Jeremiah 16:21

francisdesales said:
Mohrb said:
I don't think the suggestion is that "freemasonry affected the catholic church." I think the suggestion is that freemasonry is somehow related to the knights templar, which the catholic church formed. Obviously freemasonry isn't catholicism, but it's something spawned by catholicism.

LOL! The founders of Freemasonry were deists who rejected that Christ was the only way to salvation. They still hold to the idea of a vague God, not the Christian idea. "Religion" to the Freemason is not a major consideration, nor does it matter whether you believe in the God of Jesus Christ or Buddha...

History doesn't support the idea either, although I'm sure if you believe the Freemasons, you'll believe they also built the pyramids, as well...

Regards

Do you have any thoughts Joe on why the clergy in France participated in Masonic lodges (as I mentioned in my last post), and whether all the masonic lodges were necessarily uniform in their belief of deity? Would the clergy's presence have made it different? I tend to think that more philosophical and political (Enlightenment influenced) matters were discussed, although religion must not have been wholely absent. Was it against the Church's doctrine/laws to participate in such lodges, and if so then why did it happen in France? Just wanting to get your perspective on that.

~Josh
 
cyberjosh said:
Do you have any thoughts Joe on why the clergy in France participated in Masonic lodges (as I mentioned in my last post), and whether all the masonic lodges were necessarily uniform in their belief of deity? Would the clergy's presence have made it different? I tend to think that more philosophical and political (Enlightenment influenced) matters were discussed, although religion must not have been wholely absent. Was it against the Church's doctrine/laws to participate in such lodges, and if so then why did it happen in France? Just wanting to get your perspective on that.

~Josh

Hello, Josh,

I am not as knowledgeable as I would like on the mindset of the clergy of France who participated in the Masonic Lodges. I do not think it's orginal mandate was one of religion, so I am thinking that religion was secondary concern. It does seem that the clergy had a temporary influence in France regarding religion of the Lodge to the point of causing a schism in the late 1800's.

Today, the Masons do not pray to Jesus. They consider all faiths of equal value (relativism) and all lead to God. They teach a resurrection to eternal life, whether one believes in Jesus or not. It is based upon one's morality - one can reject Christ and be raised unto eternal life into the Celestial Lodge...

It appears that the Masons (speculative Freemasonry where general morality is taught through symbols...) began in England in the early 1700's with the constitution of the Grand Lodge in England. It does appear that there was a mild Christianization in France during this first century, causing a grand rift among other national lodges, becoming more pronounced in the 19th century.

Scarcely more serious is the rejection of Atheism by the British, American and some German Grand Lodges in their struggle with the Grand Orient of France. The English Grand Lodge, it is true, in its quarterly communication of 6 March, 1878 adopted four resolutions, in which belief in the Great Architect of the Universe is declared to be the most important ancient landmark of the order, and an explicit profession of that belief is required of visiting brethren belonging to the Grand Orient of France, as a condition for entrance into the English lodges. Similar measures were taken by the Irish, Scottish, and North American Grand Lodges. But this belief in a Great Architect is so vague and symbolical, that almost every kind of Atheism and even of "stupid" Atheism may be covered by it. Moreover, British and American Grand Lodges declare that they are fully satisfied with such a vague, in fact merely verbal declaration, without further inquiry into the nature of this belief, and that they do not dream of claiming for Freemasonry that it is a "church", a "council", a "synod".

Taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm, Freemason article.

I do not know why French priests were interested in the Lodge, but perhaps they were more intent on being part of a "noble group of men - as per the Scottish Rite, then inquiry into the specific beliefs of the newly devised "Masonic Lodge". It is interesting on how the Grand Orient of France had a more Christianized view of the Lodge's religious ideas then in England or the U.S.

Regards
 
That's interesting Joe. Thanks for sharing!

When I'm done reading all five of the books that I'm reading on the general history of the French Revolution's origins for my class, sometime on my own, I want to read the book The Religious Origins of the French Revolution: From Calvin to the Civil Constitution, 1560-1791. It looks like it may explain a little more about the Church's involvement in France over two centuries before the Revolution. The review entitled "Jansenist roots of the French Revolution" on that page has a decent summary of the book. Interesting stuff.

God Bless,

~Josh
 
Mohrb said:
dadof10 said:
OK, and if you admit that citing the Greek scholars who translated the NIV, RSV, KJV, etc. in an argument on Greek translations is NOT an example of the Ad Verecundiam fallacy, I'll let it go. Can you show some integrity?

"Expert A's research suggests opinion A is true." -not fallacious.

Correct!

