Its funny how the Mormons are defending the NWT but their Bible they use at Church (KJV) is filled with Trinitarian scriptures.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why does the NWT translate John 10:33 as "a god"
- Thread starter yogosans14
- Start date
It is interesting. Either way, I encourage you to filter these posts and then take what are authentic answers and go and study my friend.
Upvote
0
ChristianLife08 said regarding his "explanation" of "anarthrous" in post #40 :
My point is that your claim and "explanation" of and conclusion regarding your useage of "anarthrous" were incorrect. You should leave greek grammar to individuals who actually read greek and who actually know it’s rules.
Anarthrous, in this case, simply indicates the lack of an article (an-arthrous). That's it. It has no mysterious or deep meaning that conspiring translators missed. ANYONE who reads greek will see that a bare, anarthrous θεος can be correctly translated as “a God”, “the God”, or simply “God”. It is the context that determines the nuance.
With the benefit of hindsight and insight, all should re-read this "explanation" by ChristianLife08 who wrote :
ChristianLife08s base claim is that the sentence should be translated with an assumed definite article (despite the writer having left it out) because that is consistent with his context and assumptions. The greek grammar was never the real issue since it allows either translation.
Such silly attempts are what I was referring to in post # 10 when I said : “There are attempts to explain why a definite article should be assumed in the case of Johns usages, despite the writer having omitted it. However, the explanations seem to me to often rely on the insistence that a religious context requires one to assume a definite article should have been present regardless of what the text actually says. “
ChristianLife80s' post was simply yet another example of this claim.
Tezboski99 – Does my explanation make sense as to what ChristianLife08 did wrong? Does it make sense that all of us tend to make the same mistake in interpretations?
Clearly
visisilk
i think i explained it quite clear.
either way, i appreciate you wishing to clarify further.
My point is that your claim and "explanation" of and conclusion regarding your useage of "anarthrous" were incorrect. You should leave greek grammar to individuals who actually read greek and who actually know it’s rules.
Anarthrous, in this case, simply indicates the lack of an article (an-arthrous). That's it. It has no mysterious or deep meaning that conspiring translators missed. ANYONE who reads greek will see that a bare, anarthrous θεος can be correctly translated as “a God”, “the God”, or simply “God”. It is the context that determines the nuance.
With the benefit of hindsight and insight, all should re-read this "explanation" by ChristianLife08 who wrote :
This attempt to create an overly complicated, almost intelligent sounding, yet entirely silly explanation, in reality, simply distills down into a contextual claim. (i.e. it fits one's personal context to translate it a certain way)
ChristianLife08s base claim is that the sentence should be translated with an assumed definite article (despite the writer having left it out) because that is consistent with his context and assumptions. The greek grammar was never the real issue since it allows either translation.
Such silly attempts are what I was referring to in post # 10 when I said : “There are attempts to explain why a definite article should be assumed in the case of Johns usages, despite the writer having omitted it. However, the explanations seem to me to often rely on the insistence that a religious context requires one to assume a definite article should have been present regardless of what the text actually says. “
ChristianLife80s' post was simply yet another example of this claim.
Tezboski99 – Does my explanation make sense as to what ChristianLife08 did wrong? Does it make sense that all of us tend to make the same mistake in interpretations?
Clearly
visisilk
Last edited:
Upvote
0
my friend. you seem to have assumed a lot with many assertions but with no attained wisdom on the matter. My explanation, perhaps not the most clear of some, was still none the less true according to the BASIC fundamentals of greek grammar. Sadly, you as a mormon attempt to twist logic and reason. much like the LDS' view of Christ being one with the Father. A clue, also from the greek, the Lord meant one in ESSENCE, NOT in purpose as the LDS teach. So, if they here misinterpret the greek, or perhaps not even pay attention to it at all, why then is there credibility to what you say in an attempt to debunk a fact right from a greek text book? There isn't.
I encourage you to continue studying, perhaps if i'm assuming right if not forgive me, OUTSIDE of LDS and related materials.
