Which translation do you think is the best English translation?

The Disciple John said:

It should be noted also that Colwell said, "...if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun..."
Colwell considers factors such as context, allowing for the predicate to be indefinite "only when the context demands it"

Click to expand...

John,

So, in a clause or sentence with the verb to be, if one discards the Colwell Rule, how does one decide which is the subject and which is the predicate nominative in the sentence?

P.S. I'm a retired NT Greek teacher.

Oz

Robert Gwin said:

I gather you do not think it is an accurate version Bread. Do you have an example, and how it should be rendered?

Click to expand...

Robert,

John 1:1 (NWT) is a classic example of where the NWT is a false translation of Scripture.

Oz

OzSpen said:

That is not an affirmation teaching that Jesus was a god.

Oz

Click to expand...

I didn't say that.
I am asking you if the KJV rendered that verse wrong, since you believe that to render John 1:1 with the indefinite article is wrong.
Acts 28:6 - Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. ?

OzSpen said:

John,

So, in a clause or sentence with the verb to be, if one discards the Colwell Rule, how does one decide which is the subject and which is the predicate nominative in the sentence?

P.S. I'm a retired NT Greek teacher.

Oz

Click to expand...

Discard? Did you read Colwell Rule? Would you like to quote it, and show me where I went wrong?

OzSpen said:

Robert,

John 1:1 (NWT) is a classic example of where the NWT is a false translation of Scripture.

Oz

Click to expand...

.............................
I have seen that John 1:1c is the most-accused verse in the NWT for 'falsifying,' but I know from an intensive study of my own that the NWT is one of the very few Bibles which translates it properly according to John's own usage: 'a god' or its equivalent. If you insist on the trinitarian translation of this important verse ("the Word was God"), here are my personal, detailed studies disproving it:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2011/06/definite-john-11.html (Longest and most detailed by far)

If you have actually studied one of these studies of mine and can prove me wrong concerning John's use of constructions parallel to John 1:1c, please respond. If you are just going to give me other trinity 'proofs' ....... don't bother.

The Disciple John said:

I didn't say that.
I am asking you if the KJV rendered that verse wrong, since you believe that to render John 1:1 with the indefinite article is wrong.
Acts 28:6 - Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. ?

Click to expand...

You are comparing a Nominative noun to an Accusative noun.

The slang term for the victim of a conman is a "mark". While my name is of course Mark.

You could correctly say, I am a mark, if you meant the first, but not the second.

Much love!

OzSpen said:

P.S. I'm a retired NT Greek teacher.

Click to expand...

Good, keep an eye on me, I know just enough to be dangerous!



Seriously, I welcome any input you may happen to have from anything you may happen to notice I've written.

Much love!

Jim B said:

The KJV was designed to promote a secular king.

Click to expand...

Utter rubbish from a King James ignoramus.

Modern translations don't have that flaw.

Click to expand...

Because their sole purpose is to present the world with corrupt Bibles.

I don't see there being a "best" translation. Most of them do a pretty good job. The one you like to read is probably fine. I personally read the NASB1995 more often than any other translation.

marks said:

You are comparing a Nominative noun to an Accusative noun.

The slang term for the victim of a conman is a "mark". While my name is of course Mark.

You could correctly say, I am a mark, if you meant the first, but not the second.

Much love!

Click to expand...

The Word was god.
They thought Paul was god.

The Word was a god.
They thought Paul was a god.

I'm sorry. You lost me.
What's the difference again?

The Disciple John said:

The Word was god.
They thought Paul was god.

The Word was a god
They thought Paul was a god.

I'm sorry. You lost me.
What's the difference again?

Click to expand...

Rather, God was the word, looking at it literally. I prefer, when we look at this level, to go as literal as we can.

Regarding Paul, are you thinking of this passage?

