1) WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OFFER INAUTHENTIC TEXT IN THE PLACE OF NEW TESTAMENT AUTHENTIC TEXT
Deeje misquoted Matt 23:39 as : "For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”.
Deeje explained : "Jesus was quoting Psalm 118:26..."
Yes, Jesus was using OLD TESTAMENT Psalms 118:26
BUT, Deeje was quoting NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 23:39
These two texts DO NOT read the same. They do not NEED to read the same.
NONE of the literally thousands and thousands of early, authentic New Testament Greek manuscripts that exist has this phrase "....in Jehovahs Name!" in Matthew 23:39. AND, while Verse 38 has variants listed, verse 39 does not list a single variant among these thousands of manuscripts.
Unless Jehovahs Witnesses discovered a “secret” Greek manuscript that has priority over all others, they are not allowed to change the text to support their theology.
2) THERE ARE REASONS WHY CERTAIN TEXTS IN SCRIPTURE DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER
If the New Testament is inspired and correct in Matthew 23:39, Jesus did NOT say “Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!”. This phrase in Matthew doesn’t exist. Forum readers who look up Matt 23:39 in any authentic translation, will not find this bogus version of the text. While the Jehovahs’ Witnesses are certainly allowed to claim “
it SHOULD read thusly”, they are not allowed to change the actual text to make the text say what they want.
IF a sect believes that the text SHOULD say, “
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of Elvis Presley.” They can argue for this all they want. BUT they are not allowed to change the text as they want and then pawn it off as original or accurate text.
If Jesus or the apostle were trying to teach that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, and Jesus IS Lord and is called “lord” by the early Christians, then certainly they may want to identify JESUS as Jehovah of the Old Testament and render the text to make this important point.
The juxtaposition of historical doctrinal principles and ancient language are more complicated than they appear. There are MANY instances where the scriptures differ in their quote AND some differences are major. For example, A new thread appeared from
Frank Goad in the "Religions Q&A" forum and one of the quotes is Isaiah 57:2.
It quotes Isaiah 57:2, speaking of the dead :
Jewish Masoretic reads : "
“2 He shall enter into peace: they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness.”
While Jewish LXX reads : “
2 His Burial will be in peace. He has been raised out of their midst”
These are Two very different quotes of the very same Isaiah 57:2 text. The two versions conflict in important ways. We are allowed to comment on and attempt to explain the differences,
but we cannot change a historical text itself. They are written how they are written.
It simply doesn’t matter historically, that the text in Matthew 23:39 doesn’t read the way the Jehovahs Witnesses
want it to read. So, you are allowed to explain WHY you think the text SHOULD say what it does not say, but to offer a bogus text and to try to pass it off as authentic, is something
an authentic translator does NOT do.
3) EVEN A NAÏVE “TRANSLATOR” IS NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE BIBLICAL TEXT
The Jehovahs witness Bible was, historically, composed of five Jehovah's Witnesses who claimed to be "anointed" to this task. (Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel)
According to Raymond Franz, Frederick Franz was the only one with sufficient knowledge of biblical language, who felt qualified to create this translation. However, Franz’s qualifications were EXTREMELY dubious. For example, historically, he apparently took only a single 3 credit hour introductory course in biblical Greek (Koine). His other four semesters of greek were in lower level coursework in Classical (Homeric) Greek and not biblical greek. He apparently had no formal education in Hebrew at all. While self -taught Hebrew is very
ADMIRABLE, and it allows one the right to venture an opinion, it is entirely insufficient to create a bible or to serve as a bible translator from Hebrew or greek manuscripts. PLEASE correct me if any of my data is incorrect.
As a comparison, many of the translators on the world-class Nestle-Aland team have doctorates (some have MULTIPLE doctorates) in the language they are translating. They have incredible qualifications for rendering opinions as to the meaning. They use a wide range of wonderfufl consultant experts from around the world to assist them. THEY have ALSO noticed that the text of Psalms quoted in Matthew 23:39 is different than the New Testament Quote. The eminent Nestle-Aland, and GN-4 teams would NEVER have considered it proper to change a text. A critical translators bible may render an opinion on the credibility of a text, but no one is allowed to actually change the text and use the bogus text as an actual quotation. In the case of dubious texts, they leave the text alone and make a marginal note that the text is dubious.
Certainly Franz, as the main creator of the Jehovahs Witness bible, with only a 3 semester course in biblical (Koine) Greek is incredibly naïve in thinking it was proper to change the text and offer up a fake text as “authentic”.
Even your justification for offering a bogus text to forum readers is not simply naïve, it reflects both ignorance and it reveals a willingness to subvert the sacred text in order to promote a doctrine. This undermines your claim to "rely on the bible" for your doctrines.
