The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?

ArticleSeen.com ^ | Aug-28-2011 | Steve-O

[Elsie]

That’s a wee bit more than I paid for my 13.

[Elsie]

It is quite possible they too had a “seer stone” like Joe.

 

 

Eerily familiar...

 

 

Party ownership of the print media
made it easy to manipulate public opinion,
and the film and radio carried the process further.

 

16. Ministry Of Truth

.......

The Ministry of Truth, Winston's place of work, contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below.

The Ministry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further.

The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels - with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child's spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary.

Winston worked in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT (a single branch of the Ministry of Truth) editing and writing for The Times. He dictated into a machine called a speakwrite. Winston would receive articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, in Newspeak, rectify. If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston's job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.

When his day's work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles. He dialed 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to rectify.

In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages; to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and on the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.

As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.

What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead.

In the cubicle next to him the little woman with sandy hair toiled day in day out, simply at tracking down and deleting from the Press the names of people who had been vaporized and were therefore considered never to have existed. And this hall, with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one-sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department. Beyond, above, below, were other swarms of workers engaged in an unimaginable multitude of jobs.

There were huge printing-shops and their sub editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs. There was the tele-programmes section with its engineers, its producers and its teams of actors specially chosen for their skill in imitating voices; clerks whose job was simply to draw up lists of books and periodicals which were due for recall; vast repositories where the corrected documents were stored; and the hidden furnaces where the original copies were destroyed.

And somewhere or other, quite anonymous, there were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence.

 

 

[Elsie]

I jumped in that river back in 1998. It was so cold I thought I was going to freeze! And that was in August!

I did that at Slide Rock Park, just north of Sedona, in late April 1996 once. I think the water was snow the day before!

[Elsie]

The only other Utah river I was in was the Colorado back in 1955, Moab.

This flat lander from Indiana got seduced by Moab before I knew what it was. Moab popped into my mind and, like the guy in Close Encounters of the Third Kind; I just HAD to make a road trip to see it!

(I've not been the same since ;^)

I got to see it BEFORE all the California dudes moved in and jacked up land prices.

I remember when the entire town of Cisco was for sale at around $63,000.

[boatbums]

Do you know the names or schooling of any of the translators of the LXX? Of the AV? Do you know any of the names of the those called “Masoretes?” I’ll wait while you search and then you can you can explain how it affects the merits of these three great works.

From Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?:

The New World Translation (NWT) is defined by the Jehovah's Witnesses’ parent organization (the Watchtower Society) as "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah." The NWT is the anonymous work of the “New World Bible Translation Committee.” Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the anonymity is in place so that the credit for the work will go to God. Of course, this has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability for their errors and prevents real scholars from checking their academic credentials.

The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, as new editions of the New World Translation were published, additional changes were made to the biblical text. As biblical Christians continued to point out Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ (for example), the Watchtower Society would publish new editions of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed. Here are some of the more prominent examples of intentional revisions:

The New World Translation renders the Greek term word staurós ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word parousia because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900s. In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other” despite its being completely absent from the original Greek text. It does this to give the view that “all other things” were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, “all things were created by Christ.” This is to go along with their belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.

The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.

There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.

1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.

2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").

The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as "God." Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts.

It is only the Watchtower's pre-conceived heretical beliefs that are behind the dishonest and inconsistent translation that is the New World Translation. The New World Translation is most definitely not a valid version of God’s Word. There are minor differences among all the major English translations of the Bible. No English translation is perfect. However, while other Bible translators make minor mistakes in the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek text into English, the NWT intentionally changes the rendering of the text to conform to Jehovah’s Witness theology. The New World Translation is a perversion, not a version, of the Bible.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

““my committee...”? Wrong....Not my committee in any way since I have nothing to do with it.”

---

As a Jehovah’s Witness (a Russellite), you have everything to do with it. After all, these incompetent boobs are feeding you your theology. In fact, you should be VERY concerned about what these people are teaching you, who are not merely known to just be incompetent, but proven liars, and this starting from the very founding of your religion.

