Originally posted by divegeesterSo you support what BeDhunn states when he states that the New world translation is the most accurate English translation surveyed?
I support what BeDuhn said in his book about your translation, as pointed out (again) by FMF on the previous page. He is saying that your organisation inserted the word Jehovah hundreds of times to support its doctrinal postion. Do you deny that BeDuhn wrote this?
Actually what BeDhunn states is, and I quote, 'not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy and that it violates accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God.' He does not say that we have inserted as you put it the name Jehovah hundreds of times to support a doctrinal position and in fact i fail to see how you can go from, 'not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy and that it violate accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God' to 'inserted the word Jehovah hundreds of times to support its doctrinal position.' Perhaps you can explain it for us?
Do you think that the brothers who translated the New world translation simply thought, there is a good place for Jehovah, lets put it in there? You really have no idea do you divesgeester.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou cited Jason BeDuhn, not me. Do you endorse his analysis of how "the most basic principle of accuracy" is violated in the NWT with regard to the name "Jehovah"?
I do not see why this negates the fact that he found the New World translation to be the most accurate English translation of the Bibles that he surveyed. You will have of course read his book and can proffer an objective assessment of his findings.
Here is what BeDhunn actually says, which you seem to have omitted, ' The New World Translation ...[text shortened]... ranslation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures
Are you now disputing his findings and if so on what basis?
Originally addressed by robbie carrobie to divegeester but not to Jason BeDuhn as far as we knowYou have made claims, you will substantiate your claims or retract them . You have claimed that the insertion of the diving name into the New world translation is a distortion of truth, you have failed
1. to provide a single reference of any one of the hundreds of alleged instances that you make reference to
2. you have failed to tell us why a single one of these allegedly hundreds of references that you cannot cite is a distortion of truth
You have cited another reference to support your claims that you have not even read.
If you cannot substantiate your claim why did you make it? do you normally make claims that you cannot substantiate? Do you normally cite references that you have not read?
See when you can substantiate your claims perhaps you will let the forum know because i tell you quite frankly i refuse to battle against your ignorance, it makes you a very tedious man indeed.
Have you sent a message like this to Jason BeDuhn?
19 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFI cited Jason BeDuhn as a source that the New World translation is the most accurate English translation that he surveyed. Are you denying the fact?
You cited Jason BeDuhn, not me. Do you endorse his analysis of how "the most basic principle of accuracy" is violated in the NWT with regard to the name "Jehovah"?
Originally posted by FMFYour text amounts to the usual petty nothingness and is unworthy of anyones attention.
[b]You have made claims, you will substantiate your claims or retract them . You have claimed that the insertion of the diving name into the New world translation is a distortion of truth, you have failed
1. to provide a single reference of any one of the hundreds of alleged instances that you make reference to
2. you have failed to tell us why a single one ...[text shortened]... t makes you a very tedious man indeed.
Have you sent a message like this to Jason BeDuhn?[/b]
19 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you don't agree with BeDuhn's comments about the insertions of the word "Jehovah" - about this element of translation being done for doctrinal reasons?
So you support what BeDhunn states when he states that the New world translation is the most accurate English translation surveyed?
Actually what BeDhunn states is, and I quote, 'not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy and that it violates accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God.' He does not ...[text shortened]... is a good place for Jehovah, lets put it in there? You really have no idea do you divesgeester.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell I clearly said, at the outset: "It's true that Jason BeDuhn claims that the NWT is a remarkably good translation", so I am not sure what you think it is I am "denying". I am asking about something else he said. Do you endorse his view that "the most basic principle of accuracy" is violated in the NWT with regard to the name "Jehovah"?
I cited Jason BeDuhn as a source that the New World translation is the most accurate English translation that he surveyed. Are you denying the fact?
Originally posted by FMFWhat he actually stated was that it was the most accurate translation of the ones he surveyed as well as a remarkably good translation. That was the reason it was cited. I have no comment to make on whether he thinks it violated the most basic principles of translation or whether this was due to a religious bias.
Well I clearly said, at the outset: "It's true that Jason BeDuhn claims that the NWT is a remarkably good translation", so I am not sure what you think it is I am "denying". I am asking about something else he said. Do you endorse his view that "the most basic principle of accuracy" is violated in the NWT with regard to the name "Jehovah"?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Oct 15
The topic is 3, 7, 1 and 40 in the miracles (or signs) of Christ.
Mister moggy, The book "Numbers in Scripture - Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance" by E. W. Bullinger is the signal exploration into your subject exhaustively.
It has 303 pages. And probably more of this kind of study than you asked for. I have never finished the whole book myself.
Kregal Classics is the publisher. There are 125,000 in print (no pun intended).
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy not? It is you who has cited his expertise, no one else. Rather than cite an author whose verdict is so mixed, to put it mildly, why not cite an independent analyst ~ and perhaps a Greek specialist as well ~ who is more unequivocal in his or her praise for the NWT's translation?
I have no comment to make on whether he thinks it violated the most basic principles of translation or whether this was due to a religious bias.
19 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFmore drivel
Why not? It is you who has cited his expertise, no one else. Rather than cite an author whose verdict is so mixed, to put it mildly, why not cite an independent analyst ~ and perhaps a Greek specialist as well ~ who is more unequivocal in his or her praise for the NWT's translation?