"Opinion A is unquestionably true because Expert A said so." -Fallacious.

Could you point me to the post where I made this claim? If you can’t (and you CAN’T!), then this is but another example of Straw-man argumentation.

An expert's opinion is no more or less reliable than the evidence they base their opinion on.

If his “evidence†is unreliable, how did he get to be an “expert� Certainly, people make mistakes, but if an expert exists in a field, chances are the evidence he is basing his opinion on is solid. Especially if he is WILLING TO PUT HIS REPUTATION ON THE LINE AND ACTUALLY ATTACH HIS NAME TO HIS RESEARCH.

An expert will likely gather their evidence properly and interpret it knoweldgably, which is why citing an expert is usually just fine and dandy.

OK. Assuming he IS AN EXPERT. How are we to objectively know, unless we actually know who he is and can check his credentials? What’s the “logical fallacy†attached to knowing the names and credentials of the people who are cited as experts? :lol I’m sure you can find a “variation†that you think applies here.

I suppose you just assume the NWT translators are experts? There is no actual evidence they are, is there?

However, there are MANY topics where different experts have different viewpoints based on different evidence.

Agreed, however the translation of John 1:1 isn’t disputed. There is only one anonymous group (person? alien? Fairy…?) who disagrees with EVERY OTHER GREEK SCHOLAR’S OPINION. To say there are “different viewpoints†of the translation of John 1:1 is like saying there is “different viewpoints†on the death of Hitler. Sure, you can find some kooks out there who have “evidence†he lived through the war, but the facts are the facts. At least those kooks actually put their names on their “evidenceâ€.

Deciding who is right or wrong should be done on the basis of who has the strongest -evidence-

Agreed

... not who paid more for their education

Straw man.

or who's opinion is most popular

Straw man.

or who plays politics best.

Straw man.

A wealthy man pays $200,000 a year to send his son through the best college in the world to study a certain field... his son is struggling through class and hires the Teacher's Aid to tutor him enough to pass his tests and get his degree.

Who's the expert? The Teacher's Aid who doesn't have ANY degree because he can't afford to buy the credits, but understands the material completely? Or the rich man's son who barely managed to retain the information long enough to pass his test and get a piece of paper?

Surely you are not equating every translator but the anonymous JW’s to a spoiled rich kid who didn’t learn anything in college? Surely you are not trying to make the laughable case that the JW translators, whoever they (he?) are, have more actual knowledge of Greek than the Greek translators of the all other versions?

If you think so, prove it. Let’s put their credentials up against….Oh, that’s right. Never mind.

Unsubstantiated insults are unsubstantiated insults. Ad Hominem attacks can be directed toward inanimate objects such as magazines or political parties, etc.

Yes, the definition of an Ad Hominem is to attempt to disprove a point "by attacking a person" ... but more completely it's "by attacking the one making the point." Which may be a group... or even an experiment itself.

"This test was flawed because it was done in ITT tech instead of MIT tech."

You’re right. Ad hom’s can be directed toward non-humans. It doesn’t qualify anyway because the comments weren’t part of our argument. See, nothing to be afraid of. Admitting mistakes and keeping your credibility is not so hard.

There's a difference between memorizing a definition and understanding the concept the definition is attempting to define.

There’s also a difference between understanding the “concept†and completely redefining a “fallacy†to neuter the other person's argument. Case in point…

[quote:2hvgn1f8]Here's one.

NWT: "...and the Word was a god"

Online Greek Interlinear: "...and the Word was God."

Oxford University Press RSV "...and the Word was God."

As you can see, two of the three SOURCES that you consider valid don't translate "ton theon" as "a god" in verse 1, just as they don't (and neither does the NWT) in verse 2. There is definitely a conflict here

Ad populum. [/quote:2hvgn1f8]

:lol …You must be joking. I’m not AT ALL appealing to popularity, only to your OWN SOURCES. You have mentioned the “Oxford Greek-English Dictionaryâ€, which is published by Oxford University Press, who also publishes the RSV listed above. You also mentioned the Online Greek Interlinear. Both of YOUR OWN SOURCES CONTRADICT THE NWT. Please learn…

• Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum: the appeal is not irrelevant when what most persons believe or what the select few believe does in fact determine what is true. Conventional truth such as the definitions of words, standard use of symbols, styles, or political elections are typical examples where the appeal to the majority , the experts, or the people-in-the-know would be relevant and so would not be fallacious.
A. If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g., to remark that most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy, so that it follows that persons who have a high fat diet should change their eating habits, is to make a legitimate appeal.
B. The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the number of persons cannot be not directly related to the truth of the claim.

