Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is BeDuhn correct on John 8:58? | John 8:58 | Morant61 | 145122 | ||
Greetings Ben! The following is supposed to be a quote from DeDuhn's book. I have no way of verifying it at the moment, so please let me know if the quote is in error. ********************************************* One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression “I am” in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. I n this verse, the words egw eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He, too, uses the words to say “I am he,” the man who before was blind, but have been cured. If anyone needs proof that egw eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency i n how words are handled by biased translators. If egw eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. ****************************************** There are a couple of logical errors that I see in this short quote. 1) No one claims that 'ego eimi' is always used as a title for God. 'eimi' is simply the present, active, indicative, 1st person, singular verb of being, while 'ego' is simply the first person pronoun. The phrase 'ego eimi' is found 48 times in the Nestle Aland Greek text. It is often used in questions concerning identity, as in the English 'I am he'. It is often used as the subject of predicate nominative statements. "I am the Christ", ect.... So, no one disputes that 'ego eimi' has uses other than as a title for God. 2) The author says that if it is not a divine self-proclamation by the blind man then it CANNOT be a divine self-proclamation by Christ. This is patently false! Why can't it? Where is the rule? :-) 3) The context of John 8 clearly shows that Jesus is using the phrase differently than the blind man. a) First of all, Jesus was not responding to a question of identity. No one had just asked Him, 'Are the Savior?' So, 'I am he' does not fit the context. b) Secondly, the phrase 'ego eimi' stands alone without any predicate nominatives. In fact, there aren't any helping words at all. c) Thirdly, no matter how one views the use of 'ego eimi' as a title for God, Jesus is clearly saying that he existed at the time of Abraham. So, 'I have been' would be a horrible translation. d) Finally, the reaction of the crowd makes it perfectly clear that they understood Jesus' statement to mean more than 'I am he' or 'I have been'. They wanted to kill Him. It would certainly be unusual to kill someone for simply saying that they exist. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Is BeDuhn correct on John 8:58? | John 8:58 | fellow worker | 145177 | ||
Your quote is correct. He also states: "I am not claiming that Jesus' remark in John 8:58 is without theological significance, nor that it has nothing to do with to OT background." There is something here for a prideful Jew to kill Jesus over - he is claiming to have been alive before Abraham! BeDuhn does not see the NW as the best translation of the verse, but the LB: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!" He concludes: "The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to be found in the LB and NW. When all you can do is compare the English translations, and count them up like votes, the LB and NW stick out as different in John 8:58. It is natural to assume that the majority are correct and the odd ones at fault. It is only when translations are checked against the original Greek, as they should be, that a fair assessment can be made, and the initial assumption can be seen to be wrong." Tim, you say that Jesus is not addressing the question of identity. Exactly. It’s about how long he’s existed. So you agree this verse has been abused as a trinity proof. Since I know no one will actually read this book, at least not with an open mind, I’ll spoil the ending. How does one explain how Jehovah’s Witnesses could have published the most accurate and least biased of the modern translations compared? “The Jehovah’s Witness movement was and is a more radical break with the dominant Christian tradition of the previous millennium than most kinds of Protestantism. This movement has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah’s Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there.” On the other hand, he boldly declares that “when the Protestant Reformation occurred just five hundred years ago, it did not re-invent Christianity from scratch, but carried over many of the doctrines that had developed within Catholicism over the course of the previous thousand years and more. In this sense, one might argue that the Protestant Reformation is incomplete, that it did not fully realize the high ideals that were set for it.” Amen to that. |
||||||
3 | Is BeDuhn correct on John 8:58? | John 8:58 | Morant61 | 145179 | ||
Greetings Ben! Thanks for the response my friend! First of all, allow me to touch upon John 8:58. I would disagree that 'I am' is a mistranslation. It is by far the most accurate and literal. To say, "I was in existence" instead is to engage in interpretation, not translation. :-) Finally, I don't know Mr. BeDuhn, so I won't try to speak to his motives or character. However, his statement is nothing more than his opinion, not fact. There are many, including myself, who would disagree with his assesment of the NWT. My personal opinion is that the NWT is nothing more than a paraphrase of the KJV. Since the 'translators' will not identify themselves, one cannot even be sure that they are qualified to translate or that they did in fact translate anything. :-( Finally, I would not agree that John 8:58 has been abused as a Trinity support. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Is BeDuhn correct on John 8:58? | John 8:58 | fellow worker | 145264 | ||
Qualifications may be necessary, but the proof is in the results. If not qualified, why have unbiased scholars praised this translation? Also, isn't it possible that highly qualified Greek scholars might succumb to bias and waste their talents, even misleading readers? That's what BeDuhn has found and documented. Why is it that Luke 10:21,22 is true? This is the way approved by God. Good motive, a pure heart - wouldn't you agree that this is what will cause God to bless one's efforts. "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth." Who are those that He sanctifies by revealing truth? Those that are true disciples of Jesus - "no part of the world." (Jo 17:16,17) This is the form of worship that God accepts. (James 1:27; 4:4) This is how you identify true Christians, not by the number of letters behind one's name or the amount of money he's made off religion. |
||||||
5 | Is BeDuhn correct on John 8:58? | John 8:58 | Morant61 | 145274 | ||
Greetings Ben! The fact remains though that translation is a learned skill. One must be trained to do it. Since the 'translators' of the NWT will not identify themselves, no one knows whether or not they have this skill or not. Further, no one even knows if they translated anything. As I've said, my impression of the NWT is that it is nothing more than a paraphrase of the KJV, not a translation at all. I believe that the real reason for their silence is that they do not have the qualifications to translate at all. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||