Demonism and the Watchtower

[Shiwiii]

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don't care if Franz's dog translated it. The fact is that it exists and it gets high scholarly marks.

see previous post about where satan quotes scripture. Also, there are a plethora of scholars who do not, most of which are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin. 

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And there are some who genuinely have trouble with 'Jehovah' in the New Testament

This is because it NEVER occurred in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the new testament.

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it is cutting edge based upon Septuagint fragments and not all want to cut so deep.

Again, the Septuagint is the greek old testament, not the new testament. So it is of course likely that it was in the Septuagint because the old testament is where we find YHWH and the like.

   

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Who can say how much of the NWT translation was farmed out to experts

who can say ANY of it was? There is a reason why the translators remained anonymous, so they didn't get laughed at. This is a classic attempt at humble-bragging by the wt. 

 

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It's the technique of the lazy lout who must know the qualifications of the translators to determine if the work is any good or not.

you're right, why do we need to know if someone if qualified to do anything? I mean it doesn't matter if elders are qualified to counsel people on things that they know nothing about, like PTSD from child sexual abuse, right? It must be a good thing to have a 6 year old questioned by their accuser and other men with whom everyone that child knows bows down to......err does obeisance.   

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Also, there are a plethora of scholars who do not, most of which are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin. 

Are they trinitarian or not? That's all you need to know. If they are trinitarian they will hate the NWT, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship.

If they are not trinitarian they will be okay with it. They will recognize it as a legitimate translation, with both strengths and weaknesses.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So it is of course likely that it was in the Septuagint because the old testament is where we find YHWH and the like.

You have just answered your own question. If it was in the Septuagint, then it should be in the NT, because when OT verses are quoted in the NT, the quotes are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek translation of the Hebrew - the Septuagint.

[Cos]

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

What throws a shoe into the careful logic is that the Christian Greek Scriptures were written in ...oh ... what's the word I am looking for ...OH YEAH! ... Greek!

ACID TEST: Get a Bible written IN GREEK, their equivalent of the KJV, whatever that is ... and ask a native Greek educated person to explain John 1:1 to you.

Probably some regular folks at any Greek Orthodox Church. Might be a good experiment on a Sunday morning, after breakfast.

To find out who knows what ... ask him (or her) if they understand what a greek anarthrous predicate is. If they do ... show them the scripture.

All else is fibrillation for delusion.

 

How dare J.R. Ewing bring Latin into this, oh yes, it was OK then because you JW’s erroneously agreed with him…<><

[Cos]

14 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Google is a fine example of the owner wishing to be as accurate with his program as possible. Everyone knows that. Technology advancements have made it possible. Would I rely on it to be 100 percent? No! but isn’t that what you want people to believe with your assertion?

 

 

 

 

Mr. Ewing,

 

You like to accuse a lot of people on nothing but your own misguided assumptions.

14 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

 

Google translate was used as a simple tool to show the “deception” of publishers and those bible translations that wish to use the term “Word was God.” with a simple “period” to make it so, in Latin.

 

 

 

 

What a load of rubbish, go learn Latin before you make absurd claims!

 

14 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

 

As for the usage of other bible versions to illustrate that the NWT is not the only one to use and “indefinite article” with its translation was over emphasized by your attempt to discredit the example provided. Just like the frivolous attempt to discredit the second example, that you insist the word “divine” can only mean GOD, even though you cannot refute the usage of “a” on an earlier bible. 

 

Answer me this, is the Father a divine person? Of course He is! If you can say that the Father is a divine person without that demising His deity, then your employ of Edward Harwood translation is totally void. <><

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Cos:

It is seldom that I agree with ANYBODY ... about ANYTHING, unless what I am SUPPOSED to be agreeing to is absolutely clear and unambiguous ... and correct.

Your assuming I agree with groupthink is a sad mistake, and shows how YOU think in a fog.

Doubleplusungood.

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

8 hours ago, Cos said:

 

You like to accuse a lot of people on nothing but your own misguided assumptions.

 

8 hours ago, Cos said:

What a load of rubbish, go learn Latin before you make absurd claims!

Mr. COS

 
How dare you make a mockery of a subject you or your alter ego Shiwii know “nothing” about. Continue your studies before accusing someone of rubbish, when your own is exactly that.

So, the only thing “void” is your lack of understanding of the Greek Language, and by extent Latin. The one that needs to learn it is yourself!

 
You have your accusations backwards. You’re the one making them. 

 
Latin-English Interlinear (Nova Vulgata) Bible (GoogleTrans)

http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

[Cos]

17 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Cos:

It is seldom that I agree with ANYBODY ... about ANYTHING, unless what I am SUPPOSED to be agreeing to is absolutely clear and unambiguous ... and correct.

Your assuming I agree with groupthink is a sad mistake, and shows how YOU think in a fog.

Doubleplusungood.

Mr. Rook,

 

It has been my experience on this forum that you usually jump in with some pun and/or comment/insult immediately after I have mention something you don’t like. If you did not agree with J.R. Ewing’s bizarre and outrageous allegation then I apologize.

 

As a side note I have asked a native Greek speaking person the question about John 1:1 to see if their understanding on the verse is in line with my study of Koine Greek, what do you think the outcome was...? <><

[Cos]

11 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

 

Mr. COS

 

 

How dare you make a mockery of a subject you or your alter ego Shiwii know “nothing” about. Continue your studies before accusing someone of rubbish, when your own is exactly that.

