What's new

Closed Bakit hindi jehovah ang pangalan ng dios ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nag Aaway Kayo Para Sa Paniniwala?..... Ganyan Ba Turo Sa Inyo? Mag Away2x?... Hahahha Babang Uri Ng Paniniwala......

Sinung Tama Sa Inyo? Sya? O Ikaw?

Ako Ang Pinaniniwalaan Ko... Ang Gumawa Ng Bagay Na Tama... Hindi Yong Nakakasagasa Ng Paniniwala Ng Iba.

Kung Gusto Mong Irespito Ka.. Rumespito ka!
 
Nag Aaway Kayo Para Sa Paniniwala?..... Ganyan Ba Turo Sa Inyo? Mag Away2x?... Hahahha Babang Uri Ng Paniniwala......

Sinung Tama Sa Inyo? Sya? O Ikaw?

Ako Ang Pinaniniwalaan Ko... Ang Gumawa Ng Bagay Na Tama... Hindi Yong Nakakasagasa Ng Paniniwala Ng Iba.

Kung Gusto Mong Irespito Ka.. Rumespito ka!
 
Nag Aaway Kayo Para Sa Paniniwala?..... Ganyan Ba Turo Sa Inyo? Mag Away2x?... Hahahha Babang Uri Ng Paniniwala......

Sinung Tama Sa Inyo? Sya? O Ikaw?

Ako Ang Pinaniniwalaan Ko... Ang Gumawa Ng Bagay Na Tama... Hindi Yong Nakakasagasa Ng Paniniwala Ng Iba.

Kung Gusto Mong Irespito Ka.. Rumespito ka!

Hindi lang ito basta paniniwala kundi malalim na kaunawaan sa kung ano ba talaga ang katotohanan na itinuturo ng banal na kasulatan.
 
Kundi pabanalin ang Kristo bilang Panginoon sa inyong mga puso, na laging handang gumawa ng pagtatanggol sa harap ng bawat isa na humihingi sa inyo ng katuwiran para sa pag-asa na nasa inyo, ngunit ginagawa iyon taglay ang mahinahong kalooban at matinding paggalang.
Magtaglay kayo ng isang mabuting budhi, upang sa bagay na doon kayo pinagsasalitaan ng masama ay mapahiya sila na nagsasalita nang may paghamak tungkol sa inyong mabuting paggawi may kaugnayan kay Kristo.
1 Pedro 3:15,16
 
Nag Aaway Kayo Para Sa Paniniwala?..... Ganyan Ba Turo Sa Inyo? Mag Away2x?... Hahahha Babang Uri Ng Paniniwala......

Sinung Tama Sa Inyo? Sya? O Ikaw?

Ako Ang Pinaniniwalaan Ko... Ang Gumawa Ng Bagay Na Tama... Hindi Yong Nakakasagasa Ng Paniniwala Ng Iba.

Kung Gusto Mong Irespito Ka.. Rumespito ka!
talk about respect :)

kita mo na hindi ka rin rumirespeto nanagasa karin ng paniniwala :) tapos sasabihin mo yung paniniwalaan mo yung tama paano mo malalaman na tama talaga kung sa paningin ng iba mali talaga tapos sasabihin mong rumispeto kung ikaw hindi mo sila nirerespeto na hindi rumirespeto ng ibang paniniwala dahil nga sa paniniwala nila na iba sa paniniwala mo

ano nga bang sinasabi ko sinasabi ko lang naman na sinasabi mong rumispeto sila ng ibang paniniwala pero ikaw hindi mo sila irerespeto dahil mali sila hindi karin nila irerespeto dahil sa paningin din nila mali ka

paano mo ba irerespeto ang maling paniniwala diba ang gagawin mo hindi mo irerespeto kundi itatama mo tulad ng ginagawa mo now na ginagawa ko rin :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pano igagalang ang mali aber...kung mahal mo ang isang tao kpag my mali sya sawayin...ganyan tlga ang ibang tao impoktrito..kpag napupuna ang kamalian..sila pa yung galit..
:) does that mean mahal mo yung mga sinusuway mo ngayon sa phc? :) ano nararamdaman mo for them boss?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anghel si Jehova

Exodo, 6:3 - At ako'y napakita kay Abraham, kay Isaac, at kay Jacob na Dios na Makapangyarihan sa lahat; nguni't sa pamamagitan ng aking pangalang Jehova, noon ay hindi ako napakilala sa kanila.
Iyang Jehova ang sabi ay Nagpakita kay Moises, nasa verse 2.

