Talk:Concordant Version/Archive 1

Archive 1

Translators?

A Wiki editor asserts that one Alexander Thomson was one of twelve translators of the Concordant Version. Was Alexander Thomson a translator of the CV? If so, what is the source for this information? Also if true, aside from A. E. Knoch, who were the other translators? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical thread restored below. See diff.

Why not email or telephone the Concordant Publishing Concern to find out? James Coram is now the managing editor and he can be emailed at email@concordant.org. The Concordant Publishing Concern can be telephoned at 661-252-2112. This telephone number is supplied by the web-site of the Concordant Publishing Concern: www.concordant.org

You will find James Coram to be very helpful in supplying any information needed , and answering such simple questions as this one about Alexander Thomson.

This is not associated with the Watchtower Society or Jehovah's Witnesses

The Concordant Version has no association whatsoever with the Watchtower Society or Jehovah's Witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.228.172 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Concordant Version is a very objective translation, and particularly so when compared to the highly sectarian New World Translation. I signed up to assist on improving the entry about this highly sectarian translation but my short edit was continually deleted by some Watchtower apparatchik. Specifically, the NWT renders "aion" and "aionios" as "system of things." That's preposterous. Aion means eon or age, as all modern translations render it. I'm unsure what the Watchtower Society is up to in rendering aion in such a ridiculous manner, but accuracy and scholarship are not its motivations. Deleted own text 19:28, 28 August 2009

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel J. Merritt Met.D.

Historical thread restored above. See diff.

Frankly, it doesn't seem "preposterous". In any event, this Talk is about the Concordant Version of the Bible and the related Concordant Publishing Concern; Talk regarding improvements to the entirely unrelated article New World Translation should be at Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Then Tam, you can neither read nor write Koine Greek, but are reacting as a loyal follower of Watchtower dogma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk • contribs) 05:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Such personal and anti-JW rantings seem odd for an article about the Concordant Bible! If it seemed useful to respond, I would.
For now, editors are reminded that an article's Talk is for that article, and to a lesser extent, improving articles related to it.
Talk is not for pontification or claimed clairvoyance. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical thread restored below. See diff.

I see. So, knowing Koine Greek means one is clairvoyant. An interesting smokescreen to divert attention from your inability to read Koine Greek, and your complete reliance on what the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society tells you. For your information, when I try to access the page dealing with the Concordant Version, I get directed to a page dealing with the Jehovah's Witnesses and, I think, the NWT. I apologize for my lack of acquaintance with this site. I am trying to meet my demons deadline while simultaneously improving the article on the Concordant Version. Deletion and addition to own text 19:28, 28 August 2009. Interesting. Thank you for that Insight, pun intended. I have no interest in the Jehovah's Witnessess or the NWT, having abandoned that project as hopelessly controlled by JWs. I wrote as I did because, as I said, I was directed to a talk page dealing with JWs, Watchtower doctrines and practices, etc.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical thread restored above and below. See diff.

Yes, I get redirected to this page when I click on this link supplied by Wilipedia: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (August 2009" So, I withdraw my apology.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical thread restored above and below. See diff.

I have done much rewriting of the article about the Concordant Version, implementing the suggested improvements to my rewrites, and even writing a paragraph that openly discusses the shortcomings of this version in the interests of neutrality and objectivity. I am also trying to discover what statements in the article need further verification. Hopefully someone will offer the specifics.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

One's claim to know that an anonymous person on the internet cannot read or write Koine Greek would seem a claim to clairvoyance.
One's claim to know the followings or "dogma" of an anonymous person on the internet would seem a claim to clairvoyance.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical thread restored below. See diff.

Tam, when are you going to answer my questions? HAS THE ARTICLE MET THE GUIDELINES IN CORRECTING THE OBJECTIONS TO IT? If not, why not? I need specifics. Thank you Tam.

I am a former Jehovah's Witness, so I know the score Tam. It doesn't take clairvoyance on my part Tam to know the JW tactics.. If you cannot set aside your religion to engage in a scholarly pursuit you do not belong in this project.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Tam! You had already given yourself away as a JW, so no clairvoyance was needed. I was "in the Lie" for years, even became a ministerial servant. I can smell the rotting brain of a JW a thousand miles away. I'm sending apostate DEMONS your way! DEMONS DEMONS DEMONS!

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Namaste,

Nathaniel J. Merritt

Historical thread restored above. See diff.

