JW refuse to come to Jesus

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
There are lots of people and websites out there that declare
that the JW New World Translation is wrong and not the pure
word of God.

It is a corruption of the other faithful translations.

I do not know if that is true, but looking at the New World Translation
it is very different from the other what people might call regular translations.

What would you say to that Robbie?

Oh, please.

Now you've done it.

Prepare for robbie to trot out his high horse and to ride up and down the countryside on it.

He'll tell you that not only is the NWT the most accurate translation but that they've "restored" the "true" meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek. (Yes, even though they've added the word "Jehovah" to the New Testament 237 times where the extant texts use only the Greek words kurios and theos. )

You know, just like he claims the JWs are the only "true" Christians and the rest of us are charlatans. (This is how he gets around Jesus' commandment to show love toward one's Christian brothers. )

"Quack, quack," robbie. "Quack, quack." (Meaning if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, guess what, it's probably a duck. )

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, please.

Now you've done it.

Prepare for robbie to trot out his high horse and to ride up and down the countryside on it.

He'll tell you that only the NWT is the most accurate translation and that they've "restored" the true meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek. (Yes, even though they've added the word "Jehovah" to the New Testament 237 tim ...[text shortened]... e toward one's Christian brothers. )

"Quack, quack," robbie. "Quack, quack."

are you robbie? no ? well shad up a yo face

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
There are lots of people and websites out there that declare
that the JW New World Translation is wrong and not the pure
word of God.

It is a corruption of the other faithful translations.

I do not know if that is true, but looking at the New World Translation
it is very different from the other what people might call regular translations.

What would you say to that Robbie?

then let them explain why? you see johnny, people are full of opinions , but when one tests out what is the basis of their opinions, they often dont seem to stand up to scrutiny.

Professor Jason BeDhun, compared eight or nine of the most common English translations for accuracy, he found that the new world translation was the most accurate. He is not a witness. If you are really interested you can read it in his book, accuracy and bias in English translations of the New Testament.

Just what are these other translations and where have we corrupted them, for as i am aware, unlike the King James version which is a translation of a translation, ours is based upon the Greek text, making your assertions quite ludicrous.

Originally posted by divegeester
Have you ever seen anyone converted to the JW religion as a result of your own personal "work" robbie?

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -- Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV

They tend to forget this and boast away, anyway.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -- Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV

They tend to forget this and boast away, anyway.

ahh yes, the cry of the armchair preacher,

faith without works is dead!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Professor Jason BeDhun, compared eight or nine of the most common English translations for accuracy, he found that the new world translation was the most accurate.

Professor BeDuhn goes on to say that the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament.

Decide for yourself. Accurate when it wants to be, and yet using "denominationally preferred expressions" instead of direct translations when addressing dogmatic differences. How is one to tell while reading it which any specific example is?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ours is based upon the Greek text

In which Greek text do you find the tetragrammaton (YHWH, which some people generate the word 'Jehovah' from), which is a Hebrew word?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Professor BeDuhn goes on to say that the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators ...[text shortened]... matic differences. How is one to tell while reading it which any specific example is?

have you read the book? no? then please do so, then you may not appear to be so silly.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In which Greek text do you find the tetragrammaton (YHWH, which some people generate the word 'Jehovah' from), which is a Hebrew word?

there are numerous direct and indirect quotation in the Greek text taken directly from the Hebrew, where the divine name does exist and what is more we have the Septuagint also as well as many other sources. Ours is a restorative translation, before the great apostasy of which Christ foretold and you are a product of, took place.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ahh yes, the cry of the armchair preacher,

faith without works is dead!

Works is not a requirement.

It is a result of faith. Big difference.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have a very similar belief as do the Muslims. But you are both wrong.

The instructor

And you are right of course? Haven't seen that yet so far on much of anything, so why is this different? Cause you say so?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there are numerous direct and indirect quotation in the Greek text taken directly from the Hebrew, where the divine name does exist and what is more we have the Septuagint also as well as many other sources. Ours is a restorative translation, before the great apostasy of which Christ foretold and you are a product of, took place.

I defy you to find any example of the tetragrammaton in any Greek text. It is four Hebrew letters roughly translated to English as 'YHWH'. Hebrew, not Greek. This clear insertion is, in most cases, indefensible, period. How can the translators defend translating kurios (which is the word 'Jehovah' replaces) as 'Jehovah'? Restorative? In this case I might call it 'fabricated'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I defy you to find any example of the tetragrammaton in any Greek text. It is four Hebrew letters roughly translated to English as 'YHWH'. Hebrew, not Greek. This clear insertion is, in most cases, indefensible, period. How can the translators defend translating kurios (which is the word 'Jehovah' replaces) as 'Jehovah'? Restorative? In this case I might call it 'fabricated'.

I never said it was in the Greek text i stated that there are many instances of the Hebrew text that are quoted directly or indirectly in the Greek text where the divine name does occur in Hebrew. Its a well known fact among Biblical scholars at least, that the divine name was substituted with inane terms like Lord.

Who cares what you call it, its simply another meaningless opinion.

Indefensible, what particular instances have you in mind, i bet you cannot even name five instances where our restoration of the divine name is indefensible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I never said it was in the Greek text i stated that there are many instances of the Hebrew text that are quoted directly or indirectly in the Greek text where the divine name does occur in Hebrew. Its a well known fact among Biblical scholars at least, that the divine name was substituted with inane terms like Lord.

Who cares what you call it, ...[text shortened]... et you cannot even name five instances where our restoration of the divine name is indefensible.

Well, Mr. Brainiac, I can name you 237 just off the top of my head.

All instances in the New Testament where the translators substituted 'Jehovah' (the Hebrew word YHWH) for the Greek word kurios.

Its a well known fact among Biblical scholars at least, that the divine name was substituted with inane terms like Lord.

Yes, in the Hebrew Old Testament. The tetragrammaton was in the original Hebrew, and translators, being unfamiliar with this usage, translated this as Lord or God. Not so with the Greek New Testament. The Watchtower itself in 2008 said that the NWT translators believed that scribes substituted either Lord or God for Jehovah as they did to the Hebrew texts. They concluded that the lack of references to Jehovah in those quotations were the result of paraphrasing on the part of later copyists.

'Restorative translation'? Perhaps you meant assumption-riddled guessing?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, Mr. Brainiac, I can name you 237 just off the top of my head.

All instances in the New Testament where the translators substituted 'Jehovah' (the Hebrew word YHWH) for the Greek word kurios.

Its a well known fact among Biblical scholars at least, that the divine name was substituted with inane terms like Lord.

Yes, in t ...[text shortened]... ater copyists.

'Restorative translation'? Perhaps you meant assumption-riddled guessing?

well lets see you cite the scriptural reference Miss Jalapeno bad ol putty cat.