22 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieahah, have you read the book, No?, yet you feel free to comment upon a book that you have NOT read. My aren't we turning over the rocks today and finding all sorts of creepy crawlies. Anyway let me put his words in perspective for you, seeing that after not having read the book, you are unable to do it for yourself.
do you argree with beduhn when he said this about the nwt.
"the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God"?
BeDuhn is interested in what the Greek text states, his statement acknowledges the fact that in the Greek base texts as we have them today the divine name is not present, but what he fails to realise that it is present in the Hebrew text, many portions of which are directly quoted in the Christian Greek scriptures. He also fails to take into consideration that the divine name is present in marginals in the Septuagint and in abbreviated form hallelujah, Jah, so while it is strictly true that it does not appear in the Greek base texts as we have them, that is not to say that it did not at one time and we have made a restorative translation, having references for every single instance of the 237 times where we have restored the divine name.
So to answer your question, no I do not agree with him as I stated earlier that its not good translation, its a restorative translation. That it purports to be a denominational preferred expression, yes I agree, we prefer to use the divine name when speaking of God.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo other biblical scholars tend to agree with Jason DeBuhn on this matter?
So to answer your question, no I do not agree with him as I stated earlier that its not good translation, its a restorative translation. That it purports to be a denominational preferred expression, yes I agree, we prefer to use the divine name when speaking of God.
Are there any prominent scholars who claim that the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament is an accurate translation according to the most basic principle of accuracy and that it does not violate accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewould you like to point out where ive made a comment about a book i havent read?
ahah, have you read the book, No?, yet you feel free to comment upon a book that you have NOT read. My aren't we turning over the rocks today and finding all sorts of creepy crawlies. Anyway let me put his words in perspective for you, seeing that after not having read the book, you are unable to do it for yourself.
BeDuhn is interested in what ...[text shortened]... ional preferred expression, yes I agree, we prefer to use the divine name when speaking of God.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI appears to me that I am the only one who is truly interested in the scientific method
I'll remind you of this thread next time you waxing lyrical about the science which contradicts your religious beliefs.
and who has gone to great lengths to avoid useless and futile speculations, basing the
integrity of my text upon soundly established empirical evidence and I make no
apologies for it, sir!
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieyou are trying to engage me in debate concerning Dr BeDhuns book, Truth in
well what? you said id made a comment about a book ive not read. i said tell me where, where did i make a comment about a book ive not read??
Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament even
having produced a quotation from it, probably from wikipedia, with regard to our
attempts to make a restorative translation. This is the book that you have quoted from
and not read.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGive it a rest will you, you wouldn't recognise the scientific method unless it came along bent you over lifted up your kilt and rodgered itself up your back passage.
I appears to me that I am the only one who is truly interested in the scientific method
and who has gone to great lengths to avoid useless and futile speculations, basing the
integrity of my text upon soundly established empirical evidence and I make no
apologies for it, sir!
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by Proper Knoblol, there is no need for gayness, i remain committed to the scientific method. I'd also
Give it a rest will you, you wouldn't recognise the scientific method unless it came along bent you over lifted up your kilt and rodgered itself up your back passage.
just like to take this opportunity to state that chicks dig kilts, just sayin.