How can readers tell when you are offering more bits and pieces of bogus text in your quotes?
Do they have to look up each and every quote to check it for authenticity?
It complicates communications to have to check each and every quote you make in order to see what is correct and what is not.
5) A REPEAT CLAIM REGARDING HABAKKUK 2:19
"Woe to him who says to the wood, "Awaken!"; to the dumb stone, "Arise!" Shall it teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no spirit is within it." Habakkuk 2:19
HockyCowboy said : “@Clear , re: Habakkuk 2:19... Habakkuk 2:19 ....has many different versions. You can clearly see that ruach, in this instance, is breath. It represents life.
Um... no. If the text says "spirit", then it is more clear that "spirit" means "spirit".
You are simply repeating the Jehovahs Witness interpretation, rather than considering how Habbakkuk was interpreted by the earliest Jews who actually wrote the text.
If you check out my post #183, on this same page, you will notice that “Ruacha” does NOT mean the “breath” of living animals in this case of contrast. It clearly meant ‘spirit’ to the ancient writers who were trying to contrast the difference between a living thing and a dead thing.
I summarized all of these points already.
Deeje claimed in post #170 : “In Habakkuk 2:19 it says in the Tanach..."Woe to him who says to the wood, "Awaken!"; to the dumb stone, "Arise!" Shall it teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no spirit is within it." ….”
Deejes’ interpretation was : “This scripture is saying that an idol is lifeless because it has no "breath". (post #170)
I made several points :
1) Firstly, the text deal with dead idols having no spirit and not living men .
2) “Spirit” does not mean “breath” in this instance. In this instance, “spirit” means “spirit”. In early Christianity, An idol was lifeless because it has “no spirit within it
3) The ancients could SEE the wood of idols did not breathe but the point of the text was that idols did not have a spirit within it.
4) The scripture contrasts a living thing (having a spirit) to a dead thing (having no spirit).
In an attempt to strengthen his interpretation, Derje claimed the “spirit” in Habakkuk referred to “breath”,
Deeje said : “According to Strongs, the word "spirit" in Hebrew is "ruwach" which means.... "wind, breath, mind, spirit". (post #170)
THE PRIMARY MEANING OF RUACHA IS "SPIRIT" IN SUCH TEXTS AS THESE
I agree
רוה (ruacha’) CAN mean “spirit” and it can mean "breath" .
BUT Breath was not its’ primary meaning in these texts. Its primary meaning here is
“spirit”. It is not our “breath” but our “spirit” which is associated with characteristics of intelligence and emotion and LIFE.
EXAMPLES FROM BOTH HEBREW (RUACHA) AND GREEK (PNEUMO)
I gave multiple
Hebrew examples : (קצר רוה ruacha Kotzer), impatience (נבה רוה ruacha ne’ba), Proud of spirit (רוה קשה ruacha koshae), sorrow, anger, wrath. In ALL of these cases, it is not “breath” that has emotions and intelligence but an intelligent “spirit”.
I also gave examples from many ancient
Koine Greek Papyri, 2 from P Oxy VI 904.7 (of v a.d), P Leid W.xxiii.2 of (2-3 a.d.), P land, Christian amulet, etc.
I GAVE EXAMPLES FROM SCRIPTURE IN BOTH HEBREW AND GREEK
One example was
Mark 5:2 where a man had an “unclean spirit”, NOT unclean breath. BOTH Hebrew AND Greek of Mark 5:2 indicated “
ruacha tum’ah” (heb) and
πνευματι ακαθαρτω (Gk) which ONLY referred to spirits (not breath) and there are NO Greek variants of this phrase here.
I gave similar examples from BOTH Hebrew and Greek of
Mark 9:17 and 25.
In summary : HABAKKUK 2:19 Does NOT indicate that there is no spirit in man, but rather it is an example of the ancient belief that Dead idols do not have spirits in them while living things do have a spirit in them.
HockeyCowboy, IF, you have
DIFFERENT or BETTER or OTHER historically accurate points to make,
THEN I think it is worth discussing NEW data. Else, we are simply going to be repeating ourselves. IF we are simply going to repeat ourselves, then I will not want to do anything more than cut and paste from prior points.
Do you have anything NEW to say about Habakkuk 2:19?
I am certainly very satisfied to have the forum readers look at the data you have offered and the data I have offered and make their own judgments as to what they think is most logical, rational, and most historically coherent.
IN any case HockeyCowboy, I hope your journey in this life is full of joy and insights and happiness.
Clear
ειακφυσεω