by Honesty 68 Replies latest watchtower bible
Honesty
I will let you into a little secret. The identity of the NWT Committee is unknown and unknowable despite the claims of apostates based only on speculation, gossip and rumour to the contrary. Even celebrated WT scholars do not the idenitity of those responsible for the e most brilliant translation of the Bible ever made. It is truly a work of sheer genius and obviously blessed by Holy Spirit and is a rich blessing for those lovers of God and Truth.
scholar JW
Narkissos
I am a dedicated and baptized Jehovah's Witness and in good standing.
scholar JW
I am a dedicated and baptized Jehovah's Witness and in good standing.
You wouldn't be in "good standing" if they knew about your participation on this and other forums.
Very hypocrital.
I am a dedicated and baptized Jehovah's Witness and in good standing.
Scholar,
Go to the elders and tell them of your association with apostates and see how long that "good standing" lasts.
P.S. What do you think the JW god Jehovah thinks of you posting on this board? Do you think he approves?
Does pseudo-scholar think that he is a "celebrated WT scholar"?
I have to say that pseudo-scholar was getting very boring with the same repetitious blather over and over, but ever since he started with his creature worship of CWTSs, his posts have been pretty darn entertaining....keep it up, and you might be as funny as Joker10.
scholar,
Thank you.
Nark:
I was looking out for the answer to your question too!
Now what we haven't had answered is: in the expression "celebrated WT Scholars", by whom are they celebrated?
in the expression "celebrated WT Scholars", by whom are they celebrated?
Maybe the celebrators are just as "unknown and unknowable" as the celebrated. An interesting case of silent, anonymous, unvoiced and unheard celebration.
In concert with the thrust of inquirer's post, I happen to not be able to stand it when people copy and paste from an anti-JW website without giving its source URL and present the stuff as accurate criticism, especially regarding the NWT.
Translation is opinion. The NWT is a translation and not a version. That's why it says "active force" and not "wind." That's why it says "torture stake" and not "cross." That's why it says "before Abraham came into existence, I have been" and not "I am." Those who worked on its translation had as much bias as the trinitarians who came up with the extremely biased New International Version and they are both based on similar texts!
I used to own Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310218950/qid=1128159376/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-5827451-1776129?v=glance&s=books ). It's not a beginner's book by any means and much of it certainly overwhelmed me. I lost interest in biblical Greek a little while ago so I sold my copy on ebay. But if I remember correctly in at least one place it disagrees with Metzger. And when it addresses the NWT and John 1:1 it admits that "the word was a god" is linquistically possible but he rejects it purely and solely for theological reasons. He argues that there's no way John or the Johannine author would have meant "a god" because that implies "polytheism" but the Watchtower has explained what they mean by "a god" and how it is not "polytheistic" at all a million times. At least Wallace was honest enough to explain how Colwell's Rule does not apply to John 1:1 and should not be used to argue that the second THEOS should be rendered in the definite: "the word was God." I have seen a lot of trinitarians still using Colwell's against the NWT & Jn 1:1. Several years ago the "anti-cult" group Watchman Fellowship sent one of their main guys to western New York to conduct a seminar on "cults" so I went to it and the guy argued against the NWT & Jn 1:1 using Colwell's and even passed out a paper to everyone with that argument spelled out. After the formal session I approached him and challenged his (mis)use of Colwell's and he ignored me! Wouldn't discuss it with me. I wish I could remember his name. He ended up leaving that group for some other Christian ministry group, but my point is (time for a new paragraph):
None of these scholars Honesty listed as critics of the NWT are perfect. If you scroll down to the end of this page: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/john8.58.htm it says of Mantey:
Julius R. Mantey wrote about William's translation: "Dr Williams' translation possessed unusual and unparrelled merit, not only in the rendering of tenses but...has succeeded in surpassing all other translators of the New Testament in bringing out the tense significance of the Greek verbs."
Yet Mantey put down on public record he strongly disagreed with the New World Translation of John 8:58 where "ego eimi" is translated into the English perfect "I have been" while Williams' translation, as can be seen left, translates it as "I existed." Mantey if he disagreed with Williams at this place is totally silent. Why? This raises the serious question about what merit Mantey's criticism has here toward the New World Translation.
Honesty quoted Mantey as an authority who said the NWT was a "shocking" mistranslation. But that's just his own personal biased and prejudiced opinion. And he's certainly entitled to it, but Paul Harvey would want to hear "the rest of the story," as it were.
I actually have a couple of pro-NWT websites bookmarked and enjoy reading them sometimes when I'm really bored. I guess I'm a fan of the underdog. Even some of the 1950 and 1951 Watchtowers are fun to read. I'm speaking of the ones where F.W. goes ballistic defending the NWT and takes on all critics, pulling no punches.
OK it's after 6 already here.. another sleepless night. Time to sign out.