Well, THIS is the proper page to discuss the neutrality of the article about the Concordant Version of the Sacred Scriptures. As I said, I wrote a paragraph about the shortcomings of this version. Have I fulfilled the requirements to acheive neutrality? If not, can you make suggestions that do not involve anatomicallty impossible actions? ;-)

Namaste

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[1]

Edits by Nathaniel J. Merritt, since reverted

Historical thread restored below. See diff.
Hello Marvin Shilmer

I did your homework for you and contacted Jim Coram of the CPC as to your question about Alexander Thomson:

Hello Nathan,

Alexander Thomson (Author of Whence Eternity) of Scotland, merely assisted in relatively minor ways, in the early work of the CV New Testament. He was not a "translator" thereof. And, there certainly were no "twelve translators" involved! What a strange claim!

Incidentally, just take out that whole paragraph about "Other Involved in . . . ." It's hardly worthy of inclusion. All the original renderings, that is, translated verses, of the CLNT were by AE Knoch. Others merely assisted, most simply in practical tasks. Rogers and Thomson gave some counsel in certain issues of grammar. AEK still made all the final decisions (and the great majority of any interim ones), and did all the actual translating.

In Christ, Jim

email@concordant.org

616-252-2112

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Historical thread restored above. See diff.

Perhaps this thread should be retired.

Each unaddressed issue may be restated succinctly in a new thread (that is, in a new section).

--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete?

So, Tam, you want to delete this article because you are outgunned intelectually and educationally. I have bent over backwards trying to meet the requirements and all I get back from you is guff and haughtiness. You even jumped on me for leaving you a message on the bottom of the page where space is set aside to leave a message for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not prompted or even seen any suggestion for article deletion; I like the article.
Personal issues should be discussed on User Talk pages rather than on article Talk pages.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You like the article? Remember, Jehovah is watching you and writing down all your sins! If you like the article, then stop all the stuffy pseudo-scholar nonsense. You aren't good at it, and neither is Orange Blossom Mike. Just be real. Down to earth. A normal person. I'm trying to edit an article written by James Coram of the Concordant Publishing Concern. You folks, lacking any authority in real life, are tipsy on the authority you have here. Let all the pettifogging go. The Concordant Publishing Concern does not have "peer reviewed books" though it does have many books. The problem is they aren't well known so they haven't been reviewed by peers. Hopefully, with a fully developed article, word about the CV will spread and the CPC writings will become peer reviewed.

Stop being fearful or "too good" to actually email Jim Corman or talk to him on the phone. He is extremely superior to me in patience, and superexcessively nicer.

Just a thought: "The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." Let's all of us, myself included, keep that in mind.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

An individual editor does not need the approval of another individual editor. Literally no Wikipedian is credentialed; see WP:CRED.
Of course, consensus may move things differently than the direction an individual may have wished, and all editors are constrained by certain rules; see WP:CONEXCEPT.

I'm credentialed! I have a Masters degree in Religion! Why does Wikipedia want their articles written by ignorant arsenheimers?

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not credential its editors, or ask its editors for credentials. A person's expertise should become apparent from his work rather than his demands for kudos. Wikipedia wants its articles written by persons who will do so in harmony with its standards. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Claiming knowledge about how much authority is had by an anonymous person on the internet would seem to be a claim to clairvoyance. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tam, shut up about clairvoyance already! You seem fixated on the word. Is it a big word in your JW vocabulary? I know you're a JW so THE JIG IS UP! I know you have zero college because the Governing Body strongly discourages higher education for its hordes of door knockers.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk)

A claim to know the religion and educational background of an anonymous person on the internet would seem to be a claim to clairvoyance. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The CPC does indeed have 'peer reviewed' books which are valuable for many Wikipedian purposes. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

NO IT DOES NOT! Where do you get this info? Clairvoyance? LOL! Amazon reviews are not done by "peers." They're just customers Tambo! When I wrote my masters thesis it was indeed reviewed by my PEERS. Fellow academicians with even higher levels of educational attainment than I possess. No CPC publication has EVER been peer-reviewed. So leave it be.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

CPC works have been peer-reviewed. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

