1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    08 Oct '13 21:131 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    God uses many different names in the bible...

    http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/695/what-are-the-different-names-of-god-in-the-bible-and-what-do-they-mean
    These are titles, God has only one name represented by the four Hebrew characters of the tetragrammaton, YHWH or JHVH. 'I am that I am', is a very poor and inaccurate translation of the original Hebrew.
  2. Joined
    26 Feb '09
    Moves
    1637
    08 Oct '13 21:22
    ehovOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
    The worlds 'most accurate English translation', (independently assessed by associate professor Jason BeDhun) has undergone its latest revision. Begun sometime in 2005 this refining process took eight years and a team of volunteer researchers to accomplish and we thank them for their hard work! We are reminded of the words of the psalmist, that Go ...[text shortened]... r God be with you.

    'Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my roadway' - Psalm 119:105
    If it is a Jehovahs Witness bible, then you only have half a translation. i only have one question, translate from direct ancient Jewish text. "I am, who am" correctly.
    It cannot be translated into english. The word "I" in this text, is specifically Jewish. It is a singular plural word. The rough translation is, "I's am whom am". The Jews saw God as a singular plural being. Something overlooked by many christains in general.
  3. Subscriberdivegeester
    the altruistic one
    Forked
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86638
    08 Oct '13 21:28
    Originally posted by Pudgenik
    If it is a Jehovahs Witness bible, then you only have half a translation. i only have one question, translate from direct ancient Jewish text. "I am, who am" correctly.
    It cannot be translated into english. The word "I" in this text, is specifically Jewish. It is a singular plural word. The rough translation is, "I's am whom am". The Jews saw God as a singular plural being. Something overlooked by many christains in general.
    This is what Proff BeDhun was saying! but there is no talking with robbie carrobie on this he is only posting this OP because he has had authorisation from the JW leadership.
  4. Joined
    08 Aug '09
    Moves
    708
    08 Oct '13 21:38
    Originally posted by divegeester
    This is what Proff BeDhun was saying! but there is no talking with robbie carrobie on this he is only posting this OP because he has had authorisation from the JW leadership.
    What is the problem with saying Jehovah instead of "I's am whom am" or trying to say JHVH. Don't Jews call him Yahweh?
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    08 Oct '13 21:493 edits
    Originally posted by Pudgenik
    If it is a Jehovahs Witness bible, then you only have half a translation. i only have one question, translate from direct ancient Jewish text. "I am, who am" correctly.
    It cannot be translated into english. The word "I" in this text, is specifically Jewish. It is a singular plural word. The rough translation is, "I's am whom am". The Jews saw God as a singular plural being. Something overlooked by many christains in general.
    The text is not about Gods self existence, a proper translation is 'he causes to become', the idea being that God fulfils his purposes. 'I am that I am', or 'Is am who am', makes absolutely no sense in English and cannot be described in any other terms as poor translation. What other Christians or Jews think is irrelevant. I don't understand what you mean by a Jehovahs Witness Bible, we did not write the original Hebrew and Greek, half a translation makes even less sense. Its the most accurate English translation in the history of humanity, get yourself a copy and test out whether its not in fact the case.
  6. Joined
    26 Feb '09
    Moves
    1637
    08 Oct '13 22:06
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The text is not about Gods self existence, a proper translation is 'he causes to become', the idea being that God fulfils his purposes. 'I am that I am', or 'Is am who am', makes absolutely no sense in English and cannot be described in any other terms as poor translation. What other Christians or Jews think is irrelevant. I don't understand what y ...[text shortened]... n in the history of humanity, get yourself a copy and test out whether its not in fact the case.
    Of all the churches i've ever been in contact with. And that list is extensive, i feel most pity for the Jehovahs Witnesses. They strive so hard as a people. The main body. To find this elusive God. But the high leaders corrupt them, decieve them. Yet God's love is deep, even for these children. YOU leaders of churches, who read these messages. Take heed. Remember the scripture, if you are to decieve even the littlest of My children. You brood of vipers, you will not escape what is coming. It will be sonner than you think.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    08 Oct '13 22:153 edits
    Originally posted by Pudgenik
    Of all the churches i've ever been in contact with. And that list is extensive, i feel most pity for the Jehovahs Witnesses. They strive so hard as a people. The main body. To find this elusive God. But the high leaders corrupt them, decieve them. Yet God's love is deep, even for these children. YOU leaders of churches, who read these messages. Take heed. R ...[text shortened]... dren. You brood of vipers, you will not escape what is coming. It will be sonner than you think.
    'wisdom is proved righteous by its works my friend', learn what that means.

