Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Based on the teachings of Christ and the Bible, which is the way Luke 23:43 should ACCURATELY be translated?


1)
"And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” "
~ Luke 23:43 (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/...

Or...

# 2)
"Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” "
~ Luke 23:43 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea…


For those of you who for whatever reason can't see the difference, the difference is in the position of the comma. Should the comma be placed AFTER the word "today" (# 1), or should it be placed BEFORE the word "today" (# 2).

The entire meaning of the scripture is affected by the comma placement.

When answering, please keep in mind that the Bible shows. reveals and teaches that after Jesus was executed he was dead for 3 days BEFORE he was resurrected to life.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Number 1. Supporting this, Abernathy stated:
(quote) It is the most "common" in that most Bible translations put the comma before the word "today." But Bible translation accuracy is not a democracy.

The original Greek did not have punctuation, and the original writer and readers wouldn't have had any problem understanding the verse. But today this placement of comma (required in English translations) is not so straightforward.

In favor of placing the comma before "today," I have only heard the explanation that it would have been superfluous for Jesus to tell the criminal that he was telling him something that day.

In favor of placing the comma after today, it is pointed out this was a common semitic idiom, used to show the certainty of something. A similar idiom is used some 40 times in the book of Deuteronomy.

The accusation that this is a JW specific issue is easily proved wrong. For example, the best manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic version, perhaps made in the late 2nd century says this at Luke 23:43:
ϩΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΑΚ ΜΠΟΟΥ ϪЄ ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ ΝΜΜΑΙ ϩΜ ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС
Truly I am telling you today that you will be with me in paradise.

The Coptic particle ϪЄ (je) means "that" and can function as a comma in Coptic. It is placed after, not before, "today." The Sahidic Coptic is the translation closest in time to when Luke was written, and reflects a translation similar to the NWT at Luke 23:43. (end quote)[1]

Trinitarianism however depends on Jesus not really sacrificing his life to provide a ransom, therefore it cannot except that Jesus was really dead,[2] as the link to the Trinitarian explanation that BibleChooser provided explains. Consequently, Trinitarianism must ultimately deny the ransom sacrifice. Therefore, the Insight article stands correct: "Jesus himself was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the resurrection. (Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:20; Col 1:18) He ascended to heaven 40 days later.--Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9."

@ BenjaminTapia, hi there. Well, we're created with the power of reason (1 John 1:4) to be able to sort everything out. Others remain behind in the darkness, but Christ's true followers bear the distinctive emblem of light.

Source(s):

[1] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…

Edit: [2] Slick, Matt. “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.”
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-d…
Regarding this, consider the conversation Jesus had with Peter recorded at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33. Here, Jesus made it very clear that he would be killed. But Peter rebuked him, saying: “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” (Matthew 16:22, NASB) Here, Trinitarianism appears to agree with Peter’s rebuke. But Jesus called such reasoning satanic, and thoughts of men alienated from God.

LINK

Appendix

Interlinear translation of the Sahidic Coptic Luke 23:43:

Compact:
ΠЄϪΑϤ ΔЄ ΝΑϤ ϪЄ
He said however to him,
ϩΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΑΚ ΜΠΟΟΥ ϪЄ ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ ΝΜΜΑΙ ϩΜ ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС.
truly I say it to you today, you will be with me in the paradise.

Parsed:
ΠЄϪΑϤ ΔЄ ΝΑϤ ϪЄ.
he said however to him ,
ϩΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΑΚ ΜΠΟΟΥ ϪЄ
truly I say it to you today ,
ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ ΝΜΜΑΙ ϩΜ ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС.
you will be with me in the paradise.

Also note that even if the #2 example above is correct, that this could simply mean that the criminal was as good as being in paradise with Jesus that very day, that as far as he knew, it would appear that he was with Jesus that very day—even though it was not literally that day. This idiomatic way of speaking would in no way be insincere. (1 Peter 2:22) Thus, no matter how you slice it, Luke 23:43 does not support the immortality of the soul nor Trinitarianism.

See also:
Posted by at
Labels:

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Trinitarians who hold that Jesus is divine only: do you realize that your position is heretical?

"Chalcedonian Box" by a Trinitarian
I've noticed here on Y!A that some Trinitarians reject the duality of Christ: they reject the Hypostatic Union, and say Jesus is only fully divine. (They thus reject the Trinitarian apologetics of Matt Slick on carm.org.) Perhaps they do not realize that this denial may amount to monophysitism, the position that Christ has only one nature: divine. The orthodox Chalcedonian position however is that Christ maintains two natures: divine and human in one person. Trinitarian Christology is dyophysite not monophysite, and as monophysitism is contrary to the orthodox dyophysite Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451), it has always been considered heretical by the Western Church and most of the Eastern Church.

