The Pope goes full retard

[TommyGunn]

The last few years I've been using the World English Bible. It uses "Yahweh" as it appears in the text. Generally when you see Lord or LORD referring to God in the Bible that is a place where Yahweh is in the text. That would be something over 5000 times in the Bible.

As I said, some Bibles have restored God's personal name---this must be one of them.

I thought we

Because yes, we could argue what translation is better and more technically accurate all day long. Such is the nature of translation. Particularly when we are this far removed from the source languages.

But that's not what you asked.

Well, I thought it was  when I started this thread drift.

I was really not concerned with other possible differences; I'm hardly a bible expert.  I was simply pointing out that God's name had been removed from many bibles.

[Perd Hapley]

Tommy, my point is that, if we can know whether or not Yahweh should be there, then the Bible hasn't really been altered. It sounds more like you have a disagreement with the way some translations have been done. Like Ron said, there is the WEB version. Or if you can find a copy of the old American Standard Version from 1901 (not the New American Standard*), that one has Jehovahs all over the place.

I just started comparing a few years back when a friend told me that the JW bible was very different than others.
Well, that turned out to be false.

There are important differences. Here is some information on the JW's rendition of the scriptures:

http://www.equip.org/perspectives/what-about-the-new-world-translation/

The New World Translation differs from other translations in some rather startling ways. For example, in over 200 times in our New Testament — what they call the Christian Greek Scriptures — the New World Translation has substituted the word “Jehovah” in place of the word “Lord” which, of course, appears in the Greek text. In several passages in which Jesus is called “God” the text has been mistranslated, notably John 1:1, which is made to say that “the Word was a god.” In Colossians 1:16-17, which says that “all things” were created through Christ, the New World Translation adds the word “other,” making it say that “all other things” were created through Christ. These are just a few examples of their mistranslations.Thus, most biblical scholars who have written on the subject have now concluded that the New World Translation is doctrinally biased and is the work of amateur translators.

https://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/bad-translations-jehovahs-witness-bible-new-world-translation


*Not that I don't recommend the New American Standard Bible. It is one of the best English versions available.

[TommyGunn]

Tommy, my point is that, if we can know whether or not Yahweh should be there, then the Bible hasn't really been altered. It sounds more like you have a disagreement with the way some translations have been done. Like Ron said, there is the WEB version. Or if you can find a copy of the old American Standard Version from 1901 (not the New American Standard*), that one has Jehovahs all over the place.

Fistful, I don't know what to make out of that.  If  'We know it's been altered...then it hasn't really been altered.' Really?  If you have a glass of water, and I replace it with a glass of nitroglycerin but I tell you what I've done, you won't continue treating it as though it was water, will you?
-Or, alternatly, I alter it (water) by adding cyanide, would you drink it because you knew it had been water?
No you wouldn't, and by that action you'd be acknowledging the difference.

There are important differences. Here is some information on the JW's rendition of the scriptures:

http://www.equip.org/perspectives/what-about-the-new-world-translation/

https://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/bad-translations-jehovahs-witness-bible-new-world-translation
*Not that I don't recommend the New American Standard Bible. It is one of the best English versions available.

*Sigh*  Another "my bible is better than your bible" site.  I regret drifting the thread; it was never my intention to get into a debate, and I don't give a flying ***** whose bible is better than sliced bread.  
The quote you offer;

The New World Translation differs from other translations in some rather startling ways. For example, in over 200 times in our New Testament — what they call the Christian Greek Scriptures — the New World Translation has substituted the word “Jehovah” in place of the word “Lord” which, of course, appears in the Greek text. In several passages in which Jesus is called “God” the text has been mistranslated, notably John 1:1, which is made to say that “the Word was a god.” In Colossians 1:16-17, which says that “all things” were created through Christ, the New World Translation adds the word “other,” making it say that “all other things” were created through Christ. These are just a few examples of their mistranslations.Thus, most biblical scholars who have written on the subject have now concluded that the New World Translation is doctrinally biased and is the work of amateur translators.

could well be matched by some of the JW's claims that other translations have been mistranslated.  In addition the JWs recently published an updated 2013 version .... but I'm not going to check every phrase in that against their previous edition, nor either JW edition against my KJV Bible.  I don't have time.  I do not care.