Nagpakita s'ya kay Moises para ibigay 'yung sampung utos. Sabi nga nakipag-usap pa sya kay Moises ng mukhaan.

Exodo, 33:11 - At nakikipagsalitaan ang Panginoon kay Moises ng mukhaan, gaya ng isang taong nakikipagsalitaan.

Malinaw diba? Mukhaan, ibigsabihin nakausap at nakita ni Moises 'yang si Jehova, sabi nga gaya ng isang tao dahil nagkakatawang-tao naman talaga ang mga anghel noon para magbigay mensahe sa mga propeta.

Ngayon, anong katunayan na anghel nga iyang nakausap ni Moises?

Gawa, 7:35 - Ang Moises na ito na kanilang itinakuwil, na sinasabi, Sino ang sa iyo'y naglagay na puno at hukom? ay siyang sinugo ng Dios na maging puno at tagapagligtas sa pamamagitan ng kamay ng anghel na sa kaniya'y napakita sa mababang punong kahoy.

ANGHEL NA NAPAKITA SA KANIYA.

Edi malinaw na anghel ang nakausap ni Moises, anghel si Jehova.
Eh ang Dios ba pwede makita ng mukhaan? Anong sabi sa Biblia?

Exodo, 33:20 - At kaniyang sinabi, Hindi mo makikita ang aking mukha: sapagka't hindi maaaring makita ako ng tao at mabuhay.

HINDI MAAARING MAKITA NG TAO AT MABUBUHAY PA. Ibigsabihin walang pwedeng makakita sa Dios, kung mayroon man ay mamamatay.

Kaya dito sa Exodo na yung Jehova na NAGPAKITA kay Moises, anghel 'yun. Kasi nakita ni Moises e, nakausap pa nga niya. Katunayan pa na walang taong nakakita sa Dios.

Juan, 1:18 - Walang taong nakakita kailan man sa Dios; ang bugtong na Anak, na nasa sinapupunan ng Ama, siya ang nagpakilala sa kanya
modified na yang bible mo -_-
exodus 6:3 old kjv 1611 = galing ito directly sa scriptures
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

now bahala ka kung maniwala ka o hindi ayaw ko makipagtalo ng walang hanggan

exodus 6:3 ang biblia 1905 = galing ito sa spanish translation
3 At ako'y napakita kay Abraham, kay Isaac, at kay Jacob na Dios na Makapangyarihan sa lahat; nguni't sa pamamagitan ng aking pangalang Jehova, noon ay hindi ako napakilala sa kanila.
 
ask to lang sir bakit iba yung translation ninyo sa bible ninyo compare sa KJV "was God". malinaw naman, bat sa bible ninyo may "a" "was a god"??


John 1:1-5 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 1:1-5 NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. In the beginning was the Word,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and the Word was with God,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and the Word was a god.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. This one was in the beginning with God. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. All things came into existence through him,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. And the light is shining in the darkness,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. but the darkness has not overpowered it.
 
ask to lang sir bakit iba yung translation ninyo sa bible ninyo compare sa KJV "was God". malinaw naman, bat sa bible ninyo may "a" "was a god"??


John 1:1-5 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 1:1-5 NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. In the beginning was the Word,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and the Word was with God,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and the Word was a god.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. This one was in the beginning with God. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. All things came into existence through him,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. And the light is shining in the darkness,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. but the darkness has not overpowered it.


ask to lang sir bakit iba yung translation ninyo sa bible ninyo compare sa KJV "was God". malinaw naman, bat sa bible ninyo may "a" "was a god"??


John 1:1-5 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 1:1-5 NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. In the beginning was the Word,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and the Word was with God,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and the Word was a god.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. This one was in the beginning with God. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. All things came into existence through him,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. And the light is shining in the darkness,You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. but the darkness has not overpowered it.



Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Understand John 1:1 to Read, "...and the Word Was a god"?
1-John.jpg
This Bible verse is often misused. In the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., this Scripture reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·on′], and the Word was God [the·os′].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os′ has no definite article.

In the New World Translation Bible (produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society - a legal organization in use by Jehovah’s Witnesses), John 1:1 reads: “You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.” Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible. So which is the correct translation of this verse?

