Originally posted by FMFActually I don't remember reading any words relating to a complete demolition in his book, can you point out the page where he states that he has completely demolished anything?
This is from page 4 of this thread:
Are you aware of Jason BeDuhn's complete demolition of the JW's translation of the name "Jehovah"? You've cited him a few times. Have you read his appendix about this matter? As wiki says: BeDuhn highlighted cases of "...theological bias in the translation process, by which, he argues, contemporary Christian views are anach ...[text shortened]... Jehovah" in the New Testament." [wiki]
You must be aware of this. We've discussed it before.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe appendix on the JW's insertion of the word "Jehovah" into the NT
Actually I don't remember reading any words relating to a complete demolition in his book, can you point out the page where he states that he has completely demolished anything?
Originally posted by FMFSo lets get this you have only read the appendix which relates to his criticism of our restoration of the divine name, lets say about 10 percent of the book, maybe even less? Is that correct?
I have read the appendix that I have been asking you about. Have you?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have on several occasions acknowledged and accepted that BeDuhn has very favourable things to say about other aspects of the translation work that was done done in order to produce the NWT. It is not in dispute.
So lets get this you have only read the appendix which relates to his criticism of our restoration of the divine name, lets say about 10 percent of the book, maybe even less? Is that correct?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFBut you have not read the book and infact all you have read are the negative criticisms of our restoration of the divine name, is that correct, comprising of less than ten percent of the book in total.
I have on several occasions acknowledged and accepted that BeDuhn has very favourable things to say about other aspects of the translation work that was done done in order to produce the NWT. It is not in dispute.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. They are my words. He did after all say that the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament." This is pretty damaging stuff, robbie, don't you agree?
He uses the terms completely demolish? can you cite the page number and I will look it up.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn the contrary, I accept that he has said extremely positive things about other aspects of the translation and that you have good reason to be proud of the NWT version.
But you have not read the book and infact all you have read are the negative criticisms of our restoration of the divine name, is that correct, comprising of less than ten percent of the book in total.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhile it may be true of anarthrous 'theos', in the genitive and dative cases, two forms that freely dispense with the definite article in a number of uses, it is not the case with the anarthrous 'theos', in the nominative case, the form used in our clause. The nominative case being much more dependent than other Greek cases on the definite article to mark definiteness. There is a very limited range of definitizing elements that may make an anarthrous nominative 'theos', definite, which include the presence of an attached personal pronoun, the use of a noun in direct address and the association of the noun with numeration. (see John 8:48, Romans 9:5 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 respectively) None of these definitizing elements are present in our clause. The remaining eleven examples of an anarthrous nominative 'theos', in the Christian Greek scriptures are all indefinite. (Mark 12:27, Luke 20:38, John 1:18, Romans 8:33, 1 Corinthians 8:4, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Galatians 6:7 Philippians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and revelation 21:7)
Are you claiming this is a verbatim quote from BeDuhn's book?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI see, so you simply made them up and it was simply a piece of propaganda. thankyou.
No. They are my words. He did after all say that the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its tran ...[text shortened]... use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament." This is pretty damaging stuff, robbie, don't you agree?
Now i will tell you why i think his criticisms of our restoration of the divine name are unfounded,
1. Firstly the act of translation is not the same as restoration. They are entirely different and yet BeDhun treats them if they were one and the same thing when they are not and forms arguments on the basis as if they were one and the same thing. This is because he views the matter strictly from the perspective of a linguist, not a theologian.
2. Secondly as anyone who knows anything about it can tell you its a historical fact that the divine name was removed from the original autographs and substituted with inane terms like kyrios (lord) and adonia (god). Seeking to restore the divine name with reference where permitted is not an act of translation as Bedhun has assumed, its an act of restoration and I therefore reject his criticism of our restoring the divine name on that basis.
I hope that I have made my position clear on why I reject his criticisms of our restoration of the divine name.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo i am claiming that its in essence paraphrased from the book, this is made clear if you read my text. But you would not know because you have not read the book.
[b]While it may be true of anarthrous 'theos', in the genitive and dative cases, two forms that freely dispense with the definite article in a number of uses, it is not the case with the anarthrous 'theos', in the nominative case, the form used in our clause. The nominative case being much more dependent than other Greek cases on the definite article to mark def ...[text shortened]... ns 2:4 and revelation 21:7)
Are you claiming this is a verbatim quote from BeDuhn's book?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are not claiming that block of text is a quotation from the book. Can you give an example of extensive quotations from the book on Thread 153415?
No i am claiming that its in essence paraphrased from the book, this is made clear if you read my text. But you would not know because you have not read the book.