TTWSYF,
I have no connection whatsoever with Curtains.
If you would have throroughly read those links I suggested, you would not have made some of those comments. For instance, Wallace, Dixon and Harner are well known grammarians. BeDuhn is a respectable scholar as well.
Citing Mantey's threats to the WTS means so little. It means he (and only he, because Dana did not complained publicly) was not in agreement with the way the WT quoted them. It does not mean the WT was wrong with the quote. That is in itself arguable. Mantey was a highly emotional Baptist scholar, who not only hated the WT, as some do in this site, but was clearly wrong in so many of his statements. I like his Grammar very much, but when theology got in his way, he easily became fired up. If u want to find out about some of his errors read those links. His argument that 99% of scholars disagree with the WT is wrong. If u look up those links and refer to the one on John 1:1, you will see that there are plenty of scholars disagreeing with Mantey. And that list of Jn 1:1, although quite extensive does not report ALL scholars with a similar view. I venture to say that about 1 in 5 scholars veer away from the traditional reading. Of course, I may be off, but definitely is not even close to 1%. That 1% is a hoax in itself. And it seems u fell for it.
Colwell is another scholar cited frequently in support of the deity of Christ. However, other scholars have reviewed his work and concluded he is wrong in many places. Wallace, a Pentecostal grammarian, and trinitarian at that, takes Colwell to task, as has done others.
And coming back to the 99% argument, that is a very dangerous premise. Throughout history, many a times the majority had views, which time proved a minority was right. The earth being flat was one of them. If u lived 600 years ago, and someone came up to u and told u he believed the earth was round, would u have told him?: "Take a hike, 'cause 99% of people can't be wrong."
Similarly, 400 years ago, many scholars were sure that in some way their religious view was the correct one. A few hundred years later, we find out some of those scholars were wrong with some of their views. Understand this: The majority view is not always right.
When Jesus walked upon earth, was the majority religious view the correct one, or was it the "unlearned" minority that stuck with Jesus? In fact, the bible says that "the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one." And that Satan is the "ruler of this world."
So be careful when attempting this 99% right argument. Mantey was surely wrong with it. U don´t have to be a victim of his hatred.
As to the WT being wrong in so many things, I have no doubt. But I believe in fairness, and try to analyze sources of information from different angles. I am convinced that EVERYTHING the WT teaches is not necessarily wrong. I believe religious people interpret the bible right and wrong at different places at different times. Many a times, when people condemn the WT, I conclude: Not so quick. They may be right on this one. The NWT is branded as a piece of junk by some ex-JWs. I know better. I have examined the NWT in so many places against the Hebrew and Greek text, and I find, someone in the WT had sufficient knowledge to tackle bible translation. It does not matter much to me if 99% condemn it, I found out by myself that that is not true. I don't like WT politics and their self-interest moves to control and dictate as they please any more than u do. But to conclude they can't be right in some things, it would be a mistake. I still listen to what they have to say. And most definitely, I listen to the Baptist, Catholic, and the Jew. I don't place all my faith in one worldly basket. Only Jesus is the way to God. (Not Mantey, or Colwell, or Metzger, etc)
The religious folks in general are right and wrong in some things. Humility helps us to listen to all sides and consider all angles. I admire many scholarly works, but I see them as limited helpful bible guides, not the final word. What today a scholar may consider truth, in 50 years from now, it may look only as a flawed argument.
Some of the much publicized arguments against the NWT have been addressed by other scholars with a different angle. Surely some in the audience know what I am talking about. People may have their favorite argumentation for a given passage, but common sense and context will finally dictate the correct rendering.
In Jn 1:1, it literally says that 'the Word was with the God, and god was the Word.' So, if the Word was with God, he could not be that same entity. Verse 2 tells us that 'this one was in the beginning with God.' There is a difference then, between the Word and God. Verse 14 says that 'the Word became flesh.' Not God, but the Word. Verse 18 says that 'no one has seen God at any time, but the only-born God has explained the Father.' Thus, if no one has seen God at any time, and some of mankind has seen Christ, then logically, Christ is not the God, but someone like God, a god himself, or divine being. Trinitarians will dislike this view, to put it mildly, but the important thing is: Was Christ ever uncomfortable by saying he was just "Son of God"? Was he ever uncomfortable saying: the Father is greater than I am? Did Christ feel regret when he said that his Father was his God and everyone else´s too? (Jn 20:17)
Did Jesus have a problem saying that 'his Father was the only true God'? No, so why shoud we then? Why should we insist on making Christ the equal to God in every way, when Christ himself did not have a problem of admitting that he was subject to his God. After Christ went to heaven, he still was subject to God, and even had to receive a "revelation" from God. (Rev 1:1) Almighty and all-knowing God NEVER has to receive a "revelation" from God. God needs no intermediaries. But Christ can be a Mediator. God NEVER needs to be a mediator. God is supreme, and Christ told us he owes his existence to God. (Jn 6:57)
