Results 1 - 20 of 36
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tsmith Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78259 | ||
Trust me Tim, I have studied. I was baptized Catholic as a Child, became Lutheran, went to a baptist church for some time and a pentacostal church once. I have studied the scripture considerably. Now somebody will say, "The WT brainwashed you." The odd thing about that statement is that no JW ever had an actual bible study with me. I more or less came to these things on my own. |
||||||
2 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78254 | ||
The difference is, I have the majority on my side in both cases: Most commentators and early church fathers agree with me on Proverbs 8:22-30. Also, simply as a bit of evidence that here in 8 its not talking about literal wisdom, but the personification of such: Pro 8:14 Counsel and sound wisdom are mine; I am understanding; I have strength. The one talking, said to be Wisdom, has wisdom. Clearly it this is a somebody, not a something. Now, the VAST majority of uses of prototokos, especially all with the genitive agree with me. There are a few issolated examples of preeminence, but none with the same construction. You can disagree with me of course, and that is based on your theology, but the evidence is HEAVILY stacked against you. Take care, Tony |
||||||
3 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78248 | ||
No, simply the personification of such. Consider these commentaries on Proverbs 8: John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: "And then Wisdom, or Christ, is commended and recommended by his consummate prudence and knowledge, by his hatred of evil, and by his influence on the political affairs of kings and princes..." Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible: " just as Apostles afterward applied Wisd. 7:22-30 to Christ (compare Col_1:15; Heb_1:3)." I believe that is a type actually. Should read 8:22-30. Geneva Bible Translation Notes: "Jesus Christ our Saviour, whom John calls the Word that was in the beginning (Joh_1:1)." Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Hole Bible: "for Wisdom here has personal properties and actions; and that intelligent divine person can be no other than the Son of God himself" Scofield Reference Notes: "...can refer to nothing less than the Eternal Son of God. " There are a few examples.. I could go on, and into the church fathers, but I think its apparent. |
||||||
4 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78245 | ||
I would actually argue 1:18 actually, in that it isn't. It is a position, because just as Adam died the day he ate of the tree, no man was truly born from the dead until Jesus because they all died again. Just truly was firstborn from the dead, as in the one born first. |
||||||
5 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78243 | ||
1 Corinthians 1:22 Jesus is "the wisdom of God." Further, most 2 and 3rd century Christian writers make this connection, as do MANY others. | ||||||
6 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78242 | ||
My fault for not being specific. I should have been clear of making reference to "of". |
||||||
7 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78236 | ||
Proverbs 8:22 | ||||||
8 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78234 | ||
The examples I provided were to demonstrate the majority of uses, not every single use. I also let out a couple that are used for the one born first. However, the fact remains, as I said earlier, every single time PROTOTOKOS is followed by a genitive it always means the one born first. The same would hold true for Colossians 1:15. It is an example of extremely poor scholarship to try and isolate a few examples of PROTOTOKOS to prove something, when the grammar is consistent in one use: one born first, NOT preeminence. The bible does not say he was creator, it says things were created THROUGH him. This is why the preposition DIA is used. Further, textural evidence clearly demonstrates that John 1:3 has taken o gegonen from verse 4. Further, the context is a definite parallel to Genesis 1:1, and so it is showing creation not of every single thing, but all things within the context of it (i.e. the physical universe). Hebrews 1:2 says that it was God who through Jesus made the worlds, or ages: "through whom He indeed made the ages". So this has no conflict with Jesus being created at all. |
||||||
9 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78209 | ||
LXX Numbers 8:17 For every first-born among the children of Israel is mine, whether of man or beast: in the day in which I smote every first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them to myself. LXX Numbers 18:15 And every thing that opens the womb of all flesh, whatsoever they bring to the Lord, whether man or beast, shall be thine: only the first-born of men shall be surely redeemed, and thou shalt redeem the first-born of unclean cattle. LXX Numbers 18:17 But thou shalt not redeem the first-born of calves and the first-born of sheep and the first-born of goats; they are holy: and thou shalt pour their blood upon the altar, and thou shalt offer the fat as a burnt-offering for a smell of sweet savour to the Lord. LXX Numbers 26:5 Ruben was the first-born of Israel: and the sons of ruben, Enoch, and the family of Enoch; to Phallu belongs the family of the Phalluites. LXX Deuteronomy 12:6 And ye shall carry thither your whole-burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your first-fruits, and your vowed-offerings, and your freewill-offerings, and your offerings of thanksgiving, the first-born of your herds, and of your flocks. LXX Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou shalt not be able to eat in thy cities the tithe of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thine herd and of thy flock, and all your vows as many as ye shall have vowed, and your thank-offerings, and the first-fruits of thine hands. LXX Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat it in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to have his name called there; ye shall bring the