Thus, I'm wondering if the Trinitarians who reject the Hypostatic Union here on Y!A know that they are spreading monophysite heresy?

Note: I'm talking about Trinitarians who reject the Hypostatic Union, not Oneness believers.
Quotes from Trinitarians I'm referring to:
"after the resurrection, he had a "glorified" body, a body made not of flesh, and not subject to the same laws of physics"
"he had blood when human but not anymore...HE WAS BOTH but now spirit.."
[Found in response to my question "Two questions for Trinitarians?"]

(Not included is one who deleted his comment and another who had his comment deleted when the question he was responding to was deleted.)
[Referring first to my question "Trinitarians: How can Jesus be fully man outside of earth's atmosphere?" and second to my question "Jehovah's Witnesses, why do you reject the Trinity?", where user Surfari [AKA Crosseyed] said according to what I remember, in substance: "As if he (Slick) is the authority of the church!"]

Additional Details

@ David H: I'm not talking about "sincere ignorance" but willful rejection of the Hypostatic Union. They read Trinitarian apologetics like Matt Slick's on carm.org on the Hypostatic Union and reject it. One vocal Trinitarian [Surfari/Crosseyed]  here even mocked him and his apologetics.
Link
Posted by at
Labels:

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Extent of involvement with spiritist Johannes Greber?

Greber's NT was used occasionally **in support** [NOTE: not as a source] of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1, as given in the New World Translation and other authoritative Bible versions. But as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition[1] of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on “God’s Spirit World” [as opposed to Bible scholarship] to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: “His wife, a medium of God’s Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God’s Messengers to Pastor Greber.”[2] The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) The scholarship that forms the basis for the rendering of the above-cited texts in the New World Translation is sound and for this reason does not depend at all on Greber’s translation for authority. Nothing is lost, therefore, by ceasing to use his New Testament.[3]

Source(s):

[1] The 1937 edition was previously used. (The Watchtower, 1962 9/15 p. 554 “The Word”—Who Is He? According to John.)

[2] A careful reading of this statement only shows that they had both editions, with the latest one retaining this admission.

[3] The Watchtower, 1983 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers.

Appendix
  1. From BAR-ANERGES
  2. From JWD2: The Watchtower and Johannes Greber
  3. My Summary
  4. Related news: The Vatican commissioned "teams of psychics"
  5. See also:

Additionally, member BAR-ANERGES said:
Greetings,

Anyone who continues to claim that Witnesses are associated with the occult are spreading blatant falsehoods. This question only reveals what the questioner desperately wants to believe and its sole purpose is to prejudice others.

Jehovah's Witnesses condemn divination and spiritualism in all its forms. They have done this from their inception as Bible Students down to today.

This question’s false accusation is a misrepresentation based on the Witnesses simply citing the Catholic translator J. Greber as one of many scholars who had translated Jn.1:1 as the NWT did.

The fact is that Greber's translation had no connection with the translation of the NWT nor was it ever consulted. It was simply listed along with other versions which similarly translated Jn.1:1.


Claiming that Witnesses had some “involvement” with Greber or spiritism is a reprehensible and hypocritical slander.

First, Greber was a Catholic and the church NEVER condemned him nor distanced themselves from his scholarship!

Second other Trinitarian scholars have used Johannes Greber for support (see Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament", Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation and Duthie's How to Choose Your Bible Wisely).

And third, criticizing the Witnesses because of Greber's spiritism is hypocritical because almost all modern translations make use of the text by Westcott and Hort. Yet, these two Greek scholars belonged to a club called the Ghostly Guild. They were actually fathers of the New Age channeling movement. The Ghostly Guild evolved into the infamous Society for Psychical Research.

The fact is that almost EVERY translation can be linked to scholars who were involved in spiritism.

The NIV used Dr. Virginia Mollenkott as a consultant throughout its creation. Yet her book, Sensuous Spirituality, tells of her spirit guide and contact with her dead mother and she admits use of Tarot cards and the I Ching.

Even older versions like the KJV/NKJV have links to scholars who were involved in the occult in their textual ancestry. For example, Origen's OT, the Hexapla makes use of texts by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.

Look at the NKJV logo. It is a symbol which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by Satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the covers of New Age books.


