|
Author
|
Topic: JW Bible. What do scholars say? Is it respected, or scriptural OK or accurate?
|
John
Inactive Member
|
Re: where's the comma in the greek?
I've done some checking. Early Greek texts were not punctuated very well nor were they punctuated very consistently when they were punctuated. However, the greek text that are punctuated have the mark between 'you' and 'today'.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 17 of 48 (235365)
08-22-2005 3:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by John
08-21-2005 6:55 PM
|
|
Re: where's the comma in the greek?
I've done some checking. Early Greek texts were not punctuated very well nor were they punctuated very consistently when they were punctuated. can punctuation be implied from the grammar?
However, the greek text that are punctuated have the mark between 'you' and 'today'. i suspected as much. wmscott, how do you justify this change?
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by John, posted 08-21-2005 6:55 PM | | John has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 18 of 48 (235367)
08-22-2005 3:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by Trump won
08-21-2005 11:00 AM
|
|
Re: What Jehovah's Witnesses have done is to change the Bible to fit their doctrine.
Here's another for wmscott: John 1:1 New world translation: 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. nearest i can tell, greek doesn't have an equivalent for the english article "a" or "an." (someone who knows better, feel free to correct me). i actually don't like john's point about jesus and god being one and the same, but this way it breaks with judaism's monotheism at the time. would john have done that? i dunno.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by Trump won, posted 08-21-2005 11:00 AM | | Trump won has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by Trump won, posted 08-22-2005 11:33 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1265 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: 01-12-2004
|
Re: What Jehovah's Witnesses have done is to change the Bible to fit their doctrine.
quote:
i actually don't like john's point about jesus and god being one and the same
Why exactly?
quote:
would john have done that?
Are you suggesting that was added?
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
|
Message 20 of 48 (235506)
08-22-2005 12:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Trump won
08-22-2005 11:33 AM
|
|
Re: What Jehovah's Witnesses have done is to change the Bible to fit their doctrine.
This site explains rather succinctly what many orthodox (traditional) protestant scholars think about the NWT. This website also throws out the argument from the traditional Christian view. Personally, I too have had some good friends who were witnesses. We discussed the bible, God, and love in an respectful manner. we disagreed on the points about Jesus being God. They basically believe that Jesus was the first created thing and that prior to His earthly incarnation He was Michael the archangel. I was unconvinced of this despite the scriptures that they had readily available to "prove" it. Norman Geisler attempts to explain Trinitarian doctorine in his well acclaimed Baker encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics: Geisler writes: While the word Trinity does not occur there, the concept is clearly taught in the Bible. The logic of the doctrine of the Trinity is simple. Two biblical truths are evident in scripture, the logical conclusion of which is the Trinity: 1) There is one God. 2) There are three distinct persons who are God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible also reconizes a plurality of persons in God. Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not as explicit in the Old Testament as the New Testament, nonetheless, there are passages where members of the God-head are distinguished. At times they even speak to one another. (Psalm 110:1) No analogy of the Trinity is perfect, but some are better than others. First, some bad illustrations should be repudiated. The Trinity is not like a chain with three links. For these are three seperate and separable parts. But God is niether seperated nor seperable. Neither is God like the same actor playing three different parts in a play. For God is simultaneously three persons, not one person playing three successive roles. Nor is God like the three states of water: solid, liquid, and gaseous. For normally water is not in all three states at the same time, but God is always three persons at the same ime. Unlike other bad analogies, this one does not imply tritheism. However, it does reflect another heresy known as modalism. Most erroneous illustrations of the Trinty tend to support the charge that trinitarianism is really tritheism, since they contain seperable parts. The more helpful analogies retain the unity of God while they show a simultaneous plurality. There are several that fit this description. A Mathematical Illustration: One aspect of the problem can be expressed in mathematical terms. Critics make a point of computing the mathematical impossibility of believing there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Godhead, without holding that there are three gods. Does not 1 + 1+ 1 = 3? It ceretainly does if you add them, but Christians insist the the triunity of God is more like 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. God is triune, not triplex. His one essence has multiple centers of personhood. Thus, there is no more mathematical problem in conceiving the Trinity than there is understanding 1 cubed (1 to the 3rd power). A Geometric Illustration: Perhaps the most widely used illustration of the Trinity is the triangle. One triangle has three corners, which are inseparable from, and simultaneous to, one another. In this sense it is a good illustration of the Trinity. Of course, the triangle is finite and God is infinite, so it is not a perfect illustration. A Moral Illustration: Augustine suggested an illustration of how God is both three and one at the same time. The Bible informs us that "God is love" (1 John 4:16). Love involves a lover, a beloved, and a spirit of love between lover and loved. The Father might be likened to the Lover; the Son to the One love, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of love. Yet love does not exist unless these three are united as one. This illustration has the advantage of being personal, since it involves love, a characteristic that flows only from persons. To me, it is not so great of a mental puzzle to see God expressed in three persons and yet remain Monotheistic. The Sun, The Light, and the Heat are another example. The Light comes from the Sun, as does the heat. They are three different expressions yet one source. Even the Roman Catholics recognize the concept of the trinity and explain it at THIS website. Arianism was an early church heresay that was struck down. I still attempt to focus on the things that my JW friends and I agree on about God rather than attempt to argue with them. as of now, they are quite firm in their beliefs as I am quite firm in mine. In the end, Love is the undeniable and final agreement that cannot be argued. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-22-2005 10:21 AM
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Trump won, posted 08-22-2005 11:33 AM | | Trump won has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 21 of 48 (235542)
08-22-2005 1:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Trump won
08-22-2005 11:33 AM
|
|
Re: What Jehovah's Witnesses have done is to change the Bible to fit their doctrine.
