DescentBB

Zuruck wrote:Outlaw the ability to question and you'll stay in power, that's dictator rule # 2.

Well, you kind of have things right, and you kinda of have things wrong.

You are right in that God doesn't feel a need to prove himself to anyone. He's way past us in every department- it would be like an adult taking orders from a 2 year old. He doesn't have any reason (other than His whim) to obey our demands.

You're wrong in that we are free to question, and turn away from God's leadership. There isn't anything in this world that forces us to agree with or adhere to God's commands.

ok snoopy, explain to me why we cannot question him. why? it says in the bible? well of course it would! it's a perfect cover to blind the masses, don't you see? this is like the movie stargate where Ra bans all writing so that nobody can learn the truth about him.

Zuruck wrote:ok snoopy, explain to me why we cannot question him. why? it says in the bible? well of course it would! it's a perfect cover to blind the masses, don't you see? this is like the movie stargate where Ra bans all writing so that nobody can learn the truth about him.

Um...looks like you didn't read Snoopy's post very well:

Snoopy wrote:You're wrong in that we are free to question, and turn away from God's leadership. There isn't anything in this world that forces us to agree with or adhere to God's commands.

Questioning God is part of the process of maturing in one's faith; it brings you from the young child's position of believing in/praying to God because parents/teachers said so to the adult's personal, rational belief. Without those questions (and yes, even doubts at times), your faith can't grow, and you'll forever be stuck in the first-grade position of blind obedience. That isn't what God wants; God wants us to follow Him because we've decided to, not because someone tells us to.

Lothar wrote:he's the most JW-like non-JW I've ever met, not just in doctrine, but in his argument techniques

LOL

I have discussed biblical issues with members of the Church of Christ, a Chatholic Nunary, a local Episcopalian church, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and many other denominations. All of them have similar beliefs, and similar arguments to support those beliefs.

Jehovah's Witnesses are non-trinitarians who don't belive in a burning hell (like some Adventists, which is where they originated), nor do they believe in the immortal soul, universal salvation, or predestination. Many Unitarians have similar views, (just like the Trinitarians mentioned above have similar views). So it should not be surprising that their arguments are also similar. Heck, they are the most Shokuish of any non-Shokuite I have ever met!

FYI: I haven't stepped into a church in almost 12 years. Faith isn't in a building - it's in the heart.

Zuruck wrote:I used the lions because it's stated that God protected David from the lions, I would hate to use something that God may not have power over, in this case, electricity. Of course the test I bring up is warned against, a fake presence doesn't not want you to question it...if you do and receive no answer...you may not be willing to believe in it so much anymore right? Outlaw the ability to question and you'll stay in power, that's dictator rule # 2.

there is a difference between the question you posed and what happened to Daniel. Daniel was taken into captivity with the rest of Isreal by the Babylonians and was a prophet. He had God's special attention. Daniel was framed buy a bunch of jealous dudes and the reigning king had to punish him by the law. Daniel did not ASK to be thrown into the den of lions to provoke God into proving Himself. It was an incident that occured out of Daniel's being faithful to God.

You can question all you want,God doesn't mind at all, but if you are not going to listen to the answer; then it's better that you never ask at all.

(I know this is "late" in the discussion, but I've been at work all day.)

Well, I'm resting on the conclusion that you all will NOT be able to give me one concrete answer. I suppose it's impossible, I won't ask for any more answers as I don't think you'll be able to give any that I accept. I don't believe it and can't understand how otherwise intelligent people believe it, you believe it and don't understand how otherwise intelligent people don't. If one of us knew the exact answer...there would be no debate.

Zuruck wrote:Well, I'm resting on the conclusion that you all will NOT be able to give me one concrete answer.

Yep, no one can. The "test" is "Taste and See", others can help lead you there, but only you can decide whether to taste or not, and whether you like it once you do.

I tried for a long time Kilarin, but it lost me and I have no desire to try it again. Oh well, I suppose at the end I'll find out huh?

Shoku wrote:So it should not be surprising that their arguments are also similar.

I was specifically referencing "similar argument techniques", not merely "similar arguments".

I argue by drawing lots of analogies. If you happened to also argue by drawing lots of analogies, I'd say you had some of the same argument techniques as me (even if you didn't support any of the same ideas.) You'd be using the same form of argument, even if the content was very different.