Note this conversation that occurred in court for one Charles T. Russell! Remember him? Your Watchtower was still quoting him as an authority, and referring to him as a new Luther or a new Saint Paul, as late as the 50s, till Rutherford realized it was bad business to speak too openly about the history of their organization. Russell sued Reverend J.J Ross, who had accused Russell of falsely claiming to be an ordained clergyman, of having gone to schools of higher learning, and being an expert in Greek and Hebrew, amonst other claims. Russell took him to court as a result, which turned out to be a BIG mistake. Here is a transcript from that court:

Question (Attorney Staunton): “Do you know the Greek alphabet?”
Answer (Russell): “Oh yes.”
Question (S): “Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?”
Answer (R): “Some of them; I might make a mistake on some of them.”
Question (S): “Will you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447, I have got here?”
Answer (R): “Well I don’t know that I would be able to.”
Question (S): “You can’t tell what those letters are? Look at them and see if you know.”
Answer (R): “My way..” [he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain].
Question (S): “Are you familiar with the Greek language?”
Answer (R): “No.”
(Russell v. Ross, qted in Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, Ed. Hank Hanegraaff, 1997, Pg. 84-5)

Notice how your man Russell first says that he knows the Greek Alphabet, and then says that he might make “some” mistakes if tested. And then, ultimately, is unable to identify ANY letters of Greek, and is then forced to say that he knows nothing of the Greek language.

I guess truthfulness is not a commandment for the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, eh?

Walter Martin observes:

“This, however, was not all of Russell’s testimony, and as Counselor Staunton pressed him further, the ‘pastor’ admitted that he knew nothing about Latin and Hebrew, and that he had never taken a course in philosophy or systematic theology, much less attended schools of higher learning. Bear in mind now that Russell a short time before had sworn he did have such knowledge by denying Ross’s allegations. But there was no way out now; the ‘pastor’ was caught in a bold-faced fabrication and he knew it. However, all was not over yet. It will be remembered that Russell claimed ‘ordination’ and equal if not superior status to ordained and accredited ministers... Counselor Staunton next smashed this illusion by demanding that Russell answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the following questions:

Question (S): “Is it true you were never ordained?”
Answer (R): “It is not true.”

It was necessary at this point for Counselor Staunton to appeal to the magistrate in order to make Russell answer the question directly...

Question (S): “Now, you never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, presbytery, council, or any body of men living?”
Answer (Russell, after a long pause): “I never was.”
(Ibid., pg. 85).

Russell also swore he had not divorced his wife and had not been made to pay alimony, which was subsequently refuted. (pg. 86)

Now let’s fast forward to Flukey, errr, Flaky? No, no, uh... Fonzie? No.. Ah, Frederick W. Franz, President of the JWs and the only fellow (albeit, a dropout) who attended any kind of higher education, who, with his translation, claimed to undo 2,000 years of Christianity with his “objective” translation! (It was just on the tip of my tongue!)

Though, how “objective” can the JWs be when they declare that:

“[W]e should seek for dependent Bible study, rather than for independent Bible study” (The Watchtower (September 15, 1911): 4885).

You cannot even HAVE an “independent”, objective interpretation of anything, but must submit all to the claims and assertions of men, mostly anonymous, who claim to have been ‘anointed” by the LORD to teach you the truth! And if you even QUESTION them, you face being shunned by your friends, family and community.

But back to Fonzi and your NWT. Does Fonzi, err, Flukey, whatever, actually speak all the languages he claims?

Q: “Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?”
A (Franz): “Yes.”
Q: ‘So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?”
A: “Yes, for use in my biblical work.”
Q: “I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?”
A: “Yes”

Later, during the same cross-examination:

Q: “You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?”
A: “I do not speak Hebrew.”
Q: “You do not?”
A: “No.”
Q: “Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?”
A: “Which?”
Q: That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis?”
A: “You mean here?”
Q: “Yes.”
A: “No.”
(Pursur’s Proof of the cross-examination, Qtd in Waltar Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, Ibid., pg. 124).