quote:
i actually don't like john's point about jesus and god being one and the same
Why exactly? hard to explain. mostly because it doesn't make sense in light of the rest of the bible. jesus refers to himself as a lowly mortal ("son of man"), talks to god and even begs him in gethsemane as if he's a separate person, refers to god as his (and our) father, etc. it doesn't seem to me like they are the same person. nor, according to hebrew law, are we allowed to worship a person or any other image as if it were god.
quote:
would john have done that?
Are you suggesting that was added? not really suggesting anything. i'm just not sure if john would have broken with hebrew tradition to that extent. he very well might have been slightly polytheistic, judging by the amount he strays from typical judaic thought...
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Trump won, posted 08-22-2005 11:33 AM | | Trump won has not replied |
|
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6273 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: 12-19-2001
|
Re: What Jehovah's Witnesses have done is to change the Bible to fit their doctrine.
Dear Arachnophilia; Here is a link that justifies and explains the reason for change in the comma placement. A Response To Don Hartley on the Matter of the Colwell Construction, Luke 7:39,
and the Use of Theology in Grammatical Studies by Greg Stafford debate on Luke 23:43 Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6273 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: 12-19-2001
|
|
|
Message 23 of 48 (235679)
08-22-2005 6:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by Trump won
08-21-2005 11:00 AM
|
|
Re: What Jehovah's Witnesses have done is to change the Bible to fit their doctrine.
Dear Chris Porteus; Here is a link that explains why the wording is the way it is in the NWT at John 1:1 Advantages of the New World Translation: Is it Grammar or Interpretation? Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by Trump won, posted 08-21-2005 11:00 AM | | Trump won has not replied |
|
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6273 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: 12-19-2001
|
|
|
Message 24 of 48 (235681)
08-22-2005 6:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by John
08-21-2005 6:55 PM
|
|
Re: where's the comma in the greek?
Dear John; Here is a relevant quote.
"Today." Although WH puts a comma in the Gr. text before the word for "today," commas were not used in Gr. uncial mss. In keeping with the context, we omit the comma before "today." Syc (fifth cent. C.E.) renders this text: "Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden." F. C. Burkitt, The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904. Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by John, posted 08-21-2005 6:55 PM | | John has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 25 by John, posted 08-22-2005 8:32 PM | | wmscott has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 25 of 48 (235717)
08-22-2005 8:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by wmscott
08-22-2005 6:59 PM
|
|
Re: where's the comma in the greek?
Ok. I respect leaving the comma out of the text as it does not appear in the Greek, but this does not explain the comma placement in the NWT. The comma, which is most definitely not left out, appears after the 'today.'
quote:
And he said to him: Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise. http://watchtower.org/bible/lu/chapter_023.htm#bk43
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by wmscott, posted 08-22-2005 6:59 PM | | wmscott has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 26 of 48 (235718)
08-22-2005 8:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by wmscott
08-22-2005 6:49 PM
|
|
Re: What Jehovah's Witnesses have done is to change the Bible to fit their doctrine.
Could you point out the relevant passages. I do not feel like reading through this man's vendetta, and, according to Firefox, the word 'comma' doesn't even appear on the page. That, and the discussion concerns Luke 7:39 not Luke 23:43. Perhaps there are some parallels. Can you make that case?