Greek Grammar and Context Provide the Answer

Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. (See John 1:1c Primer (Examining the Trinity). Also see the w09 4/1 pp. 18-19 article: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.)

Bible verses in the Greek language that have a construction similar to that of John 1:1 use the expression “a god.” For example, when referring to Herod Agrippa I, the crowds shouted: ‘It is a god speaking.’ And when Paul survived a bite by a poisonous snake, the people said: “He is a god.” (Acts 12:22; 28:3-6) It is in harmony with both Greek grammar and Bible teaching to speak of the Word as, not God, but “a god.”—John 1:1.

For instance, consider that John states that the Word was “with God.” But how can an individual be with someone and at the same time be that person? John 1:1 clearly phrases God as a separate person from the Word (Jesus). And since Jesus is written and identified in John 1:1 as a separate person from God (not just the Father), then that would positively exclude him as being God!

Commenting on this, Count Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian novelist and religious philosopher, said:

"If it says that in the beginning was the...Word, and that the Word was...WITH God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God." - The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, p. 30.

Moreover, as recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. He calls his Father “the only true God.” And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (John 20:31) Notice that Jesus is called, not God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is “a god” in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God.

Other Bibles That Render John 1:1c "a god"

The NWT is not the only Bible to render John 1:1c as "a god". Actually, there are many Bibles that render John 1:1 as "a God" or it's equivalent:

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

Trinitarian Scholars Have Even Admitted That "the Word was *a* god"

Even a number of respected trinitarian scholars have admitted that "the Word was *a* god" is the literal translation at John 1:1c.

In addition to their comments below, W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New English Bible project), and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word was a god") is the literal translation, but, being trinitarians, they insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was God." Why? Because of a trinitarian bias only!

W. E. Vine - "a god was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.

C. H. Dodd - "The Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.

Murray J. Harris - "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Robert Young - "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

Even Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

Origen's Commentary on John is "the first great work of Christian interpretation." Origen was certainly the most knowledgeable about NT (koine) Greek of any scholar. He studied it from early childhood and even taught it professionally from his teens onward. And this was during a time when it was a living language and, of course, well understood. - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 291-294, vol. X, Eerdmans Publ., 1990 printing.

The Sahidic Coptic Translation Reads John 1:1 as, "And the Word was *a* god."

It is also interesting to note that the Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus' earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. A significant fact concerning the Coptic language is that, unlike the Greek, it used an indefinite article ("a" or "an" in English).

The Sahidic Coptic translation DOES USE an indefinite article with the word 'god' in the final part of John 1:1 and when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: 'And the Word was a god.' (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.)

The fact is that the New World Translation is not wrong in translating John 1:1 the way it does as some critics propose. In fact, these critics have it completely turned around. The absence of the indefinite article (a) at John 1:1c has been purposely mistranslated in most Trinitarian-produced Bibles to fit THEIR doctrine that Jesus is God.
 

Attachments

John 1:1 - A Number of Trinitaran Translations and Scholars Admit "a god"

Is John 1:1 really a Bible text where "Jesus is definitely called God" as Bowman declares? Or, in other words, do JW's purposely mistranslate and misinterpret this scripture while only certain trinitarians translate them in an honest, unbiased manner? Let's see:

John 1:1 - The NWT translates: "And the Word was a god."

The RSV translates: "And the Word was God." (& most other trinitarian Bibles)

It has been seen here (also see the BOWGOD study) that "a god" may be used as a scripturally accurate title for angels, kings, judges and others who were appointed to represent God.

A number of respected trinitarian scholars have admitted that the literal translation of Jn 1:1c is actually "And the Word was a god":

W. E. Vine - "a god was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.

C. H. Dodd - "The Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.

Murray J. Harris - "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Robert Young - "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New English Bible project), and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word was a god") is the literal translation, but, being trinitarians, they insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was God." Why? Because of a trinitarian bias only!

Grammar and context actually verify the "a god" rendering (see DEF, HARNER, and PRIMER study papers.)

Despite pressure from other trinitarians to the contrary, even some translations by trinitarians render this verse in such a way as to cast doubt on the traditional translation:

GNB - "and he was the same as God"

NEB "and what God was, the Word was"

Mo - "the Logos [Word] was divine"

DoB - "and the word was a divine being" - John J. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, 1965.

