Adam and 4000 BC

Tickling time...

 

To the making of many books there is no end and seems to to include Bible translations. I find it can be pretty hard to keep up with them.

Well some translations have spurious scriptures, like the KJV. Such as 1 John 5:7; John 5:4 and possibly John 7:53–8:11 which are not found in the oldest manuscripts.

Also in many translations tetragrammaton has been replaced by the words LORD or GOD, capitalization being used to show that the tetragrammaton was replaced by those words. The tetragrammaton is used over 1500 times in the Bible and so replacing it with LORD or GOD make the translation inaccurate.

As for neutral, in many translations an agenda other than accurate translation of the Bible was used when translating and so instead of giving a neutral translation to a scripture that seems ambiguous as to meaning, a slant was given to it so it agrees with that agenda.

Sorry, that is a common misconception. God's name is the tetragrammaton, in English, YHWH. If you have a King James Version, you can find God's name in English at Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Isa 12:2; 26:4.

 

So you compare versions to the oldest manuscripts?

,
If the word tetragrammaton is the Hebrew name for God, then it is an accurate translation.

Have you compiled a black list that the community should be aware of?

Sorry, in addition to the name you mentioned he is also "I am", just as Jesus is called both son of man as well as son of God. In Ex 6;3 God specifically states that he had given his identity differently to Moses' predecessors.
When Moses inquires of the burning bush who shall I say has sent me, the reply is I am.

 

One thing that might be relevant in assessing the New World Translation, is that it is the translation used and distributed by the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious organization OWB claims not to belong to but whose theological positions he consistently mirrors, possibly because he relies on their translation. Although generally a decent translation, it does depart from other standard translations in certain areas which favor Jehovah's Witness doctrine, especially in any passage that might favor the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity; introduction of the word "Jehovah" in the New Testament 237 times, as a translation of the Greek "Kyrios"; a strategic placement of a comma in Luke 23:43 to support the Witnesses' doctrine of "soul sleep"; and insertion of the word "other" four times in Collosians, Chapter 1, to make Paul say Jesus is one of God's "other" created things are some of the features that have drawn controversy. Dr. Bruce Metzger, former Bible Society Board Member, complained of several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek" in the New Testament. Harold Rowles cites the "wooden literalism" and "harsh constructions" in his critique entitled "How NOt To Translate The Bible" (1953). Most pertinent to the discussion in this thread, one reviewer finds it "excellent except when scientific knowledge comes into conflict with the accepted doctrines of the movement". New Catholic Encyclopedia, (2005), vol. 7, p. 751.

 

Some scholars think that יהוה "YAHweh" is a form of היה "haYAH" ("I am" or "I will be"). Literally meaning something close to "I will be he is." Clear as mud?

 

Yes it is.

No I do not.

I believe that I have said before that I agree with much of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

Possibly but I don’t believe I have ever said I “rely” on any one translation.

Apparently you would have us believe that the inclusion in the fourth century C.E. of the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one” at 1 John 5:7 was a good thing even though it is not found in any of the early manuscripts.

I do not necessarily agree with the additions but it is interesting that you don’t complain about it’s removal some 1500 times in the Old Testament.

“soul sleep”? As you should know, unlike English, Biblical Greek has no punctuation at all, so all punctuation is “strategic placement”.

Actually it was inserted 5 times not 4, as you can see;

He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.

And if you will notice they enclosed them in parenthesis, which show they were not in the original text and did not just sneak them in, as you seem to imply.

No one agrees with every translator’s choices, as I do not agree completely with NWT choices but then there are many translations to compare, as anyone studying the Bible should do.

 

Some also believe that יהוה may mean; I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.

But you might find it interesting that the Jews came to believe that the tetragrammaton was so sacred that it should not even be pronounced and thus the correct pronunciation of the tetragrammaton was lost. Whereas no other "name" of God that has been put forth has that distinction.

 

I know that I am is the surname we all inherit in creation.

 

Yes, that's amazing. It's one reason why many bible scholars think neither Peter nor John wrote books of the Bible. According to Acts 4:13, Peter and John were "unlettered'. It's unlikely lower class Aramaic-speaking Galilean fishermen would have acquired such skills in Greek composition. We have a large number of books from early Christian times claiming to have been authored by Peter that practically everybody thinks were not written by him: the Acts of Peter, the various Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, etc. Most scholars think the book called Peter 2 was written long after Peter's death by somebody who thought the end was near. As for the Gospel of John, the Gospel does not give the name of its author but says it derives from the testimony of the disciple whom Jesus loved. Church tradition identifies this as Mary, but the non-canonical Gospel of Philip identifies that person as Mary Magdalene. The Gospel is believed to have been written so late in the first century that it would have been unlikley John the Apostle was the author, and being based on the testimony could mean based on an interview with an eyewitness.