Besides, didn't you say above “citing an expert is usually just fine and dandy� So, is the limit one? You are really flailing…


It was you who defined Thayer as THE expert.

No I didn’t. I asked you to give interpreting Jn. 20:28 a try and you said:

“Gladly. However, 1 rule. If I go into detail and stay on the topic of John 20:28 without dismissing it in favor of a scripture that "I like better" ... will you do me the same favor for a scripture of my choosing? Will you promise to directly address a scripture without saying "well some other scripture says something else, and that's more important?"

I responded with:

“Sure. If you'll agree that Thayer's is the authority.â€

The authority for a discussion on Jn. 20:28. In other words, I will not be accepting any JW “sourcesâ€.

Certainly, Thayer’s is looked upon as the standard for Greek translations, and it’s all online, however it’s not infallible or God breathed. AND YOU CAN CHECK THE CREDENTIALS OF THE TRANSLATORS, unlike the “humble†JW translator(s).

Read up on Thayer's interpretation of John 1:1, if you will.

Under “1. A general appellation of deities or divinities…†it’s not listed. There is a reference, copied in my last post, under “2.â€, which has the heading “the Godhead, trinity.â€

If you have more info from Thayer’s, post it. I'll be happy to look it over. As I said, I only have access to the online version.

Yes, SOME experts claim that "and the word was God." Thayer (who you already called THE expert) believed that the grammar indicated that the word was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" ... that he was qualitatively like the being with whom he was. But he most definitely was not "the God" he was with.

I don’t see this in the online version either. Thayer’s puts Jn. 1:1 under the title of “Godhead, trinityâ€, not under “deities or divinitiesâ€.

Because both sides of the debate have experts that support them, I believe it's best to look at the grammatical evidence itself... not ad antiquitatem.

Again, “experts� The only version that I know of that translates Jn. 1:1 as “…a god†is the NWT, unless you can show where Thayer’s does, as you claim above. You need to prove that the people who translate the NWT are “experts†before you make this claim. Don’t you think that’s reasonable?

[quote:2hvgn1f8]OK, Go ahead. Let me know what you find in non-JW sources. Please take into consideration that "theon" is NEVER translated in the Greek NT as a god type being or angel, only as either the God of Israel or a false god.

"Ton Theon" is never translated as anyone other than the Father, Jehovah. I agree.
[/quote:2hvgn1f8]

Haven’t you been arguing that it means “a god†in Jn. 1:1? Am I missing something? Why do consider the NWT a valid translation if it contains this error?

However, what Jesus was called was (anarthrous) "Theos." Plurality aside, please read John 10:34, where Jesus calls humans "gods" (using the anarthrous nominative form, exactly as he was called a "god" in the anarthrous, nominative form in John 1:1c)

Jesus doesn’t call humans “godsâ€, God calls judges “gods†in Ps. 82. Jesus uses this verse in response to the Jews claim that He was “making himself†God. John is the one who uses the Greek word “theosâ€. Jesus must have used the word “'elohiym†because that word is used throughout PS. 82 when referring to YHWH and the judges. Ps. 82 doesn’t differentiate between the two, which is why John doesn’t.

John has to use the word “theos†in verse 34 and 35 for continuity. He puts the word “Theos†in the mouths of the “Jewsâ€, so he has to put the word in the mouth of Jesus.

The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God [Theos]." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, you are gods [theos]'?

35 If he called them gods [theos] to whom the word of God [Theos] came (and scripture cannot be broken),

36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, `You are blasping,' because I said, `I am the Son of God [Theos]' (John (RSV) 10)

As you can plainly see, to change the word “theos†to “theios†in verses 34, 35 would change Jesus’ whole meaning.

The obvious question is, why do you focus on verses 34 and 35, ignoring the other 200+ times “theos†in the anarthrous, nominative form is used for YHWH?
 
... So... "find one non-JW expert...." ... how does any expert you choose interpret John 10:34? Because it's grammatically identical to John 1:1c (apart from plurality).

Since the subject is the NWT mistranslation of Jn. 1:1, not Jn. 10:34, I’ll post expert opinions of Jn. 1:1. Before you start with all the Ad vericundiam/Ad populum/Ad whateverIwanttomakeup, remember: “citing an expert is usually just fine and dandyâ€

What reputable scholars say about the New World Translation of John 1:1:

Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Robert Bowman, All scholars agree that in John 1:1 "logos" is the subject and "theos" is the predicate. This sets the translation of John 1:1c as, (The Word was God" not "God was the Word". Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.)

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Mantey: "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)

Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language.