The first two, of course, are still leaning toward a trinitarian interpretation but, nevertheless, show some hesitation toward fully accepting the usual trinitarian translation. The last two by Moffatt ("probably the greatest Biblical scholar of our day") and McKenzie actually imply a non-trinitarian understanding of this particular verse.

You see, "divine" and "divine beings" apply to many persons, including God's angels!

The highly-respected trinitarian New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed. tells us, for example, in a footnote for Gen. 18:2-8 that the angels are "divine beings"!

The trinitarian Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament calls an angel a "divine being." - p. 159.

And trinitarian Cairns explains the difference between "divine" and "deity" by admitting that strong anti-trinitarian Arius (who believed Jesus was not God) "believed that Christ was a being, created out of nothing, subordinate to the Father .... To Arius he was divine but notdeity [God]." - p. 143, Christianity Through the Centuries, Zondervan,1977.

And Moffatt himself translates the literal word for "gods" at Ps. 8:5 as "divine." Here it refers to the angels! So when he again translates the word which literally means "a god" at Jn 1:1 as "divine," it should be no surprise that it can indicate another person who is a heavenly being, but not God himself!

And the Encyclopedia Britannica said about John 1:1, the Word (Logos), and "divine":

The Logos [the Word] which having been in the beginning, and with God, and "divine," had entered human life and history as the Word 'made flesh'.... But the identification of Jesus with the Logos was not tantamount to recognizing him as "God." Neither the "Word of God" in Hebrew nomenclature nor the Logos in Greek speculation was "God" though it was definitely "divine." - p. 25, Vol. 13, 14th ed.

So, how does Dr. Goodspeed, the trinitarian expert endorsed by Bowman himself, translate John 1:1? :

"And the Word was divine." - An American Translation, 19th impr., 1975.

If even respected trinitarian scholars can render Jn 1:1 "and the Word was divine," the NWT should be able to translate it even more literally as "and the Word was a god."!
 
if KJV is misused why is it included to your jw bible?? did you try to compare it to another translation??
 
if KJV is misused why is it included to your jw bible?? did you try to compare it to another translation??

Kasi hindi naman lahat ng nakalagay na salita sa KJV ay mali... at isa pa marami tao gumagamit ng translation na yan, kaya nilagay yun para makita mismo nila sa sarili nilang bibliya at maikumpara sa paniniwala nila yoong natututuhan nilang katotohanan..
 
if KJV is misused why is it included to your jw bible?? did you try to compare it to another translation??

Ang Bagong Sanlibutang Salin lang ba ang ginagamit ng mga Saksi ni Jehova para suportahan ang mga paniniwala nila?

Hindi, dahil gumagamit pa rin kami ng maraming salin ng Bibliya sa aming pangangaral. Sa katunayan, kahit nagbibigay kami ng kopya ng Bagong Sanlibutang Salin bilang bahagi ng aming libreng programa sa pag-aaral ng Bibliya, masaya din kaming tumutulong sa mga nais mag-aral ng Bibliya gamit ang anumang salin na gusto nila.
 
Ang Bagong Sanlibutang Salin lang ba ang ginagamit ng mga Saksi ni Jehova para suportahan ang mga paniniwala nila?

Hindi, dahil gumagamit pa rin kami ng maraming salin ng Bibliya sa aming pangangaral. Sa katunayan, kahit nagbibigay kami ng kopya ng Bagong Sanlibutang Salin bilang bahagi ng aming libreng programa sa pag-aaral ng Bibliya, masaya din kaming tumutulong sa mga nais mag-aral ng Bibliya gamit ang anumang salin na gusto nila.

bakit hindi nyo kinukumpara ang bible nyo sa iba kung tama nga lahat ang nakasulat sa bible nyo??
 
bakit hindi nyo kinukumpara ang bible nyo sa iba kung tama nga lahat ang nakasulat sa bible nyo??

Matagal ko ng ginawa yan.. nung mag simula akong mag-aral ng bible..
Madami ako version ng bibliya pati na yung bago ng KJV yung Divine Name na binalik yung pangalan ng Diyos... pero para sakin NWT ang pinakatumpak at pinakamahusay na salin ng bibliya.
 
bakit hindi nyo kinukumpara ang bible nyo sa iba kung tama nga lahat ang nakasulat sa bible nyo??

