Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Please explain the so-called "perfect indefinite tense" which does not exist in any G

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Daniel Marsh View Post

    Thank You,
    Daniel
    See my post here in this thread, #16, which defeats what Holywood was trying to show. She failed to see that both are saying the same thing, as both refers to existence. The Greek NWT says it the way a modern Greek would write it by using the Greek word for "exist." Therefore it, the Greek NWT, need not replicate the way the apostle John expressed Jesus' words. Nor is there then any conflict between all three, the original Greek, the English NWT and the Greek translation of the latter. Only agreement.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Daniel Marsh View Post

      For those interested, is this the English Grammar being referred to? https://archive.org/stream/anewengli...egoog_djvu.txt
      Yes and one can see English verb tenses were termed as either definite or indefinite. There is no excuse for misreading the NWT 1950 footnote and thinking the term used, "perfect indefinite tense," was referring to a Greek tense as Walter Martin ineptly did, moggy has and you also.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by moggy View Post

        In a letter, dated February 7, 1978, to Firpo Carr, evidently according to comments on the Internet, a publicity seeker whose association with the Watchtower has been under a cloud, the Watchtower wrote:

        "The change was made in order to make it clearer that the footnote pertained to the English rendering, rather than to the tense in the original language"

        The "change" referred to here was the revised footnote found in the 1963 edition of the NWT, which used the expression "perfect indicative". But as one can see, the Watchtower was aware that the text could be a clear reference to a Greek original, which necessitated an explanation to make it clearer that it was in fact, not! Thus, when you charge in bristling with a misplaced zeal to construct an apologetic for the Watchtower, you are simply amending what they had originally written to make it appear certain when it was clearly uncertain.

        When I asked you how you knew what language the original writer was referring to in the expression "perfect indefinite tense", I was surprised at your vehemence in insisting that you knew. This was odd, given that the publishers themselves were admitting that it was not clear, and needed clarification. The clarification was presented in two ways.
        You appear to have missed that the above shows the term "perfect indefinite tense" then is an English tense for the writer of the footnote. Please go back to the first post in this thread. The letter to Carr does not say it was not clear but could be clearer. The letter does NOT say, as you wrongly think it does, that the term could be a reference to a Greek tense. It seems clear you add to the letter you are unable to understand. The 1950 NWT footnote is quite clear because of the adjective "after" and the verb "rendered." Because, as the footnote clearly explains that as EGW EIMI(Greek of course) after the PRIN clause(the Greek clause of course) is then "properly rendered"(translated into English of course) "in the perfect indefinite tense "(Hence an English tense of course). There you go. Wasn't very hard was it moggy.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Daniel Marsh View Post

          "“Before Abraham came into existence, I have been” The WT’s footnote to John 8:58 gave, consecutively, three different grammatical rules as basis for this “have been” rendering. In fact, the footnote in the KIT’s 1969 edition says, “properly rendered in the perfect tense”, while the KIT’s 1985 edition says, “properly translated by the perfect indicative”! And earlier explanations, like “perfect indefinite tense” in the 1950 edition, have been discarded. The correct rendering is “I AM”. Compare Exodus 3:14."

          I have a copy of the 1950 and it does indicate Greek Grammar.

          Does the “perfect indefinite tense” exist in English????
          None of those were the given explanations but the result of the grammatical reason given which reason were the same in each footnote that when EGW EIMI follows a past time expression it is properly rendered in or by a perfect tense. It appears you still have the greatest difficulty in understanding what you have read and reproduced in this thread. Amazing as the footnote is very easy to understand.
          Last edited by barneyman3; 03-20-18, 04:24 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            I reread the green back copy of it that I own, and it does refer to the Greek. In fact, someone who was there at the time confirmed that meaning to Walter Martin.

            I do not remember, but that person may have been Bill Cetnar. Maybe, someone else knows exactly who it was.


            "Dr. Mantey states: The translation of it as “I have been” by Jehovah’s Witnesses is wrong. The footnote stating that it is in “the perfect indefinite tense” is also wrong. No Greek grammar, to my knowledge, has such a statement. In fact, there is no form eimi in the perfect tense in the Greek New Testament.[1]
            It is also noteworthy that Michael Van Buskirk, author of The Scholastic Dis- honesty of the Watchtower has two official Watchtower Society letters which he quotes showing they have assumed four different grammatical positions in regard to ego eimi: a) “present indicative first person singular” (the correct designation); b) “a historical present”; c) the “perfect indefinite tense”—but only “in a general sense,” and d) “perfect tense indicative.” Again, there is no “perfect indefinite tense” as they claim (see 1950, 1953 eds.). Dr. Mantey also states there is no “perfect indicative in this verse in Greek.” The correct answer, of course, is “present indicative, first person singular,” but this translates as “I Am,” not as “I have been.” If the Watchtower Society had admitted (at least once) that the grammatical construction was a “present indicative, first person singular,” why did they never translate it as such? In fact, one can look at their own Kingdom Inter- linear (p. 467) and directly beneath the Greek ego eimi we find “I Am”; but the translation column to the right reads “I have been.”
            "https://www.jashow.org/articles/general/the-jehovah’s-witnesses’-new-world-translation-of-the-holy-scriptures-–-part-3/
            Deuteronomy 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Jehovah] your God [Elohim] is one LORD [Jehovah].