tithe of thy corn and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thy herd and of thy flock, that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always. LXX Deuteronomy 15:19 Every first-born that shall be born among thy kine and thy sheep, thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord thy God; thou shalt not work with thy first-born calf, and thou shalt not shear the first-born of thy sheep. LXX Deuteronomy 33:17 His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at once, even from the end of the earth: these are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasse. LXX Joshua 17:1 And the borders of the tribe of the children of Manasse, (for he was the first-born of Joseph) assigned to Machir the firstborn of Manasse the father of Galaad, for he was a warrior, were in the land of Galaad and of Basan. LXX 2 Samuel 3:2 (LXX, 2 Kings)And sons were born to David in Chebron: and his first-born was Ammon the son of Achinoom the Jezraelitess. LXX 1 Chronicles 1:29 And these are their generations: the first-born of Ismael, Nabaeoth, and Kedar, Nabdeel, Massam, LXX 1 Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Juda; Er, Aunan, Selom. These three were born to him of the daughter of Sava the Chananitish woman: and Er, the first-born of Juda, was wicked before the Lord, and he slew him. LXX 1 Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerameel the first-born of Esron were, the first-born Ram, and Banaa, and Aram, and Asan his brother. LXX 1 Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the first-born of Jerameel were Maas, and Jamin, and Acor. LXX 1 Chronicles 2:42 And the sons of Chaleb the brother of Jerameel were, Marisa his first-born, he is the father of Ziph:-- and the sons of Marisa the father of Chebron. LXX 1 Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Chaleb: the sons of Or the first-born of Ephratha; Sobal the father of Cariathiarim, LXX 1 Chronicles 3:15 And the sons of Josia; the first-born Joanan, the second Joakim, the third Sedekias, the fourth Salum. LXX 1 Chronicles 4:4 And Phanuel the father of Gedor, and Jazer the father of Osan: these are the sons of Or, the first-born of Ephratha, the father of Baethalaen. LXX 1 Chronicles 5:1 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's couch, his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph, even the son Israel; and he was not reckoned as first-born; LXX 1 Chronicles 5:3 The sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch, and Phallus, Asrom, and Charmi. LXX 1 Chronicles 6:28 The sons of Samuel; the first-born Sani, and Abia. LXX 1 Chronicles 8:30 And her first-born son was Abdon, and Sur, and Kis, and Baal, and Nadab, and Ner, LXX 1 Chronicles 9:36 And his first-born son was Abdon, and he had Sur, and Kis, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab, LXX 1 Chronicles 26:6 And to Samaias his son were born the sons of his first-born, chiefs over the house of their father, for they were mighty. LXX Nehemiah 10:36 the first-born of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the first-born of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, for the priests that minister in the house of our God. LXX Psalm 135:8 Who smote the first-born of Egypt, both man and beast. |
||||||
10 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78208 | ||
LXX Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts, LXX Genesis 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ismael, according to the names of their generations. The firstborn of Ismael, Nabaioth, and Kedar, and Nabdeel, and Massam, LXX Genesis 35:23 The sons of Lea, the first-born of Jacob; Ruben, Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Zabulon. LXX Genesis 36:15 These are the chiefs of the son of Esau, even the sons of Eliphas, the first-born of Esau; chief Thaeman, chief Omar, chief Sophar, chief Kenez, LXX Genesis 38:7 And Er, the first-born of Judas, was wicked before the Lord; and God killed him. LXX Genesis 46:8 And these are the names of the sons of Israel that went into Egypt with their father Jacob- Jacob and his sons. The first-born of Jacob, Ruben. LXX Exodus 6:14 And these are the heads of the houses of their families: the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch and Phallus, Asron, and Charmi, this is the kindred of Ruben. LXX Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharao that sits on the throne, even to the first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the first-born of all cattle. LXX Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharao that sat on the throne, to the first-born of the captive-maid in the dungeon, and the first-born of all cattle. LXX Exodus 13:13 Every offspring opening the womb of the ass thou shalt change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it: every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem. LXX Exodus 13:15 And when Pharao hardened his heart so as not to send us away, he slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man and the first-born of beast; therefore do I sacrifice every offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every first-born of my sons I will redeem. LXX Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me. LXX Exodus 34:19 The males are mine, everything that opens the womb; every first-born of oxen, and every first-born of sheep. LXX Exodus 34:20 And the first-born of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep, and if thou wilt not redeem it thou shalt pay a price: every first-born of thy sons shalt thou redeem: thou shalt not appear before me empty. LXX Numbers 1:20 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel according to their kindreds, according to their divisions, according to the houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according to their heads, were- all males from twenty years old and upward, every one that went out with the host- LXX Numbers 3:40 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Count every first-born male of the children of Israel from a month old and upwards, and take the number by name. LXX Numbers 3:41 And thou shalt take the Levites for me- I am the Lord-- instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the children of Israel. LXX Numbers 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle, and the Levites shall be mine; I am the Lord. LXX Numbers 3:46 And for the ransoms of the two hundred and seventy-three which exceed the Levites in number of the first-born of the sons of Israel; LXX Numbers 3:50 He took the silver from the first-born of the sons of Israel, a thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to the holy shekel. LXX Numbers 8:16 For these are given to me for a present out of the midst of the children of Israel: I have taken them to myself instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel that open every womb. |