Divine Name King James Bible Paperback – June 19, 2015. Restores the Almighty God'sDivine Name, JEHOVAH, to 6973 places and, JAH, in 50 places, to the UNREVISED text of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. Contains the Divine NameConcordance which lists 7023 occurrences of God's Divine Name.
-Source Google
 
bakit hindi nyo kinukumpara ang bible nyo sa iba kung tama nga lahat ang nakasulat sa bible nyo??

Tumpak ba ang Salin ng New World Translation?


Ang unang bahagi ng New World Translation ay inilabas noong 1950. Mula noon, may mga nagkomento o kumuwestiyon sa pagiging tumpak ng New World Translation You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. dahil may mga pagkakasalin ito na naiiba sa ibang salin ng Bibliya. Ang mga pagkakaibang ito ay kadalasan nang dahil sa isa sa mga sumusunod:

  • Pagkamaaasahan. Ang New World Translation ay batay sa pinakabagong pananaliksik ng mga iskolar at sa pinakamaaasahang sinaunang mga manuskrito. Samantalang ang King James Version ng 1611 ay salig sa mga manuskrito na kadalasang di-gaanong tumpak at hindi kasintanda ng mga ginamit sa pagsasalin ng New World Translation.

  • Pagiging tapat. Sinikap ng New World Translation na hindi lumihis sa orihinal na mensaheng kinasihan ng Diyos. (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) Mas pinaburan ng maraming salin ng Bibliya ang tradisyon ng tao kaysa sa mensahe ng Diyos. Halimbawa, pinalitan nila ang personal na pangalan ng Diyos, na Jehova, ng mga titulong gaya ng Panginoon o Diyos.

  • Pagiging literal. Di-gaya ng pakahulugang mga salin, literal na isinalin ng New World Translation ang mga salita kung natural naman ang datíng ng salitang ginamit o hindi nito itinatago ang diwa ng orihinal. Ang pakahulugang pagsasalin ng orihinal na teksto ng Bibliya ay maaaring magsingit ng mga opinyon ng tao o mag-alis ng mahahalagang detalye.
Mga pagkakaiba ng New World Translation sa ibang mga salin
Nawawalang mga aklat. Sa kanilang mga Bibliya, isinama ng Romano Katoliko at Eastern Orthodox ang mga aklat na kilala bilang You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. Gayunman, ang mga ito ay hindi tinanggap sa Judiong kanon, at kapansin-pansin na sinasabi ng Bibliya na “ipinagkatiwala sa [mga Judio] ang mga sagradong kapahayagan ng Diyos.” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) Kaya hindi isinama ng New World Translation at ng maraming makabagong salin ng Bibliya ang mga aklat ng Apokripa.

Nawawalang mga talata. Ang ilang salin ay nagdagdag ng mga talata at mga parirala na wala sa pinakamatatandang manuskrito ng Bibliya. Pero hindi isinama ng New World Translation ang mga dagdag na iyon. Inalis din sa maraming makabagong salin ang mga iyon, o kinilalang hindi sinusuportahan ng mapananaligang mga reperensiya. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

502014189_univ_cnt_1_md.jpg
Paggamit ng ibang mga salita. Paminsan-minsan, malabo o nakalilito ang salita-por-salitang mga salin. Halimbawa, ang sinabi ni Jesus sa You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. ay madalas isalin: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (English Standard Version; King James Version; New International Version) Iniisip ng marami na malabo ang literal na salin na “poor in spirit,” o “dukha sa espiritu,” samantalang iniisip naman ng ilan na ang itinatampok dito ni Jesus ay ang kahalagahan ng pagpapakumbaba o pagiging dukha. Pero ang idiniriin dito ni Jesus ay na ang tunay na kaligayahan ay nagmumula sa pagkilala na kailangan natin ang patnubay ng Diyos. Tama ang pagkakasalin ng New World Translation sa kahulugan ng sinabi ni Jesus—“mga palaisip sa kanilang espirituwal na pangangailangan.”—You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Magagandang komento ng mga iskolar na di-Saksi tungkol sa New World Translation
  • Ganito ang isinulat ng tagapagsalin ng Bibliya at iskolar na si Edgar J. Goodspeed sa kaniyang liham na may petsang Disyembre 8, 1950, tungkol sa New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “Ako ay interesado sa gawaing ministeryo ng inyong mga tao, at ang pandaigdig na lawak nito, at ako’y nasisiyahang lubos sa hindi literal, prangka at malinaw na salin. Nagpapamalas ito ng mataas na antas ng mahusay at seryosong pag-aaral, gaya ng mapapatotohanan ko.”

