Jehovahs Witnesses
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:48 pm
.
Of course, that's "one-way" conversation, too.Paidion wrote:When J.F. Rutherford was president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, there was a lot of radio broadcasting, mostly in the 1920s and the 1930s.
I'm not so sure that's true -- they seem to love to argue as long as the "target" isn't aware of their tactics.karenprtlnd wrote:No, I think they may not be up for the arguments. Many just arn't.
I think he errs here -- I see them in completely different spheres. However, I assume you will not agree with my characterization of the JW as closer to my faith than the LDS, and with a closer theology -- although they have a dramatically different (and I think flawed) view of the second Person of the Trinity than I do, I also have doubts as to the third Person of the Trinity as historically understood and so while I understand how they can be wrong in this area, I hesitate to suggest they have a different God or different worldview about God.karenprtlnd wrote:Hey- how come Tom the Catholic puts JW's and LDS together in the same sentence like its a term? As heretical demon cults.
I guess I'll need you to expound on this -- what have we been lied to or mis-coached about ?karenprtlnd wrote:Maybe you've all been lied to or mis-coached or something.... A make over or do over on some of those old argument statements might be in order. To get down to some really good well founded argument statements, like some NEW ones.
No English translation can be trusted completely. It has been said that every translator is a liar - and this is because some statements do not carry over well (if at all) from one language into another. There are times when a phrase is somewhat ambiguous in meaning, and it can be very hard and/or impractical to try and express the complete range of possible meanings in another language. And there are times when parallel concepts or grammatical structures simply do not exist in the other language. So there are times when a translator makes their best stab at rendering a statement, knowing that their product is not completely true, but settling for better than nothing.Can this column be trusted to have the true, accurate literal translation of the New Testament correct? For example, John 1:1 reads from this book as, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word." Notice the capitalizations in "Word" and "God," then the small "g" in "god." I looked at the Greek letters to compare between "God" and "god" and there is in fact, a difference in the characterization of the Greek letters between these two words. Can a student trust the Watchtower to have made a correct literal translation?
There are other attempts at literal(ish) translations. But the vastly preferable option is to dig in and learn the languages of the biblical texts themselves. Doing so will not eliminate all confusion. But it will open new avenues of understanding.Is there another source for the literal translation of the Greek (or Hebrew) that anyone has found to be more reliable? What source or book would you turn to in order to read the literal translation of the Bible?
Peter Kirby has a rather nice resource for early Christian literature:I'm looking for original writings of scripture and first/second century writings by church leaders that is on-track as close as possible to the Bible. Can you help me find any?
I had never seen "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures" (TKITGS) until a lady recently loaned it to me. Here is another example from TKITGS found in Matt 6:9-13, "Thus therefore be praying YOU Father of us the (one) in the heavens; let be sanctified the name of you, let come the kingdom of you, let take place the will of you, as in heaven also upon earth; the bread of us the for (the day) being give to us today; and let go off to us the debts of us, as also we have let go off to the debtors of us; and not you should bring us into temptation, but rescue us from the wicked (one)"There are times when a phrase is somewhat ambiguous in meaning, and it can be very hard and/or impractical to try and express the complete range of possible meanings in another language. And there are times when parallel concepts or grammatical structures simply do not exist in the other language. So there are times when a translator makes their best stab at rendering a statement, knowing that their product is not completely true, but settling for better than nothing
I wish I could insert Greek characters in this post because I would like to show you the difference between "God" and "god" in Greek. Thanks for explaining the difference. Of course, this information can shed light on whether the Word, in the beginning, was or was not "God." (as opposed to "god" or worse yet, "a god.")The difference in Greek spelling that you have referred to in John 1:1 is only a matter of inflection. It is like the difference between “I” and “me,” or between “he” and “him” – the basic meaning is identical; only the grammatical role is different.
I think I know what you mean. I read an online article about how translators, both Jehovah Witnesses and Evangelicals, insert definite articles in some cases and not so in other cases. The practice of doing this has been claimed to discredit the translators. However, as you pointed out in your example of two people communicating with only bits of word phrases, understanding and accuracy of the complete message are limited. I guess gaining a deeper meaning is perhaps impossible without learning the language, as you suggested.The thorny bits in John 1:1 have to do with more complex matters of grammar and syntax. All mentions of "Word" and the first mention of "God" have the definite article, while the last mention of "God/god" does not. The significance of this has been construed in different ways.
Oh good! What is the name of a non-Watchtower book in which the translators attempt a literal word for word translation? Thanks for sharing and thanks for sending the links too. I checked them out and will do so again because of course, there was a lot of reading to be found.There are other attempts at literal(ish) translations.