Serious Research?

[tigger2]

Hoghead1 wrote in post 148 of “What is a soul?�

FYI: [A] I've done some serious research on the NWT, which is precisely why I say it is bogus. For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were. [C]More importantly, the text, key points, has been unduly corrupted to suit the biases of teh WatchTower Society. For example, in the prologue to JN. the indefinite article "a" is inserted, so that the text is mistranslated as "and the Word was a God." The rules of Greek grammar rule out the use of teh indefinite article here, which is why it is absent in the solid, standard translations. The reason why the WatchTower Society want the "a" in there is that this will support their anti-Trinitarian bias. [D]Also, in passages that speak of Hell and torment, the NWT reads "annihilation." That was done to bludgeon Scripture to fit their bias about the afterlife. It is one thing to disagree with Scripture. I respect that. it is quite another to corrupt the translation so that it agree with your position. [E]Also, "Jehovah" is a serious mistranslation. And that is Hebrew 101 material. So I feel I have very good reason to write off the NWT as bogus and corrupt.

I intend to discuss the individual parts (A-E) of the above.

I’ll save part A for last.

B. You wrote:

“For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh [sic] Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were.�

For the first 30 years at least, the publishers of the NASB kept their translators anonymous:

“The Fourfold Aim of The Lockman Foundation
1.These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable to the masses.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; no work will ever be personalized.� - page v., NASB, Ref. Ed., Lockman Foundation, 1971.

“For many years the names of the NASB translators and editors were withheld by the publisher. But in 1995 this information was finally disclosed.� - http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html

Bible translations of the OT and NT texts should be judged according to their accuracy - not the person(s) who did the translation.

[dakoski]

There are numerous uses of ‘face,’ both literal and figurative, especially when referring to God, so it seems strange to insist on a literal meaning in every instance.

Face - “To ‘see God’s face’ is to have access to him and to enjoy his favor (Ps.17:15; 27:8).� - p. 229, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publishers, 1982.

“This is also the idea of the prayer: ‘Cast me not away from thy presence’ (lit. ‘face,’ Ps 51:11), and of the promise: ‘The upright shall dwell in thy presence (lit. ‘face,’ Ps 140:13).� - p. 1085, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Both you and JW want to speak in general about the meaning of face. That's very interesting but since face can be used in different ways we need to look at the context of the passage and how it is being used. Your response makes no attempt to engage with the passage nor has JW's responses. What I'm asking is why do you interpret Exodus 33:11 to not mean seeing and 33:20 to mean seeing? No one seems able to tell me.

The only answer I can discern involves eisegesis - 33:11 contradicts your doctrine so you interpret it metaphorically. Exegesis involves explaining from the text why the same word is being used metaphorically in v11 and literally in v20. Given that 33:20 states this is a matter of life or death - you ought to be able to show from the passage where I'm wrong. The method you are using basically means the Bible cannot influence your doctrine -as anything that contradicts your doctrine is metaphor.

Same goes for Genesis 18-19. Why is the person who eats with Abraham called Jehovah - but according to you is in fact not Jehovah? Can you show me from this passage that the person who is referred to Jehovah isn't Jehovah. Remember i) Jehovah doesn't give his name to any other ii) use the passage, no circular arguments or eisegesis.

[dakoski]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Ok, I've explained to you in detail how I interpret Exodus 33, would you like to explain to me what you think is being meant in Exodus 33:11 and 20?

What does it mean that Moses may not see Jehovah's face and live (v20)? If its not referring to seeing (or not seeing) Jehovah - then what is being meant here?

Didn't she just do that? She gave an excellent explanation of all of the Scriptures associated with this discussion. Why don't YOU take her well-presented points and explain just why you disagree?

She gave no explanation of:
-why in Exodus 33:11 face doesn't mean seeing but does mean seeing in Exodus 33:20 - its makes no sense to do that given the context of the passage. She simply asserted that this is the case without giving any rationale. The only basis for such an exegesis (actually eisegesis) is that otherwise the passage contradicts your doctrine.

-why in Genesis 18-19 the person who eats with Abraham and has his feet washed is called Jehovah - but isn't actually Jehovah. As she rightly stated Isaiah 42:8 clearly states Jehovah gives his name to no other - so in this case why is he giving his name to another? Isn't the writer of the Pentateuch guilty under the Mosaic law of misusing the name of Jehovah?

The explanations that have been provided are circular arguments that don't allow the Bible to speak for itself. In fact they make the Bible subject to certain doctrinal assumptions. I think it ought to work the other way round - if doctrine and the Bible contradict then let the doctrine change not the meaning of the Bible.

She did explain those things quite adequately. Perhaps going back over her posts will help.

Jehovah never gave his name to another. It is understood that the angel that ate Abraham's food with him was Jehovah's REPRESENTATIVE. Again, re-read JW's posts. She sets things out well. It is YOUR doctrine that should be corrected, because it contradicts other Scriptures---such as "no man has seen God at any time." You have had to adjust doctrine to fit your belief into what the Scriptures say, and your twisted doctrine doesn't make any sense, as JW has pointed out. If no one has seen Jehovah, then Jesus cannot be Jehovah. Hello.

Yes you're repeating the circular arguments - where you're setting your doctrinal assumptions above Scripture.

Check Genesis 18 and 19 again. The person speaking and eating with Abraham is called Jehovah (18:1, 22) and is distinguished from the two angels (19:1). Can you tell me from the passage where it says this person referred to as Jehovah isn't actually Jehovah? Feel free to use the NWT as I have above.

John 1:18 is very much consistent with my interpretation of Exodus 33. Exodus 33:11 clearly is the one sent by Jehovah (a favourite title of Jesus) making the Father known - who is also called Jehovah. Exodus 33:20 makes clear the Father - also called Jehovah - cannot be seen.

Your interpretation of Exodus 33 contradicts John 1:18 and Matt 11:27 which show the Father is only known through the Son. Whereas your understanding of Exodus 33 suggests Moses knows the Father without need of the Son.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I think you misunderstood my questions

1) what (in your opinion) does the expression "face to face" mean?

2) What does "you cannot see my face" mean?

3) What is "a spirit aparition" (your expression)?

4) Who, if anyone (in your opinion) did Moses see?

I've answered all these questions above. For clarity and brevity I will summarise below:
1) to see some one

2) cannot see them

3) As I said above, I was trying to understand how you interpret face to face to mean? Rather than demand I explain what I think you mean - I'd rather you clarify what you mean - its more productive. 'Spiritual apparition' is not how I interpret it so my definition of the term is inconsequential - I'd rather you use your own terms.

4) Moses saw Jesus I think - that's what I think John 1:18 means.

Mr. Dakoski, JW has answered your questions in great detail, as I have observed from reading previous posts. You keep asking the same questions, even though she and others here have explained very nicely what it meant for Moses to "see" Jehovah "face to face." What good is there in repeating ad nauseum?

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 230 by onewithhim]

Yes, there is a point where we just have to agree to disagree. That's good with me.

[brianbbs67]

In the beginning was the Wisdom and the Wisdom was with The God, and the Wisdom was God.

Is that a better translation?

[JehovahsWitness]

In the beginning was the Wisdom and the Wisdom was with The God, and the Wisdom was God.

Is that a better translation?

How can that be a better translation when the greek word "wisdom" is not in the text?