 24:52:

And they προσκυνήσαντες him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy

Luke 4:8 refers to worshipping "the Lord your God." Luke 24:52 refers to worshipping Jesus.

Actually, It's hard for me to answer this because you don't give the verses' locations.

It was in the thread I linked. I'm sorry if that was too much homework for you.

I didn't see any link. Can we dispense with the subtle side-swipes?

Now I can look at the verses in question. Luke 4:8 does refer to Jehovah, as Jesus quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures which retain the Tetragrammaton in each of its 7,000 places.

Luke 24:52 refers to the obeisance Jesus received. Once again, that "worship" was the worship that any person of high rank was given, not the worship that goes to God alone. That is why two different words are used (in the NWT) for worship going to a prominent influential figure (obeisance) versus the worship going to Almighty God (worship). Most versions use just the one word, worship, but we can understand that the worship that goes to God is not the same worship we would give to Jesus. He is an important prominent influential person, such as we might "worship" a king or a judge. It shows respect.

[Difflugia]

Can we dispense with the subtle side-swipes?

Nothing would please me more.

Luke 24:52 refers to the obeisance Jesus received. Once again, that "worship" was the worship that any person of high rank was given, not the worship that goes to God alone.

And once again, this is a doctrinal position that you and the translators are reading back into the text as a paraphrase.

Your argument is still that it's not happening because it's OK that it is.

[onewithhim]

Can we dispense with the subtle side-swipes?

Nothing would please me more.

Luke 24:52 refers to the obeisance Jesus received. Once again, that "worship" was the worship that any person of high rank was given, not the worship that goes to God alone.

And once again, this is a doctrinal position that you and the translators are reading back into the text as a paraphrase.

Your argument is still that it's not happening because it's OK that it is.

That doctrinal position is solid, not just something JWs wanted to fit the Bible to our beliefs. The one true God (John 17:3) is the Father, Jehovah, and when "worship" is used in reference to Him we know that we give Him worship as that one true God. When "worship" is directed at Jesus, we know that he is worshipped as an important powerful person, just as governmental officials or judges are "worshipped." It is showing respect. He is special--God's Son--but not worshipped as God.

How is that doctrinal position a paraphrase?

[Difflugia]

That doctrinal position is solid, not just something JWs wanted to fit the Bible to our beliefs.

Even if that were true, the point is that they've modified the text to match the doctrinal position.

The one true God (John 17:3) is the Father, Jehovah, and when "worship" is used in reference to Him we know that we give Him worship as that one true God. When "worship" is directed at Jesus, we know that he is worshipped as an important powerful person, just as governmental officials or judges are "worshipped." It is showing respect. He is special--God's Son--but not worshipped as God.

How is that doctrinal position a paraphrase?

The doctrinal position itself isn't a paraphrase, or at least not the one I'm talking about. The paraphrase is changing Luke's wording in a theologically important way in light of that doctrine.

Would you clarify your argument for me, please? Are you claiming that it's OK that the NWT translators changed wording to match doctrinal positions ("They harmonize their translations with the rest of the Scriptures.") or that they didn't do so at all ("They don't add doctrine to the text.")?

[onewithhim]

That doctrinal position is solid, not just something JWs wanted to fit the Bible to our beliefs.

Even if that were true, the point is that they've modified the text to match the doctrinal position.

No they have not. They believe what they learned from the text. The text came first, then the belief. Therefore they did not fiddle around with the text to match their belief.

[Difflugia]

No they have not. They believe what they learned from the text. The text came first, then the belief. Therefore they did not fiddle around with the text to match their belief.

The translators created the translation before they formed any beliefs? Like the Watchtower Society hired translators that had no preconceived theological positions about the Bible?

Or are you trying to equivocate on what you mean by "text?"

Or are you, as I suspect, deep in the throes of cognitive dissonance, trying to reconcile your a priori belief that the translators didn't fit the translation to Witness theology with the overwhelming evidence that they did?

[onewithhim]

No they have not. They believe what they learned from the text. The text came first, then the belief. Therefore they did not fiddle around with the text to match their belief.

The translators created the translation before they formed any beliefs? Like the Watchtower Society hired translators that had no preconceived theological positions about the Bible?

The translators and all of the Bible Students (Later known as Jehovah's Witnesses) had studied the Bible versions that were available in 1878---the King James Version and the American Standard Bible. They discussed what they learned and all came to conclusions based on the Scriptures in those two versions.

[TheHolyGhost]

God has proved his love for you
Will you learn to be his friend?

God has never ever loved any of you. And you could not be His friend if you wanted,
for He is a holy God a consuming fire.