It is generally true that when someone cannot defend their theology from the Scriptures they usually distract by presenting slanted, incomplete and outright false accusations of what other religions teach. This type of question is promoted by biased individuals because they cannot defend their own beliefs with Scriptures, logic or facts.

Yours,

BAR-ANERGES
(Ron Rhoades)



From Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 2nd edition: Appendix C: The Watchtower and Johannes Greber

In 1955 The Watchtower magazine published a series of articles on the subject of life after death. In Part 3 of this series we read: "It comes as no surprise that one Johannes Greber, a former Catholic clergyman, has become a spiritualist and has published the book entitled ‘Communication with the Spirit World, Its laws and Its Purpose.’ (1932, Macoy Publishing Company, New York) In its Foreword he makes the typical misstatement: ‘The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible; for its principal contents hinge upon the messages of the beyond to those existing in the present.’"[1]

A few months later The Watchtower referred to several clergymen who agree with and support spiritism. The article makes this reference to Greber: "Says Johannes Greber in the introduction of his translation of The New Testament, copyrighted in 1937: ‘I myself was a Catholic priest, and until I was fortyeight years old had never as much as believed in the possibility of communicating with the world of God’s spirits. The day came, however, when I involuntarily took my first step toward such communication, and experienced things that shook me to the depths of my soul. . . . My experiences are related in a book that has appeared in both German and English and bears the title, Communication with the Spirit-World: Its Laws and Its Purpose.’ (Page 15, ¶ 2, 3) In keeping with his Roman Catholic extraction Greber’s translation is bound with a gold-leaf cross on its stiff front cover. In the Foreword of his aforementioned book ex-priest Greber says: ‘The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible.’ Under this impression Greber endeavors to make his New Testament translation read very spiritualistic."[2]

Thus we can see that Jehovah’s Witnesses knew full well that Johannes Greber was involved in spiritistic practices. That is why, in response to the question, "Why, in recent years, has The Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber?" The Watchtower replied: "As indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on ‘God’s Spirit World’ to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: ‘His wife, a medium of God’s Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God’s Messengers to Pastor Greber.’ The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)"[3] But if Jehovah’s Witnesses knew back in 1955 that Greber was a spiritist, why is Greber’s translation cited with approval for its renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1 in editions of The Watchtower between 1955 and 1983?[4]

First it must be stated clearly and emphatically that such citations of Greber’s New Testament in no way lend support to occultism or those who embrace it. From its beginning, The Watchtower magazine has opposed spiritism and it continues to do so.[5] The simplest explanation for The Watchtower’s citation of Greber’s translation is that those writers who used it in certain articles were unaware of the articles that had previously discussed Greber’s involvement with spiritism.

It is also possible that certain Watchtower writers believed that Greber’s translation was the work not only of a spiritist, but of a man who had a good grasp of ancient Greek grammar. (I personally do not have much confidence in Greber’s translation skills.[6]) That is perhaps one reason why Bruce Metzger chose to cite Greber’s New Testament translation when discussing Codex Bezae, which is the principle text used by Greber for his translation.[7] It is a fallacy to argue that Greber, being a spiritist, is therefore incapable of apprehending the sense of the original language of the New Testament, at least in some instances. (underline added)

Witness critics would do well to ponder the account in Acts 16, where a demonized girl followed Paul and Silas shouting, "These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing to you the way of salvation." (verse 17) Indeed, Paul did not get tired of her until she kept doing this "for many days," and finally he exorcised the demon from her. (verse 18) Even though the girl "had a demon of divination" and "used to furnish her masters with much gain by practicing the art of prediction" (verse 16), Paul tolerated her for some time. No doubt he realized that even though what she said was correct, her association with the spirit world could no longer be tolerated.

It is similar with the Watchtower’s use of Greber’s translation. In their case, however, those who cited Greber’s translation, among others, as supporting what they considered to be an accurate translation of certain passages, likely did so without knowing the details of Greber’s involvement with spiritism, even though other Watchtower writers knew and wrote about it.

Footnotes:
[1] "What Do the Scriptures Say About ‘Survival After Death’?" Part 3. The Watchtower, 1 October 1955, 603.

[2] "Triumphing over Wicked Spirit Forces," The Watchtower, 15 February 1956, 110-111.

[3] "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 1 April 1983, 31.

[4] See, for example, "‘The Word’—Who is He? According to John," The Watchtower, 15 September 1962, 554; "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 15 October 1975, 640; "Insight on the News," The Watchtower, 15 April 1976, 231.