    You don't scare me and neither does your text, we are beautiful. Haters gonna hate.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    09 Oct '13 04:29
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The text is not about Gods self existence, a proper translation is 'he causes to become', the idea being that God fulfils his purposes. 'I am that I am', or 'Is am who am', makes absolutely no sense in English and cannot be described in any other terms as poor translation. What other Christians or Jews think is irrelevant. I don't understand what y ...[text shortened]... n in the history of humanity, get yourself a copy and test out whether its not in fact the case.
    What is wrong with Jesus saying the following?

    Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”


    (John 8:58 NKJV)

    The Instructor
  9. Joined
    26 Feb '09
    Moves
    1637
    09 Oct '13 06:38
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    'wisdom is proved righteous by its works my friend', learn what that means.

    You don't scare me and neither does your text, we are beautiful. Haters gonna hate.
    My text was not dirrected at you singularly, unless you are of the upper echelon of that church. If you only knew, ha, you wouldn't believe if i told you. All is still hidden yet.
    Let us reveal a bit of Revelations. The four horsemen, they travel in different directions. What do you think thier starting point is? Easy, Jerusalem! Interesting, in Revelations, it states, "run and hide, for the great day of the Lord is here". This verse is at the breaking of the sixth seal. Mankind will not even know that the other five seals have been broken.
  10. Subscriberdivegeester
    the altruistic one
    Forked
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86638
    09 Oct '13 08:062 edits
    Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
    What is the problem with saying Jehovah instead of "I's am whom am" or trying to say JHVH. Don't Jews call him Yahweh?
    I refer you to the writing and examination of the somewhat obscure professor cited in the OP who criticises the use of the word "Jehovah" as a translation from the original, stating that it's use in the NWT is doctrinally biased (but the JWs). This of is indicative of all of the JWs non orthodox teachings and beliefs when it comes to their alignment with the bible.

    Robbie carrobie is using generalised comments made by this professor as back handed means to validate his religions authenticity. This is what I'm objecting to. I suggest you research and make your own conclusion.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    09 Oct '13 08:10
    Originally posted by Pudgenik
    My text was not dirrected at you singularly, unless you are of the upper echelon of that church. If you only knew, ha, you wouldn't believe if i told you. All is still hidden yet.
    Let us reveal a bit of Revelations. The four horsemen, they travel in different directions. What do you think thier starting point is? Easy, Jerusalem! Interesting, in Revelation ...[text shortened]... eaking of the sixth seal. Mankind will not even know that the other five seals have been broken.
    Thanks for the wizardry, now can I put a request in for a strawberry milk shake, that would be awesome if you could conjure it up.
  12. Subscriberdivegeester
    the altruistic one
    Forked
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86638
    09 Oct '13 08:29
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Thanks for the wizardry, now can I put a request in for a strawberry milk shake, that would be awesome if you could conjure it up.
    Are you going to address any of the points being raised in this thread, or are you going ignore them all and carry on pretending you are not reading my posts? 😵
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    09 Oct '13 08:302 edits
    download the revised and truly superlative New World Translation from jw.org the only official site of Jehovahs Witnesses on the internet.

    Download is in pdf format.
  14. Subscriberdivegeester
    the altruistic one
    Forked
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86638
    09 Oct '13 08:312 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    download the revised New World Translation from jw.org.
    Did a red light come on in your chest cavity?
  15. Subscriberdivegeester
    the altruistic one
    Forked
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86638
    09 Oct '13 08:412 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ...truly superlative...
    Isn't the word "truly" superlative itself is this instance? Were previous translations of the NWT falsely superlative or just not superlative at all and not to be referenced by JWs from henceforth? Has this translation's truly superlative text highlighted any areas that you felt have enhanced your being the sole holders of god's truth on earth and if so do that mean you were not holding the whole truth just a less truly superlative version of that truth?

    Thank for the clarification.
Back to Top