 

Interestingly, it wasn't until some 1800 years later that "Bible scholars" began to call into question the authorship of the Books of the Bible and that no one in the first or even second centuries called into question such authorship.

Also some believe that John died at Ephesus in about 100 C.E. during the reign of Emperor Trajan and so it seems John could have written the Gospel with his name.

The disciple whom Jesus loved was Mary? Then why do both John 13:23 and John 19:26-27 indicate the disciple whom Jesus loved was male?

 

Go on Adam, blow out the birthday candles. You only become 4000 years old, once in your lifetime.

 

They were still being written during the first several decades of the first century. Who in those centuries called into question the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, etc.? When scriptures were called into question, it was mainly not as a result of scholarship but as a result of non-conformity to religious dogma--grounds that would also have caused your own beliefs to be rejected as heresy. The "True Believers" back then didn't all follow the same beliefs but they were critical only of those who didn't conform to their own versions of Christianity, be they Pauline, Ebionite, or Gnostic. By the way, by putting "Bible Scholars" in quotation marks, do you mean to call into question their status as scholars?

"Indicate?" The disciple whom Jesus loved is said to be the one who leaned backon Jesus' breast to talk to Jesus at the Last Supper. If that was John, what are the implications?

 

Actually Adam would be closer to 6000 years old.

 

You do go on don't you? And yes I do mean to call into question their being scholars.

The implications are that John was the disciple Jesus loved. Why what are you implying?

 

Why? Because they don't agree with your preconceptions? Have you read any of their books or articles? Which ones? What contemporary writers do you consider to be real scholars? Can you name five of your favorites? If you can't think of five, two will do. What about your professors in college or seminary? Any you respected? Have they published anything in peer-reviewed journals or books by major publishers?

Not a thing, since I don't think inferences are a good basis for determining who loved whom the most. Does the Bible say it was John? For that matter, does the Bible say John wrote John?

 

Even if I show you what the Bible says, if it doesn't agree with what you believe, you just say; well no one knows what the Bible actually says and call on some pseudo-Bible Scholars to say the Bible was cobbled together and is mostly meaningless.

You don't really want to serve God the way he wants to be served, you want to serve God the way you want to serve him and will find "Bible scholars" to prove you're right. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

So what the use in trying to show you anything the Bible says?

 

In other words, don't confuse you with the facts. You dodge every question and raise the same old smokescreen of "I'm right and you're wrong." You dismiss as pseudo-scholarship things you haven't even read, and show a lack of understanding of anything anybody says that doesn't fit your narrow, warped view of sacred scripture. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what the Bible is about or how God wants to be served. You don't bother to mention any scholarship you respect, either because there is none or because you've had no exposure to any outside your JW circles. God gave us a mind to use it, not to close it.

By the way, some scholars conclude that 2 Timothy is psuedograhic. The language and ideas are strikingly different from the other two Pastoral Letters (Felix Just, S.J., New Testament Letter Structure, Catholic Resources). Raymond E. Brown in Introduction to New Testament Life (1997) argues that 2 Timothy was written by a follower of Paul. On the other hand, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor in Paul: A Critical Life (1996) makes a case that 2 Timothy is authentic, and the other two Pastoral Letters are pseudographic.

 

Are you saying that Jesus was gay?

 

Who? I don't think there's the slightest evidence in the canon concerning Jesus' sexuality. He was unusual in having women and men among his followers, at a time and culture when that wasn't done. The non-canonical Gospel of Philip, for what it's worth, indicates that he loved Mary Magdalene best and liked to kiss her on an unidentified part of her anatomy. There is a Secret Gospel of Mark, showing strong Gnostic influence, with material not in the original suggesting that Jesus spent the night with a youth whom he loved. Many scholars think it is a forgery, ancient or modern. And it never clearly alleges what modern minds may take to be some kind of homosexual relationship. What can we make of all this? I'd say not much at all.

 

Thanks you for that clear response.

I must have misread an earlier post. I hear a lot of those theories on tv and whatnot, about how many believe that Jesus being gay explains his philosophical standings. I think it's just a fad theory myself and will wane out over time.