Christian: Problems With Modern Bible Translations (moral, Kingdom, virgin, grace)

[may]

Originally Posted by No*s

May, given what I've already caught your source doing, why should I listen to it? I already know you don't read the languages, so you can't offer your opinion as sound. You're responses are always a canned answer from a book, and frankly, if we believe those books to be about as untrustworthy as it gets, why should we listen to it?

I think you shoudl address the points raised in the previous post rather than quoting another segment to defend your view, especially when the credibility of your sources is in question. It's even worse when it doesn't contain any new information relevant to translation itself. We've already gone over the "a god" thing, and the theology behind it is only useful if we can place the meaning of theos when the logos is called it. Your source doesn't address the situation, nor does it offer new information, nor is it credible.

the fact that i have let the bible speak for it self answers the question as to weather Jesus is God or not, the whole of the bible is in harmony when john 1;1 is in line with the rest of the bible, and the rest of the bible tells us that jesus is seperate from God and not God himself .so in my limited knowledge even i can work it out. maybe some translaters are carrying preconcieved beliefs along with them,

[Scott1]

may..... I think No*s was trying to point out that although you claim to " let the bible speak for it self"...... if somehow an "original" copy were to appear in front of you, YOU COULDN'T READ IT.

You are reading a TRANSLATION..... and the human bias than comes with it...... and your sources don't seem too credible..... so it brings into doubt the credibility of your translators.

[may]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

may..... I think No*s was trying to point out that although you claim to " let the bible speak for it self"...... if somehow an "original" copy were to appear in front of you, YOU COULDN'T READ IT.

You are reading a TRANSLATION..... and the human bias than comes with it...... and your sources don't seem too credible..... so it brings into doubt the credibility of your translators.

i think these sources are very credible because they are sincere searchers for truth of what the original koi-ne Greek basically or literally says. many different translations have been made over the years but many of these have fallen victim to the power of religious traditions in varying degrees,consequently,religious traditions have been taken for granted and gone unchallenged and uninvestigated .these have been interwoven into the translations to color the thought.The endeavour of the new world bible translation committee has been to avoid this snare of religious traditionalism and get back to what it originally meant , so in my view ,i think they should be commended for this. There primary desire has been to seek not the approval of men ,but that of God , by rendering the truth of his inspired word as purely and as consistently as there dedicated abilities make possible .There is no benefit in self-. deceptionthey are aware of the need to be careful

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by may

i think these sources are very credible because they are sincere searchers for truth of what the original koi-ne Greek basically or literally says.

Sincerity somehow promotes accuracy?

There is no benefit in self-. deceptionthey are aware of the need to be careful

Careful.... but not infallible, right?

I wonder which parts are right........ and......

Peace be with you,
Scott

[No*s]

May,

Scott hit it right on the head. Here's the problem:

1). I read Greek, not just a little bit, but several dialects. I can read the Hellenistic (koini), Attic, and Homeric. I have lesser experience with other dialects through the Greek tragedies. I can not only read, but also write in this language. I haven't had the oppertunity to speak ancient Greek, because nobody speaks it anymore.

2). Your argument is completely dependent on a single collection of sources, and you can't go beyond it. You do not know the language under debate.

3). I have found severe errors in your source material that draws its credibility into question. To put it another way, I think I have caught it outright lying and on other occasions stretching things considerably. The issue of eimi is either an outright lie, or it is evidence of complete ignorance of the language. In either case, your source material's credibility is destroyed, because eimi is an extremely basic issue in Greek, with its meaning learned within the first few lessons by necessity.

4). That leads to the next problem, your solution to that problem is to quote from the same source material. When I understand the subject in question, I catch it in falsehoods, why would I listen to it for more "facts" to resolve the issue.

5). That brings us ultimately to: you need to get another source completely independant of the Watchtower. We don't trust it, and while you think they are honest, we do not. If you want us to grant your arguments weight, you need to quote a source outside the Watchtower, which you did not learn of through the Watchtower to resolve the issue and establish the points we are debating.

Anything short of doing that does no good. It can only hurt your argument, because you are dependant on one source and only one source.

[may]

Originally Posted by No*s

May,

Scott hit it right on the head. Here's the problem:

1). I read Greek, not just a little bit, but several dialects. I can read the Hellenistic (koini), Attic, and Homeric. I have lesser experience with other dialects through the Greek tragedies. I can not only read, but also write in this language. I haven't had the oppertunity to speak ancient Greek, because nobody speaks it anymore.

2). Your argument is completely dependent on a single collection of sources, and you can't go beyond it. You do not know the language under debate.

3). I have found severe errors in your source material that draws its credibility into question. To put it another way, I think I have caught it outright lying and on other occasions stretching things considerably. The issue of eimi is either an outright lie, or it is evidence of complete ignorance of the language. In either case, your source material's credibility is destroyed, because eimi is an extremely basic issue in Greek, with its meaning learned within the first few lessons by necessity.

4). That leads to the next problem, your solution to that problem is to quote from the same source material. When I understand the subject in question, I catch it in falsehoods, why would I listen to it for more "facts" to resolve the issue.

5). That brings us ultimately to: you need to get another source completely independant of the Watchtower. We don't trust it, and while you think they are honest, we do not. If you want us to grant your arguments weight, you need to quote a source outside the Watchtower, which you did not learn of through the Watchtower to resolve the issue and establish the points we are debating.

Anything short of doing that does no good. It can only hurt your argument, because you are dependant on one source and only one source.

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

John

1:1, 2:

RS

reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God."

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: "No one has ever seen God." Verse 14 clearly says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory." Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was "with God." Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God"; so, Jesus as "a god" merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Is the rendering "a god" consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, "The Word was God." but not all agree .In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos." He suggests: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’" (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·os´ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, "The Word was God," do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as "a devil," and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as "a prophet."

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’"—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, AT reads: "the Word was divine"; Mo, "the Logos was divine"; NTIV, "the word was a god." In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: "God of a sort the Word was." Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as "a god" is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as "gods" (Hebrew, ’elo·him´; Greek, the·oi´, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.so maybe you have not done your homework and have not looked at others ideas this is what the new world translation commitee have been willing to do as they look to make an accurate translationand i for one am glad to read it