the pure worship book will be 'studied' at the weekly jw 'congregation bible study' starting next week.
anyone 'lucky' enough to attend might like to consider my review of the book for some salient points in the coming weeks.... .
Jeffro
Printing out this document as a PDF could be improved by a larger print and some of the charts are not colored as the desktop document so the overall presentation needs a slight improvement in order to facilitate a proper examination of its content especially for those who prefer a hard copy.
scholar JW
3 letters:.
1. civil unrest.
2. food distribution pause.
Atlantis
Please send these letters to my inbox
Thanks
scholar
2020-11-s-147-e--announcements and reminders.
reply below if you want the link, and don't forget to tell the bartender what drink you want!.
booze menu.
Atlantis
Please send to my inbox.
Regards
scholar
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
I am only here for your amusement or perhaps I am trying to bait you.
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?
Anonymous
Thomas Howe provides a detailed critique of Be Duhn's work of some 100 pages and accuses him of theological bias similar to that uttered against the Witnesses. Much of the discussion in both pieces of scholarship hovers around the correct translation of John 1:1 and what is at issue is whether the anarthrous predicate nominative theos is definite or indefinite.
The NWT is a worry for scholars because it challenges them in a way that they have never had to deal with before and is similar to how WT scholars have a Bible Chronology that with such dates as 607, 537 BCE amongst many others also confounds such scholars causing them much dispute and controversy. It is amazing how much of the scholarly literature centers on the John 1:1 debate and it would appear that the JW's with their brilliant NWT has got it just so.
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
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
