Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And this is an excellent example of why all these claims about how christianity is the overwhelming religion begin to fall apart. Nobody's trying to "conquer", but that old saying seems to apply here -- "divide and conquer". The unity in christianity is shallow. Very shallow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
What world are you living in...or are you simply uninformed?
Christianity is growing in this World. As well as all Abrahamic Religious Belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
You should stop the ironic attacks and bashing, whether the Abrahamic religions are growing or not is irrelevant to Phetaroi's post.
I was addressing the ^^^ bashing...and the erroneous statements employed to do so.
Not only is it NOT "...an excellent example of why all these claims about how christianity is the overwhelming religion begin to fall apart."...but it IS (along with the other Abrahamic Religions) the overwhelming Religion, and growing, not "falling apart".
Religion is gaining...it's Atheism that's losing population share. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ds-population/
I was addressing the ^^^ bashing...and the erroneous statements employed to do so.
Not only is it NOT "...an excellent example of why all these claims about how christianity is the overwhelming religion begin to fall apart."...but it IS (along with the other Abrahamic Religions) the overwhelming Religion, and growing, not "falling apart".
Religion is gaining...it's Atheism that's losing population share. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ds-population/
All attributed to the Asia-Pacific region. Irrelevant and off topic.
Yes, I'm aware of the differences. The most egregious error, in my opinion, is the insertion of the indefinite article "a" in John 1:1. John was clearly stating in John 1:1 that Jesus is the same God that was present at creation in Genesis 1:1. Every first year Greek student learns that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Yeah I remember that sticking out to me, too.
A lot of my fellow atheists have the weird idea that translation is such an inexact process that it contributes to the ambiguity of what the text is supposed to mean, but that piece of it is generally pretty cut and dried or at least you can say in a case like that one, the article just isn't present in the Greek and putting it in the translation is not supportable and reflects an agenda. The problem isn't generally the translation, but sometimes the original being unclear in the first place, or there being doctrine built on it that's not really supported by the text.
I'm sure the JW response to this discussion is likely to be similar to how many literalists handle young vs old earth -- that they trust their teachers, and the academic scholarship being pointed out is questionable because it's not coming from an approved source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
That's exactly the response I have gotten when I've brought it up in discussion.
BaptistFundie and Mordant please take note. Likely you will continue to post the same characterization of JWs despite being presented with information contrary to your views but hopefully others will take a less biased viewpoint.
JWs developed their basic doctrines before the first NWT was printed. This included the idea that there is but one Almighty God and he has a name, YHWH. This does not preclude that other divine beings exist but never are they coequal to YHWH.
Jason BeDuhn is an academic that approached the accuracy of various Bible translations based on scholarship. He published the result of his research that found the NWT and a Catholic Bible were the most accurate in terms of their translations. Critics have taken aim at him because the trinity is such a central part of many Christian faiths that to offer an alternative view stirs fanatical responses from many who believe the trinity has always been a part of both the Old and New Testament.
Beduhn in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament chapter 11 states: "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word...and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs.... Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."-https://simplebibletruths.net/BeDuhns-Jn-1-1-List.htm
What is interesting about the above reference is the number of Bible translations that came much earlier than the first NWT edition that translate John 1:1 in a decidedly un-trinitarian manner.
John 1:1 is not as supportive as trinitarians would have one believe. The Sahidic translation of John 1:1 should not be ignored. This language was contemporary with Koine Greek. The advantage was the Sahidic language DID USE indefinite articles UNLIKE the Koine Greek. These Sahidic translators were also well versed in reading Greek and understanding the contemporary thought behind the Koine Greek translation of that time period.
"The Coptic translation of John 1:1c lacks the 'corruption of Greek philosophy' that found its way into the church after the death of the apostles of the Lord. And that is still another reason why the Coptic translation matters.
Coptic John 1:1c is a prime example. The Coptic translation says ne.u.noute pe p.Saje: "the Word was a god (or, divine)," not "the Word was God." That is documented evidence, a fact, not an assumption. The Coptic language has both indefinite and definite articles in its grammatical structure. If the Sahidic Coptic translators held the doctrine that "the Word was God," or if the Coptic translators understood the Greek text to say "the Word was God," the Coptic language had the grammatical tools to say so.
But they manifestly did not write "the Word was God." They wrote "the Word was a god." Unlike the assumptions, that is a fact. It is a fact that can be verified by reading the extant Coptic texts as evidence".-https://coptictruch.blogspot.com/2010/02/coptic-john-11-assumptions-vs-facts.html
I’m a Muslimah and just in case you guys don’t know, Islam is strictly a monotheistic religion. We believe in the same God as the Jewish people. The Bible, Torah and Quran all talk about the oness of God. So why do Christians claim that prophet Jesus (pbuh) is God? God has warned us that devil will try to trick us by cleverly trying to misguide us by oness of God. Can anyone please show me which passage in the Bible says that prophet Jesus (pbuh) claims that he is God???
Jesus himself said he was not great like God and also said that he had a God. Not that he was God but had a God that was over him just like I and many other Christians believe.
You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am."-John 14:28
"Jesus said to her: Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”-John 20:17
Many Christians today believe that there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and that they are coequal. They also believe the Bible always taught a trinitarian god and that Jesus's apostles taught that as well.
However, stepping back from the traditional dogma people have been taught and just looking at the issue from a historical and academic viewpoint this assumption is not accurate.
"No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."-https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#Up325CE
"The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father." Origen-https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#Up325CE
John 1:1 is not as supportive as trinitarians would have one believe. The Sahidic translation of John 1:1 should not be ignored. This language was contemporary with Koine Greek. The advantage was the Sahidic language DID USE indefinite articles UNLIKE the Koine Greek. These Sahidic translators were also well versed in reading Greek and understanding the contemporary thought behind the Koine Greek translation of that time period.
"The Coptic translation of John 1:1c lacks the 'corruption of Greek philosophy' that found its way into the church after the death of the apostles of the Lord. And that is still another reason why the Coptic translation matters.
Coptic John 1:1c is a prime example. The Coptic translation says ne.u.noute pe p.Saje: "the Word was a god (or, divine)," not "the Word was God." That is documented evidence, a fact, not an assumption. The Coptic language has both indefinite and definite articles in its grammatical structure. If the Sahidic Coptic translators held the doctrine that "the Word was God," or if the Coptic translators understood the Greek text to say "the Word was God," the Coptic language had the grammatical tools to say so.
But they manifestly did not write "the Word was God." They wrote "the Word was a god." Unlike the assumptions, that is a fact. It is a fact that can be verified by reading the extant Coptic texts as evidence".-https://coptictruch.blogspot.com/2010/02/coptic-john-11-assumptions-vs-facts.html
1, the language is NOT contemporary with the time John was written, there is at about 200 years (maybe more) between them.
2, it is still a translation, and therefore also prone to theological wishful thinking.
But they manifestly did not write "the Word was God." They wrote "the Word was a god." Unlike the assumptions, that is a fact. It is a fact that can be verified by reading the extant Coptic texts as evidence"[/b].-https://coptictruch.blogspot.com/2010/02/coptic-john-11-assumptions-vs-facts.html
Completely incorrect. So incorrect, it's laughable. Seriously. No. There is no "a" in the Greek, meaning the indefinite article. It just doesn't exist in Greek grammar. Any first-year Greek student knows that.
The basis of your argument is that you think the Coptic text that was translated in the 3rd Century predates a 4th Century translation, so the Coptics got it right. But there's issues with that, specifically what the Greek actually says, and what the apostles and their followers taught.
Be better. Seriously. This is not a good argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
