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?
Jeffro
So tedious. Acknowledging that your preferred reviewer is simply showing their own doctrinal bias is hardly a credible endorsement. And your pitiful assertion about Jeremiah 29:10 does not even attempt to deal with the flawed JW interpretation. It’s pointless dealing with you, and I’ve only ever done so for the benefit of other readers
-----
Ditto!!
scholar JW
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?
Jeffro
Huh? I pointed out that BeDuhn is himself biased toward nontrinitarianism, so your elaboration about BeDuhn’s assessment is pointless.
---
No matter for any critic or reviewer will have an inherent bias. Nothing to see here.
scholar JW
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?
Jeffro
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.
-----
No lack of logic for the context most certainly favors a locative meaning as 'at' or 'in Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon'. But scholar can work with either as it is a matter of opinion because the Hebrew preposition has a wide range of meaning. Jeremiah's words recorded in ch. 29 simply indicated the length of their Exile or period of servitude in Babylon.
scholar JW
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?
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
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?
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
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?
Anony Mous
The NWT has always had its critics and the first of these was Metzger's article. In fact, one evangelical journal featured an article titled that the NWT was the world's most dangerous book or words to that effect. Contrariwise. Prof. Jason Be Duhn most favorably on the NWT's scholarship when comparing the same with several Bible translations in his Truth In Translation.
scholar JW
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?
To All
Much has been written about the original NWT produced some 70 years ago and has withstood much criticism but remains the 'Rolls Royce' of all modern Bible Translations. Its scholarship is outstanding, brilliant and remains the most widely translated Bible in its own right being singularly multi-lingual.
scholar JW
2020-10--publications approved for discard.. .
reply below and i'll meet you back at the pm breakroom for coffee and a link.. .
petra!.
Atlantis
Please forward it to my inbox this info.
Thanks
scholar
the watchtower's most secret book!.
the truth that gives you eternal life, bethel edition.
the truth that gives you eternal life was published on watchtower presses, and is not to be confused with the truth that leads to eternal life published by the watchtowerbible and tract society.
vienne
My suspicion is that this publication was authored by Ed Dunlap consistent with the views of some Bethelites during that period.
scholar
elders meet with regular pioneers, special pioneers, and field missionariesplease note: this meeting is to be conducted in december 2020 or january 2021 by two elders selected by the body of elders.. english letter and spanish letter.. .
reply below if you want me to meet you at your pm box with a link and some of these:.
https://www.magnificentchocolate.co.uk/range.
Atlantis
Please forward to my pm inbox
Thanks
Scholar