OK, your turn. Where are all the scholars who agree with the NWT? :D

Also, Here is a post of mine you may have missed, as you didn't comment on it. I'll repost it below just in case.

Mohrb said:
And when Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God" and Jesus says "Blessed are you because you have seen and BELIEVE..." I take Him at His word.
If you believe a human to be a more reliable source than Jesus himself... how do you call Jesus "God?"

Jesus affirms Thomas' proclamation. Have you read any of Paul's letters? Do you believe a human to be AS reliable as Jesus? John wrote the 4th Gospel. He is a man. Is he a reliable source?

Again... have you read the source you insisted was "The reliable source?" What does your Thayer's Lexicon say about the verse?

Here is the word for word from Thayer's on the entry "theos":

"2 Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn.i.1; xx. 28;1Jn.v.20;...the matter is still in dispute among theologians."

The ellipses are other verses. All I have access to is the on-line version. Is this what you are referring to? If so, I don't see your point.

[quote:wfekslyj]You can't ignore one verse in favor of another. They are both correct. It's up to us to figure out the meaning. Lucky we have an infallible teaching authority to help, huh?
Indeed. So, may we compare the two verses? If we stipulate that one is not "wrong" and they do not contradict each other, how is it that both are true at once?

My explanation (as well as Thayer's if you read his notes) is that Jesus stated that the Father is "The -only True God" ... indicating that his father -alone- is almighty. While, Thomas did say "My god" he did not necessarily mean that Jesus was the almighty, but a divine, heavenly being. Similar to how John 1:1 states that the word was WITH "Ton theon" (specifically another being due to the accusative usage of the term, further specifically "almighty God" rather than simply another heavenly being who could be called "theos")... and the word WAS "theos" (as an anarthrous nominative predicate... i.e. qualitatively "godlike" or a divine, heavenly being... without actually being "God" himself).

Thomas, being a good jew, likely understood the significance of Isaiah 9:6, and referred to Jesus as "El Gibbor" ("Mighty god" yes. But not "El Shiddai" meaning "almighty God") (Which may also be the best way to interpret John 1:1).

This allows Jesus to be El Gibbor, yet still allow Jesus to truthfully call his Father the ONLY El Shiddai (the only True, almighty God).

That's my understanding... and Thayer's understanding (the expert you pointed out)... and the understanding of many monotheist experts. How do you interpret the two verses to both be true? How can Jesus call his father the ONLY true God... yet Jesus also be God?

The two verses could be in harmony with trinitarianism if Jesus had said "this means eternal life, their taking in knowledge of you, the true God, and Jesus Christ, also the true God." ... but he didn't. He specified that the Father was the -only- true God, and that Jesus Christ immediately contrasted himself as simply the "one sent forth."[/quote:wfekslyj]

Two views you posted brings your house of cards down concerning Jn. 20:28.

1) "While, Thomas did say "My god"...
2) "Thomas, being a good jew..."

Thomas says "MY God". Who is a "good Jew's" God? Thomas could only be talking about the God of Israel, not some godlike being.

It is obvious from this verse that Jesus is indeed "God" because Thomas calls Him "my God" and for a Jew, there was only one. It is also obvious from Jn. 20:17 that the God of Israel is Jesus' God. So what's a Christian to do? You agree that we can't ignore one verse in favor of another.

The only view that makes sense is the Orthodox Christian view of the Trinity and the two Natures of Jesus. When Jesus is praying to God, for instance, He is praying from His human nature, yet He is still God and cannot deny it when confronted by Thomas. Pretty simple when properly understood, and you don't have to do backflips and try and read Thomas' mind, either.
 
dadof10 said:
"Opinion A is unquestionably true because Expert A said so." -Fallacious.

Could you point me to the post where I made this claim? If you can’t (and you CAN’T!), then this is but another example of Straw-man argumentation.
You didn't say it. That was my point, which you never accepted. Just because "an expert was the one that said it" doesn't necessarily make something beyond question. It's a category of an improper appeal to authority. Instead of stating "Jeremiah 16:21 should be translated a certain way -because of this reasoning- ... you've repeated that "experts say it should be this way, therefore that is THE way it should be translated"
OK. Assuming he IS AN EXPERT. How are we to objectively know, unless we actually know who he is and can check his credentials?
Credentials and intellectual honesty are NOT directly correlated.

Agreed, however the translation of John 1:1 isn’t disputed. There is only one anonymous group (person? alien? Fairy…?) who disagrees with EVERY OTHER GREEK SCHOLAR’S OPINION.

"EVERY OTHER GREEK SCHOLAR?"