 

 

So, the only thing “void” is your lack of understanding of the Greek Language, and by extent Latin. The one that needs to learn it is yourself!

 

 

You have your accusations backwards. You’re the one making them.

 

 

 

Latin-English Interlinear (Nova Vulgata) Bible (GoogleTrans)

 

http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

 

Mr. Ewing,

 

You accusation that in some way Shiwiii and I are the same person just proves to me how irrational your judgments are.

 

To date all the things you say are fake and that’s not a mockery, it’s the plain truth!

 

Let me ask you, for what reason do you think I lack “understanding of the Greek Language” are you just making up another false accusation to accommodate with your previous claims?

 

And it would only have been a matter of time till one of you JW’s brought up the Coptic version of John’s Gospel, mistakenly thinking that that this ancient version support’s the JW’s rendering.

 

My interest in this version was initiated when I was first shown the November 2008 Watchtower article “Was the Word ‘God’ or ‘a god’”, where the Watchtower appeals to the rendering in this version of John 1:1 as support of their own rendering. So I started by looking at “The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect” by George Horner, and what I found did not support the Watchtower’s claim.

 

Now the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof”, while ignoring everything else. What was interesting is that George Horner explains in his critical apparatus for his translation that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”

 

Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.”

 

Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does.

 

“because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16)

 

“…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26)

 

“That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5)

 

“…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39)

 

“. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34)

 

Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. The claims made by the Watchtower and by others who follow their teaching are unfounded and deceptive. <><

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

1 hour ago, Cos said:

You accusation that in some way Shiwiii and I are the same person just proves to me how irrational your judgments are.

Mr. COS

Just like you erred with the assumption about JTR, that, in all regards sites with nonsense, your judgment is actually irrational, since I was only referring to the “mental” state.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

To date all the things you say are fake and that’s not a mockery, it’s the plain truth!

They can only be fake if you are blind, and can’t comprehend a simple example of publisher’s deception by adding a simple period at the “end” to get the results they wish. That’s “factual” your argument isn’t. Or are you implying I hacked every Latin-English online dictionary to make the results go my way>< Now that would be absurd!!!

But, I’ll grant you, that many “active” witnesses in this forum don’t know or have known these simple publishers trick. They automatically assume as you do!

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Let me ask you, for what reason do you think I lack “understanding of the Greek Language” are you just making up another false accusation to accommodate with your previous claims?

Your Bias!!! You only include those ideologies that affirm your claim of “oneness”. Scripture in many places confirms the deity of the one and only true God, and the one and only True Son of God. I believe it’s your kind of people that complain the Watchtower doesn’t evaluate all possible avenues in order to make a sound judgment in translation. The Watchtower has done more to get clarity and Intune with the first-century message and the writings of God, than any other Christian Religion that stagnates with its rendering, and yet with all your innuendos, I see no signs of your progressiveness in language skills.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

And it would only have been a matter of time till one of you JW’s brought up the Coptic version of John’s Gospel, mistakenly thinking that that this ancient version support’s the JW’s rendering.

Theologians have known for a very long time. That’s the reason we don’t read too much into the opposition, you have just answered your argument for everyone. By the way! Why didn’t you bring up the Coptic Version if it fails with its rendering? Why hide something that opposers have known for over 70 years now. Why the mystery? Why the deception?

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Now the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof”, while ignoring everything else. What was interesting is that George Horner explains in his critical apparatus for his translation that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”

Your accusation precedes you. How, Have I only looked at this matter subjectively, if NOT objectively. This is another example of your lack of Koine Greek understanding. You are the one that ignores all possible avenues with the Greek language.

I could likewise use “the Word was like God”, “the word existed with God” “the word was godlike”, “of divine kind”, etc. The indefinite article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This pattern predicates either a quality (i.e. we’d omit the English article) in English “is Divine” or an entity “is a god”; the reader decides which rendering to give it.

The Coptic pattern doesn’t predicate equivalence as cited with the Notre Dame example, (Both) with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the definite article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be ODD><

It would be no different when using mnemonics to assist you with memory!

So, your assertion of:

1:1  ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ

In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.

Would be mistaken, since the southern dialect affirms the “word” as a god, but NOT “the” God the Father which you vigorously argue.

You’re NOT impressing me in the slightest. But if you wish to compare Jewish scholars, I have an unlimited amount. Your insistence on using the “poison well fallacy” is evident.

Professor Allen Wikgren of the University of Chicago cited the New World Translation as an example of a modern speech version that rather than being derived from other translations, often has “independent readings of merit.”— The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume I, page 99.

Commenting on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, British Bible critic Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”— The Differentiator, April 1952, page 52.

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.”

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 hours ago, Cos said:

As a side note I have asked a native Greek speaking person the question about John 1:1 to see if their understanding on the verse is in line with my study of Koine Greek, what do you think the outcome was...? <><

I would like to hear what you have to say about that specific investigation ... your hard data would of course trump my guessing what the outcome of YOUR actual experiment was. 

Remember however, if you use my qualifying criteria,  the qualifier was that my experiment basis was that  the Greek speaking person person had to be educated enough to understand the uses of Greek predicate positions, etc., specifically the anarthrous predicate as it was used in context of the complete sentence being considered.

Please provide as much detail of your experiment as you can remember ... I wallow in enjoying long detail accounts.

 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

And with that robust commentary, Nuff said, back on topic with the assertion the Watchtower employed spiritualism to define the NWT. I yield the floor back to the Highlanders!!!!

Enjoy!!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

..there can be ... only ONE.

nothing to lose your head about ....