When it chooses to actually publish a work, a publishing house is assumed to use material which has been both written and edited before publication; we might even accept as "peer-review" something as simple as Amazon.com customer reviews of the title, though that would be a bit of a stretch. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Alas, Tambolina, CPC publications are published and printed by themselves. No outsiders. I have my own publishing company by the way. My first book was JEHOVAH UNMASKED! Anyway, Tambolina, if you had called or emailed the CPC you could actually advance your understanding a bit.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Concordant Version actually was edited by many persons; see Concordant Version#Others involved. It was also peer-reviewed. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing is that someone independent and competent has had the opportunity to review it and say if its garbage or not (even that verdict wouldn't necessarily disqualify the work, but would factor into the decision to disqualify it). The CPC's publications about, for example, Hebrew and Greek etymology have been well-used and exhaustively peer-reviewed for decades! --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Where's this Tambo my dear? There are some Internet articles, thats it.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Concordant has been reviewed. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How this works in practice... an article may quote the Bible, but the Bible is a primary source for itself and we need to base an article on more than primary sources. For articles about the Bible, translation, Hebrew, and Greek, CPC publications tend to be excellent secondary sources, which is just what we want in Wikipedia; see WP:SECONDARY. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! What would I DO without you to explain these obscure matters to me? Not fall asleep?

There are no peer reviewed primary sources for the CV Tambolina.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Concordant has been peer reviewed in secondary sources. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the CPC itself, however, what the CPC might publish would be considered a primary source; it would be useful and interesting and likely worthy of inclusion, but it wouldn't be as useful as secondary sources. When the CPC itself says, "The Concordant Version is the most accurate translation." or "The CPC has never had an ounce of controversy." that is patently less useful than if someone else says that about them. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

HUH? Are you in full possession of your critical faculties? How would a book that does not discuss the CV be a primary source about the CV...just because its published by the CPC? Perhaps their book on the Unveiling of Jesus Christ would suffice? Hmm? The CPC has had plenty of controversy, neither I nor anyone else has said anything to the contrary. They do indeed explain, at great length and in detail, why the CV is the very best Formal Correspondence translation. Would you like that material included? I thought you wanted neutrality and objectivity. Frankly, you have no idea what you want. You're singling this article and my edits out just for the purpose of being a self-contradicting royal pain!

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Concordant Version is a primary source about the Concordant Version.

My example quotes had been hypotheticals rather than accusations. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of secondary sources, we routinely use primary sources for uncontroversial references; there's little controversy about how many translators were used or names of those who helped with translation. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

On the New Testament, A.E. Knoch was the sole translator toots, though he did consult some friends. The controvery on this exists only in the minds of the ignorant or the willfully deluded.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

When a matter does seem controversial and there is no secondary source, the Wikipedia community often insists that it be removed from an article. Obviously, secondary sources are important. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You betcha they are sweet cheeks. CPC doesn't have them. They hope to have them. This article will hopefully help.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Knoch and his contemporaries are only becoming more distant and unknowable as more decades pass. IMHO, despite its size, the CPC should publish far more regarding its own history and prominent figures, and that would be considered a valuable source for this and related articles. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tam, the CPC is run by a man with cancer and his dear devoted wife. They package up all the orders as well as write the articles for Unsearchable Riches and everything else. They don't have the time or energy for what you request. You must be a kid in her 20's.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A personal relationship with the CPC's leadership might be put to best use by encouraging them to formally publish their currently informal anecdotes. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Its not going to happen. Jim is too sick and overworked as it is. So is his wife. You people are just drunk on yourselves.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this thread can be closed, with the consensus being that the article should not be deleted.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New comments should typically be at the bottom of the thread (contrast diff).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tam la sham! Here are your words suggesting deletion of this page:

Perhaps this thread should be retired. Each unaddressed issue may be restated succinctly in a new thread (that is, in a new section). --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A discussion thread here in Talk is different from an article.
Retiring a thread is different from deleting a thread. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but also have the courtesy to remove your four WARNING boxes from the article. It was BECAUSE of your warning boxes that I was asked to edit.

Your biggest fan,

Nathaniel J. Merritt

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never put a warning box on this article; by contrast see diff. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a riot sled. Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, move this edit below, to end of thread.

Tam, claiming that its clairvoyance that allows one to know what the religion and educational background of a writer is, is itself a claim to clairvoyance. Furthermore, resorting to a continued accusation that ones opponents must claim they're clairvoyant is not very bright. Believe it or not Tam, your writings give you away as a JW and as a person who lacks a college degree. It does not require clairvoyance, just intelligence, knowledge, and close attention to your writings. If I'm mistaken in these conclusions, which I make by examing your comments not by clairvoyance, then tell me I'm mistaken. Just type "I'm not a Jehovah's Witness" and "I have a college and/or University degree/degrees." Take care Tam, and watch out for all the demons I've sent your way.  :-)
Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
"Disfellowshipped since 1973"

Careful readers likely noted that my comments concerned what "seemed" to be claims to clairvoyance.

