1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindswas the associate professor lying when he states the NWT was the most accurate? Is
You are talking nonsense. I hope the truth did not affect you in that way.
If you wish I will pray to the Father for you in the name of Yahshua.
the associate professor not fluent linguistically in many languages? will RJH, caught
trying to support his bias with biased references fess up to the crime, find out in next
weeks exciting episode of, The trinitarians - more bull than a a truck full of Red Bull.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI posted this before; but, maybe, you did not read it.
was the associate professor lying when he states the NWT was the most accurate? Is
the associate professor not fluent linguistically in many languages? will RJH, caught
trying to support his bias with biased references fess up to the crime, find out in next
weeks exciting episode of, The trinitarians - more bull than a a truck full of Red Bull.
FROM A DISCUSSION BETWEEN ROBERT HUMMEL AND JASON BEDUHN ON
JOHN 1:1 AND THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION:
ROBERT: I have suggested "The Word was Deity." Dr. BeDuhn agrees that this
is possible, but disagrees with the capital "D." I have offered reasons, in an
earlier post, why I believe the capital letter is warranted - to signify that
the nature pointed to is that of the true God.
JB: I understand this reason, and do not disagree that John meant to associate
the Word with the "true God." I don't think that is at issue......
Dr. BeDuhn admitted in other places that he was young in his career at that
time. I don't doubt that of the translations he looked at he believed the NWT
followed the literal text that it was translated from better. The problem I see
is the translations he examined were not all from the same Greek text. He,
however, is not a fluent linguist and admits that "The Word was Deity" is a
possible translation, but his bias prevents him from using the capital "D".
Originally posted by RJHindsyou have been caught red handed trying to use biased references to support your own
I posted this before; but, maybe, you did not read it.
FROM A DISCUSSION BETWEEN ROBERT HUMMEL AND JASON BEDUHN ON
JOHN 1:1 AND THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION:
ROBERT: I have suggested "The Word was Deity." Dr. BeDuhn agrees that this
is possible, but disagrees with the capital "D." I have offered reasons, in an
earlier post, why I believe the capita ...[text shortened]... y" is a
possible translation, but his bias prevents him from using the capital "D".
bias, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty. I dont care what your trinitarians snake
friends say, i have read the book, you haven't. As for being a linguist, why do you
think the associate professor lists several on his CV, is he misleading others and infact
knows nothing of Coptic and Greek, French and German? In fact, if you ave actually
read his book, which you haven't, you would know that he mentions correcting the
Greek papers of his students, pretty clever for someone that doesn't know anything
about Greek, how do you think he does that? do tell.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn your answer to a question on 04/01/2010 you mentioned Prof Jason BeDuhn's critique of the NWT in his book "Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"
you have been caught red handed trying to use biased references to support your own
bias, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty. I dont care what your trinitarians snake
friends say, i have read the book, you haven't. As for being a linguist, why do you
think the associate professor lists several on his CV, is he misleading others and infact or someone that doesn't know anything
about Greek, how do you think he does that? do tell.
Even though he is one of the few, if not the only one, that laud the NWT, he strongly disagrees with the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament. Below is
an excerpt, pg 169, from his book.
Why does the WTBTS keep using it when the expert they quote says it's
inaccurate? In another part of his book he calls it "denominational bias"
BeDuhn: Having concluded that the NWT is one of the most accurate English
translations of the New Testament currently available, I would be remiss if I did
not mention one peculiarity of this translation that by most conventions of
translation would be considered an inaccuracy, however little this inaccuracy
changes the meaning of most of the verses where it appears. I am referring to
the use of "Jehovah" in the NWT New Testament. "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh" or
some other reconstruction of the divine name consisting of the four consonants
YHWH) is the personal name of God used more than six thousand times in the
original Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the name never appears in any
Greek manuscript of any book of the New Testament. So, to introduce the
name "Jehovah" into the New Testament, as the NWT does two-hundred-
thirty-seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of
accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text. (p. 169)
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieUnlike most of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses, DeBuhn has not
you have been caught red handed trying to use biased references to support your own
bias, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty. I dont care what your trinitarians snake
friends say, i have read the book, you haven't. As for being a linguist, why do you
think the associate professor lists several on his CV, is he misleading others and infact or someone that doesn't know anything
about Greek, how do you think he does that? do tell.
been quoted out of context. He does, indeed, believe the NWT and KIT to
be generally accurate, and uses the latter when teaching Greek at Northern
Arizona University.
BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard
Divinity School. This degree requires an intermediate level of competence
in Greek. BeDuhn's PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative
Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages. He is not recognized in the
scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.
