JW Bible. What do scholars say? Is it respected, or scriptural OK or accurate?

Hi Arach,I agree with you. I don't believe the NWT rendering of ruach is appropriate at Genesis 1:2. I do believe, however, that the word force might be applied in other contexts. Please review this page at my website and tell me what you think. East WindThanksdb

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Dear Arachnophilia;Here is a better link on Luke 23:43, the other one did had too much debating.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/...slation/luke23.43.htm
Here is one on Genesis 1:2
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/...lation/genesis1.2.htmSincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear John;Here is a link on Luke 23:43 that doesn't have all the debating like the other one did.http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/...slation/luke23.43.htmSincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

no, i totally understand what the word means. but "force" is not an acceptable translation. the word (as drbill shows in his link) CAN be describing a force symbolically, but it depends highly on context. there are usages where it is a calm wind, and usages where it is violent one.

quote:

---

The Spirit of God is a "creative power", not a person.

---

this fine. it is, in fact, a creative power. it is wind. traditionally, el is a god of the wind.

quote:

---

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

god creates life with his wind. his wind *IS* life. it is absolutely acceptable, and probably more correct, to translate the word as wind. the word means wind. if you believe that it's not refering to a personage (ie: "the holy spirit") that's ok. it's probably not.the point is that it's VERY obviously been changed especially for that reason, and away from the actual literal meaning. my jps doesn't translate it as "spirit" either. that's ok. it renders it "wind" -- what it literally says.the point is NOT that the belief is correct. the point is that the bible was changed because of the belief, not knowledge of the text. because it does not say "force." and that's just silly. the comma is NOT just as good anywhere. and it's not consistently rendered that way. let's rearrange this one:

quote:

---

James 4:13 Come, now, YOU who say: "Today or tomorrow we will journey to this city and will spend a year there, and we will engage in business and make profits,"

---

Come, now, YOU who say today or tomorrow: "We will journey to this city and will spend a year there, and we will engage in business and make profits,"it's inconsistent grammar. and your translation of ruach is also insonsistent. it shows clear bias.

---

אָרַח

connotatively, sure. denotatively, it means wind. now, it can easily be a metaphor. an example that comes to mind is the japanese "kamikaze" which is another divine wind. it wasn't actually a wind, it was airplanes used as bombs.i do not believe there is any literal way to render ruach as "force." it just means wind. it connotates a force, as in a life-force ("spirit") but if you're gonna do that, you're just playing semantic games. we don't like the word spirit because people think it means the trinity, so we'll change it to something else.the point isn't even so much that it's incorrect, but that it's biased, and willing to change the bible to fit dogma.

---

אָרַח

h/oThis message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-24-2005 11:44 PM

I disagree with your interpretation that it meant cemetery, which it doesn't say.I think he was referring to Eden, found in the old testament which fits that description also.I think there is no more evidence either way, so to go ahead and preach this I feel is dishonest.Would a convicted thief be buried in a "paradise" anyway?Jesus's kindom is the ground?I don't really agree with you.

Which it also doesn't say. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus knew he was going into the ground. Jesus was also convicted and his crime was more serious than thievery. And yes, if the thief had a wealthy friend, such as Jesus had, he might get such a high class burial. "come into your kingdom" might be better interpreted: "come to power." Jesus was not about to come to power. He was about to be put in the ground. I believe he knew that. I believe he admitted that.The word "paradise" is taken from the Hebrew "par-dace" which simply means a garden, or forest. A piece of cultivated real estate. A happy hunting ground.Jesus was, on that very day, entombed in such a place. He did not go to Eden.If one asserts that this "paradise" is a land-of-the-dead such as Nirvana then he must ignore the literal usage of the term in the Old Testament, and deny the possibility that Jesus was speaking literally in acceptance of his own doom. One must also deny that Jesus is describing the place where he is actually going; not into the sky but into the ground. Jesus was, after all, "the flower of Judaism," and the concept of "paradise" as the happy hunting ground of the dead is more of a heathen concept.In the Jewish Bible (Old Testament), the word par-dace (paradise) is only given in the literal sense. It is only in the Christian Bible (New Testament) that the term is metaphorized. I believe this is a clear cut case of forcing heathen fantasy onto an otherwise perfectly believable Jewish story.db

In context though, I still don't see it. How many times did he refer to a heaven in his parables. Or the "Kingdom".I think the description of the word leaves two explanations:An Eden like place, which fits description.Or a cemetery which fits the description basically.
(It doesn't say a place of burial though)Judging by everything else Christ did, the first is more plausible.

quote:

---

Jesus was, on that very day, entombed in such a place. He did
not go to Eden.

