You had previously put forth an alternate "translation" that you said was MORE CORRECT, so I was testing your skill with Greek.
If you think that in order to properly understand the Bible is dependent on a person being able to read the original languages you're more stupid that I thought you were. And, apparently that's the case with you.
Therefore, I have every reason to ask you for proof that your "translation" of the verse is more correct than the translation by actual Greek scholars.
If you think that the so-called "Greek scholars" that you refer to can always understand the Bible better than the common layman, then you're a bigger dummy than I thought you were. And, apparenly that's the case with you. Even translators themselves word a given text according to their own perception of its meaning, and sometimes their idea of the meaning is wrong. Which is the reason why a person who isn't a translator can sometimes see the flaws in the way a text has been translated and/or punctuated. And one very real example of this is the text of Revelation 17:5. Like I've already said, anybody with half a brain should be able to see that something is desperately wrong with the way that verse is commonly translated.
You have only tossed an unfounded opinion out, you haven't proven anything—except that you don't know Greek.
No, my opinion that the name of the beast is "Babylon the Great" isn't unfounded. Nor is my alternate way of wording Re 17:5 unfounded, which I will repeat here, as follows:
The more correct way to have translated the verse would be something like this: 5 And upon her forehead (the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth), was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great.”
My suggested way of translating that verse renders it understandable. It would be ridiculous to think the Bible writer meant to say that the name, in addition to "Babylon the Great," included "mystery, the mother of the harlots and the abominations of the earth". Can anyone really fathom all of that being a "name"? That's the reason I say that anybody with half a brain should be able to see that something is desperately wrong with the way that verse is commonly translated.
It doesn't really matter whether the Textus Receptus is of better or worse quality as a source text. It is actual Greek and you can't actually translate Greek. That being the case, I will dismiss your opinion on anything having to do with the Greek language as being entirely uninformed.
I never said that I could translate Greek. My opinion regarding the name of the beast is founded upon what a variety of scriptures say. It's not necessary that I, or anyone else, be able to read Greek in order to learn the name of the beast. It's foolish of you to think otherwise.
It must be frustrating that you can't talk to the Witnesses about this stuff, huh?
I did make an attempt at communicating my thoughts on this subject to those in the writing department at Bethel, which was several years ago. I could do a better job of it today than before, because when I look back on the document I mailed I can see where I wasn't as clear as I would have wished. It's not always an easy thing to convey one's thoughts in a concise enough way that others can immediately grasp.
If you stop insulting people you might find that they will respond better. I don't mean post once without insults, I mean if you completely stop insulting people.
I asked you earlier (with no answer from you) and so I'll ask you again: Do you ever practice what you preach? Do you think that you, yourself, could completely stop insulting people? And let's suppose that both you and I did, do you really think that there would be a lot of people here that would follow the example set?
.