BeDuhn argues that the traditional translation is extremely "unlikely"
from a grammatical standpoint. To my knowledge, however, Dr. DeBuhn has
not interacted publicly with the majority of scholarship on this topic
... which his views contradict. Further, his statement that the
traditional rendering "narrows the meaning from a quality or category
(god/divine) to an individual (God)" seems a strawman argument: Those who
argue that theos has a qualitative force in John 1:1c do not argue that
Jesus is the individual, God, but rather that he possesses all the
qualities or attributes of God. Trinitarians could even accept
Dr. BeDuhn's substitution of "categorical" for Harner's "qualitative," so
long as we understand that for John, the category that includes the true
God is a category containing only one Being (see Harris, Jesus as God,
p. 298, n93).
Finally, BeDuhn prefers the translation "and the Word was divine."
Mr. BeDuhn has stated in a private email that this rendering "leaves open"
a Trinitarian solution (BeDuhn to Steven S. 12/26/2001). In this same
email, he states that he does not know who Murray J. Harris is. It would
seem that any cogent defense of Mr. BeDuhn's views would require
interaction with Harris' thorough survey and analysis in his book, Jesus
as God (see particularly Harris' comments regarding "the Word was divine,"
p. 63ff).
BeDuhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be
the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however,
if John's intended meaning was "divine" simply in the sense of a
non-physical being, why he did not use the Greek word theios ("divine"😉,
which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms?
http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/protestanti.htm
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsi have read the book, you dont need to quote it to me. I repeat for you seem to be
In your answer to a question on 04/01/2010 you mentioned Prof Jason BeDuhn's critique of the NWT in his book "Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"
Even though he is one of the few, if not the only one, that laud the NWT, he strongly disagrees with the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament. Below is
an exc st basic principle of
accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text. (p. 169)
blissfully unaware, i have read the book. Plus your quote is not quite accurate, for its
taken out of context and does not state the full picture, but then again, neither have
any of your posts in this entire thread. We are simply employing conjectural
emendation, that is we are repairing a text we believe to have been defective. Of the
278 times that the NWT mentions the name of God in the Greek scriptures, 78 can be
found in the Hebrew portion. For the others we have references in all but one
case, so suck it up RJH. Whether the associate professor agrees with this practice or
not, i dont care, we have done it and we are awesome. He does after all state that its
no worse than having removed it in the first place, but your quote doesn't seem to
mention that, for some strange and biased reason.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds😴 more mere opinion masquerading as something substantiated.
Unlike most of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses, DeBuhn has not
been quoted out of context. He does, indeed, believe the NWT and KIT to
be generally accurate, and uses the latter when teaching Greek at Northern
Arizona University.
BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard
Divinity School. This degree requires an guous terms?
http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/protestanti.htm
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI feel the same way about the NWT's mistranslation of John 1:1 to
i have read the book, you dont need to quote it to me. I repeat for you seem to be
blissfully unaware, i have read the book. Plus your quote is not quite accurate, for its
taken out of context and does not state the full picture, but then again, neither have
any of your posts in this entire thread. We are simply employing conjectural
emend ...[text shortened]... first place, but your quote doesn't seem to
mention that, for some strange and biased reason.
say "the Word was a god" because I know it is wrong. I was only
trying to help you see it. But now it is clear you do not want to
know the truth, so I don't care either.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIts not only the NWT , the sahidic coptic text, dated to the third century, also terms it
I feel the same way about the NWT's mistranslation of John 1:1 to
say "the Word was a god" because I know it is wrong. I was only
trying to help you see it. But now it is clear you do not want to
know the truth, so I don't care either.
as 'a god', because unlike the Greek, Coptic does have the indefinite article, but i
dont suppose you'll care about that either, for lets face it, you've practically ignored
every other reasonable linguistic argument and instead tried to cite non existent
grammatical rules, failed to comprehend why in the case of John 1:1, the predicate
noun must be indefinite, failed to follow standard English grammar, failed to
understand why Greek is not English, failed to understand why John 1:1c is a clause
itself, failed to understand that in other places, the Bible also uses the term , 'a
god', failed to read an authors book yet somehow you seem qualified to talk about
it. Failed to demonstrate why Calwells rule is inapplicable, failed in the use of second
hand opinions by snake trinitarian commentators, failed to answer why your
translators have introduced words into the sacred text that have no references in
the ancient Greek text, introducing words 'like 'over all creation', failed to answer
why in the case of John 1:1c they acknowledge the Greek construct in the fist half
but ignore it in the latter, failed to admit that your testimony with regard to a
respected Biblical scholar is based on a lie.
What can we say, all in all you get an F for failure. The only thing you have
succeeded in doing is proving how unreasonable the trinity is and how utterly deviod
of reason are those who support it, but between you and me, we knew that already.
As for whether you care about our translation of John 1:1, i doubt you are
adequately qualified to say anything about it, for lets face it, you cant read Greek,
you know next to nothing about Greek grammar and you dont understand why an
anarthrous predicate noun is translated into English, with 'a or an', before it' which
makes any comment that you have, well rather prejudiced to say the least. But we
also knew that already.