---

Yes, he was. But he is also God I believe so was also in heaven or nirvana or paradise.This message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-25-2005 09:43 AM

quote:

---

3) the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise

​

4) the upper regions of the heavens. According to the early church Fathers, the paradise in which our first parents dwelt before the fall still exists, neither on the earth or in the heavens, but above and beyond the world

​

5) heaven

---

Do these definitions not count? I'm seriously asking you.My friend who is a son of the professor of theology at Sarah Lawrence college said this:When Romans made a "paradise" in their villas it would be where they would be merry and drink.Romans buried people in tombs not paradises because it's quicker. If you're rich enough you get a good tomb.This message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-25-2005 09:52 AMThis message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-25-2005 09:54 AM

So when He earlier conversed with His disciples, he said to them: Notice how Jesus indicates that He must bring His sheep with Him. Yet earlier, when talking with the Pharisees, He says: He indicates that the Pharisees(non-believers) will die, obviously, yet where He is going they cannot come.....which trashes the "into the ground" theory.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-25-2005 03:47 PM

---

It's not about how much you know, but what you do with what you know.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.

Dear Arachnophilia; The Hebrew word "ruach" can have the meaning of an invisible active force, sort of a creative wind of God. I think you agree it is not referring to a person or being, but rather a power of God used to do something. The NWT uses the term "active force" in Gen 1:2, I gather you don't object to the word "active",. just the word "force". Since in this verse a creative power of God is being referred to rather than just a wind, the translators probably wanted a word that would have a sense of controlled creative power of God rather than a just a wind of God. God wasn't just exhaling his breath over the earth in Gen 1:2, he was actively in using his power to create. So I think using the word "force" is a good choice to infer a controlled 'wind' of God or spirit power used by God to make things and do things. Using the word "wind" in this verse doesn't convey to the reader that the verse isn't just talking about wind, but something much more controlled and powerful from God. I like the NWT wording in Gen 1:2, I think it is closer to the meaning of the Hebrew wording than the more common translation of "Holy Spirit". No translation from one language to another is perfect, since the words will almost never have the exact same meaning as the words used in the other language, so it is a matter of picking the closest match. I didn't know where you got the idea that comma placement doesn't matter, since it certainly does. Maybe they were making the point that the earliest Greek text doesn't have punctuation marks, and it is not possible to determine comma placement from the text itself. The context of the verse implies where the comma should be placed. The problem is that different people have different understandings of the context and thus see the comma in different places. To decide comma placement at Luke 23:43 it is necessary to know whether the paradise Jesus was talking about was something that would come that day or later. I know that you think it means a cemetery park, but let's see what the Bible states it is.
Revelation 2:7 "To him that conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.'"
Now if the tree of life is in paradise, it certainly is not a place for the dead, it is clearly a place for the living, and in fact living forever since that is what eating of the tree of life means. Genesis 3:22 "now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite"Paradise is described here at; Revelation 21:3-4 " With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.""
Death is no more because those who are there have eaten of the symbolic tree of life and live forever. The fact that death is done away with, shows this to be taking place on the earth and not in heaven, as well as that God is with mankind and pain and tears being done away with. So paradise means what it meant in Genesis, a beautiful garden like place without death or suffering.So when Jesus told the man next to him that he would be with him in paradise, Jesus was saying that he would resurrect him in the paradise earth that his kingdom would one day bring about. Since this event was far in the future, the comma in Luke 23:43 should be after the word 'today' and not before it.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

no. it can't. it means wind. period. no, i agree that it is not referring to a separate personage, ie: "the holy spirit." since el is a wind god, describing him as a wind or a spirit would be totally acceptable. it could well be read as the PRESENCE of god. i object to both. neither is what the text says. your BELIEF, not what the text says. in verse two? the closest thing to verse two that i see him creating is light, which he creates by SPEAKING, not breathing. the first thing that he creates with his breath is in the next chapter -- man's soul. no, it's not. "holy spirit" would in fact be technically closer. ruach can be literally translated as "spirit" because wind or breathe is used to mean spirit. it says "spirit of god." god is holy. holy spirit. it's not my fault that comes with some christian connotations, but it would be more technically correct. it'd only be the addition one word. you're adding one and changing another.however, that's all kind of moot because no bible translates it "holy spirit." just "spirit of god" which is what it actually says in the hebrew. since when is something "more correct" than the literal translation? yes, and "active force" is not the closest match. especially not since the word is translated "spirit" in most other places of the nwt, where previous translations render it "spirit" as opposed to "wind." it's not a strawman if your says it. from your link:

quote:

---

Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today.

