by HowTheBibleWasCreated 41 Replies latest watchtower bible
Haha, ‘scholar’ is still here.
Anyway... most reviewers of the NWT point out its doctrinal bias (and even BeDuhn acknowledged that the NWT is not free of bias). BeDuhn’s examination of the NWT chiefly involved reviewing a selection of New Testament passages and favoured translations that endorse his own nontrinitarianism. Therefore, suggesting his review of a smattering of NT verses as an endorsement of the complete work is the result of either ignorance or dishonesty.
Do better, ‘scholar’.
Jeffro
All translations of the Bible have an inherent theological or doctrinal bias.Be Duhn's examination and comparison of 8 translations acknowledging at the same time the presence of bias common to all that the "NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared ".(Refer p.163).
The said scholar rests his case and doing much better than Jeffro.
scholar JW
This is an interesting piece from Biblical scholar Dr. Robert M. Price (love him!) about Jehovahs Witnesses translation of the Bible and whether the Arc Angel Micheal could really be Jesus. See timestamp 39:16
(Also v funny if you go a little earlier his favourite comedic bits of the Bible)
But I do not excuse his scholarly dishonesty to prove a doctrinal point. A good example is Jer. 29:10 in order to prove the 1914 date
That's because Fred Franz was never a scholar. A talented amateur for sure, but no scholar else he would have taken his scholarship more seriously.
Diogeneister
But I do not excuse his scholarly dishonesty to prove a doctrinal point. A good example is Jer. 29:10 in order to prove the 1914 date
That's because Fred Franz was never a scholar. A talented amateur for sure, but no scholar else he would have taken his scholarship more seriously.
-------
The simple fact of the matter is that the translation of Jer.29:10 is accurate and in accordance with rules of grammar pertaining to Hebrew prepositions. Further, whether the phrase 'for Babylon' or 'at/in Babylon' makes no difference to the correct understanding of the 70 years as a period of exile-desolation-servitude in accordance with current Biblical scholarship.
scholar JW
Scholar did you watch the Dr Price video I posted? Timestamp 39:16 Interestingly Dr Bob thinks the witnesses are on to something when it comes to the Bible
scholar:
The simple fact of the matter is that the translation of Jer.29:10 is accurate and in accordance with rules of grammar pertaining to Hebrew prepositions. Further, whether the phrase 'for Babylon' or 'at/in Babylon' makes no difference to the correct understanding of the 70 years as a period of exile-desolation-servitude in accordance with current Biblical scholarship.
hahahahaha. Aside from issues with the grammar, the NWT rendering and interpretation is completely illogical in reference to the context of the passage. After Babylon's 70 years are ended, attention is given to the Jews' return. It is completely irrational to insist that attention is given to their return after they're already returned. You really are a lost cause.
‘scholar’:
All translations of the Bible have an inherent theological or doctrinal bias. BeDuhn's examination and comparison of 8 translations acknowledging at the same time the presence of bias common to all that the "NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared ".(Refer p.163).Huh? I pointed out that BeDuhn is himself biased toward nontrinitarianism, so your elaboration about BeDuhn’s assessment is pointless.
Newsflash: Nontrinitarian endorses nontrinitarianism. 🤦♂️
It seems William Barclay admitted in a letter to a David Burnett dated May 2, 1974 quoted on the "For an answer" page (now closed down?) that "a god" in John 1:1 is grammatically possible. It is a sort of taqiya when scholars say something is impossible based on their theology and tradition. It is possible, he did just not agree with it. It neither fitted Trinitarianism nor his own theology where Jesus is the reason and cause of all things, the Word and Mind of God made man and therefore "a god" or an angel did not fit the bill
I know I will be in the monority here being I'm an atheist but John 1:1 can be translated either way as Dr. Price has said many times.
I would place the gospel of John (and 1,2,3 John as well as early cores of the Pauline letters are Gnostic and would argue that the gospel of John though aknowledging the god of the Jews actually preaches that the Father of Jesus Christ is a higher God superior to YHWH