    502014189_univ_cnt_2_md.jpg
    Edgar J. Goodspeed

  • Binanggit ni Propesor Allen Wikgren ng University of Chicago na ang New World Translation ay isang halimbawa ng makabagong salin na sa halip na dumepende sa ibang mga salin, ay kadalasang nagsalin batay sa “orihinal na mga manuskrito.”—The Interpreter’s Bible, Tomo I, pahina 99.

  • Ganito ang komento ng Britanong kritiko sa Bibliya na si Alexander Thomson tungkol sa New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “Maliwanag na ang salin ay gawa ng dalubhasa at matatalinong iskolar, na nagsikap na ilabas hangga’t maaari ang tunay na diwa ng Griegong teksto hanggang sa makakayanang ipahayag ng wikang Ingles.”—The Differentiator, Abril 1952, pahina 52.

  • Bagaman binanggit ng awtor na si Charles Francis Potter na may napansin siyang ilang di-karaniwang pagkakasalin, sinabi niya: “Napakahusay ng pagkakasalin ng mga di-nagpakilalang tagapagsalin sa mga manuskrito ng teksto, kapuwa ng Griego at Hebreo.”—The Faiths Men Live By, pahina 300.

  • Iniisip ni Robert M. McCoy na kakaiba ang pagkakasalin ng New World Translation, pero para sa kaniya, ekselente pa rin ito. Ganito ang naging konklusyon ng kaniyang pagsusuri: “Ang pagkakasalin ng Bagong Tipan ay patotoo na may mga iskolar sa kilusan [mga Saksi ni Jehova] na kuwalipikadong lumutas nang may katalinuhan sa maraming suliranin sa pagsasalin ng Bibliya.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, Enero 1963, pahina 31.

  • Hindi sang-ayon si Propesor S. MacLean Gilmour sa ilang pagkakasalin ng New World Translation. Pero kinilala pa rin niya na ang mga tagapagsalin nito ay “may di-pangkaraniwang kaalaman sa Griego.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, Setyembre 1966, pahina 26.

  • Sa pagsusuri sa New World Translation na bahagi ng Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, isinulat ng associate professor na si Thomas N. Winter: “Ang salin ng di-nagpakilalang komite ay lubusang kaalinsabay ng panahon at laging wasto.”—The Classical Journal, Abril-Mayo 1974, pahina 376.

  • Sinabi noong 1989 ng Hebreong iskolar sa Israel na si Propesor Benjamin Kedar: “Sa aking pagsasaliksik sa wika may kaugnayan sa Bibliyang Hebreo at sa mga salin nito, malimit akong sumasangguni sa edisyong Ingles ng tinatawag na New World Translation. Sa paggawa nito, paulit-ulit kong napatutunayan na ang akdang ito ay nagpapamalas ng taimtim na pagsisikap na maabot ang kaunawaan sa teksto sa pinakawastong posibleng paraan.”

  • Batay sa pagsusuri sa siyam na pangunahing salin sa Ingles, isinulat ng associate professor sa pag-aaral sa relihiyon na si Jason David BeDuhn: “Ang NW [New World Translation] ay napatunayang pinakatumpak sa lahat ng salin na pinaghambing.” Bagaman iniisip ng mga tao at ng maraming iskolar sa Bibliya na ang mga pagkakaiba sa New World Translation ay dahil may kinikilingang relihiyosong turo ang mga tagapagsalin nito, sinabi ni BeDuhn: “Ang karamihan ng pagkakaiba ay dahil sa pagiging mas tumpak ng NW bilang isang literal at maingat na salin ng orihinal na mga pananalita ng mga manunulat ng Bagong Tipan.”—Truth in Translation, pahina 163, 165.
 