“and was himself a divine person†(Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768)
“and the word was a god†(Newcome, 1808)
“the Word was God’s†(Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version)
“and the Word was a divine being.†(La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928)
“the Logos was a god (John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829)
“the Word was divine†(Goodspeed’s An American Translation, 1939)
“the word was a god.†(Revised Version-Improved and Corrected)
“and god[-ly/-like] was the Word.†(Prof. Felix Just, S.J. – Loyola Marymount University)
“the Logos was divine†(Moffatt’s The Bible, 1972)
“the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word] (International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001)
“and the Word was a god†(Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694)
“[A]s a god the Command was†(Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863)
“The Word was a God†(Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822)
“[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word†(Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885)
“the Word was a god†(Belsham N.T. 1809)
“And the logos was a god†(Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879) “the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly] (Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900)
“[A]nd was a god†(J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, International Bible Translators N.T. 1981)
“[A] Divine Person.†(Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London)
“a God†(Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37).)
“a God†(Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156).)
“a god†(Andrews Norton, D.D. [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74).)
“a God†(Paul Wernle,(in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16).)
“and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god.†(21st Century Literal)
“[A]nd (a) God was the word†(George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911)
“[A]nd the Word was of divine nature†(Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932)
“[T]he Word was a God†(James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958)
“The Word had the same nature as God†(Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974)
“And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word†(Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975)
“and godlike sort was the Logos†(Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978)
“the Word was a divine Being†(Scholar’s Version-The Five Gospels, 1993)
“The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was†(J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994)
“a God/god was the Logos/logos†(Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979)
“The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being.†(Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907)
“the Word was of divine kind†(Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945)
“was of divine Kind/kind†(Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949)
“godlike Being/being had the Word/word†(Albrecht, 1957)
“the word of the world was a divine being†(Smit, 1960)
“God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word†(Menge, 1961)
“divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos†(Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984)
“And the Word was divine.†(William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John’s Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933)
“The Word of Speech was a God†(John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631)
“the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god†(Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983)
“And the Word was Divine†(Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943)
“and the Logos was divine (a divine being)†(Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931)
“the word was a divine being.†(Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’)
“In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.†(Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)


It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with our points... but for you to stick your head in the sand and deny that ANYONE but the JWs are questioning the KJV's rendition of John 1:1 makes it very difficult to have an honest conversation, don't you think?



[quote:33cm4eow]A wealthy man pays $200,000 a year to send his son through the best college in the world to study a certain field... his son is struggling through class and hires the Teacher's Aid to tutor him enough to pass his tests and get his degree.

Who's the expert? The Teacher's Aid who doesn't have ANY degree because he can't afford to buy the credits, but understands the material completely? Or the rich man's son who barely managed to retain the information long enough to pass his test and get a piece of paper?

Surely you are not equating every translator but the anonymous JW’s to a spoiled rich kid who didn’t learn anything in college? Surely you are not trying to make the laughable case that the JW translators, whoever they (he?) are, have more actual knowledge of Greek than the Greek translators of the all other versions?[/quote:33cm4eow]
I'm not insulting any particular translator. I'm saying that credentials are not inseparable from comprehension. And, don't call me Shirley. :biglaugh
 
Mohrb said:
"EVERY OTHER GREEK SCHOLAR?"

“and was himself a divine person†(Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768)...
“In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.†(Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)


It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with our points... but for you to stick your head in the sand and deny that ANYONE but the JWs are questioning the KJV's rendition of John 1:1 makes it very difficult to have an honest conversation, don't you think?

Finally. I was just about to give up. You finally defended "our points" using named Scholars with CREDENTIALS. I thought it would be the Hitler/kook references that would do it, but the alien/fairy blast worked better, I guess.

I apologize for exaggerating my view. Whereas it is true that only the JW's accept the NWT as an accurate translation, it is an exaggeration to say that only JW's translate Jn. 1:1 as "...a god". It was the only way I could think of to bring you to the realization that you accept Greek scholar's work just like everyone else. If you truly considered translator's credentials and work to be "irrelevant", you would have simply said "who cares" to my contention that no other Greek scholar accepts "...a god". But you do care, and should.

[quote:13c7u8iz][quote:13c7u8iz]A wealthy man pays $200,000 a year to send his son through the best college in the world to study a certain field... his son is struggling through class and hires the Teacher's Aid to tutor him enough to pass his tests and get his degree.

Who's the expert? The Teacher's Aid who doesn't have ANY degree because he can't afford to buy the credits, but understands the material completely? Or the rich man's son who barely managed to retain the information long enough to pass his test and get a piece of paper?

