Bible Translations

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually no I reject it. What he claims concerning the restoration of divine name is that its "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy" No one is claiming that it is. Its not an act of translation its an act of restoration. Regardless of what he thinks of our restoration of the divine name the New World translation of the Holy scriptures remains the most accurate English translation available. 😏

You reject this key part of Jason BeDuhn's 2003 study? On one hand you tout his praise for certain aspects of the NWT bible, but when he is critical, suddenly it's a case of "Regardless of what he thinks..."?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Interesting, we have an independent recognised linguistic expert, an associate professor who has surveyed the most popular English translations of the Bible and made a comparative study for bias in translation stating that the New world translation is the most accurate...

You carefully copy pasted a paragraph from wikipedia, robbie. Oh but wait. You didn’t copy paste the entire paragraph about Jason BeDuhn. No, that’s not what you did. The paragraph is 197 words long. You very deliberately selected 132 words from it and pasted that into your post. The remaining 65 words you omitted ~ again, very deliberately, because it could scarcely be an accident ~ you omitted those words, or perhaps you copy pasted the whole paragraph and then made sure you carefully deleted those 65 words. And why was that do you suppose? People need only look to see. This little moment sums you up robbie.

Originally posted by FMF
You reject this key part of Jason BeDuhn's 2003 study? On one hand you tout his praise for certain aspects of the NWT bible, but when he is critical, suddenly it's a case of "Regardless of what he thinks..."?

the key part??? the Key part was making a comparison of the most widely available English translations and comparing them for bias and accuracy. You would know this if you read his study which you haven't. Where I have rejected this I cannot say and I suspect its simply another predictable cheap attempt on your part to insinuate values that have not been explicitly expressed in order to attack those fabricated values because you are quite frankly bereft of anything else. So predicable and so thoroughly empty. I have told you why I reject his argument on the restoration of the divine name once and will not do so again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Interesting, we have an independent recognised linguistic expert, an associate professor who has surveyed the most popular English translations of the Bible and made a comparative study for bias in translation stating that the New world translation is the most accurate and you say and I quote,' I would not give a moment's notice of serious attention' ...[text shortened]... leading to death, to the former ones a fragrance of life leading to life. -" 2 Corinthinas 2:16

I have the same feeling about seeing a Jehovah's Witness New World Translation on my coffee table as having a wooden cross with a man nailed to it hanging on the wall. The sight of either gives me the willies. Both sights give me a feeling of imminent superstition and possible presence of demons.

But I had two (not one) 1901 American Standard Version Bible that I treasured and wore out, published by the Watchtower Society in Brooklyn. I didn't care a whit that they were printed and distributed by the JWs. I really liked that 1901 ASV.

You'd get more serious regard from this poster if you debated your dogma using the ASV you people USE to use. (Probably before it was pointed out that in it Jehovah was both the Mighty God and the Almighty God.)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
apocryphal texts, interpolations, tampering with tenses, ouch.

Do you care to elaborate? My understanding is that KJV is from the textus receptus and the aporcryphal texts are other books which I would think have no bearing on 1 John.

Originally posted by FMF
You carefully copy pasted a paragraph from wikipedia, robbie. Oh but wait. You didn’t copy paste the entire paragraph about Jason BeDuhn. No, that’s not what you did. The paragraph is 197 words long. You very deliberately selected 132 words from it and pasted that into your post. The remaining 65 words you omitted ~ again, very deliberately, because it could sca ...[text shortened]... hy was that do you suppose? People need only look to see. This little moment sums you up robbie.

I didn't deliberately leave out anything that was relevant. I coped and pasted the part that was relevant the part which stated that the New world translation was the most accurate translation. If I had removed a text then you may have a point, but I did not and your cheap comments are unworthy of serious comment. There are far more scathing comments in the wikipedia article than Jason BeDuhn making your ridiculous argument unreasonable. Should I have included the entire article to demonstrate that the New world translation was the most accurate, what a preposterous argument you have made and how silly you now look.

Originally posted by leunammi
Do you care to elaborate? My understanding is that KJV is from the textus receptus and the aporcryphal texts are other books which I would think have no bearing on 1 John.

yes you have cited a text that is a clear interpolation , John 5:7

“5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.” ‑‑NET Bible

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

Originally posted by sonship
I have the same feeling about seeing a Jehovah's Witness New World Translation on my coffee table as having a wooden cross with a man nailed to it hanging on the wall. The sight of either gives me the willies. Both sights give me a feeling of imminent superstition and possible presence of demons.

But I had two (not one) [b]1901 American Standard Version ...[text shortened]... fore it was pointed out that in it [b]Jehovah was both the Mighty God and the Almighty God.)[/b]

I know you are clearly uninterested in accuracy, for you reading the Bible is simply an exercise to affirm your dogma, its rather self evident. Superstition and presence of demons? What if you are the demon and the NWT is like showing a garlic encrusted crucifix to a vampire?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I didn't deliberately leave out anything that was relevant.

People can just go and look at what it is that you omitted.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the key part??? the Key part was making a comparison of the most widely available English translations and comparing them for bias and accuracy. You would know this if you read his study which you haven't. Where I have rejected this I cannot say and I suspect its simply another predictable cheap attempt on your part to insinuate values that have n ...[text shortened]... u why I reject his argument on the restoration of the divine name once and will not do so again.

You sound rattled, robbie. In fact you sound rattled every single time you try to bring up Jason BeDuhn.

Originally posted by FMF
People can just go and look at what it is that you omitted.

Indeed they can and I encourage them to do so because they will see that of the nine translations surveyed the New World translation was the most accurate, let me repeat that, the most accurate.

Originally posted by FMF
You sound rattled, robbie. In fact you sound rattled every single time you try to bring up Jason BeDuhn.

'you sound rattled robbie', how may times have you used that lacklustre hackneyed expression when you have nothing of any value to add to the discussion?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have told you why I reject [Jason BeDuhn's] argument on the restoration of the divine name once and will not do so again.

So, Jason BeDuhn's analysis of Bible translation cannot be fully trusted?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I know you are clearly uninterested in accuracy, for you reading the Bible is simply an exercise to affirm your dogma, its rather self evident. Superstition and presence of demons? What if you are the demon and the NWT is like showing a garlic encrusted crucifix to a vampire?

You should go back to the Bible your committee use to publish and distribute, the 1901 ASV, the one filled with the mentioning of Jehovah.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed they can and I encourage them to do so because they will see that of the nine translations surveyed the New World translation was the most accurate, let me repeat that, the most accurate.

"Surveyed" by Jason BeDuhn whose analysis of the NWT Bible translation you partly reject?