In this case, the way you structure your original-language and translation arguments is very reminiscent of the way JW literature structures the same arguments. Over the course of a dozen threads about different Bible passages, I'd expect you to cite about 30 different Bible translations, many of them obscure, and most of them would be cited only once or twice. The only other time I've seen arguments structured that way is in JW literature -- in a JW booklet on the Trinity I read a few years ago, for example, I counted several dozen different Bible translations being cited within 3 pages, only two of which I'd ever even heard of. By the end, my wife and I were both busting up laughing whenever a new translation was cited, and we made a game of trying to pick the most absurd one. (I think we eventually settled on something like the authors' own English re-translation of an obscure 1920's Portugese translation; I've forgotten the exact details.) It struck me as a strangely misguided appeal to authority, as if one translator's opinion on that one point trumped all others, and a different translator's opinion on a different point trumped all others, and so on. Your earlier mention of TEV was just the latest example of what seems to me like the same argument technique (which is one I find unpersuasive.)

You also said in an earlier post that your preferences in translations were always determined by the honesty and integrity of the scholarship. I would totally agree on this point, which is why I tend to stick to translations I know very well. There may in fact be jewels in NWT, but since I don't trust the scholarship of the translators (for various reasons) I'm not going to go looking for jewels there. There may also be jewels in many of the other 180 translations on your shelf, but trying to pick the individual jewels out of each one seems like a bit of a waste of time (since, among other things, it's doubtful all 180 were of the highest quality of scholarship!) I'd think you'd settle into using the half-dozen with the very best scholarship, along with an interlinear or original-language text. It comes as a huge surprise to me that your preference for honesty and good scholarship would lead you the opposite direction of having 180-ish different translations.

That's another thing I'd noticed before in my interactions with JW's -- they'd make a statement I totally agreed with, and then apply it in exactly the opposite way from what I expected. These are two of the main reasons I kept wondering/asking if you're JW-affiliated, and very likely why my wife and others have as well. It's not just the similar doctrine; it's the similar style.

-----

To go back to the point that sparked this sub-thread: Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians will hold different positions on "acceptable" translations of ruach elohim. This is one reason there are different translations -- those pre-held beliefs (or biases) will influence what translators consider "acceptable" or "best" translations of the original language. The reason for those choices is not linguistic in nature, but theological. In this case, the existance of different translations is not a CAUSE for the existance of different denominations, but a SYMPTOM.

Lothar wrote:There may also be jewels in many of the other 180 translations on your shelf, but trying to pick the individual jewels out of each one seems like a bit of a waste of time (since, among other things, it's doubtful all 180 were of the highest quality of scholarship!)

Actually, I've been assuming that, unlike me, Shoku is educated in Greek and Hebrew. In which case, picking out the jewels would be a much more reasonable task for him. One of the rewards of understanding the original languages.

Lothar wrote:It struck me as a strangely misguided appeal to authority, as if one translator's opinion on that one point trumped all others, and a different translator's opinion on a different point trumped all others, and so on. Your earlier mention of TEV was just the latest example of what seems to me like the same argument technique (which is one I find unpersuasive.)

I began my posts regarding translations because Drakona had made this inaccurate and potentially misleading statement, “All other translations have 'Spirit of God.'”

They do not. And I used the TEV as my first example. The TEV (Today's English Version) was translated by the American Bible Society according to principles of translation set forth by Eugene Nida, who since 1946 had been the Executive Secretary of the ABS Translations Department. Nida called his theory of translation Dynamic Equivalence. The TEV is what some translation theorists call a "Common Language" version - the level of language used by uneducated people and children. It was originally conceived as one which would be suitable for people who speak English as a second language, and was intended for use by field translators employed by the American Bible Society in Asia and Africa. (The Translator's New Testament by the British and Foreign Bible Society was created for this same purpose.)

The TEV went through an extensive scholarly review process, occupying nine years.

The New Testament portion of the Today's English Version (TEV), otherwise known as the Good News for Modern Man, was published in 1966. In 1973 the TEV whole Bible was published and the popularity of this translation has continued unabated. The TEV has become the most popular Bible text in Australia, according to the Australian Bible Society. A Gallup Poll in February 1991 showed that the Good News Bible is the most popular version of the Bible among British churchgoers.