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by wmscott, posted 08-22-2005 6:49 PM | | wmscott has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by wmscott, posted 08-23-2005 6:10 PM | | John has not replied |
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
|
Message 27 of 48 (235733)
08-22-2005 9:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
08-17-2005 11:13 PM
|
|
chris writes: I care about the moral issues of the JW's, I know them. I have studied with some of them and studied their faith. Hi, I was brought up in a Jehovah's Witness family, "studied" with them for about five years, and in my congregation the bible was actually surprisingly rarely considered. Most of the sermons were actually based on the (large) series of books published by the Watchtower foundation. In fact reference to a JW book was much more common than reference to the bible - especially for the youngsters such as myself. I think this was due to an idea that the Church should be made accessible to young people by talking about things that aren't actually mentioned in the bible. For example I remember a sermon in which the sole subject of debate was how short a girl's skirt was allowed to be. Much reference was made to a small hardback brown-coloured book called "Childhood: a beauty to be adored" or something like that. I don't believe (but I may be wrong) that Jesus made any definitive statement on the acceptable length of girls' skirts. That didn't stop them pontificating for hours, as I sat there sweating and fidgeting in my itchy "smart" woollen trousers and nylon tie... How I hate them for those woollen trousers! Bastards! Mick
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Trump won, posted 08-17-2005 11:13 PM | | Trump won has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 28 of 48 (235749)
08-22-2005 9:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by wmscott
08-22-2005 6:49 PM
|
|
Re: What Jehovah's Witnesses have done is to change the Bible to fit their doctrine.
maybe i'm missing something, but i think that's the wrong link. it seems to be mostly about john 1:1 (which i might agree is an acceptable rendering) and luke 7:39 (are they arguing over a verb tense?) the word "comma" apears nowhere in the link, nor does the citation for luke 23:43.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by wmscott, posted 08-22-2005 6:49 PM | | wmscott has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 29 of 48 (235757)
08-22-2005 9:54 PM
|
|
|
here's another change.
this time with a passage i'm very familiar with:
quote:
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
now, the root word here is רוּחַ here's another place where the word occurs (in the nwt, of course)
quote:
Genesis 6:3 After that Jehovah said: "My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years."
ruwach can have a few meanings, depending on context. a common usage is spirit or mind. another common usage is to mean wind, or breeze ("cool of the day"). so this verse could be rendered, convievably, as "a wind from God blew over the face of the waters." the jps renders it this way. they obviously don't go for the trinity idea either -- but that is still literally what the verse says. how do you justify the usage of "active force?" there's not a single usage of the word that EVER means force. it literally means "wind" but tends to connotate the breathe of life, or one's soul of spirit. where does "force" rendering this even come from, why the inconsistency of translation? it's quite obvious it's been changed very selectively into something that the original text does not say. for what purpose if not doctrine? abe: i would also like to point out how very many pages i found objecting to the nwt just googling for the actual text of it. the text itself was about 6 entries down, below a few prominent objections. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-22-2005 09:56 PM
אָרַח
|
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2790 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: 01-08-2001
|
|
|
Message 30 of 48 (235944)
08-23-2005 10:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
08-17-2005 11:13 PM
|
|
Smoke and Mirrors
Hi Chris, Thank you for bringing up this classic controversy. I was alerted to this discussion by one of the lurkers, who reports to me when my name is noticed in a thread (msgs. 9, 10). I would like to thank you, and Arach, for calling upon my holy name  . I have just read through this thread and have several thoughts which might be of interest but I will limit myself to the following. Firstly: There were no punctuation marks in ancient Greek. Puctuation, word separation, and more have been applied to modern versions of the Greek text in an effort to make it more 'understandable.' Sadly, even the Greek New Testament which is prepared by the highly reputable Bible Societies has been treated with such interpretive tools. Secondly: (And this is where one sees past the smoke and mirrors) - Paradise was a nice place to visit but you wouldn't want to 'live' there. see the Greek then see the Hebrew Paradise was the equivalent of Forest Lawn; a cultivated ground, a forest, a park, a well kept piece of real estate, a quiet place of eternal rest. That's right! Paradise was a graveyard. An honorable place to be buried for sure, when compared to gehenna (the city dump). As you may recall, one of the criminals being executed alongside Jesus asked that he remember him when he comes to power. Whatever interpretation the apostle tried to lay on it, the raw text of the exchange between the two men may be interpreted in another way. That 'criminal' may have been unbelievably hopeful of a last second reprieve; you know, a gallows rescue. At any rate, the reply of Jesus was apparently both factual and true to human experience. Seems Jesus realized that the gig was up. Note his belief that God had abandoned him. Note his words of resignation. And he was indeed, ultimately, taken to the graveyard that very day. "I'm telling you now, we'll both end up in memorial park." Luke 23:43 db
Theology is the science of Dominion.- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Trump won, posted 08-17-2005 11:13 PM | | Trump won has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2