It is recommended to direct attention to encyclopedic content rather than editor personality.

It seems that this thread can now be closed, since it seems no one wants this article deleted.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ownership

It would be more appropriate to quote from the published works of James Coram (reportedly, the CPC's managing editor), rather than from Coram's unpublished personal emails. Additional sources in addition to Coram should be sought, and Wikipedia editors should not seek Coram's opinions about this article's structure (compare[2]). --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not consult James Coram? HE WROTE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE! My God, never send high school graduates to do a scholars job.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh for GODS SAKE just email or call the Concordant Publishing Concern! What, is that not "scholarly" enough for you? Email the CPC at email@concordant.org or telephone at 661-252-2112. LOOK UP THE CPC SITE ON THE NET at www.concordant.org if you think I am giving a false email address and false phone number. What's the matter with you people?

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO CONFIRM THIS INFORMATION! Unless you think I can hand you a signed affadavit from God Himself!

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to read published works of James Coram? THEN GO TO THE CPC SITE AT www.concordant.org AND READ THEM! DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU? DOES IT? I will telepathically hold your hand while you engage in this dangerous and unscholarly activity. Really!

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Let us try to explain this to you again. Wikipedia is a tertiary and quaternary compilation of material gathered from verifiable, published information obtained from reliable sources such as peer-reviewed journals and professionally-edited newspapers. We don't make phone calls or cite e-mails. We seldom use information from primary sources except for non-controversial matters and verification of the fact of assertions and statements. And we attempt to maintain an atmosphere of civility and collegiality as we cooperate in this collaborative process. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) B.A. '04 magna cum laude, as it happens

Gee Mike, that sure is swell of you. I didn't understand. Where would I be without a Brobdinagian intellect such as yours? I shudder to think! I'm so glad to learn that you can voice objections, etc, and so forth, ad nauseum ad infinitum, but you don't sully your high school graduate hands with any actual research such as writing or phoning the CPC. See, Mike, let me explain to YOU that there ARE no peer-reviewed jornals in this case. The CPC is very smalll and the CV is not widely known. We are trying to remedy that with a Wiki entry. See? How hard is that to understand? The CPC publishes a bi-monthly theological journal titled Unsearchable Riches. The publish numerous books, booklets, pamphlets, and tracts as well as operate a tape ministry.

Oh, and maintaining an air of civility is quite difficult when dealing with folks such as yourself Mike. People who refuse to get down and dirty and do some research. Or not even be willing to type a quick email or phone someone. You see Mike, in a real encyclopedia, the editors DO verify the information submitted in an article. They don't engage in drive-by postings. Would you like to email me Mike Orange? Natmrrtt AT america online DOT com

Take a bottle of aspirin Mike and call me in the morning.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The writer of a work of original research such as a magazine article or book actually should perform original research such as corresponding with knowledgeable persons. As has been explained, Wikipedia is not a work of original research, and its editors are actively discouraged from submitting original research to it.

As I noted in a previous thread, the CPC's publications are indeed "peer reviewed" and are indeed acceptable secondary sources regarding such topics as the Bible and ancient Hebrew and Greek. The CPC's publications are "peer reviewed" and acceptable primary sources regarding the CPC itself and its prominent figures.
By contrast, emails from persons associated with the CPC are not peer-reviewed and are not acceptable sources (except for settling a point of ambiguity, and similar).

A Wikipedia article is not an advertising medium or promotional mechanism; see WP:PROMOTION.
There is no good excuse for a lack of civility; see WP:CIVIL.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

CPC and Knoch

It seems a shame that as yet there is no article for either Concordant Publishing Concern (which also published/publishes other works) and Mr. Knoch. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As is recommended, I've been bold and created the article for Adolph Ernst Knoch.
As I mentioned over there at Talk:Adolph Ernst Knoch#Translation, that "article is entirely translated (likely poorly) from the German language article at de:Adolph Ernst Knoch. The article can benefit from someone fluent in both German and English, and someone who can translate German references (of which there are apparently far more than in English)."
You may wish to comment over there rather than here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!! If y'all spent as much time LIVING the Gospel as you do trying to impress others with your high-falutin' college "edgeamacation" and beating your own drum there would be salvation to the lost. JW's - Charlie wasn't a prophet, his prophecies DIDN'T happen. He lied. 69.254.236.194 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive

The above old heated but useless discussion could be archived. —Mendelo (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)