Study your Bible to know who God is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the watchtower did not write the ancient text, did it? it was not responsible for
making the third clause of John 1:1 a predicate noun, was it? Its not the watchtower
society's fault that your translators acknowledge the Greek grammatical form in the
first two clauses and ignore it in the second, is it. Its not the watchtowers society's
fa ...[text shortened]... imply
reverberates back off the side of their skulls and dissipates into thin air.

You do not understand that 'a god', belongs to a class, for the predicate is describing the character of 'the Word'. Talking to a trinitarian is like talking to a brick wall, nothing penetrates, it simply reverberates back off the side of their skulls and dissipates into thin air.

I know that there is "the god of this world". Your comment is an insult to my many years of familiarity with the Bible.

Name the translators of the New World Translation of the Bible used by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Names and credentials for such work please.

Please do not use "humility" as an excuse for any anonymity.

Originally posted by galveston75
We have hundreds of thousands of Witnesses that we not only of other religions such as your but were also atheist themselves. You have no idea what your talking about as your not a Witness and have no idea who we are or were.

I have studied with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the past and I have been to
their churches they prefer to call "Kingdom Hall"; so I do know that you are
people just like me, who are seeking the truth. I am here to give you that
truth if you are willing to accept it.

Originally posted by jaywill

You do not understand that 'a god', belongs to a class, for the predicate is describing the character of 'the Word'. Talking to a trinitarian is like talking to a brick wall, nothing penetrates, it simply reverberates back off the side of their skulls and dissipates into thin air.

I know that there is [b]"the god of this world". You for such work please.

Please do not use "humility" as an excuse for any anonymity.[/b]

just what has anonymity of translator got to do with how a clause is translated from the
ancient text? that is correct, absolutely nothing. Its simply another trinitarian fallacy,
perpetrated, not on the basis of what is actually written or how it should be translated,
but as an expression of nothing more than pure prejudice, of which you are more than
adequately qualified to express.

A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern
Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in
the English-speaking world," including the New American Bible, The King James
Bible and The New International Version, examined several New Testament
passages in which "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each
passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English
translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn
reported that the New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the
most accurate of the translations compared", and thus a "remarkably good
translation", adding that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of
the NW as a literal, conservative translation".

Jason D. Beduhn, Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of
the New Testament

you want credentials, read the text.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have studied with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the past and I have been to
their churches they prefer to call "Kingdom Hall"; so I do know that you are
people just like me, who are seeking the truth. I am here to give you that
truth if you are willing to accept it.

yes thankyou RJH, you have sayings of everlasting life. I see you up there, sitting at the right hand of God, proffering your wisdom to us little dogs.

Originally posted by galveston75
This attutude ia also very obvious to ones who theing they are "NOW SAVED". It's pretty much a look down their nose at you feeling.

i dont mind the nominal Christians themselves, they have been misled. Firstly their
religion , Protestantism was borne from Catholicism, it simply sought to reform it, but,
they also carried with it, some of the vestiges of Catholicism, and it has become like a
burden to them. They cannot escape it. Their translators, influenced by this burden,
have had to try to find a way of supporting their dogma from the text where none
exists and it has led them to attempt to impose their bias on scripture. We on the
other hand, we started from nothing, we didn't care about preconceived notions of
Christ's nature, we approached the scriptures from a purely objective standpoint,
without the burden of doctrine to weigh us down.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
just what has anonymity of translator got to do with how a clause is translated from the
ancient text? that is correct, absolutely nothing. Its simply another trinitarian fallacy,
perpetrated, not on the basis of what is actually written or how it should be translated,
but as an expression of nothing more than pure prejudice, of which you are English Translations of
the New Testament

you want credentials, read the text.

just what has anonymity of translator got to do with how a clause is translated from the ancient text? that is correct, absolutely nothing. Its simply another trinitarian fallacy, perpetrated, not on the basis of what is actually written or how it should be translated, but as an expression of nothing more than pure prejudice, of which you are more than adequately qualified to express.

I don't concede you that you have presented an accurate linquistic argument.
I have to study up on the grammatical issues you are trying to teach.

We can start by you revealing who and how trained were the "translators" of the New World Translation.

If you cannot or will not do that, you could tell me why they have not revealed themselves to peers in that discipline.

A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world," including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version,

New International Version ??
New American Standard ?

I think many New Testament readers know that the NIV is rather loose.
It is not the first English version I would go to for best translation. The NAS I use to use, but not regularly any longer. Some looseness in the New Testament there too. Some supposedly "helpful" vanacular which I question in some key places.

When I have questions of accuracy I usually go to Darby's New Translation, 1901 American Standard, [b]and the Recovery Version [/b] to see their renderings and footnotes.

Jehovah's Witnesses USE to use the 1901 American Standard which the Watchtower Society printed. I don't know why they stopped using it. But I suspect it may be because this reputable "wooden" translation had a few renderings which contradicted JW theology.

Ie. Jehovah God is the mighty God and the almighty God in the text of the 1901 ASV as it is with some other English versions also.

By "wooden" translation I mean that among language scholars it has a reputation of adhering as close as possible to the original language at the expense of "good sounding" English. If the English sounds funny, that's too bad. It is more concerned with the real translation of the words Hebrews to English, Greek to English.

A paraphrase would be the opposite of a "wooden" translation.

examined several New Testament passages in which "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the most accurate of the translations compared", and thus a "remarkably good translation", adding that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation".

Okay. I understand that that is one opinion. But you didn't deliver what I asked.
You did not give the names of the staff responsible for the NWT.

And a English translation which is universally agreed upon in every single line, probably doesn't exist. Some passages are liked by some scholars in a translation while others may not be agreed upon.

Many Bibles of a good quality have side bars and footnotes expressing differences in scholars' renderings for comparison. These Bibles want you to know that what they have delivered is not necessarily the consensus of their peers.
These are valuable tools.

Jason D. Beduhn, Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament

you want credentials, read the text.

Thanks, at least for that man's opinion though that is not a remedy for the curious anonymity of your NWT secretive translators.

It has been said that every translation is also an interpretation. So I would admit bias to interpretation here and there.

I would also admit that bias can be legitimate at times. I would rather the scholar be deeply experienced in the spiritual life in addition to his or her linquistic skills than to be inexperienced but only academic.

I am not agreeing yet that you have a case in your argument about John 1:1. You do prompt me to review some grammer of NT Greek though.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
just what has anonymity of translator got to do with how a clause is translated from the
ancient text? that is correct, absolutely nothing. Its simply another trinitarian fallacy,
perpetrated, not on the basis of what is actually written or how it should be translated,
but as an expression of nothing more than pure prejudice, of which you are ...[text shortened]... English Translations of
the New Testament

you want credentials, read the text.

You fail to see that your own bias and prejudice plays a part in your
translation. Maybe, you should consider taking those big planks out
of your eyes so you could see better.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont mind the nominal Christians themselves, they have been misled. Firstly their
religion , Protestantism was borne from Catholicism, it simply sought to reform it, but,
they also carried with it, some of the vestiges of Catholicism, and it has become like a
burden to them. They cannot escape it. Their translators, influenced by this burd ...[text shortened]... iptures from a purely objective standpoint,
without the burden of doctrine to weigh us down.

You did not start from nothing. You need to check the history of the
Jehovah's Witnesses to learn the truth.

http://www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs_witnesses/history.htm

http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-history

Originally posted by RJHinds
You fail to see that your own bias and prejudice plays a part in your
translation. Maybe, you should consider taking those big planks out
of your eyes so you could see better.

when you point out the bias, then you may have something to talk about, otherwise, all
you do is proffer mere opinion, and not even informed or substantiated opinion at that,
second hand, regurgitated, bargain basement stuff, the likes of which we have come to
expect of those slithering around trying to find excuses for their dogma cause lets
face it, it cannot be found in the ancient text.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You did not start from nothing. You need to check the history of the
Jehovah's Witnesses to learn the truth.

http://www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs_witnesses/history.htm

http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-history

i am talking about bible translation you Muppet.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote]
just what has anonymity of translator got to do with how a clause is translated from the ancient text? that is correct, absolutely nothing. Its simply another trinitarian fallacy, perpetrated, not on the basis of what is actually written or how it should be translated, but as an expression of nothing more than pure prejudice, of which you are mor ...[text shortened]... :1. You do prompt me to review some grammer of NT Greek though.

The only problem biblical Greek scholars see with their translation is the fact
that they assume that a noun without an article is indefinite. I am not an
expert in biblical Greek; but from my studies the noun in question in all
examples they give appears to conform to the rule of a definite article.
Also it makes more sense in the context of the whole passage of scriptures
if translated as a definite noun in English.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote]
just what has anonymity of translator got to do with how a clause is translated from the ancient text? that is correct, absolutely nothing. Its simply another trinitarian fallacy, perpetrated, not on the basis of what is actually written or how it should be translated, but as an expression of nothing more than pure prejudice, of which you are mor ...[text shortened]... :1. You do prompt me to review some grammer of NT Greek though.

first of all we are not the only translation committee to remain anonymous, there
are others, but i cannot find them at present. It means absolutely nothing. What is
more, credentials and accuracy of translation are not one and the same thing,
infact, some of the most outrageous liberties have been taken by those with
'credentials'.

Those who were engaged in the translation committee of the new world translation
chose to remain anonymous, they have given their reasons on the foreword on the
NWT, you can either accept it or not, personally , i dont care, I am interested in
accuracy of translation, not whether the translators chose to remain anonymous.
What angers me about the assertion is that its somehow being construed as an
excuse for bias, irrespective of what the translation states, when in fact, if one starts
to poke around who was responsible for the NIV and why it was produced, one can
readily discern that the translators were hand picked, had to conform to a particular
ideology and were translating with the intent to support a particular bias (i can
provide references if you dont believe me) The text should be judged on the basis
of its accuracy, not whether the translators chose to remain anonymous.


I also apologise for my sharp tone.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The only problem biblical Greek scholars see with their translation is the fact
that they assume that a noun without an article is indefinite. I am not an
expert in biblical Greek; but from my studies the noun in question in all
examples they give appears to conform to the rule of a definite article.
Also it makes more sense in the context of the whole passage of scriptures
if translated as a definite noun in English.

we assume nothing, we have presented why its indefinite, all you can do is tell us why others have an opinion about it, because thats all you can do.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am talking about bible translation you Muppet.

The Watchtower translators did not start from scratch there either as they
claim.

The NWT is an example of what scholars refer to as a Tendentious Translation (i.e.: one which fosters the distinctive views of a particular sect .... in this case: the Jehovah's Witnesses). "It is marred throughout by its very obvious bias in favor of the peculiar doctrines of the sect which produced it" (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 580). "This version (in many cases a perversion) demonstrates several attempts to support so-called 'Jehovah Witness' doctrine through erroneous translating and biased wording. Their translation is a biased translation of the Bible published to prove the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society, which they cannot prove by reference to the standard translations" (an excerpt from a tract entitled The NWT Does Not Uniformly Teach Jehovah's Witness' Doctrine, by Garland Elkins, 1977).

The above was a result of research done by Al Maxey.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Watchtower translators did not start from scratch there either as they
claim.

The NWT is an example of what scholars refer to as a Tendentious Translation (i.e.: one which fosters the distinctive views of a particular sect .... in this case: the Jehovah's Witnesses). "It is marred throughout by its very obvious bias in favor of the peculiar doctrines ine, by Garland Elkins, 1977).

The above was a result of research done by Al Maxey.

the NWT translation is a formal equivalence translation you idiot, do you know what
a formal equivalence translation is?

i dont care what your trinitarian snake commentators say, as i have stated before,
you dont know anything, all you do is give someone else's opinion, because that's
all you can do.

and seeing that you like opinion of others so much, suck this up,

A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern
Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in
the English-speaking world," including the New American Bible, The King James Bible
and The New International Version, examined several New Testament passages in
which "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he
compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked
for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World
Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the most accurate of the
translations compared", and thus a "remarkably good translation", adding that "most
of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal,
conservative translation".

Is associate professor Jason BeDuhn lying when he states that its the most accurate,
i want to here your forked tongue state it, is he lying when he says its the most
accurate of translations that he surveyed, out with it. I want to hear you say it.