||||||
11 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78207 | ||
--1) First of all, you would have to establish that Jesus was in --fact a created being. There isn't any Scripture which establishes --this point. 'Firstborn' here is not a reference to 'created'. For --instance, the same word is used of Christ in v. 18 where it speaks --of Him as being the 'firstborn from the dead'. Does it mean --'created' here? Was He the first one to be raised from the dead? --No! So, 'firstborn' is clearly being used in the sense of --preeminence - Christ is supreme over creation. Well it is your assumption, due to theology that it means preeminence. I personally would take a slightly more reliable approach and compare the uses of firstborn throughout the Bible. To do this we must consider PROTOTOKOS very carefuly. The first thing we note is that PROTOTOKOS in both the LXX and NT, when followed by a genitive is never used in reference t preeminence. That is of considerable interest to us, because it is always firstborn, with the one being part of and belonging to the group, as the one born first! Should we suddenly stop and change our use of this at Colossians 1:15 because it does not fit our theology? Of course not. We must be consistent with the scriptures. This again ties back in with my statement on the partitive genitive. Because, again, going by the other examples we should be consistent. We should not issolate one example of a set pattern and try and do a total reverse because of our predetermined theology. Here are some examples of PROTOTOKOS in the LXX. All are in reference to the one born first, often followed by the genitive: [[unable to post these here because of size limit.. will post in the next mssg]] --2) Secondly, the contexts of your examples do not match what you --claim for Col. 1:15-16. Well of course the situations are different, but this has established that other translators agree that the use of the word "other" with PAS/PANTA is a grammatically acceptable thing. The NWT actually takes it a step further than these other translations, but adding brackets to indicate such. Considering the other uses of PROTOTOKOS with the genitive, unless we choose to be theologically biased in our reading, I do not see how we can possibly remove Jesus out of the group of creation here. --a) Neither Luke 13:2, nor Mt. 26:35 uses a partitive genitive --construction at all. That was not my purpose in demonstrating with these scriptures. I was simply showing that other translators use "other" when rendering PANTA. To attack the NWT and say "Well it isn't in the Greek so it shouldn't be there." is an attack based on ones personal theology and is inconsistent with what ther translators have demonstrated. --b) It is not certain that Col. 1:15 is a partitive genitive --either. If 'firstborn' is taken as a title for Christ, then this --could be an example of a genitive of possession or a genitive of --relationship. And this is again where we must look back to determine if it is a title or a place in order. Based on every other example of the use of firstborn, I see no way one can possibly justify this being something other than the one born first, and by such, a partitive genitive. --c) Your examples also clearly identify that individuals from --within a larger group are being discussed, which is why 'other' is --added. -- --Luke 13:2 says, 'Do you think that THESE Galileans sinners besides --the Galileans who were'. -- --Mt. 26:25 says, 'likewise also all the disciples said'. Peter was --speaking and we know that he was one of the disciples, so it must --have been the rest of the disciples who spoke at the end of the --verse. -- --Personally, I would not add the word 'other' even to your two --examples. But, at least in these two examples, it can be --demonstrated that a part was being contrasted with the whole. -- --Yet, no such thing can be shown in Col. 1:16. The entire context --of the Col. passage shows that Christ is not part of the creation, --but above it. Reply: Well again, I would certainly argue, based on EVERY other example of PROTOTOKOS in a similar situation, that Jesus is demonstrated as part of the group. THerefore, just as these translators used "other", the NWT does it in the same way. The point is this. While your theology might not agree, just as these other translators have added "other", it can be argued in the NWT's defense that "other" is also justified. |
||||||
12 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78160 | ||
Actually, there are MANY translations that have alternate renderings. My personal choice, this qualitative anarthrous PN is "and the Word was a divine being". Here: Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person" Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god" Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was" Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God" Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" "In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god” Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god" J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god" George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word" James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God" Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being" Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]. John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God" Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god" Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)" Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.' Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. "a God" Lant Carpenter, LL.D "a God" Andrews Norton, D.D. "a god" Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church "a God |