5 edits
Which word does your snake trinitarian translators use for bowing down to others in an
act of reverence (a middle eastern custom) The New world translation of the Holy
scriptures (peace be upon it and those who translated it) uses, proskyneo, literally,
doing obeisance.
(Matthew 2:11) . . .And when they went into the house they saw the young child with
Mary its mother, and, falling down, they did obeisance to it. . .
(Matthew 18:26) . . .Therefore the slave fell down and began to do obeisance to him,
saying, ‘Be patient with me and I will pay back everything to you.’
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou failed to see some things in the other example you posted too.
Its not only the NWT , the sahidic coptic text, dated to the third century, also terms it
as 'a god', because unlike the Greek, Coptic does have the indefinite article, but i
dont suppose you'll care about that either, for lets face it, you've practically ignored
every other reasonable linguistic argument and instead tried to cite non existent ...[text shortened]... you have, well rather prejudiced to say the least. But we
also knew that already.
But it doen't matter anyway. As is said, to each his own or something
like that.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindswhat about the sahidic cptic text, are you simply going to ignore that as well? How is
You failed to see some things in the other example you posted too.
But it doen't matter anyway. As is said, to each his own or something
like that.
that possible RJH, tell how that is possible? You like to learn, i know you do, i can tell
from your posts that you like to do research, are you not going to research this as
well?
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/2007/05/sahidic-coptic-indefinite-article-at.html
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYeah. I'll check it out later. I haven't got time now.
what about the sahidic cptic text, are you simply going to ignore that as well? How is
that possible RJH, tell how that is possible? You like to learn, i know you do, i can tell
from your posts that you like to do research, are you not going to research this as
well?
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/2007/05/sahidic-coptic-indefinite-article-at.html
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI POSTED THE FOLLOWING BEFORE BUT NOT TOGETHER BECAUSE I DID NOT
Its not only the NWT , the sahidic coptic text, dated to the third century, also terms it
as 'a god', because unlike the Greek, Coptic does have the indefinite article, but i
dont suppose you'll care about that either, for lets face it, you've practically ignored
every other reasonable linguistic argument and instead tried to cite non existent you have, well rather prejudiced to say the least. But we
also knew that already.
KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT DR. BEDUHN AT THE TIME I POSTED MY ANALYSIS
OF JOHN 1:1. I POST IT AGAIN TO SHOW YOU HOW DR. BEDUHN AGREES
WITH ME.
From my study of this issue I would point out some things.
1. Definite nouns refer to a specific, identifiable person or thing.
In either language,it may or may not have a definite article in front
of it. All other nouns are indefinite.
2. When translating an indefinite noun from Greek to English the use
of the indefinite article "a" or "an" before the English is not
always legitimate.
For example, abstract nouns and titles:
1 John 4:8 is translated ",,, God is love" and not "God is a love".
In John 1:1 the purpose of the definite article "ton" is to identify
specific person "God the Father". John uses "Logos" to identify
Yahshua before He became flesh since He was the one that communicated
with words to man. The Word (the Son of God) was with God the Father
in the beginning.
Now here is where our problem in translation comes in. John could
not put the definite article in front of "Theos" because that would
make the "Word" the same as "God the Father". But John still wants
to identify the "Word" also as "God", but not the same person as "God
the Father". How else is He to do this?
This also causes a problem on the English side because to translate
it as "a god" means a false or pagan god. So I think our only
solution is to translate it "Deity". It seems clear that John was
trying to identify the "Word" as having the same nature as "God the
Father" from what He says later.
FROM A DISCUSSION BETWEEN ROBERT HUMMEL AND JASON BEDUHN ON
JOHN 1:1 AND THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION:
ROBERT: I have suggested "The Word was Deity." Dr. BeDuhn agrees that this
is possible, but disagrees with the capital "D." I have offered reasons, in an
earlier post, why I believe the capital letter is warranted - to signify that
the nature pointed to is that of the true God.
JB: I understand this reason, and do not disagree that John meant to associate
the Word with the "true God." I don't think that is at issue......
NOTICE THAT DR. BEDUHN AGREES WITH ROBERT HUMMEL AND MYSELF
THAT JOHN MEANT TO ASSOCIATE THE NATURE OF THE WORD WITH THAT
OF THE TRUE GOD, GOD THE FATHER, BUT NOT THE SAME PERSON AS GOD
THE FATHER.
P.S. I checked out the comments on the Coptic and it supports a rendering
of "the Word was devine", which is basically the same as "the Word was deity".
But it has been pointed out that there is a word for "devine" in the Greek,
so it must be "the Word was deity" or better, "the Word was Deity".
See http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/
Under Erroneous Eisegesis it states the following in the last sentence:
And what Coptic John 1:1c clearly says is "the Word was a god." Or, if you prefer, "the Word was divine." But definitely not, "the Word was God."