The Kingdom Interlinear Translation

Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation)

: calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified--yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of pagan concept . . .1 believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!. . . Ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell." (Ron Rhodes "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" p.103-105)

http://members.tripod.com/sosoutreach/script/nwt.html

Life is a roller coaster. Get in, sit down, shut up and hang on!

Good evening TD. Are you by any chance the "Tom" that used to post over on the old H20? Seems like he also went by "Zachary" if my memory serves me right.

You asked, "How do you account for the Vulgate?"

Well, TD, the Vulgate is the Latin edition or translation of the Bible made by Jerome at the end of the fourth century, now used in a revised form as the Roman Catholic authorized version. That's how I would account for it.

I would be delighted to know what you are talking about. Do you think that you have something that will overturn the conclusions that I've reached about the word seismos as used in the Bible? If so, let's hear it please. I'm all ears.

Friday

Yesiree, what a TRUE "scholar" this poor fella has proven to be. The guy apparently believes that "hell" is hot, that we all have immortal souls, and that the general populace will have sealed their eternal destiny by the time they have died. I sure know that I would place a lot of confidence in his understanding about John 1:1. NOT!

Friday

Yes.

I don't really have an axe to grind on this question, so rather that actively desiring to overturn your conclusions, I'm simply curious if you are prepared to account for some of the more obvious objections that could be raised.

One such objection would be the rendering of scriptures such as Matthew 24:7, Mark 13:8 etc. in the Vulgate, especially given the antiquity of this translation and the reputed familiarity of the translator with the source language.

"...consurget enim gens in gentem et regnum in regnum et erunt pestilentiae et fames et terraemotus per loca."

"..exsurget autem gens super gentem et regnum super regnum et erunt terraemotus per loca et fames initium dolorum haec."

You make an interesting point about "seismos" but TD's question on the Latin Vulgate needs to be addressed. In addition, seismos doesn't just mean shaking but more literally a commotion either of the air (gales) or the ground (earthquakes). The "shaking" of Matt 8:24 is variously translated as storm or tempest and as "agitation in the sea" (NWT).

Other places seismos is used in Greek apear to be earthquakes by the context of the passage as at Acts 16:26 and Rev 11:13. So while seismoi at Matt 24:7, Mark 13:8 and Luke 21:11 may be a commotion not related to earthquakes most places in the Greek scriptures the word is translated earthquake and it is difficult to argue against that translation for the 3 Gospel accounts. There has been a long history of translation of the Bible which would agree with that conclusion.

Over to you.

Thirdson

'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'

I’m ABSOLUTELY appalled that you have the audacity to suggest that Jerome may have had a deeper understanding of the ancient language than what I do.

So what do YOU think, are you inclined to think that simply because the translator of the Vulgate is “reputed” to be familiar with the source language that he understood it perfectly, and was above making mistakes? Was Jerome infallible with his translation thoughout? Did Jerome even have a full understanding of the Bible that he translated? Do you suppose that there have been respected modern-day translators that have disagreed with Jerome on some point or another as to translation? Another thing: Isn’t it true that oftentimes translators have to rely upon the context as an aid for knowing precisely how to translate certain words? And, what’s more, isn’t that proven to be the case in the tempest at sea example, as well as others? … Wasn’t the word used in those examples simply seismos? And yet it was obviously not an earthquake, was it!

You implied that there might be other objections that could be raised. What would those be in your estimation? Please elaborate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thirdson

Well ADDRESS it, my man. What are you waiting on … the moon to turn to blood? YOU can do it just as easily as ole Friday can. Why do I have to do everything?

Well, Thirdson, Acts 16:26 is an example of a seismos that affected the “foundations” of the jail in which Paul and Silas were imprisoned. Although most translations (NWT included) attribute what happened to an earthquake having occurred, no mention is made in the Greek text of the earth itself having quaked. Nor was such mandatory in order to make possible the results described. Unquestionably, God, the source of the seismos, is capable of shaking foundations without first needing to cause an earthquake to accomplish it. Again, there was no “earthquake” -- only a shaking (seismos). You might find it interesting that the Diaglott translated this seismos as “a shaking”, and in its right hand column called it -- not an earthquake -- but a “concussion”. It reads: “And suddenly there was a great concussion, so as to shake the foundations of the prison; and all the doors were opened, and the fetters of all were loosed.”

Insofar as the text you refer to at Revelation 11:13, the idea of a concussion fits as well as the thought of an earthquake.

A long history of translation of the Bible don’t mean diddly squat, Thirdson. And you really should know that, since today’s translators are able to boast of having identified and eliminated hundreds of errors that earlier translators had committed.

I came back to correct myself here after I gave more thought to what you said. Yes you're right, but it should be understood that the word seismos of itself has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of what shook. The identifying word in the text is “sea”. Notice: “Now, look! a great agitation (seismos) arose in the sea, so that the boat was being covered by the waves.” The same is true in the example of the incident involving Paul and Silas, the identifying word is the word “foundation”. Again the same holds true with regards to the text of Matthew 27:51, the identifying word being the word “earth”. Note: “… and the earth [yn] shook [seismos], and the rocks were split.”

That’s why that when it comes to the text of Matthew 24:7 one has to look for the word or words in the context that identifies what is supposed to have shaken. In that particular case it was the nations themselves, on an international scale (nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom = international). So we see that in each case there was a word that served as an identifier.

This is what Bible commentator J. A. Seiss, author of The Apocalypse had to say on page 152 of his book. He discusses this word, seismos, in connection with its use in Revelation 6:12. It goes as follows:

Well, gentlemen, I’m gonna retire for the night … it’s getting quite late. This will have me sleeping ‘till noon again tomorrow. In the meantime don’t trip over your Bibles.

Later,
Friday

Certainly not. Written language is far from being a perfect communication medium and people misunderstand each other when it comes to subtleties all of the time. A case in point is your statement above. I did not say that Jerome was “reputed to be familiar” with the source language, as there is no question on that point. The question is one as to the degree to which he was familiar with it. When I spoke of his “reputed familiarity” I was referring to the fact that he is reputed to have actually known the source language (or at least a variant thereof) as a living, spoken tongue and therefore would have been very familiar with it.

Valid points, but I’m sure you must realize that his fallibility simply opens the door to criticism. It doesn’t automatically justify that criticism or relieve the critic of the responsibility of providing substantial evidence in support of his point.

Yes, but Matthew 8:24 is a qualified usage where we are specifically told what was shaking. Even then the basic thought, a shaking of the physical surface supporting you, is the same. I think it would greatly add to the plausibility of your conclusion if you could find a simple, unqualified use of the word that is clearly made in reference to something else besides an earthquake.

Well a natural corollary to the question of how Greek would have been translated into other languages in times past, would be how other languages would have been translated into Greek. In other words, how would someone intimately familiar with the language have naturally expressed the concept in question. The only example I can think of off the top of my head (I’m sure there must be more) is Amos 1:1 in the Septuagint where the concept of “two years before the earthquake” is simply expressed as pro duo etwn tou seismou

Tom