Attachments

Pagkaintindi ko

Sa pasimula ay may Salita' (may utos/uttered command/verbo-verb/action word )

And the 'word' was with God

God uttered Let there be light.... Let there be...(aspect of genesis creation)

Ang command/utos/word ay mula sa Diyos sa pasimula ng paglikha

And the word was God's

At ang salita ay sumasadiyos (nagmula sa Diyos), meaning ang Salita ay 'sa' Diyos

Hindi diyan sinasabi na Ang Salita ay 'ang' Diyos at lalong mali sabihin na ang Salita ay 'D'iyos.

Tandaan na ang Salita tinutukoy dyan ay buhay' at ang salitang iyan ay kapangyarihan ng Diyos at ispiritual.

Pag Hindi natin lubos na maunawaan yan matitisod tayo sa Trinity God doctrine na tinutukoy sa hula about 666. Be aware lang po.
 
Pagkaintindi ko

Sa pasimula ay may Salita' (may utos/uttered command/verbo-verb/action word )

And the 'word' was with God

God uttered Let there be light.... Let there be...(aspect of genesis creation)

Ang command/utos/word ay mula sa Diyos sa pasimula ng paglikha

And the word was God's

At ang salita ay sumasadiyos (nagmula sa Diyos), meaning ang Salita ay 'sa' Diyos

Hindi diyan sinasabi na Ang Salita ay 'ang' Diyos at lalong mali sabihin na ang Salita ay 'D'iyos.

Tandaan na ang Salita tinutukoy dyan ay buhay' at ang salitang iyan ay kapangyarihan ng Diyos at ispiritual.

Pag Hindi natin lubos na maunawaan yan matitisod tayo sa Trinity God doctrine na tinutukoy sa hula about 666. Be aware lang po.

“Ang Salita ay Diyos”

SA You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. ang King James Version ay kababasahan: “Nang pasimula siya ang Salita at ang Salita ay kasama ng Diyos, at ang Salita ay Diyos.” Ayon sa mga Trinitaryo nangangahulugan ito na “ang Salita” (Griyego, ho loʹgos) na nanaog sa lupa bilang Jesu-Kristo ay ang Diyos na Makapangyarihan-sa-lahat mismo.

Subalit, pansinin muli na ang konteksto ang naglalagay ng saligan sa wastong pag-unawa. Maging ang King James Version ay nagsasabi, “Ang Salita ay kasama ng Diyos.” (Amin ang italiko.) Ang isa na may “kasama” ay hindi maaaring maging ang tao ring kasama niya. Kaayon nito, sinasabi ng Journal of Biblical Literature na pinamatnugutan ng Jesuitang si Joseph A. Fitzmyer, na kung ang huling bahagi ng You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. ay bibigyang-kahulugan ng “ang” Diyos, ito “ay sasalungat sa naunang sugnay,” na nagsasabing ang Salita ay kasama ng Diyos.

Pansinin din kung papaano inihaharap ng ibang salin ang bahaging ito ng talata:

1808: “at ang salita ay isang diyos.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “at isang diyos ang salita.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear na pagbasa, ni Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “at ang Salita ay isang banal na nilikha.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, ni Maurice Goguel.

1935: “at ang Salita ay banal.” The Bible—An American Translation, nina J. M. P. Smith at E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “at ang Salita ay may banal na kaurian.” Das Neue Testament, ni Ludwig Thimme.

1950: “at ang Salita ay isang diyos.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: “at ang Salita ay isang Diyos.” The New Testament, ni James L. Tomanek.

1975: “at isang diyos (o, may banal na katangian) ang Salita.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, ni Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “At ang Logos ay may kauriang tulad-sa-diyos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, ni Johannes Schneider.

Sa You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. ay dalawang beses lumilitaw ang pangngalang Griyego na the·osʹ (diyos). Ang una ay sa Diyos na Makapangyarihan-sa-lahat tumutukoy, na siyang kasama ng Salita (“at ang Salita [loʹgos] ay kasama ng Diyos [isang anyo ng the·osʹ]”). Ang unang the·osʹ ay kasunod ng salitang ton (ang), isang tiyak na pantukoy sa Griyego na tumutukoy sa natatanging pagkakakilanlan, na sa kalagayang ito ay ang Diyos na Makapangyarihan-sa-lahat (“at ang Salita ay kasama ng [ang] Diyos”).

Sa kabilang dako, walang pantukoy bago ang ikalawang the·osʹ sa You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. Kaya ito ay literal na isinasaling, “at diyos ang Salita.” Gayunma’y nakita natin na marami ang nagsasalin sa ikalawang the·osʹ (pangngalang panaguri) bilang “banal,” “tulad-diyos,” o “isang diyos.” Ano ang karapatan nila sa paggawa nito?