---

quote:

---

Grammatically the comma goes equally well before or after the word "today."

---

THEY are saying that comma placement doesn't matter. I am not. so tell me then, do you disagree with your source then? mmhmm. that's beliefs affecting translation, is it not? actually, i don't really think anything on this. theologically, i haven't made up my mind yet. but let me make a very important point.biblical translation does not and should not rely on the internal consistency of the texts.if it did, we'd be in a real pickle. accuracy would just fly out the window. what if we changed revelation to match luke? who's to say which one is wrong, and which one it right? we have to translate each verse as accurately to the source, but not the other verses.more importantly, the NWT DOES NOT translate according to internal consistency: [quote]Genesis 6:19 And of every living creature of every sort of flesh, [/b]two of each[/b], you will bring into the ark to preserve them alive with you. Male and female they will be. 20 Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.[/quote]

quote:

---

Genesis 7:

​

8 Of every clean beast and of every beast that is not clean and of the flying creatures and everything that moves on the ground, 9 they went in by twos to Noah inside the ark, male and female, just as God had commanded Noah.

---

quote:

---

Genesis 7:

​

2 Of every clean beast you must take to yourself by sevens, the sire and its mate; and of every beast that is not clean just two, the sire and its mate;

---

this is a well known contradiction of sorts. genesis 6 and genesis 7 both say noah took two of each kind of animal on the ark. but one verse in 7 says that noah should take SEVEN on the clean animals (probably because noah later sacrifices some animals after the flood). the traditional perspective is that noah took 7 of the clean animals, for that very reason.so why doesn't the NWT fix first two verses to be internally consistent? they're obviously wrong, or at least forgetting something. and the translators had no qualms about adding or removing words. why not here, to tidy up an important and well-known goof?

quote:

---

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

​

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.

---

the tree of life, here, appears to be in the coming kingdom of god. "paradise" if you will. here, the tree of life is in eden. eden is between four rivers, the tigris, the euphrates, and two that don't seem to exist today.so both places are on earth, not heaven. that's fine. but let's not be silly here -- both places are not the same. and eden has mysteriously disappeared. so tell me:where is the tree of life today?

---

אָרַח

What "later Jews" believed may be irrelevant to the question.What "Romans" did seems irrelevant also, when you consider the fact that "paradise" is not a Latin word. It does appear in the Vulgate but is given as a transliteration of the Greek testament. More surprisingly, perhaps, is the fact that "paradise," even though it appears in the Greek testament, is not a word of ancient Greek. It is a transliteration of the Hebrew word pardace which is itself of foreign origin {perhaps Aramaic}. As a word of Hebrew it is translated - "forest," and "orchard," i.e. a cultivated, well kept piece of real estate.There are often multiple possibilities when one seeks to determine the meaning of a particular word. High up on the list of rules for determining this, is a consideration of the context.Jesus did not go to "heaven" that day. According to the text, he went to 'heaven' sometime later, after the resurrection.Tomb districts, i.e. graveyards, were often cultivated with beautiful trees and flowering shrubs. To this day we make the environs of the graveyard as beautiful as possible. People bring flowers and place them at the head stones. People have associated flowers and gardens with the burial plots of the dead for tens of thousands of years.The tomb of Jesus was located in "The Garden of Gesthemane."Doesn't matter that he didn't call it a 'burial ground.' He called it what he wanted to call it. It just so happens that he called it by a Hebrew (or perhaps Aramaic) name. According to the text he said several things in a foreign language just before he died.I understand, and sympathize, that you don't want his story to be so down to earth, so human, so real, but there you have it. For me personally, this fact only enhances the drama of that conversation, and brings to a heart rending crescendo the gawdawful human tragedy of his painful and untimely end.db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

No, I meant the thief was in heaven with God which I equate with Christ.See I say this that Jesus must have meant some kind of nirvana because i don't believe people just die like that.It morally doesn't make sense.