i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
‘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. 🤦♂️
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
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.
any truth to the thought that instead of being considered "members" of the jw organization, that they will shortly be considered only as "individuals" of the organization?.
As of this year, they just use vague wording such as “those in the congregation” rather than any specific descriptor.
no kidding!
the return address is the po box for the local kh.
the letter was addressed: .
Maybe she just calls all female ‘apostates’ “Barbara Anderson”. Kind of like calling someone a “Karen”. 🤣
2020-10--publications approved for discard.. .
reply below and i'll meet you back at the pm breakroom for coffee and a link.. .
petra!.
JWGoneBad:
I visited JW online under 'Books & Brochures For Bible Study'...there are 116 items listed...absent is the notorious big red...Revelation Climax!It hasn’t aged well, even with the 2006 revision. I suspect they are working on a complete rewrite for a commentary of Revelation. I’ll consider doing a full review when that happens.
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
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’.
2020-10--publications approved for discard.. .
reply below and i'll meet you back at the pm breakroom for coffee and a link.. .
petra!.
JW GoneBad:
My Book Of Bible Stories & Revelation-Its Grand Climax At Hand!
But only the original versions, the revised editions of both can be kept.
any truth to the thought that instead of being considered "members" of the jw organization, that they will shortly be considered only as "individuals" of the organization?.
Even if not legally binding, they may think it may save them public shame. For example, in a case of child sexual abuse, they might say, oh they’re not a member of our denomination, just someone who attends our services.
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
Vidqun:
I still believe that he had some original ideas, whether right or wrong.
Of course. That’s why they needed their own translation. However, though Jeremiah 29:10 is a good example of doctrinal bias, the NWT rendering there is also taken from the KJV. (It is of course nonsensical because the passage says attention would be given to their return after the 70 years were completed and it would be pointless giving attention to their return once they’d already returned.)
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
HTBWC:
As for influence from the KJV i haven't seen it but I wish they had used it. Somehow I always laugh inside when I read 'pisseth against the wall'
Actually, you’ve provided a good example of similarity to the KJV. Whilst the majority of translations just say ‘male’ at 1 Samuel 25:34 (recognising the meaning of the Hebrew idiom), the original NWT ‘faithfully’ renders the KJV text, but just changes ‘pisseth’ to ‘urinating’.