Ang wikang Griyegong Koine ay may isang tiyak na pantukoy (“ang”), nguni’t wala itong pantukoy na di-tiyak (“isang”). Kaya kapag ang isang pangngalang panaguri ay hindi kasunod ng tiyakang pantukoy, ito ay walang-katiyakan, depende sa konteksto.

Sinasabi ng Journal of Biblical Literature na ang mga pangungusap na “may panaguring anarthrous [walang pantukoy] ay nagpapahiwatig ng katangian kapag sinusundan ng pandiwa.” Gaya ng iniuulat ng Journal, ito ay nagpapahiwatig na ang loʹgos ay maihahalintulad sa isang diyos. Sinasabi din nito hinggil sa You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.: “Ang puwersa ng panaguri bilang katangian ay litaw-na-litaw anupa’t ang pangngalan [the·osʹ] ay hindi maituturing na tiyakan.”

Kaya itinatampok ng You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. ang katangian ng Salita, “banal,” “tulad-sa-diyos,” “isang diyos,” hindi Diyos na Makapangyarihan-sa-lahat. Katugma ito ng buong Bibliya, na nagpapakita na si Jesus, na dito’y tinatawag “ang Salita” dahil sa kaniyang papel na Tagapagsalita ng Diyos, ay isang masunuring sakop na isinugo sa lupa ng Nakatataas sa kaniya, ang Diyos na Makapangyarihan-sa-lahat.

Marami pang ibang talata sa Bibliya na kung saan halos lahat ng tagapagsalin sa ibang mga wika ay nagsisingit ng pantukoy na “isang” kapag nagsasalin ng mga pangungusap sa Griyego na may gayon ding balangkas. Halimbawa, sa You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., nang makita ng mga alagad na si Jesus ay lumalakad sa ibabaw ng tubig, sinasabi ng King James Version: “Inakala nila na yaon ay isang espiritu.” Sa Griyegong Koine, walang “isang” bago ang “espiritu.” Subalit halos lahat ng salin sa ibang mga wika ay naglalagay ng “isang” upang iangkop ang salin sa konteksto. Kaya, yamang ipinakikita ng You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. na ang Salita ay kasama ng Diyos, hindi siya maaaring maging ang Diyos kundi “isang diyos,” o “banal”.

Si Joseph Henry Thayer, teologo at iskolar na kasali sa paghahanda ng American Standard Version, ay nagsabi sa payak na pananalita: “Ang Logos ay banal, hindi ang mismong banal na Maykapal.” At ang Jesuitang si John L. McKenzie ay sumulat sa kaniyang Dictionary of the Bible: “Ang You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. ay dapat na buong-higpit na isaling . . .‘ang salita ay isang banal na nilikha.’”
 
Ang pasimula

Nilikha ng Diyos ang lahat ng bagay sa pamamagitan ng Kanyang Salita

In the beginning God uttered let there be.... And so there was...

Walang nilalang na hindi nalalang kundi sa pamamagitan ng verbo ( salita/na may paggawa-command)

At lahat ng sannilikha ay nananatili sa bisa ng utos na yan (the Word of God)

Word 'of' God

The word was 'of' God

Ang Salita ay 'sa' Diyos, sumasadiyos, mula sa Diyos

***

Ngayon consider natin ang argumento na Diyos(divine) nga ang Salita (sa pasimula)

Ngunit hindi nga Siya nanatili sa ganyang kalagayan dahil naging(nagkatawang) tao nga Siya, bumaba siya

Kaya nga The Word 'was' God, at hindi sinabing The Word 'is' God.

At ang Salita po ay hindi isang banal na 'nilikha'....

[At ang Jesuitang si John L. McKenzie ay sumulat sa kaniyang Dictionary of the Bible: “Ang You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. ay dapat na buong-higpit na isaling . . .‘ang salita ay isang banal na nilikha.’”]

Hindi Siya kasama sa mga nilikha ng Diyos

Ang tinig ay tinig nga (divine)

In the beginning God 'said', (utterance)

Kasangkapan Siya sa paglikha ng lahat ng bagay at walang bagay na nilikha kundi sa pamamagitan Niya.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top