[Ron]

Part of my curiosity of reading  the NT from a scholar with no theological background was to see if there was an orthodox bias to the more accepted translations.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

[lupinus]

Tommy you are talking accuracy of translation with accuracy of the Word.

There are more and there are less accurate translations of the source texts. We know this, and it is the case with any translation particularly of such old and complex source material. It's also the reason for study. And frankly a lot of the translations known to be less accurate or that downright paraphrase are considered rubbish for serious study.

So short of reading copies of the original material in the original language we can argue which translations are better all day long. And that's an entirely different conversation than "has it been altered".


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

[TommyGunn]

Tommy you are talking accuracy of translation with accuracy of the Word.

There are more and there are less accurate translations of the source texts. We know this, and it is the case with any translation particularly of such old and complex source material. It's also the reason for study. And frankly a lot of the translations known to be less accurate or that downright paraphrase are considered rubbish for serious study.

So short of reading copies of the original material in the original language we can argue which translations are better all day long. And that's an entirely different conversation than "has it been altered".


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

OK then.  But I won't be learning Greek or Aramaic just to try to pick apart original texts. 
I'll stop feeding the trolls but they better stop feeding me! 

[lupinus]

OK then.  But I won't be learning Greek or Aramaic just to try to pick apart original texts. 
I'll stop feeding the trolls but they better stop feeding me! 

Eh no need to learn Greek. Particularly that form of Greek. But it is errors doing some research and comparison of accepted good and accurate translations.

[roo_ster]

Fistful, I don't know what to make out of that.  If  'We know it's been altered...then it hasn't really been altered.' Really?  If you have a glass of water, and I replace it with a glass of nitroglycerin but I tell you what I've done, you won't continue treating it as though it was water, will you?
-Or, alternatly, I alter it (water) by adding cyanide, would you drink it because you knew it had been water?
No you wouldn't, and by that action you'd be acknowledging the difference.

Crazy off-the-wall hypothetical:
1. What if Jews and the Rabbis in OT developed a social/cultural prohibition regarding saying God's name aloud? Or maybe even writing it outside the holy books.  And substituted a word many English translators translate as "Lord." 
2. What if almost every translator knew this and followed that custom when translating the OT Bible?
3. What if NT Jews followed the prohibition such that when they spoke, they did not pronounce God's name, but instead substituted a word translated as "Lord" into many/most English translations of the Bible? 


Another way to look at it is provided by the bastion of cultural achievement, NWA.

"N-word's start to mumble, they wanna rumble
Mix 'em and cook 'em in a pot like gumbo."

Song: Straight Outta Compton
Rapper: Ice Cube

Truly, was anything lost in translation there when "N-word" was substituted due to contemporary cultural norms?

Another NWA example

"Cause I don't give a f-word about radio play
Observe the English I display."

Song: Parental Discretion iz Advised.
Rapper Dr Dre

"F-word" again allows for folk to understand that though the text has been altered, it is an accurate translation of the source text.

OK then.  But I won't be learning Greek or Aramaic just to try to pick apart original texts. 
I'll stop feeding the trolls but they better stop feeding me! 

Your questions are not out of line.  They have been addressed many times before.

[brimic]

Crazy off-the-wall hypothetical:
1. What if Jews and the Rabbis in OT developed a social/cultural prohibition regarding saying God's name aloud? Or maybe even writing it outside the holy books.  And substituted a word many English translators translate as "Lord." 
2. What if almost every translator knew this and followed that custom when translating the OT Bible?
3. What if NT Jews followed the prohibition such that when they spoke, they did not pronounce God's name, but instead substituted a word translated as "Lord" into many/most English translations of the Bible? 

IIRC, the true name of God was/is a powerful word that is only meant to be said under appropriate circumstances. 'Yahweh' is thought to be the phonetic translation of the name. Keeping it out of common use also prevents people from cursing his name or 'in vain.'
C.S. Lewis incorporated an paralell (or is it anit-paralell?) concept of the 'anti-God' word called the 'Deplorable Word' into one of the Chronicles of Narnia books- a word used by one of the characters to instantly destroy all life on a world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplorable_Word

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Interesting read
http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[makattak]

Interesting read
http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

The important part of the article:

All of those early changes are well known, and have been for hundreds of years.

And pretty much every bible I've read (at least ones not purposely made compact for carrying) includes notation about the disputed passages.