Sounds eerily familiar to Russell, don’t it? And it’s this guy who you are claiming is an “objective” Bible scholar capable of producing a translation of superior merit to the Westminter divines, centuries of scholars, Jews and Christians, going back to the very beginning, eh?

“The translators of the 1611 edition... said in their comments that they reserved the right to revisit their own work”

---

The translators of the KJV did not claim to be “anointed by Jehovah” for the purpose, nor were ANY of the translators the leaders of a THEOCRATIC movement claiming the right to translate the scripture willy-nilly without ANY accountability.

Apples and Oranges, buddy!

Note Jerome’s translation of John 1:1
“in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum”

It reads, literally, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.”

Compare with how the NWT concludes the end of it “... and the Word was a god.”

So, can you “OBJECTIVELY” tell me, from any of the Watchtower’s OFFICIAL writings, why Fonzi is a better translator than Jerome?

“You note how the NASB words it: “..morbid interest” and “is sick about..” in a footnote.”

---

Big difference from “MENTALLY DISEASED,” which your religion slings around as an insult to anyone who just questions the evil tower.

What a party this thread is! We have Russellites, Armstrongites, and the LDS, all crashing in!

[count-your-change]

Bang on! Party’s over since it’s really not worth the pixels to correct every blogsite that you and boatbums can regurgitate with cut and paste.

[redleghunter]

Was that a shrug?

[count-your-change]

Maybe more a shaking of dust off my feet.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Bang on! Party’s over since it’s really not worth the pixels to correct every blogsite that you and boatbums can regurgitate with cut and paste.”

---

I didn’t quote a blogsite, Russellite. Get thee hence then, it’ll save ME the pixels!

[boatbums]

Looked like it to me. ;o)

[boatbums]

Bang on! Party’s over since it’s really not worth the pixels to correct every blogsite that you and boatbums can regurgitate with cut and paste.

It's really not worth it to you to defend the foundation of the faith you follow? It's curious that you came unto this thread of your own free will and sided with the Mormons and Armstrongites against the truth of the Trinity. But now you throw in the towel because your basis of authority is challenged?

The LDS have their own version of the Bible and so do JWs. If we Christians defend our faith in one of the basic tenets of the faith using the sacred Scriptures (God's word), isn't it relevant that the authority we rely upon is just as trustworthy as God gave it to us? We actually have manuscripts IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES they were written in so going back to check new translations is not all that hard to do. We can know some English versions are better than others because we have the source material. English has it's limitations and it wasn't even a known language until six hundred years ago or so. I have confidence that God ensured that His revealed truth is in a form that is both reliable as well as authoritative.

Use what you want. Nobody is attacking you. But don't expect to slide on by without being challenged. Especially not on a doctrine critical to being a genuine Christian.

[count-your-change]

You quote me above. If you understand it the rest of your post is pointless, if you don’t understand it I’ll explain. Understand or don’t understand? Which one is it?

[Elsie]

Bang on! Party’s over since it’s really not worth the pixels to correct every blogsite that you and boatbums can regurgitate with cut and paste.

You SURE you ain't a MORMON??

This is very much a MORMON tactic; claim the OTHER guy is wrong with NO proof.

(it don't work for them; either.)

[Elsie]

Declare victory and leave the field of battle.

[count-your-change]

Your comment reminds me of an old comedy skit I saw wherein a clerk demands proof of identity from some fellow.

He produces a driver’s license with photo, marriage license, employment I.D. with photo, S.S. card, high school yearbook with his picture, three friends who know him,....

But the clerk responds by saying the fellow has no proof whatsoever of his identity and he should come back when he does.

You sure you ain’t like that clerk?

[Elsie]

Clara said, “Where’s the BEEF?”

ELSIE says, “Where’s the PROOF?”

[GarySpFc]

I think it is far more accurate to label the NWT as a JW commentary.

[count-your-change]

Then why not label the NAB or NIV as a commentary also?