Posts by TTWSYF

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

TTWSYF

Hi Curtains, Juan and everyone else,

I don't have time to address every point that you are making at this seating, gotta go off to work.

1st off- the NWT is a poor translation period. If it were anywhere near accurate, then some other reputable organization would use it. No one else uses it because it is corrupt.

John 1;1 is one of probably 100 errors intentionally put in to change the script to fit Watchtower positions. That is a fact. Check your interlinair and see instead of promoting points of view from unreliable sources [nutjobs and haters].

1% is accurate. Check the various bible translations and see. I did check your social documents network. Not too reliable.

Sure, most folks thought the world was flat, they were wrong. There are lots of theories about creation and quantum physics along with theology that I believe the majority of folks would be wrong. Translating the scriptures in this day and age is not splitting atoms son. As more and more evidence is found, it puts the NWT position in the highly unlikely category. 1% [or less] is pretty accurate.

I went through your links info and addressed it. Why don't you do the same for me? check out a very reputable source http://onlineparallelbible.com/ and check the interlinair for yourself.

You say that Mantey was a fraud. Why? Because he chastised the WTS for doing something that they constantly do, and that is to take quotes out of context. Infuriating to say the least. Then folks like you buy it hook, line and sinker. Look to good info, not WTS propaganda. Many anti trinitarian scholars translate John 1;1 as 'the word was God' How many trinitarian scholars translate it as 'the word was a god'? Probably none.

Do the math, you're obviously not an idiot.

respectfully,

dc

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

TTWSYF

Wonderment, thank you for the reply. Wow, you have done a lot of research, it seems you're looking in the wrong places my friend.

Juan, your subtle and gentle touch is a quality that I should try to emulate more often. Thank you.

Question Wonderment, 'are you Curtains friend that he wrote of earlier?' just curious. Let's get crackin, shall we? Wonderment wrote

I have looked into it. Thoroughly... and I believe you easily fall for misinformation.

I doubt both of these assertions from you, particularly the 1st assertion.

Citing Julius Mantey for support is poor scholarship.

The Watchtower cited Julius Mantey for supporting it's own version of translation, not me.

The argument that u posed on John 1:1, is not true.

It is true. Over 99% of translators render the John 1;1 as 'the word was God [or Divine]. Less than 1% as 'a god'

Harner, Wallace, Dixon, BeDuhn and others do not support your argumentation .

Honestly, I do not know those names, could you be more specific please so that I may research their positions?

See all articles below where your arguments are dealt with.

I did see those arguments, so let me answer as briefly as possible. 1st off, www.scribd.com is not a scholarly resource. It is a social publishing site. As I stated in my other post, if you were to search for an 'online parallel bible, you would then have access to the hebrew, greek, aramaic, etc etc interlinairs and see for yourself how accurate the NWT is.

Be that as it may, I did look up and view your link of John 1;1. On the surface, I could see how someone would believe seeing that documentation that 'the word was a god'. Especially when it says 'the correct translation of John 1;1' If only it came from a known reputable source... For the record, I know that there are translations that render John 1;1 incorrectly, that is not proof of accuracy in their translation. These folks are listed as supportors of 'a god' instead of 'God'

Jeremias Felbinger died 1690 - held many unitarian beliefs and was a strong anti trinitarian

Reijnier Rooleeuw MD - couldn't find out much about his beliefs, but to think that the word was a god infers some kind of polytheism, doesn't it?

Edward Harwood His early training was as a hand-loom weaver, but he subsequently became a professional musician in Liverpool. 1 His first collection of psalmody, A set of hymns and psalm tunes, was published in London in 1781, 2 and a second collection, entitled A Second Set of Hymns and Psalm Tunes was published at Chester in 1786. 3 He died in 1787. 4

I noticed no info about his academic credentials and his translation is listed as ' A Liberal Translation of the new testament; being an attempt to translate the sacred writtings with the same freedom, spirit and elogance with which other English translations from the Greek classics have lately been executed'

Thomas Belsham -an English Unitarian minister was an American evangelist and theologeon who had several views [religious and social] that were considered extremely radical for his day. He died in 1844

John Samuel Thompson -another Unitarian minister who claimed that spirit beings helped him with his translations...how appropriate

Check out below the distortion brought about Colwell and Mantey.

What distortion? Did you know that Mantey threatened the Watchtower with a law suit if they didn't retract their position that he supported their position. You can't write this stuff... Of course the WTS would try to discredit his work after he corrected them.

Mantey's objection proves little as to the wrongness of WT quoting its work.

True, but put that with the rest of the evidence and it is quite overwhelming against the Watchtower position.

We all should strive to be less gullible!

Amen to that!

respectfully

dc

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

TTWSYF

Curtains. You asked a friend and you went through the verses and found that you disagree with my information, right? Tell me, is your friend an ancient languages scholar?

Instead of asking your friend, why not look into the vast resources that you have at your finger tips. I am not a scholar [by any stretch], I do however have access to scholarly material....just like you. Search for 'online bible comparisons' and you will find the scholarly resources that will give you true interpretations of the scriptures in Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Hebrew, etc. You can see exactly how each word is translated and compare them to other translations.

Wonderment- ditto. Of course these arguements hold up. Look it up yourself. Whether it is an old arguement or not doesn't matter. What matters is what's true. The Watchtower wil assert that the NWT is the most accurate translation in the world and will tell of scholars who support their positions, right?