[5] References proving this point are so numerous that the reader is best referred to the Watchtower Publications Index 1930-1985 and the 1986-1990 Index (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1986, 1990).

[6] See, for example, John 17:3, 20:28; 1Jo 5:20 and Rev 1:17, 18, to name a few.

[7] Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed. (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 50-51, note 2. It could be that Metzger is simply making reference to a translation of Codex Bezae, without regard to its accuracy.

[This footnote refers to the third edition of 1992, but it was also in the second edition of 1968:
It may be mentioned that English translations of codex Bezae have been published by William Whiston (The Primitive New Testament [London, 1745] and by Johannes Greber (The New Testament: a New Translation and Explanation based on the Oldest Manuscripts [New York, New York, 1937).
The Text of The New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. By Bruce M. Metzger. Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. Princeton Theological Seminary. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 1968, p.50, note 2, p.51. (Note however that the first edition of this book is 1964 and the first Watchtower corroborative citation of Greber is 1962.)]



In closing, I want to stress that Johannes Greber never claimed that he used demonism to translate Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1. The Watchtower was thus only using his translation to show that its translation in the NWT was not alone.

 Final points:

  • Even the esteemed Bible scholar Bruce Metzger cited his translation.
  • The Watchtower was only using his translation to show that its translation in the NWT was not alone.
  • When the Watchtower staff compared notes, it was seen that Greber claimed uncanny influence, thus it was inappropriate for the Watchtower to make any more use of it, and Metzger provided the bad example of citing his translation.
  • Greber claimed to be influenced by angels, not demons. (In reality, I think he was a sham.)

The end!




Related news: The Vatican commissioned "teams of psychics":

Meet the Fantastically Bejeweled Skeletons of Catholicism's Forgotten Martyrs
In identifying the remains of martyrs, the Vatican commissioned "teams of psychics": these "would journey through the corporeal tunnels, slip into a trance and point out skeletons from which they perceived a telling aura. After identifying a skeleton as holy, the Vatican then decided who was who and issued the title of martyr."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/meet-the-fantastically-bejeweled-skeletons-of-catholicisms-forgotten-martyrs-284882/?no-ist

Imagine that: official, unapologetic sanction of uncanny power!




See also:
Jehovah's Witnesses. Why do demons hate the "Trinity" doctrine? http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2014/10/jehovahs-witnesses-why-do-demons-hate.html

LINK (Proceed at your own risk)
Posted by at
Labels:

Monday, May 16, 2011

Two questions for Trinitarians?

I've read different stances coming from different Trinitarians on these two questions:

1) Are the persons of the Trinity separate and distinct or distinct only in the Godhead?
2) Does Jesus' full human nature have red blood or spirit? 2a) If you say spirit, how is that full human nature?

Thank you.

Additional Details

Thank you for the replies thus far.

To repeat and clarify:

--I've read different stances coming from different Trinitarians only, not Trinitarians and Oneness believers.
--Jesus' full human nature now according to the Hypostatic Union doctrine. As Jesus is "100% man" now,[1] does he have red blood now? (It seems like he would have to in order to be fully or 100% man.)

[1] Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g., The Hypostatic Union. http://pluto.matrix49.com/15697/?subpages/Hypostatic-Union.shtml
----------------------------------------
Let me repeat question 1 using parentheses to make it clearer:
1) Are the persons of the Trinity (separate and distinct) or (distinct only) in the Godhead?

(FTR I have not thumbed down replies.)
Trinitarian Dr. William Lane Craig said that the holy spirit is "separate and distinct" as a person.[2] But Trinitarian apologist Matt Slick says the three persons of the Trinity "are three distinct persons."[3]

[2] Does The Trinity Make Sense? Rabbi Tovia Singer vs William Lane Craig Debate (9:25). http://youtu.be/2lwRTki1js0

[3] The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum. http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/trinity-hypostatic-union-and-communicatio-idiomatum

Also, I've noticed that some Trinitarians reject the Hypostatic Union and say Jesus is only fully divine. Perhaps they do not realize that this denial may amount to monophysitism, "the Christological position that Christ has only one nature, his humanity being absorbed by his Deity, as opposed to the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ maintains two natures, one divine and one human. As monophysitism is contrary to the orthodox Chalcedonian Creed it has always been considered heretical by the Western Church and most of the Eastern Church." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
=====
Unfortunately, none of the Trinitarians who responded were able to resolve my two questions, nor were any able to edit their replies in accords with my additional details. So, I was left with little choice but to choose this as "BA". [Click on link below to see the "Best Answer."]

Link

Related links:
Posted by at
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)