Surely you are not equating every translator but the anonymous JW’s to a spoiled rich kid who didn’t learn anything in college? Surely you are not trying to make the laughable case that the JW translators, whoever they (he?) are, have more actual knowledge of Greek than the Greek translators of the all other versions?[/quote:13c7u8iz]
I'm not insulting any particular translator. I'm saying that credentials are not inseparable from comprehension. And, don't call me Shirley. :biglaugh[/quote:13c7u8iz]

Hummm...Compensation? JW scholars don't get paid?

Mohrb said:
dadof10 said:
"Opinion A is unquestionably true because Expert A said so." -Fallacious.

Could you point me to the post where I made this claim? If you can’t (and you CAN’T!), then this is but another example of Straw-man argumentation.
You didn't say it. That was my point, which you never accepted. Just because "an expert was the one that said it" doesn't necessarily make something beyond question. It's a category of an improper appeal to authority.

I agree. I never made the claim that if an expert said it, it is "unquestioningly true". I said to appeal to an expert in a certain field is not an Ad Verecundiam fallacy, and to appeal to more than one is not an Ad Populum fallacy. It is reasonable to appeal to proper authority when arguing. You just did it above.

Instead of stating "Jeremiah 16:21 should be translated a certain way -because of this reasoning- ... you've repeated that "experts say it should be this way, therefore that is THE way it should be translated"

I have merely made the appeal to experts and you have attempted to show that to do so is fallacious. The only reason I keep posting here is to prove that YOU APPEAL TO EXPERTS. When you argue a Greek word in the Oxford Dictionary or on Interlinear Online, you are accepting their work as authoritative. You are not doing the translating yourself.
 
To recap so far... the topic of this thread is a discussion of the significance and validity of the translation of Jeremiah 16:21. In the very first post, we established that most bibles (including the KJV) alter God's name in the middle of a statement where God himself declares that by all his might, we should know that his name is (changed to the title "LORD"). I also pointed out half a dozen or so major translations which also disagree with the alteration of God's name.

dadof10's point is taken that the KJV, in fact, translates it the way that it does. And that all the scholars that agree with the KJV... in fact... agree with the KJV. Well done.

The original question stands... How can a Christian stand for such an irresponsible translation? (keep in mind the KJV translates the divine name as "Jehovah" at Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4... which shows that the "scholars" understand who's name "YHWH" is. So, is there any reason for altering the name the other thousands of times, including God's statement at Jeremiah 16:21?
 
Mohrb said:
To recap so far... the topic of this thread is a discussion of the significance and validity of the translation of Jeremiah 16:21. In the very first post, we established that most bibles (including the KJV) alter God's name in the middle of a statement where God himself declares that by all his might, we should know that his name is (changed to the title "LORD"). I also pointed out half a dozen or so major translations which also disagree with the alteration of God's name.

dadof10's point is taken that the KJV, in fact, translates it the way that it does. And that all the scholars that agree with the KJV... in fact... agree with the KJV. Well done.

The original question stands... How can a Christian stand for such an irresponsible translation? (keep in mind the KJV translates the divine name as "Jehovah" at Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4... which shows that the "scholars" understand who's name "YHWH" is. So, is there any reason for altering the name the other thousands of times, including God's statement at Jeremiah 16:21?
Shirley, you must be joking! Lol. Jw's do not teach that Jehovah is Gods actual name. However, they do not commit to any translation of the name to be correct either. Yahwah is the correct transliteration into English, because the ancient Hebrew did not use the letter "e" for a vowel. JudaicChristian
 
The name Yahwah means "Life Began," and backwards as Hawhay it means "Foundation of Life." Hay became hey, and the modren Hebrew has it as chey, for the word life. It is not clear how it is that Yah also means life in the ancient Hebrew, but it is true. Yahshua means "Life Savior," and an interpretation for that would be "Gods Salvation." Michael
 
mdo757 said:
Shirley, you must be joking! Lol. Jw's do not teach that Jehovah is Gods actual name. However, they do not commit to any translation of the name to be correct either. Yahwah is the correct transliteration into English, because the ancient Hebrew did not use the letter "e" for a vowel. JudaicChristian
Someone caught the Airplane! reference :clap

... I do have to make one comment, though. I would word the above slightly differently. We do believe that YHWH is God's "actual name." And we do believe that "Jehovah" is the most likely english pronunciation of it. Therefore we do believe that "Jehovah is God's actual name." However, I agree with what it sounds like you're intending to communicate in that we're not "stuck" with this translation. We agree that "Jehovah" is nothing more than the most widely accepted guess (made popular by the KJV... and monty python? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI).