In the KIT, the Watchtower uses the work of biblical scholar Julius Mantey to support it's translation of John 1;1. When Mantey found out he wrote a letter to the Watchtower [letter dated July 11, 1974] goes as follows.

You quoted me out of context...{I}t is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1;1 'The word was a god.' Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering. Your quotations of Colwells's rule [of Greek grammar] is inadequate because it quotes only part of his findings. You did not write this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which procedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun soley because the absence of the article." Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1;1 is not indefinite and should not be translated as 'a god'. Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.

respectfully,

dc

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

TTWSYF

wonderment the NWT is a good translation from Curtains.

I beg to differ Curtains. There are numerous examples of changed texts in the NWT. Words added and changed to give the impression that things are different than they really are.

In the first 2 sentences the corruption begins when the NWT reads that God's active force was hovering over the water. please....

John 1;1 reads the word was God, not a god. The watchtower would have you believe that, in Greek, if you have a singular noun appearing without the article 'the' before the verb, the indefinite article 'a' is required. Making the translation 'a god' rather instead of God.

When you study the the 1st section of John [a john? ;) ] 1;1-18. Theos occurs 8 times in versed 1,2,6,12,12 & 18. The NWT translated God as God 6 times, translated 'the God' once and 'a god' once.

That's poor to say the least. That is deceptive corruption of the true word of God.

In other words, that is an example of scripture not suiting the Watchtower's mental taste, so they changed it.

oh, boy. Don't get me started!

dc

6

Ever been preached to on Facebook? By a non-JW?

by Mad Sweeney in

jw
friends

i recently was.

.

it was awkward.. friendly enough but weird..

TTWSYF

I'm guessing this was more than the scripture of the day? I have lots of friends that I guess feel we all need ot be saved and thier godly posts will do the job. But they are my friends so I put up with it. I don't read it, though.

Why not read the scripture of the day? You don't need a watchtower to tell you what it means, do you?

just joking...lol..

46

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.

by whereami in

the victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts.

in a study that explores the close relationship between the social history of early christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging new testament, ehrman examines how early struggles between christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged.

his thesis is that proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally altered their sacred texts for polemical reasons--for example, to oppose adoptionists like the ebionites, who claimed that christ was a man but not god, or docetists like marcion, who claimed that he was god but not a man, or gnostics like the ptolemaeans, who claimed that he was two beings, one divine and one human.

TTWSYF

What is interesting to me [that no one has addressed yet] is that the early church did not have much in the way of written scriptures. Most evidence will suggest that the oral tradition was the big thing in the early Judaism and the Catholic church. That is why the bible was not totally confirmed until 381ad.[by the Catholics]

For those who believe that the 'great apostasy' happened in the 1st couple of centuries. my question would be

How could you think the bible is the word of God? I mean there are good things written in the Mormon bible and the Koran, but most Christians do not believe they are God's inspired word. Why would God give his word to fakers?

dc

39

using the name "jehovah"

by finallyfree! in

i find it to be frankly disrespectful.

im a father, if my kids were to call me by my first name id find that wierd.

we address judges with "your honor" and various other titles, so why on earth would we call the almighty god by his first name?

TTWSYF

Like PSac said- Jehovah is not God's real name.

It is a nick name that is a hybrid of the unpronounceable name of God merged with the word adonai [which means lord]. The Watchtower would have you believe that they are restoring God's true name and giving it to the world. The reality is that they are glorifiying a nick name that no Jew [including Jesus and the apostles] ever used.

I agree with many of the posts on this subject, because the majority of these bloggers are educated on the truth [not to be confused with 'The Truth" tm.

dc

4

Thoughts about new light

by MrFreeze in

you don't have to go far to find hypocrisy in wt land.

we all know that any time the wt comes up with some new bs interpretation of the bible they claim they are just "refining" the truth.. yet anytime they mention the standards of the world becoming more and more lax towards things they consider sinful, they condemn it.

couldn't you say that the world has been "refining" their standards?

TTWSYF

To have new light, you are assuming that you have some light to begin with, don't you?

Charles Taze Russell addresses this very topic when he wrote "Any knowledge coming from God must be like it's author. A new view of truth could never contradict a former truth. 'New light' never extinguishes older 'light', but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light: So it is with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another" Watchtower reprints, 188 [Zion's Watch Tower, February 1881]

"the men of Sodom will be resurrected" [watchtower reprints, 7-8 (Zion's Watch Tower, July 1879, 7-8)]

"the men of Sodom will not be resurrected" [The Watchtower, 1 June 1952, 338.]

"the men of Sodom will be resurrected" [The Watchtower, 1 August 1965, 479]

"the men of Sodom will not be resurrected" [ The Watchtower, 1 June 1988, 30-31]

someone's playing wiith the lightswitch again..

dc

5

2) i think it's ridiculous to tell married couples how to act in the bedroom.

3) i think it's ridiculous to tell people what kinda cars they should buy ( 4 door for fieldservice ).

TTWSYF

And I know I'm beating a dead horse, but.....

TO THINK THAT A GOD WHO HATES LYING AND LIARS COULD POSSIBLE PROMOTE

'LYING FOR"THE TRUTH"' TM