by A-Team 212 Replies latest watchtower bible
To quietlyleaving - I see you don't want to pick up on my post, but maybe someone else does.
To Edmond, your secret is safe with me. I see by your post history that you will be a challenge if you care to continue.
To 5go - Can you sum up in a few words what Luther has to do with the price of tomatoes? Wayne
5go, Thanks again for telling me stuff I forgot years ago. You will save me having to run to my Strong's Concordance and my 50 English Bibles and my well over 1000 book library. You are a timesaver. Wayne
For someone who is debating on a site like this and holding such a weak position, I don't think so.
5go - About your comment "let"s say we do" - All bibles or only NWT?
I didn't say I have no concern for JWs. Would I be here? I feel a need to defend them. For every accusation made against them, including their John 1:1, I will show ample support from Catholic and Protestant writings and bibles. Of course, anyone should already know all these instances or they shouldn't be on these sites.
I say that if anyone points out a mistake in NWT let's talk about that same mistake in other works. Is that fair? Wayne
People on this website aren't really concerned about what Catholics or Protestants or any other religious group believes, or how accurate other translations are. I will concede to you that their are mistakes in other translations, but nobody here cares. This is a website for ex-jws.
Keyser - Do you speak for everyone. Are you saying that everyone here is only out to bash JWs and not willing to study the facts? Wayne
I said this is a website for ex-jws, I didn't say everyone was on here to bash them. Why bring up what Catholics or Protestants believe when most people here have no vested interest in them. We've been affected by jws and their teachings not by them. Why would we be interested in debating you about things that don't affect us?
Wayne,
If you really want to be fair please take into account the historical context of what you are comparing, especially the KJV and the NWT.
What you blame the KJV for mostly depends on the only NT textual basis available when it was produced, i.e. Erasmus and Stephanus' versions of the textus receptus which was essentially based on late Byzantine copies for the lack of anything earlier.
The NWT, on the other hand, is a mid-20th-century work which admittedly benefits from over one century of early manuscript discoveries and subsequent modern textual criticism (Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort). It is best compared, not to the KJV, but to other 20th-century Bibles.
From this perspective, it quickly appears that the questionable renderings of the NWT do not stem from lack of data but from definite theological bias. Simply put, they are deliberate, not accidental.
Theological bias are certainly not unique to the NWT among modern Bibles. There is also a minoritary KJV-only movement in fundamentalistic Protestantism which stubbornly chooses 16th-17th-century ignorance against modern scholarship. If your criticism is aimed at that I agree with it in principle. But if you believe that serious Catholic or Protestant scholarship is sneakingly departing from the KJV because of JWs and the NWT, as several of your posts suggest, you have your facts ass-backwards.
Thank you Narkissos
I thought I laid that to rest yesterday. Of course Catholic and Protestant writers would not purposley veer towards JW teachings or even admit the similarity. That would be called honesty.
I only like to to point out that they ARE doing it. "Why" does not matter. And I chose KJ only as one example that is, as you pointed out, still cherished and used to support doctrines. I know people who still use the Trinity verse 1JN 5:7 and will not hear otherwise. Especially Catholics! People have severed ties with me for showing them a modern, corrected version. Some people are very emotional.
The New KJ (only a few years old) kept these verses, and they definitely knew. Who's being dishonest here.
Not being a Greek scholar by any means, I do know one thing. Numerous portions of the bible require a bias, JN 1:1 being the most famous of these. This accounts for the many non-NWT bibles that agree with their translation. I can't find a Cat. bible that has this but do have Cat writings that admit the possibility. I await further Cat editions with bated breath.
I do have a few Prot. bibles that render JN 1:1 the JW way, and of course there's those cited by JWs, but when I've shown them to some, they call me the devil himself.
Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger ( or is it piano player)? Wayne
Hi Glenster - Thank you for your link in a post of 24-jun-07. Van Morrison's "Tupello Honey" is a favourite of mine. Full version, clean,clear stereo. Not at all like YouTube. I'm beginning to like this site. Maybe the exchange of ideas is a bit lopsided, but the music - Wow! And that site contains a lot of misinformation. Do you have any more good music links? Thanks, Wayne
Glenster - While listening to Tupello Honey three times in a row I came across something in your site about the JWs claim of exclusivity and the 144,000. That's laughable. You want exclusivity, then obtain a copy of the "Catechisim of the Catholic Church" (1995), and glance through it once in a while. Do you know that Popes are divinely appointed successors of Peter and that Peter was the first pope? Of course you do. Or at least you know that they claim this.
Did you also know that a few years ago, around 911, they finally admitted that, yes, the only means of salvation is through the Catholic Church?
The Catholic Church wrote the book on exclusivity, and tortured and killed to enforce it. The JWs are extremely passive and permissive in comparison. While I do not buy JWs claims to exclusivity, as there isn't much in the bible to go on (Rev being written in signs and symbols), I always wonder why people waste their time focusing on 3 million when they would save a lot more souls if they focused on a BILLION misguided souls, and another BILLION souls of the other major religion. Wayne PS - "Souls" as in "living beings".