However, it is perfectly possible that other pronunciations may be more correct, including Yahwah. In fact... next month's watchtower is all about the divine name, and it's different possible pronunciations. You can go here: http://www.jw.org/index.html?option=QrYQZRQVNZNT (use the second drop down menu to select "July 2010" (you can also use the first drop down menu to listen to any given article in one of 20 languages) or contact your local kingdom hall to request a copy. If you need help contacting a local JW, you can PM me what city you're in and I can get in contact with someone there to hand deliver it.... just about anywhere.

... the interwebs are fun.
 
Mohrb said:
mdo757 said:
Shirley, you must be joking! Lol. Jw's do not teach that Jehovah is Gods actual name. However, they do not commit to any translation of the name to be correct either. Yahwah is the correct transliteration into English, because the ancient Hebrew did not use the letter "e" for a vowel. JudaicChristian
Someone caught the Airplane! reference :clap

... I do have to make one comment, though. I would word the above slightly differently. We do believe that YHWH is God's "actual name." And we do believe that "Jehovah" is the most likely english pronunciation of it. Therefore we do believe that "Jehovah is God's actual name." However, I agree with what it sounds like you're intending to communicate in that we're not "stuck" with this translation. We agree that "Jehovah" is nothing more than the most widely accepted guess (made popular by the KJV... and monty python? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI).

However, it is perfectly possible that other pronunciations may be more correct, including Yahwah. In fact... next month's watchtower is all about the divine name, and it's different possible pronunciations. You can go here: http://www.jw.org/index.html?option=QrYQZRQVNZNT (use the second drop down menu to select "July 2010" (you can also use the first drop down menu to listen to any given article in one of 20 languages) or contact your local kingdom hall to request a copy. If you need help contacting a local JW, you can PM me what city you're in and I can get in contact with someone there to hand deliver it.... just about anywhere.

... the interwebs are fun.
I have JW's come and visit me some times. I have studied with Baptist, JW's, SDA, Messianic, and Orthodox Jews.
 
Mohrb said:
mdo757 said:
Shirley, you must be joking! Lol. Jw's do not teach that Jehovah is Gods actual name. However, they do not commit to any translation of the name to be correct either. Yahwah is the correct transliteration into English, because the ancient Hebrew did not use the letter "e" for a vowel. JudaicChristian
Someone caught the Airplane! reference :clap

... I do have to make one comment, though. I would word the above slightly differently. We do believe that YHWH is God's "actual name." And we do believe that "Jehovah" is the most likely english pronunciation of it. Therefore we do believe that "Jehovah is God's actual name." However, I agree with what it sounds like you're intending to communicate in that we're not "stuck" with this translation. We agree that "Jehovah" is nothing more than the most widely accepted guess (made popular by the KJV... and monty python? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI).

However, it is perfectly possible that other pronunciations may be more correct, including Yahwah. In fact... next month's watchtower is all about the divine name, and it's different possible pronunciations. You can go here: http://www.jw.org/index.html?option=QrYQZRQVNZNT (use the second drop down menu to select "July 2010" (you can also use the first drop down menu to listen to any given article in one of 20 languages) or contact your local kingdom hall to request a copy. If you need help contacting a local JW, you can PM me what city you're in and I can get in contact with someone there to hand deliver it.... just about anywhere.

... the interwebs are fun.


Hi Chris

Seems like a guessing game to me !

If we are talking about Jeremiah 16:21 it is a title, not a name ,such as a persons name.

"The Lord God"
 
NIV: Jeremiah 16:21 "Therefore I will teach them—this time I will teach them my power and might. Then they will know that my name is [the LORD / Yahwah.] Most always the term "The Lord" is a replacement title and interpretation for Yahwah.
 
Mysteryman said:
If we are talking about Jeremiah 16:21 it is a title, not a name ,such as a persons name.

"The Lord God"

Do you know of any translation that renders this verse this way: "Therefore here I am causing them to know; at this one time I shall cause them to know my hand and my mightiness, and they will have to know that my title is Jehovah.â€

I hate to look like I'm using dadof10's argument... but in this case, I believe it's true that -every- translation renders the word "shem" as "name" rather than "title." And every reference I've seen translates one's "shem" as primarily meaning someone's personal name.

Certainly I doubt you're suggesting that "shem" can -not- be interpreted to be a "name" rather than a title... therefore you're suggesting that of two possible translations, you believe "title" to be the most appropriate... so, what makes you think that?
 
Mohrb said:
Mysteryman said:
If we are talking about Jeremiah 16:21 it is a title, not a name ,such as a persons name.