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Daniel Marsh View Post
              "Dr. Mantey states: The translation of it as “I have been” by Jehovah’s Witnesses is wrong. The footnote stating that it is in “the perfect indefinite tense” is also wrong. No Greek grammar, to my knowledge, has such a statement. In fact, there is no form eimi in the perfect tense in the Greek New Testament.[1]
              It is Dr. Mantey who is wrong on several accounts. He appears to think the NWT footnote gives the Greek tense of EGW EIMI when it patently does not. See my previous posts on this. Dr. Mantey here then made an inexcusable and misleading statement

              It is also noteworthy that Michael Van Buskirk, author of The Scholastic Dis- honesty of the Watchtower has two official Watchtower Society letters which he quotes showing they have assumed four different grammatical positions in regard to ego eimi: a) “present indicative first person singular” (the correct designation); b) “a historical present”; c) the “perfect indefinite tense”—but only “in a general sense,” and d) “perfect tense indicative.” Again, there is no “perfect indefinite tense” as they claim (see 1950, 1953 eds.).
              But here we see the same mistake, as this person simply confuses what the NWT/WT has stated, as the first two refers to the Greek whilst the other two the English rendering!

              Dr. Mantey also states there is no “perfect indicative in this verse in Greek.
              As the NWT has not said there is then it only shows Dr. Mantey is confused.

              The correct answer, of course, is “present indicative, first person singular,” but this translates as “I Am,” not as “I have been.
              One wonders why then some translators do not translate as "I am" but as "I existed" For example, C. B. Williams has "...I existed before Abraham was born."-The NT in the Language of the People.. Obviously there has to be some reason why it can, if not should be, translated as the NWT has done.

              And who stated Williams translation was "the best translation of the New Testament in the English Language"? None other than Dr.J R Mantey!!

              If the Watchtower Society had admitted (at least once) that the grammatical construction was a “present indicative, first person singular,” why did they never translate it as such?
              Possibly for the same reason C.B.Williams did not(that is with an English present)? For the same reason why all good English translations do not at John 15.27?

              In fact, one can look at their own Kingdom Inter- linear (p. 467) and directly beneath the Greek ego eimi we find “I Am”; but the translation column to the right reads “I have been.”
              "https://www.jashow.org/articles/general/the-jehovah’s-witnesses’-new-world-translation-of-the-holy-scriptures-–-part-3/
              This only shows that looking at an interlinear translation and expecting it to be a full translation can lead to a false conclusion.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by HollyWood View Post

                Hi Daniel,

                The WTS error in translating John 8:58 becomes obvious when they translated the English NWT into Greek. "I have been" doesn't translate back into the "ego eimi" it was translated from.

                This is from the NWT in Greek at their website:
                Ο Ιησούς τούς είπε: «Αληθινά, αληθινά σας λέω: Πριν ο Αβραάμ έρθει σε ύπαρξη, εγώ υπάρχω».
                Notice it has "εγώ υπάρχω" and not "εγώ είμι".

                https://www.jw.org/el/%CE%B5%CE%BA%C...CE%B7%CF%82/8/
                This is a revised and enlarged reply.

                The fact is the Greek of the NT is different from the NWT in modern Greek. Firstly, you will undoubtedly agree, anything can be said in more than one way but with the same meaning.
                Some translations are very literal while at the other extreme very free, idiomatic expressing the meaning of the text rather than translating each individual word. The English NWT, which is more a formal equivalent translation, translates the Greek words EGW EIMI of John 8.58 as "I have been." This translation means Jesus was speaking about his existence. How could the English NWT be translated into modern day Greek with the same **meaning** but with **different** Greek words than the original NT? That is by a meaning-for-meaning translation, the so-called dynamic translation principle. It would be accomplished by using the modern Greek word for "exist" which of course is not the word the English NWT uses in its English translation of the original **but has the same meaning**. And that is exactly what we find at John 8.58 in the Greek NWT. It uses a form of the Greek word for "exist".

                The original EIMI at John 8.58 is being used for existence. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament by G. Abbott-Smith under EIMI says: "..with various uses and significations, like the English verb to be. I. As substantive verb. 1. Of persons and things, to be, exist ;Acts 17.28, Jo 1.1 8.58......"

                Let us now translate the modern Greek NWT into English independent of the English NWT. What word can be used to translate the Greek word meaning "exist"(υπάρχει)? The English word "exist" of course. But would you then say this means the English translation of the original Greek, EGW EIMI as "I have been" in the English NWT is shown to be wrong? Of course not as the "I have been" translation, a formal translation of the original Greek **means** the same thing, about existence. In fact some Trinitarian translators have of course translated the **original Greek of the NT**, EGW EIMI, at John 8.58, with the English word "exist." Such as. C.B. Williams's translation, "I existed before Abraham was born."(The New Testament translation in the Language of the People.) One should not be under the illusion translation is a mechanical process only. It is not. Those who think then that the Greek NWT differs from the English NWT and the original Greek of John 8.58 only show an ignorance about translation principles and target readers.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by moggy View Post

                  He was alluding to this footnote as found in the first edition of the "Christian Greek Scriptures" located on page 312 of this 1950 edition:

                  "I have been = ἐγω ἐιμι [e.go ei.mi] after the aorist infinitive clause πριν Ἀββρααμ γενεσθαι and hence properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense. It is not the same as ὁ ων [ho ohn' meaning "The Being" or "The I Am] at Exodus 3:14, LXX"
                  One other, but obvious indicator, that EGW EIMI is the subject of the footnote and hence what has been "properly rendered," that is, translated, "in the perfect indefinite tense," which tense then must be referring to an English grammatical form is the pronoun "it" which the second sentence of the footnote begins. It must be referring back to something already mentioned in the first sentence. What was that? As the second sentence discusses that "it" is not the same of which we can read at Exodus 3.14, that is, "The I Am" then "it" definitely refers back to EGW EIMI of the first sentence which most English translations render as "I am" which is an English present tense not a perfect. This then, the pronoun the second sentence of the footnote begins with, is yet another obvious indicator you missed.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X