[makattak]

The New World Translation differs from other translations in some rather startling ways. For example, in over 200 times in our New Testament — what they call the Christian Greek Scriptures — the New World Translation has substituted the word “Jehovah” in place of the word “Lord” which, of course, appears in the Greek text. In several passages in which Jesus is called “God” the text has been mistranslated, notably John 1:1, which is made to say that “the Word was a god.” In Colossians 1:16-17, which says that “all things” were created through Christ, the New World Translation adds the word “other,” making it say that “all other things” were created through Christ. These are just a few examples of their mistranslations. Thus, most biblical scholars who have written on the subject have now concluded that the New World Translation is doctrinally biased and is the work of amateur translators.

And, it should be noted, the motive for the mistranslation of John 1 and Colossians 1 was the very issue that lead to this discussion:

Jehovah's witnesses are not Christian because the deny the deity of Christ and his eternal existence as one with the Father. That is why they mistranslated those passages; those are direct claims of Christ's deity from eternity past. (i.e. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.")

There can be a lot of disagreement on issues within the Christian faith, and even absolutely wrong doctrine that does not remove one from the faith, it just makes you wrong.

The deity of Christ is not one of those issues.

[TommyGunn]

And, it should be noted, the motive for the mistranslation of John 1 and Colossians 1 was the very issue that lead to this discussion:

Jehovah's witnesses are not Christian because the(y) deny the deity of Christ and his eternal existence as one with the Father. That is why they mistranslated those passages; those are direct claims of Christ's deity from eternity past. (i.e. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.")

There can be a lot of disagreement on issues within the Christian faith, and even absolutely wrong doctrine that does not remove one from the faith, it just makes you wrong.

The deity of Christ is not one of those issues.

They believe Jesus is the Son of God.  How is that "deny(ing) the deity of Christ?"

[roo_ster]

They believe Jesus is the Son of God.  How is that "deny(ing) the deity of Christ?"

For a cliff notes version, check out the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds.
http://bookofconcord.org/creeds.php

The key word mak used was "eternal."

IOW, what mak is saying is that the JWs are not Trinitarian in denying the eternal existence of Jesus as Jesus and not as a creation of God the Father.  Also, JWs deny the Holy Spirit as a person of the Trinity.  So, not Trinitarian and therefore not Christian.  There are some other key bits that place them outside orthodox Christianity, but that by itself is enough.

JWs come out of the spiritual ferment & weirdness of late 19th century America.  Lots of the sects died out, but some stuck around.

[TommyGunn]

 

Oh....the "Holy Trinity."   Yes they do deny that and they have their reasons which can be Biblically supported.  IMO they are Christians. 
But even when I was a youth in Episcopalian "Sunday School" I never "got" the whole "trinity'  thing.  All were "one,"  one "all?"   My reading of the Bible then (and I pissed of a few pastors  ) as now is that concept falls outside Biblical authority. 
But that's just my crazy-assed idea I guess.
But I'm not going to claim that JWs are not Christian because of their disbelief of the concept of the trinity.
Just my 2¢.

[Hawkmoon]

IOW, what mak is saying is that the JWs are not Trinitarian in denying the eternal existence of Jesus as Jesus and not as a creation of God the Father.  Also, JWs deny the Holy Spirit as a person of the Trinity.  So, not Trinitarian and therefore not Christian.  There are some other key bits that place them outside orthodox Christianity, but that by itself is enough.

So what about Unitarianism? Not the current crop of "Unitarian Universalists," but the original, true Unitarianism? I've always considered them to be Christians, but they don't (didn't? Are there any of them left?) believe in the Holy Trinity as three separate and distinct entities -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But they consider themselves to be Christians, and most other denominations also regard Unitarianism as Christian.

[De Selby]

Pope challenges uncharitable beliefs held by many western Christians.

Hilarity ensues, once again affirming that in the minds of many, Jesus was an ancient free market conservative who disapproved of helping the poor and generally was a Ted Cruz conservative.

Amidst general agreement that the Pope is wrong, said Christians argue amongst each other about the meaning of the bible, reliving debates about the nature of Jesus that were very much live questions from the beginning.

[Ron]

Whats uncharitable about paying confiscatory tax rates to support a welfare state all the while still being one of if not the most charitable countries in the world?

The Pope is a liberation theology Marxist.

How has institutionalizing his philosophy worked out for south and central America?