One reason the TEV has enjoyed such tremendous growth is due to its broad ecumenical acceptance--acceptance which was given soon after its release. The Roman Catholic Church gave official approval as early as 1969. The Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest denomination, has also promoted the TEV widely. They commissioned the American Bible Society to publish an edition under the "Broadman Press" label and sold it through their bookstores and distributed it widely through Southern Baptist churches. Evangelist Billy Graham called it “an excellent translation” over nationwide television from his campaign in Anaheim, California. It was then distributed by the Grason Company of Minneapolis, the distributors of Billy Graham materials. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, one of the most conservative Lutheran bodies in the United States, has repeatedly commended the Good News Bible. Many other denominations and organizations have also praised it.

The Days Inns motel chain published a special edition of the TEV containing notes and supplementary materials by Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ. Copies have been placed in all of their rooms.

The ecumenical acceptance of the TEV has been unprecedented. This is due, not only to its “Common Language” presentation, but also to the high degree of fine scholarship that produced it.

And yet, the TEV was rejected by many Evangelical groups because they felt it did not properly portray the deity of Christ. The upwell of protest was so strong the American Bible Society was forced to make changes. The result is the CEV, the Contemporary English Version, which the ABS says is the replacement for the TEV. The level of scholarship behind the TEV is outstanding, and yet a theological difference forced the ABS to make changes.

This is an example of how biased opinion can overshadow truth; how translations based on fine scholarship can be rejected due to theological differences, and how those differences can actually result in alterations to text based on no solid ancient evidence, grammatical or otherwise.

But this is all mute for a true scholar. True scholars don't need translations, they read the original languages and do the translating for themselves. It is a benefit, however, to quote from different translations for a few reasons:
1.To demonstrate the variety of translations possible.
2.To demonstrate that a translation is not unique to one translator.

Knowing the background for each translation also helps to understand the translation.

One example is the CEV. The evangelical protest against the TEV was so overwhelming, the revisors went a bit too far when “correcting” the text to appease the protestors.

Example: John 1:1
“Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.” TEV

“In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.” CEV.

The TEV's “was the same as God” is much closer and more honest to the Greek than the CEV's
“was truly God,” but the goal of the CEV was to appease the protestors - it fits better with their theology.

You really need to pay attention. When I was younger I was not only a disciple(student) of Christ, I was also a Bible collector. As I said in my earlier post, some of the translations in my collection I rarely used (which is why I no longer have them), and some I used quite often. Today I refer to these Bibles most often:

NIV, TEV, NASB, AT (An American Translation, by Smith and Goodspeed), NEB, and NWT. This collection presents translation from a variety of different perspectives, all of which have proven scholarship behind them.

I also refer to these New Testament translations:

The New Testament Letters, by JWC Wand

The Translator's New Testament, by The British and Foreign Bible Society

The New Testament, a New Translation in Plain English, by Charles Kingsley Williams

The remaining translations on my shelves tend to gather more dust than those mentioned above.

Here is a comparison of the three texts discussed in my earlier post:

Genesis 1:2

NIV: “and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

NEB: “and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters.” footnote: “Wind: in non-Hebrew epics, the wind-god was the creator. Here, however, sea and wind are portrayed as creations, subject to God.”

CEV: But the Spirit of God was moving over the water.” footnote: “the Spirit of God: Or “a mighty wind.”

TEV: “and the power of God was moving over the water.” footnote: “the power of God; or the spirit of God; or a wind from God; or an awesome wind.”

NASB: “and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.”

NWT: “and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.” footnote: ”and . . .active force (spirit).” Heb.,weruach. Besides being translated “spirit,” ru'ach is also translated “wind” and by other words that denote an invisible active force. See 3:8 ftn “Breezy part” 8:1 ftn.”

AT: “and a tempestuous wind raging over the surface of the waters.”


Acts 1:8

NIV: “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.”

NEB: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.”

CEV: “But the Holy Spirit will come upon you and give you power.”

TEV: “But when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, you will be filled with power.”

NASB: “but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.”

NWT: “but you will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you.”

AT: “but you will be given power when the holy Spirit comes upon you.”


Zechariah: 4:6

NIV: “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty.”