And lets not forget that any argument for context is always crucial. for example, if you're reading fiction, yet without the context of knowing it's fiction. How then can you remember to tell yourself the story you're reading isn't real? Please, I encourage you to think reasonably. Context is always key. For with it, Scripture speaks for itself. As it's stated, the Word of God is living....
Upvote
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ChristianLife80 replied in post # 44 “… my friend. you seem to have assumed a lot with many assertions but with no attained wisdom on the matter. My explanation, perhaps not the most clear of some, was still none the less true according to the BASIC fundamentals of greek grammar….”
ChristianLife80 :
The attempt to deceive another person by feining knowledge and credibility in an area and then offering inaccurate information is not simply an “unclear explanation”. Attempting to prove John 10:33 was translated incorrectly by deception is not something Christians should be engaged in. You do not read greek. You do not understand “the BASIC fundamentals of greek grammar…” you refer to. It is better to simply admit you do not know anything about this subject, rather than be caught in an attempt to deceive.
ANY Forum member can look up “BASIC fundamentals of greek grammar…” and see the deception : For example, if a forum member googles the definition of anarthrous, they will find :
Collins english dictionary : Anarthrous [ænˈɑːθrəs] 1. used without an article
American Heritage dictionary : Anarthrous adj. 1. Occurring without an article.
Merriam-webster dictionary : Anarthrous 1. : used without the article
Dictionary.reference.com : Anarthrous adj 2. used without the article.
Wiktionary : Anarthrous : Anarthrous 1.Not having an article.
Did you think no one was going to recognize the deception in an age where such a simple definition can be looked up within seconds? IF, the forum simply descends into dishonest attempts to pass off bogus information as truth, we will squander credibility and those that believe inaccurate data will not become more “educated” by accumulating bad data. It is much, much, better for you to simply admit that you made a “mistake” or an “overstatement” (something all of us inadvertently do) and move on rather than continue to attempt to justify a deception with another deception or a change of subject.
Several posters have made a point that it is unusual that I, as a convert to the LDS faith would support the Jehovah's Witnesses on this point when I belong to a theology that has some disagreement with their theology. I support them on this point because they are perfectly correct on this point and you are in error on this point. The Jehovahs Witnesses have explained why John 10:33 is translated as it is, their explanation is fine. Give up the petty sqabbling and allow yourself to admit when they make a legitimate point.
Instead of doing this, because you are unable (so far) to support your criticisms of their translation of John 10:33 by legitimate means and are starting engage in deception in order to discredit a perfectly correct translation. It's all the worse since you are unable to read Greek you are attempting to explain to others in order to discredit the Jehovahs Witnesses. Your attempt to create a deceptive meaning and function for Anarthrous that discredits the NWT translation for ων ποιεισ σεαθτον θεον in order to advance "truth", is unbecoming and improper.
Anarthrous simply means “without an article”. Nothing more.
I am sorry to "call someone out" on such a mistake that many of us have done. Just call it a "learning experience" ChristianLife80, and let it go. I am not your enemy and have made similar mistakes as you have made.
Clearly
futwdrru
Last edited:
Upvote
0
O my friend. reread the original post i put. there's so much more to an anarthrous than a simple definition as being "without an article". Instead, what's more important is the FUNCTION of it in the greek. Again, you assuming I don't read, nor study greek. By His mercy, may He guide us both.
Upvote
0
ah, key word you said, LINGUISTICALLY. Which as i already confessed, the NWT is translated literally. So much so the scholars IGNORED the greek grammar, putting then many verses out of context. refer to my previous post, seeing you didn't address any of the points yourself my friend. I've read many commentaries and opinions on this topic, for I am an apologist at heart. and rest assured just as much as you find support for. there are the same that debunk the accuracy. One being the explanation i gave on the usage of the anarthrous.
And please stay on topic. the thread is about the NWT and it's mis-translation. Not about the Trinity.