What did Venezuelan Marxists use at night for reading before candles?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
electricity

[zxcvbob]

Oh....the "Holy Trinity."   Yes they do deny that and they have their reasons which can be Biblically supported.  IMO they are Christians.  
But even when I was a youth in Episcopalian "Sunday School" I never "got" the whole "trinity'  thing.  All were "one,"  one "all?"   My reading of the Bible then (and I pissed of a few pastors   ) as now is that concept falls outside Biblical authority.  
But that's just my crazy-assed idea I guess.
But I'm not going to claim that JWs are not Christian because of their disbelief of the concept of the trinity.
Just my 2¢.

I think of it as 3 different views (or shadows) of the same Being, taken from different perspectives.  Imagine 3 very different 2-dimensional shadows of a complex 3-D object.  Now move it up a dimension (and one of those dimensions is not time)

I could be way off, but it works for me.

[Hawkmoon]

I think of it as 3 different views (or shadows) of the same Being, taken from different perspectives.  Imagine 3 very different 2-dimensional shadows of a complex 3-D object.  Now move it up a dimension (and one of those dimensions is not time)

I could be way off, but it works for me.

"God in three persons, blessed Trinity."

[De Selby]

Whats uncharitable about paying confiscatory tax rates to support a welfare state all the while still being one of if not the most charitable countries in the world?

The Pope is a liberation theology Marxist.

How has institutionalizing his philosophy worked out for south and central America?

What did Venezuelan Marxists use at night for reading before candles?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
electricity

What's hilarious is that I'm sure you can't see how politically charged that statement is.  This is one of the features of some American Christianity - it mixes religion and politics without effort.

[Ron]

The Trinity or the nature of Christ really aren't in dispute for the overwhelming majority of Christians.

Yes there are some sects and cults that have their own peculiar ideas. These arguments were hashed out centuries ago and the record of them is there for those who are curious. The common creeds are the fruit of the intense debates over these hard questions.

[Ron]

What's hilarious is that I'm sure you can't see how politically charged that statement is.  This is one of the features of some American Christianity - it mixes religion and politics without effort.

All humans mix religion and politics without effort. It's what humans do.

You don't see the religious nature of the so called "progressives"? It's a civic religion. Or the atheists and agnostics whose religion is best encapsulated in the term scientism. The religious impulse is funneled into a faith in science and the consensus of the priestly class (scientists of course).   

We are social creatures who are political and yes, religious by nature.

[Balog]

As occasionally happens, De Selby is making a good point but couching it in sneering condescension so no one is really noticing it.

A lot of American Christians have world views much more inspired by Ayn "I love rape, hate god, and think the seven deadly sins are prime virtues" Rand than by Jesus or the Bible. And they contort Scripture to justify their pre-existing political views. Sad!

Seriously though, if you claim to be a Christian and also to adhere to the works of a militant atheist who literally formed a cult of personality around the idea that certain sins are wonderful then you might want to re-examine your thought process. I've been doing that myself lately.

[De Selby]

The Trinity or the nature of Christ really aren't in dispute for the overwhelming majority of Christians.

Yes there are some sects and cults that have their own peculiar ideas. These arguments were hashed out centuries ago and the record of them is there for those who are curious. The common creeds are the fruit of the intense debates over these hard questions.

Sorry Ron, but the Trinity and the nature of Christ have been hotly contested since the beginning of Christianity.  As far back as there are records of Christians there are records of competing claims about both.  

In another great irony related to Jehovah's Witness, the argument that their interpretation of the bible is wrong and their translations are crap is something you can only ascertain with a knowledge of the history and traditions of Christianity.  This is precisely why the Pope and his followers reject sola scriptura - it leads to interpretations of Christianity completely divorced from history and tradition.  Now if you say have an institution that collects and preserves history, and makes judgements that are authoritative, that helps keep an interpretation consistent over time.  Any Christian sects fit that bill?

As you have pointed out here in this thread, having some knowledge of how the Bible was written and what early Christians believed about it is essential to understanding why trinitarian Christians see their interpretation as superior.  Throw that away, and you've got the myriad of religions that arose from independent bible study groups.  

The text itself is by no means obvious in establishing the Nicene Creed or the trinity.  That's something early Christians associated with the State seemed to have debated and agreed they would outlaw.  Had they not done so it isn't at all clear that trinitarian Christianity would be the dominant interpretation today.