||||||
13 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78159 | ||
Well I should check my spelling... It should read a "partitive gentive". |
||||||
14 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78158 | ||
Well that is irritating. I made a post, forgot to click note, went back and it was gone. So I will make this very brief now. It actually is not grammatically incorrect and here is why. Colossians 1:15 contains the following: prwtotokoV pashV ktisewV pashV ktisewV are both gentive, showing that prototokos is thus possessed by this group of creation. In grammar, this is a parative genitive. He he belonging to the group possessing him. So let us consider, what do other translations (including the NASB) do when a person belongs to group but then the group is then referenced as a whole with PAS/PANTA? They add the word "other"! Luke 3:12 (NIV) Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? (NASB) And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? (AMP) And He replied by saying to them, Do you think that these Galileans were greater sinners than all the other Galileans because they have suffered in this way? (NLT) "Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than other people from Galilee?" he asked. "Is that why they suffered? (ESV) And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? (NKJV) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? (KJ21) And Jesus answering said unto them, "Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the other Galileans, because they suffered such things? Matthew 26:35 (NIV) But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same. (NLT) "No!" Peter insisted. "Not even if I have to die with you! I will never deny you!" And all the other disciples vowed the same. (CEV) But Peter said, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never say I don't know you." All the others said the same thing. -Tony |
||||||
15 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78154 | ||
LOL. 600. Haha. I'm surprised I said that. I do realize that KJV is 1611. I guess I just threw out a number. As for my statement about someone with a basic knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, I was not expressing that they should make a translation of their own, but simply examine the NWT. As for the cult statement, you are again stating an opinion. As for John 1:1. Well, unfortunately, this is where you REALLY go wrong. Probably falling back to Colwell's rule again. John 1:1c should certainly not be rendered "and the Word was God" if that is what you are trying to maintain. |
||||||
16 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78152 | ||
Well, there is considerable opinion within that post, but no fact to support it. The reason I am aware of this forum is because somebody suggested I should check it out. I was hoping there would be some how might like to take a scholarly examination of the facts. I seem to have found at least one such person. If you are unwilling or unable to participate in such, that is your choice. |
||||||
17 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78151 | ||
Actually.. its just an alias I go buy. ;) Hehe. For substantiating the NWT as a translation, it COULD be done. But to dedicate that much time and energy to something is simply not something I desire to do, frankly. One might say many of the translation choices are not possible in nearly any translation. I am certainly not claiming the NWT is a perfect translation, as there is no such thing. My only argument is that the NWT is not this terrible translation that people make it out to be. There are plenty of things in the NWT that I do not agree with, but most of the issues people take up with it are not really issues at all. |
||||||
18 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78147 | ||
Certainly. On the textual information, be warned I will not be home until May. :) *** Rbi8 Exodus 3:13-14 *** ” 14 At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’” Here is the verse's footnote: I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Heb., ????? ???? ????? (´Eh·yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh·yeh´), God’s own self-designation; Leeser, “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE”; Rotherham, “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” Gr., E·go´ ei·mi ho on, “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”; Lat., e´go sum qui sum, “I am Who I am.” ´Eh·yeh´ comes from the Heb. verb ha·yah´, “become; prove to be.” Here ´Eh·yeh´ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Compare Ge 2:4 ftn, “Jehovah,” where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb ha·wah´ appears in the divine name. |
||||||
19 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78145 | ||
You are correct on p72. As for proving whether or not the NWT is a translation; I do not particularly care about persons opinions on this. Today is the first time I have ever heard of such of thing, and really, I have no motivation to try and prove such. -Tony |
||||||
20 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78142 | ||
Again, I do not have all of the information on the translation, but in was based on BHS and W-H text primarily. A variety of other texts were consulted, and alternate renders can be found within the reference version footnote. The information on the texts is all available, however, I am presently in Europe (I livein Dallas) and so all of my materials are at home. If I recal correctly, the first scripture I made mention of was Exodus 3:14. I would like to know your basis for stating the NWT is not vastly superior here, when neither the Hebrew text, nor the LXX support the rendering of I AM. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |