Question to any JW

Originally posted by galveston75
If it's still a yes or no you want, I will not answer.

It's interesting that both you and robbie choose this question to be the one not to answer, I wonder why.

I find it disingenuous and actually quite dishonest for you to blame your relationship with me as being your reason for not answering.

It's a little creepy actually.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's interesting that both you and robbie choose this question to be the one not to answer, I wonder why.

I find it disingenuous and actually quite dishonest for you to blame your relationship with me as being your reason for not answering.

It's a little creepy actually.

Are you really that thick? I want to answer but not with 1 word and with no explination which truly shows you don't want to know....Geeez.
Forget this stupid thread.................

Originally posted by galveston75
But you are only wanting a yes or no answer, is that fair?

He said a yes or a no WITH a blurb if need be in the op. Not just a yes or no without clarification.

Originally posted by galveston75
Also stop questioning my motives. You don't know me at all and what is in my heart. Stop questioning who I am as you are no judge of anyone!!!!!!!!

So just answer the question. Can't you see how avoiding answering simple questions about your fundamental doctrines makes you and your organisation appear secretive and dishonest?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
He said a yes or a no WITH a blurb if need be in the op. Not just a yes or no without clarification.

Thank you!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
they are, the most accurate Biblical translation known to the English speaking world!
As associate professor Jason David BeDuhn reminds us, who just happens to have
reviewed nine of the most common English translations in his rather wonderful book,
Truth In Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New
Testament. by Jason ...[text shortened]... n_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

now what have you got to say for yourself, jaw on floor?

Well, you quoted admirably from that wiki page, but you seem to have missed other relevant quotes, like:

Regarding the NWT's use of English in the 1953 first volume of the NWT (Genesis to Ruth), Dr. Harold H. Rowley (1890–1969) was critical of what he called "wooden literalism" and "harsh construction." He characterized these as "an insult to the Word of God", citing various verses of Genesis as examples. Rowley concluded, "From beginning to end this [first] volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." Rowley's published review is dated January 1953, six months before the volume was actually released; Rowley did not update his review following the July 1953 release or the 1961 revision, and he died before the release of later revisions in 1970, 1971, and 1984.

Or:

Theologian and televangelist John Ankerberg accused the NWT's translators of renderings that conform "to their own preconceived and unbiblical theology." Dr. John Weldon and Ankerberg cite several examples wherein they consider the NWT to support theological views overriding appropriate translation. Ankerberg and Weldon cite Dr. Julius R. Mantey, co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament and A Hellenistic Greek Reader, who also criticized the NWT, calling it "a shocking mistranslation."

Or:

Dr. William Barclay, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, concluded that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in the New Testament translation. ... It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Or:

Robert McCoy stated "One could question why the translators have not stayed closer to the original meaning, as do most translators ... In not a few instances the New World Translation contains passages which must be considered as 'theological translations.' This fact is particularly evident in those passages which express or imply the deity of Jesus Christ."

Or:

Former American Bible Society board member Dr. Bruce M. Metzger concluded that "on the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators," but identified instances where the translation has been written to support doctrine, with "several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek." Metzger noted a number of "indefensible" characteristics of the translation, including its use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament.



So I'll take your assertion that they are "the most accurate Biblical translation known to the English speaking world!" with a grain of salt, from someone whose credibility is tied in with the NWT's alleged "accuracy".

Originally posted by divegeester
So just answer the question. Can't you see how avoiding answering simple questions about your fundamental doctrines makes you and your organisation appear secretive and dishonest?

Study your bible....

Originally posted by galveston75
Study your bible....

You are being asked a serious question about your organisations beliefs and both you and robbie simultaneously decided to not answer and blame me for that decision. Can't you see the deception you are trying to create...?

we can't answer because it's divegeester's fault. He makes us clam up about our beliefs and doctrines by asking us too many questions whch we don't want to answer

Even Karoly frustratedly pointed out to you that you CAN fully explain your response but it must begin with a yes or no, so we have clarity on the start position.

Is it possible for a non-Jehovah's Witness person to enter the heaven, or inherit the paradise earth you talk about?

Are you going to respond to the question or continue pretend to hide behind your allegded relationship with me?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, you quoted admirably from that wiki page, but you seem to have missed other relevant quotes, like:

Regarding the NWT's use of English in the 1953 first volume of the NWT (Genesis to Ruth), Dr. Harold H. Rowley (1890–1969) was critical of what he called "wooden literalism" and "harsh construction." He characterized these as "an insult to the Word of ose credibility is tied in with the NWT's alleged "accuracy".

actually i did not write the book Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English
Translations of the New Testament, associate professor Jason David BeDuhn did and its
his opinion that its the most accurate, so why would you take his word with a pinch of
salt? i think you need to pinch your bum instead in order to bring you back to reality.

@ divesgeester, questions you have refused to answer you total hypocrite,

when Christ performed a resurrection where were the people resurrected to?

who are the righteous and the unrighteous that will be resurrected?

why do you associate the resurrection with heaven?


Are you going to respond to the questions or continue pretend to hide behind your
alleged relationship with Jesus?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i did not write the book Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English
Translations of the New Testament, associate professor Jason David BeDuhn did and its
his opinion that its the most accurate, so why would you take his word with a pinch of
salt? i think you need to pinch your bum instead in order to bring you back to reality.

Isn't Jason David BeDuhn a historian rather than a linguist?

here's his CV: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.htm

Originally posted by FMF
Isn't Jason David BeDuhn a historian rather than a linguist?

here's his CV: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.htm

ahem,

LANGUAGES

Coptic, Greek, Parthian, Middle Persian, Latin, French, German

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.htm

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ahem,

LANGUAGES

Coptic, Greek, Parthian, Middle Persian, Latin, French, German

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.htm

Yes but he is not an "Associate Professor" of languages or linguistics. He's an Associate Professor in a Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion and, his CV makes quite clear, he is a professional historian who clearly appears to specialize in "Comparative Study of Religions" etc. Did you pick him out as a world authority on linguistics and translation, or did you cite him because you agree with him?

Originally posted by FMF
Yes but he is not an "Associate Professor" of languages or linguistics. He's an Associate Professor in a Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion and, his CV makes quite clear, he is a professional historian who clearly appears to specialize in "Comparative Study of Religions" etc. Did you pick him out as a world authority on linguistics and translation, or did you cite him because you agree with him?

yes that is correct but it it rather clear that after reading his book he has taught
language in relation to certain courses, he even makes mention of correcting his
students Greek papers, now one would think that at university level, one who was
correcting students Greek papers would have at least a proficiency with the language,
dont you think. I picked him because i have read his book.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes that is correct but it it rather clear that after reading his book he has taught
language in relation to certain courses, he even makes mention of correcting his
students Greek papers, now one would think that at university level, one who was
correcting students Greek papers would have at least a proficiency with the language,
dont you think. I picked him because i have read his book.

I would say one would need Greek and Hebrew at PhD level to be a world authority on Bible translation, actually. Not just "proficiency". Not correcting undergraduates' assignments. I have corrected undergraduates' assignments, robbie, and - take it from me - I am not a world authority on the subject matters in question! But, if you've read his book, and if you agree with it, and it supports JW doctrine, that is of course fine for you. Suzianne was, I think, right to take a somewhat more objective stance. 🙂