Acts 14:11-18 LITV
11) And seeing what Paul did, the crowd lifted up their voice in Lycaonian, saying, The gods have come down to us, becoming like men.
12) And they called Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the leader in speaking.
13) And the priest of Zeus being before their city, carrying bulls and garlands to the gates, he wished to sacrifice along with the crowds.
14) But Paul and Barnabas, the apostles, hearing, tearing their garments, they sprang into the crowd, crying out,
15) and saying, Men, why do you do these things? We also are men of like feelings to you, announcing the gospel to you to turn you from these vanities to the living God, who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all things in them," Ex. 20:11
16) who in the generations which have passed allowed all the nations to go in their own ways,
17) though indeed He did not leave Himself without witness, doing good, giving rain and fruitful seasons to us from heaven, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
18) And saying these things, they hardly stopped the crowds, that they not sacrifice to them.

Is there a same construction used here?

Much love!

marks said:

Rather, God was the word, looking at it literally. I prefer, when we look at this level, to go as literal as we can.

Regarding Paul, are you thinking of this passage?

Acts 14:11-18 LITV
11) And seeing what Paul did, the crowd lifted up their voice in Lycaonian, saying, The gods have come down to us, becoming like men.
12) And they called Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the leader in speaking.
13) And the priest of Zeus being before their city, carrying bulls and garlands to the gates, he wished to sacrifice along with the crowds.
14) But Paul and Barnabas, the apostles, hearing, tearing their garments, they sprang into the crowd, crying out,
15) and saying, Men, why do you do these things? We also are men of like feelings to you, announcing the gospel to you to turn you from these vanities to the living God, who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all things in them," Ex. 20:11
16) who in the generations which have passed allowed all the nations to go in their own ways,
17) though indeed He did not leave Himself without witness, doing good, giving rain and fruitful seasons to us from heaven, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
18) And saying these things, they hardly stopped the crowds, that they not sacrifice to them.

Is there a same construction used here?

Much love!

Click to expand...

H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(end note #16, JBL)
W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(Greek Grammar & Syntax)
These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations
H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all [16]
H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all
H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all
H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all
H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all
H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all
H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all
[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not “qualitative”). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!

As an ex-theology professor, I know Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. If asked about the best translations, I always begin by saying, "Any translation but the KJV and NKJV, because of the very late and highly corrupt text used for translation. In the case of the KJV's bogus ending of Mark, we even know the forger's name, Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD). Beyond that, this is my advice for those who don't know the original languages:
Buy one literal and one paraphrase translation. I'd recommend the New Living Translation and the NIV. But be sure to use the 2011 NIV edition which provides valuable corrections to the older NIV.

Also, remember that ultimately the Bible cannot be accurately translated because for many Hebrew and Greek words there is no exact one-to-one correlation with an English word. For example, in both Hebrew and Greek the word translated "faith" also means "faithfulness" and this has profound implications for our understanding of salvation by faith alone. So the serious Bible student is well advised to buy a good Hebrew and Greek dictionary, not just a concordance of online dictionary.

tigger 2 said:

H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(end note #16, JBL)
W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(Greek Grammar & Syntax)
These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations
H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all [16]
H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all
H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all
H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all
H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all
H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all
H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all
[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not “qualitative”). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!

Click to expand...

Are these all identical syntax to John 1:1?

Much love!

marks said:

Are these all identical syntax to John 1:1?

Much love!

Click to expand...

...............................
They all have an unmodified anarthrous predicate count noun which comes before the verb.

Trinitarian grammarians Wallace and Harner both listed them as parallel to John 1:1c.

marks said:

Rather, God was the word, looking at it literally. I prefer, when we look at this level, to go as literal as we can.

Regarding Paul, are you thinking of this passage?

Acts 14:11-18 LITV
11) And seeing what Paul did, the crowd lifted up their voice in Lycaonian, saying, The gods have come down to us, becoming like men.
12) And they called Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the leader in speaking.
13) And the priest of Zeus being before their city, carrying bulls and garlands to the gates, he wished to sacrifice along with the crowds.
14) But Paul and Barnabas, the apostles, hearing, tearing their garments, they sprang into the crowd, crying out,
15) and saying, Men, why do you do these things? We also are men of like feelings to you, announcing the gospel to you to turn you from these vanities to the living God, who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all things in them," Ex. 20:11
16) who in the generations which have passed allowed all the nations to go in their own ways,
17) though indeed He did not leave Himself without witness, doing good, giving rain and fruitful seasons to us from heaven, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
18) And saying these things, they hardly stopped the crowds, that they not sacrifice to them.

