Originally posted by FMF So, Jason BeDuhn's analysis of Bible translation cannot be fully trusted?
I suspect in order to make an evaluation you would need to read it first, don't you think. Who has stated that it cannot be trusted? Is this another lame attempt to cite values that have not been explicitly expressed, how predictable. Gee FMF you are so transparent, like a plastic bag almost, a plastic windbag no less, up there on your flag pole, fluttering away 😵
Originally posted by FMF "Surveyed" by Jason BeDuhn whose analysis of the NWT Bible translation you partly reject?
I reject his argument to our restoration of the divine name, not to his survey of accuracy and bias. How many times will you need to be told before you can grasp it or will you simply regurgitate the same drivel again and again as you are doing now?
Originally posted by sonship You should go back to the Bible your committee use to publish and distribute, the [b]1901 ASV, the one filled with the mentioning of Jehovah.[/b]
Thanks and what do you know about accuracy and bias in translation so as to advise us?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I reject his argument to our restoration of the divine name, not to his survey of accuracy and bias.
So Jason BeDuhn's analysis of the NWT Bible translation cannot be trusted or relied upon in its entirety? You accept some things he says but some of his analysis is incorrect, is that what you think?
FMF: People can just go and look at what it is that you omitted.
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.
What will the see in the 65 words that you omitted though?
Originally posted by FMF So Jason BeDuhn's analysis of the NWT Bible translation cannot be trusted or relied upon in its entirety? You accept some things he says but some of his analysis is incorrect, is that what you think?
Is that what you are saying? Have you read his book FMF? If not how do you know it cannot be trusted or relied upon in its entirety, after all that's what you seem to be saying. I reject his argument of our restoration of the divine name and said why, I will not repeat myself again and again, sorry.
Originally posted by FMF What will the see in the 65 words that you omitted though?
sixty five, I omitted almost an entire article and copied only the portion that I felt was relevant to my argument. it was sufficient for me to demonstrate that the New world translation had been independently verified as the most accurate translation, why that should be a problem i cannot say and using the fact that I did not cite the entire article does not negate this.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Is that what you are saying? Have you read his book FMF? If not how do you know it cannot be trusted or relied upon in its entirety, after all that's what you seem to be saying.
I have read the appendix to his 2003 book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" in which he makes his scathing criticisms. You will have read the appendix too. It's you, not me, who is saying Jason BeDuhn's analysis cannot be trusted or relied upon in its entirety.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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, ...[text shortened]... text used by the Roman Catholic Church.
If NWT is superior why do you reference other bible versions over the one of the JW while making a point? Very rarely have I seen any of the resident JW reference their own book, I never could understand that.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie sixty five, i omitted almost an entire article and copied only the portion that I felt was relevant to my argument.
There were 197 words talking about Jason BeDuhn's analysis of the NWT . You carefully omitted 65 of them, yes. The 65 omitted words were about his analysis of the translation
Originally posted by FMF I have read the appendix to his 2003 book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" in which he makes his scathing criticisms. You will have read the appendix too. It's you, not me, who is saying analysis cannot be trusted or relied upon in its entirety.
you have read the appendix? Did the author state that the New world translation was the most accurate or did he not?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie it was sufficient for me to demonstrate that the New world translation had been independently verified as the most accurate translation
But, when he "independently verified" it, he also had some very harsh criticism to mete out about the accuracy of the translation in the NWT. You chose to omit that for not being "relevant"? It's surely bang on target and entirely relevant?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie you have read the appendix? Did the author state that the New world translation was the most accurate or did he not?
If you have read the book then you will know exactly what the appendix says and should not need to ask me.
If NWT is superior why do you reference other bible versions over the one of the JW while making a point? Very rarely have I seen any of the resident JW reference their own book, I never could understand that.
to avoid religious bias - they cannot therefore make the claim that its our translation that is the reason for the point that we are trying to establish.
Originally posted by FMF But, when he "independently verified" it, he also had some very harsh criticism to mete out about the accuracy of the translation in the NWT. You chose to omit that for not being "relevant"? It's surely bang on target and entirely relevant?
did he say it was the most accurate translation or did he not.
22 Feb '17 15:151 edit
Bible Translations
Back to Top