"The Lord God"

Do you know of any translation that renders this verse this way: "Therefore here I am causing them to know; at this one time I shall cause them to know my hand and my mightiness, and they will have to know that my title is Jehovah.â€

I hate to look like I'm using dadof10's argument... but in this case, I believe it's true that -every- translation renders the word "shem" as "name" rather than "title." And every reference I've seen translates one's "shem" as primarily meaning someone's personal name.

Certainly I doubt you're suggesting that "shem" can -not- be interpreted to be a "name" rather than a title... therefore you're suggesting that of two possible translations, you believe "title" to be the most appropriate... so, what makes you think that?


Hi Chris

Chris, "shem" which is translated "name" is accurate. But "shem" which is translated "name" can be a name for a title. Gen. 3:20 -- Gen. 4:17 name of a city , after the name of his son Enoch ---- Gen. 26:22 name of a well

Exodus 34:14 - "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord , whose name (shem) is Jealous , is a jealous God"

What I have shared with you in the past posts, was that the word "shem" carries with it a connotation. Refering to the power of God. The word and name Shem means "renown" = distinction. Here in Exodus 34:14 the name or distinction is Jealous.

Also, when dealing with Jer. 16:21 it should be translated - "the Lord God" as it was translated in the book of Genesis time and time and time again. Here is where this was translated the Lord God as a title, and this should continue into Jer. 16:21.
 
And there are specific words for "lord" and "God" ... neither of which were used in Jeremiah 16:21. I agree that "shem" carries a connotation of how one is "renown" ... but no more than the English word "name." It still shows a concept that by all God's might he wants us to know him by his renown as Jehovah. ... it still shows that he is to be known as Jehovah. And to change 'what he is to be known as' to something else isn't exactly respectful.

Do you have any examples of a person's "shem" being translated to an entirely different title as opposed to transliterated as personal names (and names of cities) are supposed to be in any translation?
 
Mohrb said:
And there are specific words for "lord" and "God" ... neither of which were used in Jeremiah 16:21. I agree that "shem" carries a connotation of how one is "renown" ... but no more than the English word "name." It still shows a concept that by all God's might he wants us to know him by his renown as Jehovah. ... it still shows that he is to be known as Jehovah. And to change 'what he is to be known as' to something else isn't exactly respectful.

Do you have any examples of a person's "shem" being translated to an entirely different title as opposed to transliterated as personal names (and names of cities) are supposed to be in any translation?

Hi Chris

As you well know, not all translations , translate "yahwah" as Jehovah. And no matter what respect or disrespect you believe is occuring here, is of no significance. It is a preference you or the JW's put emphasis upon, which is not supported by scripture. Many translation prefer to translate this "shem" as a title. The KJV translates it "the Lord" in Jerimiah 16:21, but the KJV also translates this word "yahwah" as "the Lord God" in other verses. Putting emphasis upon the one true God , the Lord God.

You seem to want to argue over translation(s). That is not my goal ! Many translation do not agree, and I do not believe any translation has it totally accurate. Especially when it comes to this paticular arguement. So if one was to put all their trust in a translation, over the importance of the over all Word of God. I believe that one is missing the big picture.

As I mentioned before, the context is lost when too much emphasis is put upon the name of the Lord God Almighty. AS God magnified his Word above his name ! This means that the message is lost, and those who put such emphasis upon His name, are loosing the message of the scripture.

I have no problem with the name Jehovah as I have said before. However, His name is special and important , but only as God would put importance upon His name. Not how others would magnify his name above His word ! If God wanted His name to be of such significance, then God would not have allowed anyone, or anything, to in any way hide, nor misrepresent the name of the Lord God Almighty.

Since God did not do that, we can only suggest what others have suggested up to this point. "Yahwah" has been translated many, many times - "The Lord God" or "The Lord". There is absolutely no disrespect given to God, by the title of the Lord God Almighty.
 
Hi Chris :

I believe I mentioned this before, but if not, now would be a good time.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, which we agree upon. I also believe we agree upon the fact that Jesus came to reveal his father, whom sent him. Yet not once did Jesus mention his Father by His name.

The only thing Jesus said, was that he came in his Father's name.
 
That is not correct Mysteryman. You are forgetting that God's name has been removed from the old and new testament. See:

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: [The LORD / Yahwah] our God, [the LORD / Yahwah] is one.

Mark 12:29
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, [the Lord / Yahwah] our God, [the Lord / Yahwah] is one.

1 Corinthians 6:17
But he who unites himself with [the Lord / Yahwah] is one with him in spirit.
 
Back
Top