NEB: “Neither by force of arms nor by brute strength, but by my spirit! Says he LORD of Hosts.”

CEV: “I am the LORD All-Powerful. So don't depend on your own power or strength, but on my Spirit.”

TEV: “You will succeed, not by military might or by your own strength, but by my spirit.”

NASB: “'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts.”

NWT: “'Not by a military force, nor by power, but by my spirit.' Jehovah of armies has said.”

AT: “'Not by arms, nor by force, but by my spirit,' says the LORD of hosts.”

It should be noted that in these last examples from Zechariah, the NWT is the only one that has restored the Divine Name to it's rightful place in the text. This is also done by the ASV, the Jerusalem Bible, J.N. Darby, Rotherham, and Young.

Regarding your complaints about JW books - Maybe you should write the publisher?

Shoku wrote:

Lothar wrote:It struck me as a strangely misguided appeal to authority, as if one translator's opinion on that one point trumped all others, and a different translator's opinion on a different point trumped all others, and so on. Your earlier mention of TEV was just the latest example of what seems to me like the same argument technique (which is one I find unpersuasive.)

I began my posts regarding translations because Drakona had made this inaccurate and potentially misleading statement, “All other translations have 'Spirit of God.'”

That makes sense, though I'll reiterate that you misunderstood me. I suppose a whole lot of confusion could have been avoided if I'd been clearer and wrote "All the other translations..." -- meaning all the others in my post. I'm just as aware as you are that translations exist which translate every phrase every linguistically permissible way--and often you can find things translated a lot of non-linguistically permissible ways, too! That's why I'm so reflexively suspicious of arguments-by-obscure-translation.

And your choices do seem obscure. I think I've heard of the Good News Bible, but it isn't popular enough that I know much about it. It isn't on the list at BibleGateway.org or in this list of translations sold across the US and Canada. I suppose you picked it for its phrasing of Genesis 1:2, to demonstrate that a translation existed which doesn't have "sprit of God" there--and that makes sense. But it doesn't really provide much support that that's a fair or good translation. Even among translations of excellent pedigree and scholarship, there are mistakes, poor judgements, or just plain different goals. Among obscure translations and paraphrases, this happens a lot--so quoting an obscure paraphrase hardly counts for much, however excellent its pedigree.

If I may rant for a moment about that, I've seen a habit that I don't think is good scholarship: some folks like to compare several translations and let them "vote" on the correct way to translate a given verse. To my mind, this is a little like putting a math problem on the board and solving it by allowing the students to vote on the solution. Sometimes the majority is right, but sometimes the one nerd gets it, or sometimes nobody gets it. I guess it's a good first cut, but it's much better to be able to read the translator's reasoning--and better yet to be able to form your own opinion from the original text.

Not that reading several translations is bad--on the contrary, I highly recommend it to get a feel for the range of permissible translations for a phrase, and to avoid becoming too hung up on the idiosynchracies of your favorite. But it is a poor way to arrive at a conclusion about the excellence of the translation of a given phrase. If someone says, "This phrase may be translated this way or this way, but not that way," saying "well, translation X has it that way!" doesn't really mean much. It's like responding to, "Rain comes from this and this mechanism, but not that one" with "I have a book that says it comes from that one!" That's all well and good, but you can find a book that'll say anything. If it's a popular book or a textbook, that helps; if the author has credentials, that helps--but these are still heuristics. What is really in view is his reasoning, and whether or not it is valid in this particular case.

I definitely agree with you on this, Shoku:

True scholars don't need translations, they read the original languages and do the translating for themselves.

... even though by that standard I'm not a true scholar. I read a little Hebrew--enough that I can muddle through some passages with a little comprehension, and hack through some others with a lot of work--but not really enough to count for much. And I don't read Greek at all. But what little I have seen is enough to convince me of the truth of the Jewish teacher who said, "Studying the Tanakh in English is like studying a lion in a cage."