Is there a same construction used here?

Much love!

Click to expand...

Sigh I though you read the post before responding to it.

tigger 2 said:

.............................
I have seen that John 1:1c is the most-accused verse in the NWT for 'falsifying,' but I know from an intensive study of my own that the NWT is one of the very few Bibles which translates it properly according to John's own usage: 'a god' or its equivalent. If you insist on the trinitarian translation of this important verse ("the Word was God"), here are my personal, detailed studies disproving it:

Click to expand...

tigger,

In a Greek sentence, how do you know which is the nominative subject and the predicate nominative? We need to remember that a general principle is that word order does not affect translation. Declensions and conjugations of words determine the translation.

Oz

The Disciple John said:

Discard? Did you read Colwell Rule? Would you like to quote it, and show me where I went wrong?

Click to expand...

John,

E. C. Colwell completed his doctor’s dissertation on “The Character of the Greek of John’s Gospel” in 1931. His intensive research into the grammar of John’s Gospel led to the discovery of his rule.
p 257 257

In 1933 he published an article entitled, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” in JBL 52 (1933) 12-21. Ever since, his rule has been known simply as “Colwell’s rule.”

2. Statement of the Rule

Colwell’s rule is as follows: “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article … a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun… .” (source)

Wallace, D. B. (1999). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (pp. 256–257). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.

BreadOfLife said:

The New World Translation (NWT) was tailored for the perverted doctrines invented by Charles Taze Russell, the false prophet and founder of the Watchtower Society.

A few glaring examples of JW doctrinal bias resulting in the perversion of Scripture in the New World Translation (NWT) are:

- In John 1:1, the NWT renders this verse as ”a god” (instead of than “God”) because of the JW denial of the divinity of Jesus.

- In Col. 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word “other” no less than FOUR TIMES to support their false doctrine that Christ is a created being.

- Matt. 26:26, states, “this means my body”, instead of, “this IS my body” because of their doctrinal stance against the Real Presence.

Because of these type of blatant perversions - there is simply NO reputable Biblical scholar – Catholic OR Protestant who takes the NWT seriously.

Click to expand...

Thanks Bread, lets delve into it. Your version calls the Word God, the NWT renders it a god. Which is correct. If you will notice your version inconsistently translated theos a god at Acts 28:6, which was rendered correctely, so that means they deliberately altered one of them. Your version as well tried to remove Jehovah's name as well from their version, but were unable to do so. Take notice of the first God in Jn 1:1 it was correctly capitalized, why? Because it was preceeded by the definite article tov straightforwardly translated "the Word was toward the God. The Word was capitalized because it was preceeded by the definite article ho, however the theos the verse finished with did not have any definite articles preceeding it, therefore it would be rendered with a small g. The New World Translation added the a, as did your Version at Acts 28:6, as well as ours. Your version deliberately capitalized it, to promote the doctrine of Jesus being God sir. You even stated that as such, admitting that one of them was altered.

I think we both know your second point was not really a point correct? Unless you are of the extremely few people that believe the apostles ate the literal flesh and drank the blood of Jesus, then you know they ate unleavened bread and drank wine that represented Jesus' flesh and blood.

Lets continue sir, what else do you have? Lets take one at a time.

OzSpen said:

Robert,

John 1:1 (NWT) is a classic example of where the NWT is a false translation of Scripture.

Oz

Click to expand...

Thanks OZ, you are quite correct that one is in error, check out my explanation to him sir.

You might also wonder why your version calls Jehovah God, as well as Jesus, and then calling Jesus His son as well. Something doesn't quite add up does it?