Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo what do you make of Jason BeDuhn's criticism?
for the record,
these arguments that i am presenting come essentially from a publication , Accuracy and bias in English translations of the new testament, written by associate professor Jason BeDhun, who is not a witness and has no association with the watchtower and bible tract society, which i posses and have read with pleasure on numerous occasions. - robbie carrobie
June 1st, 2013, 12: 03
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFthey are peppered throughout, anyone with a modicum of sense can see that they are not my words, for example, i don't usually post things like this,
Can you point to some examples. I am looking at it. There are no 'extensive quotes' that I can see. What pages? You directed me to page 6. Where is there an extensive quote from BeDuhn's book there?
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 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)
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIt is clear to me that you have not read the book, because if you had you would not be asking me what elements i have used in my arguments throughout that thread. Why have you not read the book FMF. Have you only read the part that deals with his criticisms of our restoring the divine name?
Can you point to some examples. I am looking at it. There are no 'extensive quotes' that I can see. What pages? You directed me to page 6. Where is there an extensive quote from BeDuhn's book there?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is from page 4 of this thread:
criticisms of what?
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 anachronistically introduced into the Bible versions upon which most modern English-speaking Christians rely."
The biggest example of this that he offered was what the JW organisation did to the Bible and its translation of "Jehovah". "[BeDuhn] said 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." [wiki]
You must be aware of this. We've discussed it before.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have read the appendix that I have been asking you about. Have you?
It is clear to me that you have not read the book, because if you had you would not be asking me what elements i have used in my arguments throughout that thread. Why have you not read the book FMF. Have you only read the part that deals with his criticisms of our restoring the divine name?