But I'm also an advocate for layman scholars as well. It's been my view that the broad messages of the Bible--the really essential things--come across just fine in virtually any translation. And in fact it's been my experience that scholars most often go astray when they get wound up in the nits of the particular interpretation of a particular instance of a particular word. While there are riddles and subtelies and meditations all over the place, it is my opinion that much of the Bible is intended to be simply read and understood, rather than puzzled out. Jesus spoke to crowds; the early epistles were simply letters read aloud to the churches; the old testament law was read to the people in its entirety. And moreover, Jesus' response to the nit-picky questions of the pharisees was more often to do than to study. It is my firm belief that simply reading the text, thinking about it, and trying to live it in relationship with God... will get you a whole lot farther than conjugating Greek ever will. Good scholarship is essential for the church, and Christians are definitely required to study and learn God's teachings--but I am persuaded that a large chunk of this study consists of the experience of attempts at obedience, and broad study and mimicry of Jesus' character. The predominant character of the righteous life is abundance of love, not obsession with minutae, and I think this is true of the excellent scholar as well.

----

Shoku makes another excellent point here:

biased opinion can overshadow truth; how translations based on fine scholarship can be rejected due to theological differences,

People can be contentious about translations. Sometimes it's bias--as you say. Sometimes it's not even that. A lot of the time it's zeal without understanding. Some folks--with the best of intentions!--are fanatically attached to a certain rendering of a verse, a certain phrase in the text. And woe to any translators that change it, however excellent their scholarship! Daniel B. Wallace writes,

From time to time, I put an essay or two on the internet. Sometimes I discuss Bible translations. Inevitably, I tick someone off, usually someone from the KJ Only crowd. In fact, I average one or two emails a month in which I am condemned to hell! This happens to every Bible translator. Dr. Bruce Metzger got a letter one time from a New York cab driver which said, “I hate what you have done to the Bible! If you ever come to NYC, I will run you over with my cab, and then I will back up and do it again.” The letter ended with, “In Christian love” followed by the man’s name!

This is a common experience of Christian scholars -- I've heard it from Christian scientists and doctors, as well. Shoot, I've been on Christian forums where my use of logic--by my training as a mathematician--was condemned. And even if a lot of Christians aren't so extreme as to transgress the boundaries of courtesy and love, a lot are very suspicious of scholars and not that interested in study, themselves. That's a very sad commentary on the state of the Christian mind. Though there are many excellent Christian scholars -- theologans, scientists, what have you -- the church as a whole is not a 'thinking' entity. I don't know why that is, but I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be that way.

Drakona wrote: I think I've heard of the Good News Bible, but it isn't popular enough that I know much about it.

The TEV, in all its incarnations, has surpassed 80 million sold. Granted, it was more popular back in the 70's and 80's, but you can still find it today.

Drakona wrote:And your choices do seem obscure

Really? Well, I think the NIV (New International Version) is well established enough for most everybody to recognize it. The TEV I have already mentioned. The NASB (New American Standard Bible), while not a recent translation (first published in 1960 by the New York Bible Society Interntional), is the second revision of the American Standard Bible and was produced following the same principles used for the ASV, which is known by some as the Rock of Biblical Honesty). The AT (American Translation) was first published in 1923, but anyone familar with biblical scolarship should have heard of this translation, most notably for the work of Edgar J. Goodspeed and his NT translation, which became quite popular after its release. The NEB (New English Bible) is a british translation published by Oxford University Press. The NT first appeared in 1961 and the OT with the Apocrypha in 1970. The combined Oxford Study Edition should be in every bible student's library. And then there is the NWT (New World Translation). While not accepted by most of Christendom, in 1984, 39 million copies had been printed. So I would not say that it is obscure. Disliked, perhaps, and misunderstood, but not obscure.

Drakona wrote:But I'm also an advocate for layman scholars as well. It's been my view that the broad messages of the Bible--the really essential things--come across just fine in virtually any translation.

Absolutely.

Drakona wrote:I think I've heard of the Good News Bible, but it isn't popular enough that I know much about it.

Really? I've owned a copy since I was in, what, the 9th or 10th grade back in the early 80's. More then one copy even, I had a paperback of the new testament and a nicer copy of the complete Bible. I LOVED it for reading, but didn't trust it for studying.
In my opinion, the TEV did some wonderful things in places, but was BAD with poetry and not as reliable as the NIV.

Yeah, I guess that's fair. I've seen people carrying Good News Bibles, but I hadn't seen it used enough that I knew anything about it.

Looks like that's just my ignorance. Disregaurd.