Actually, YES this IS about the Trinity. The verses you are questioning and claim are putting "many verses out of context" are verses used to support the Trinity aren't they? If translation accuracy was the primary purpose of this question and your point of view you would also fairly critique the intentional false translating of the Tetragrammaton into LORD in many bibles. So, please let's bypass the false scrutiny of translation and accuracy because the translation IS accurate. As Jesus would say "Thou sayest." (Mark 15:2 KJV)
So, what does this leave us with? Trinity. You seem to consider "accurate" a verse that is translated to support the trinity teaching and "inaccurate" any verse that doesn't. You asked a valid question and I answered it with a full page long article explaining in detail how the translation is rendered.
I asked a valid question as to why GOD's illustration of family doesn't fit the Trinity concept and it got ignored. It has been ignored each time I've asked it for nearly 15 years. Why should today be any different.
Upvote
0
I present to you 1 Kings 22 (edited for space)
"So the king of Israel summoned the prophets, about 400 of them, and asked them, “Should I go to war against Ramoth-gilead, or should I hold back?”
They all replied, “Yes, go right ahead! The Lord will give the king victory.”
10 King Ahab of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah, dressed in their royal robes, were sitting on thrones at the threshing floor near the gate of Samaria. All of Ahab’s prophets were prophesying there in front of them. 11 One of them, Zedekiah son of Kenaanah, made some iron horns and proclaimed, “This is what the Lord says: With these horns you will gore the Arameans to death!”
12 All the other prophets agreed. “Yes,” they said, “go up to Ramoth-gilead and be victorious, for the Lord will give the king victory!”
17 Then Micaiah told him, “In a vision I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep without a shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘Their master has been killed. Send them home in peace.’”
19 Then Micaiah continued, “Listen to what the Lord says! I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the armies of heaven around him, on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who can entice Ahab to go into battle against Ramoth-gilead so he can be killed?’
“There were many suggestions, 21 and finally a spirit approached the Lord and said, ‘I can do it!’
22 “‘How will you do this?’ the Lord asked.
“And the spirit replied, ‘I will go out and inspire all of Ahab’s prophets to speak lies.’
“‘You will succeed,’ said the Lord. ‘Go ahead and do it.’
23 “So you see, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all your prophets. For the Lord has pronounced your doom.”]
Micaiah was alone vs. 400 prophets. Did that mean that Micaiah was wrong? Jesus and his followers were a minority vs. the Pharisees, Saducees, and the entire jewish religious system of his time. Did that mean that Jesus was wrong? The point...numbers and agreement doesn't equate to truth from GOD.
"So the king of Israel summoned the prophets, about 400 of them, and asked them, “Should I go to war against Ramoth-gilead, or should I hold back?”
They all replied, “Yes, go right ahead! The Lord will give the king victory.”
10 King Ahab of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah, dressed in their royal robes, were sitting on thrones at the threshing floor near the gate of Samaria. All of Ahab’s prophets were prophesying there in front of them. 11 One of them, Zedekiah son of Kenaanah, made some iron horns and proclaimed, “This is what the Lord says: With these horns you will gore the Arameans to death!”
12 All the other prophets agreed. “Yes,” they said, “go up to Ramoth-gilead and be victorious, for the Lord will give the king victory!”
17 Then Micaiah told him, “In a vision I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep without a shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘Their master has been killed. Send them home in peace.’”
19 Then Micaiah continued, “Listen to what the Lord says! I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the armies of heaven around him, on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who can entice Ahab to go into battle against Ramoth-gilead so he can be killed?’
“There were many suggestions, 21 and finally a spirit approached the Lord and said, ‘I can do it!’
22 “‘How will you do this?’ the Lord asked.
“And the spirit replied, ‘I will go out and inspire all of Ahab’s prophets to speak lies.’
“‘You will succeed,’ said the Lord. ‘Go ahead and do it.’
23 “So you see, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all your prophets. For the Lord has pronounced your doom.”]
Micaiah was alone vs. 400 prophets. Did that mean that Micaiah was wrong? Jesus and his followers were a minority vs. the Pharisees, Saducees, and the entire jewish religious system of his time. Did that mean that Jesus was wrong? The point...numbers and agreement doesn't equate to truth from GOD.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
