06 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFSorry I am uninterested in what I consider to be petty contentions about how many scholars agree or disagree with a particular stance. The very idea that one can cite a majority of scholars to support a particular stance is logically fallacious, many believe it therefore it is. I am interested in accurate translation and bias in translation where it exists and to what extent it exists.
I am more interested in roigam's false claim. Do you think what he claimed about what 'most Bible scholars' believe' regarding John 1:1 is true or fales?
Originally posted by FMFhere is your text.
I am more interested in roigam's false claim. Do you think what he claimed about what 'most Bible scholars' believe' regarding John 1:1 is true or fales?
Are you going to admit your mistake over the translation of "EN ARCHE EN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS EN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS"?
you were telling us about the mistake in the translation of the New World translation and how it diverges from the Greek which you cite in Romanised form.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhichever you try to spin what roigam claimed, it was a blatant falsehood. And t was roigam who tried to "cite a majority of scholars to support" his stance. He wrote something untrue on this thread, robbie, plain and simple. I am interested either in [1] him explaining himself [which he has avoided studiously so far] or [2] in how he (and you, for that matter) behave in the wake of his false statement. I'm getting a bit of [2] in these last few posts by you, I note.
Sorry I am uninterested in what I consider to be petty contentions about how many scholars agree or disagree with a particular stance. The very idea that one can cite a majority of scholars to support a particular stance is logically fallacious, many believe it therefore it is. I am interested in accurate translation and bias in translation where it exists and to what extent it exists.
Originally posted by FMFthen roigams citing of a majority of scholars is in my opinion a logically fallacious stance. for reasons that I have already cited. You made a claim with regard to the New world translation and you will explain why it is erroneous as you have claimed. Cited above, your words quoted verbatim.
Whichever you try to spin what roigam claimed, it was a blatant falsehood. And t was roigam who tried to "cite a majority of scholars to support" his stance. He wrote something untrue on this thread, robbie, plain and simple. I am interested either in [1] him explaining himself [which he has avoided studiously so far] or [2] in how he (and you, for that matter) ...[text shortened]... he wake of his false statement. I'm getting a bit of [2] in these last few posts by you, I note.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieroigam claimed his "a god" translation "is accepted by most Bible scholars". To claim this is clearly a mistake. But he has attempted to stick by it, which makes it a deliberate deception.
here is your text.
Are you going to admit your mistake over the translation of "EN ARCHE EN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS EN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS"?
you were telling us about the mistake in the translation of the New World translation and how it diverges from the Greek which you cite in Romanised form.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would call it a deliberate falsehood because he had it pointed out to him and yet tried to brazen it out. I even gave him link that demonstrate that his claim was false.
then roigams citing of a majority of scholars is in my opinion a logically fallacious stance. for reasons that I have already cited.
Originally posted by FMFI see so you are not actually making a comment on the accuracy of the translation. ok, I understand, you are more interested in roigms claims about the opinions of scholars. Which scholars did you and he cite?
roigam claimed his "a god" translation "is accepted by most Bible scholars". To claim this is clearly a mistake. But he has attempted to stick by it, which makes it a deliberate deception.
Originally posted by FMFso you cited an article with a contrary opinion, so what? so roigim made an erroneous statement? so what? it happens? people make mistakes, they are human? so what?
I would call it a deliberate falsehood because he had it pointed out to him and yet tried to brazen it out. I even gave him link that demonstrate that his claim was false.
Originally posted by FMFThe article that you cite is rather blatantly biased, lets look at the first scholar quoted and the reasons that he gives,
I would call it a deliberate falsehood because he had it pointed out to him and yet tried to brazen it out. I even gave him link that demonstrate that his claim was false.
Dr. J. J. Griesback: "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'
his stance is not based on any accurate translation of the actual text but on his claim that scripture contains 'numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ'.
why this should have any bearing on the accuracy of the translation of the text I cannot say, it says nothing about it and clearly he is religiously biased way before he even approaches the matter of translation.
lets take the second one,
Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek".
an interesting comment again which says nothing about the actual translation of the text and is nothing more than a rather tawdry ad hominen.
at least old Barclay says something about the text, lets look,
Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible.
this is in fact a falsehood, its not only grammatically possible, its grammatically correct if one strictly follows the Greek idiomatic structure and common rules of English grammar as BeDuhn points out rather succinctly. Barclay is of course simply letting his prejudice as a translator show.
clearly the article that you cite is biased in the extreme, non per reviewed and nothing more than an expression of religious bigotry. It would have more credence if it presented a balanced perspective, but it does not.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe issue is one of integrity. The "erroneous statement", as you call it, became a willful falsehood when roigam tried to brush it away without addressing it with integrity.
so you cited an article with a contrary opinion, so what? so roigim made an erroneous statement? so what? it happens? people make mistakes, they are human? so what?
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieroigam claims that the NWT translation of "EN ARCHE EN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS EN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS" [as 'In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god'] is "accepted by most Bible scholars as the best translation available". This is untrue. Your post above [mentioning several scholars who indeed don't accept the translation roigam prefers] only serves to confirm that it's untrue. And you acknowledge that roigam's claim is untrue, right?
The article that you cite is rather blatantly biased, lets look at the first scholar quoted and the reasons that he gives,
Dr. J. J. Griesback: "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 wit ...[text shortened]... s bigotry. It would have more credence if it presented a balanced perspective, but it does not.
Originally posted by FMFYou cite a blatantly biased article and then make a claim on the basis of that horrendously biased article and start to pontificate about integrity, come now FMF even someone who points as many fingers as you must baulk at the hypocrisy.
The issue is one of integrity. The "erroneous statement", as you call it, became a willful falsehood when roigam tried to brush it away without addressing it with integrity.
Originally posted by FMFI confirm nothing of the sort, Your article cherry picks, is biased and blatantly lopsided, unbalanced and contains information that is nothing more than propaganda. It is not peer reviewed and serves to inflate nothing more than the religious bigotry of those who are included in it and those who gathered the sources. If you want me to take a stance you need to do better than that.
roigam claims that the NWT translation of "EN ARCHE EN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS EN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS" [as 'In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god'] is [b]"accepted by most Bible scholars as the best translation available". This is untrue. Your post above [mentioning several scholars who indee ...[text shortened]... ly serves to confirm that it's untrue. And you acknowledge that roigam's claim is untrue, right?[/b]