Spirituality
18 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneReally, so you do believe in unicorns, wow Dee Dee
I prefer a Bible that outlines my beliefs *before* my dogma is created, not *after*.
Numbers 23:22 “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”
Numbers 24:8 “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.”
Job 39:9 “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?”
Job 39:10 “Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”
Psalms 29:6 “He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”
Psalms 92:10 “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”
Deuteronomy 33:17 “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”
Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”
Isaiah 34:7 “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”
all verse from the King James Bible
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible
Really, so you do believe in unicorns, wow Dee Dee
Numbers 23:22 “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”
Numbers 24:8 “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them t ...[text shortened]... soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”
all verse from the King James Bible
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, the King James Bible.
Really, so you do believe in unicorns, wow Dee Dee
Numbers 23:22 “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”
Numbers 24:8 “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them t ...[text shortened]... soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”
all verse from the King James Bible
A Bible that the Jehovah's Witnesses used and kept holy until they were able to create their own Bible, using their own dogma, already formed, as the basis for their Bible. No one said anything about it being "unsuitable" then.
And now they spend all their time tearing down the very same Bible that they used in their services and in their bible discussions, now that it no longer serves their purposes, i.e. supporting their dogma.
20 Dec 13
1 edit
Furthermore, robbie, I defy you to deny this:
"The New World Translation was produced by the New World Bible Translation Committee, formed in 1947. This committee is said to have comprised unnamed members of multinational background. The committee requested that the Watch Tower Society not publish the names of its members, stating that they did not want to "advertise themselves but let all the glory go to the Author of the Scriptures, God," adding that the translation, "should direct the reader... to... Jehovah God". The publishers believe that "the particulars of [the New World Bible Translation Committee's members] university or other educational training are not the important thing" and that "the translation testifies to their qualification". Former high ranking Watch Tower staff have claimed knowledge of the translators' identities. Walter Martin identified Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel as members of the translation team, writing of them, "The New World Bible translation committee had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of these men had any university education except Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree. In fact, Frederick W. Franz, then representing the translation committee and later serving as the Watchtower Society's fourth president, admitted under oath that he could not translate Genesis 2:4 from the Hebrew." (However, the court transcript indicates that Franz declined to translate text from English back into Hebrew.) Franz had stated that he was familiar with not only Hebrew, but with Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French for the purpose of biblical translation."
And yet, you keep repeating, like some kind of mantra, that I know nothing of translation. Well, it appears that neither does your secret committee of supposedly "anointed" Witnesses (mostly Watchtower Org. officers) who wrote the NWT.
Originally posted by Suziannewow, you really haven't a clue, the New world translation has undergone three revisions, latest one this year, so tell us, according to the base Hebrew and Greek texts, what is inaccurately translated in this latest edition?, otherwise, i simply dont fancy battling your ignorance, you are simply not knowledgeable enough about most things Biblical, i don't mean that as an insult, simply a statement of fact.
Furthermore, robbie, I defy you to deny this:
"The New World Translation was produced by the New World Bible Translation Committee, formed in 1947. This committee is said to have comprised unnamed members of multinational background. The committee requested that the Watch Tower Society not publish the names of its members, stating that they did not want ...[text shortened]... ommittee of supposedly "anointed" Witnesses (mostly Watchtower Org. officers) who wrote the NWT.
Originally posted by Suzianneawesome Dee Dee, look a uuuuuuunicorn
Yes, the King James Bible.
A Bible that the Jehovah's Witnesses used and kept holy until they were able to create their own Bible, using their own dogma, already formed, as the basis for their Bible. No one said anything about it being "unsuitable" then.
And now they spend all their time tearing down the very same Bible that they used in their servic ...[text shortened]... eir bible discussions, now that it no longer serves their purposes, i.e. supporting their dogma.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat was so inaccurate about the last revision that it needed revising?
wow, you really haven't a clue, the New world translation has undergone three revisions, latest one this year, so tell us, according to the base Hebrew and Greek texts, what is inaccurately translated in this latest edition?, otherwise, i simply dont fancy battling your ignorance, you are simply not knowledgeable enough about most things Biblical, i don't mean that as an insult, simply a statement of fact.
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by Suzianneoh dear oh dear, I know you dont do reality, but check this out, concerning the King James version of the Bible,
Yes, the King James Bible.
A Bible that the Jehovah's Witnesses used and kept holy until they were able to create their own Bible, using their own dogma, already formed, as the basis for their Bible. No one said anything about it being "unsuitable" then.
And now they spend all their time tearing down the very same Bible that they used in their servic ...[text shortened]... eir bible discussions, now that it no longer serves their purposes, i.e. supporting their dogma.
Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. (ouch!) Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church (double ouch)
Translators imposing their religious bias on scripture making your assertions rather hypocritical, don't you think!
Hugh Broughton,
"I would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation (KJV) should ever be foisted upon the English people".
The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them - ouch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by darvlayThe English language have gone through many changes over time.
Does the NIV use the improper spelling of Saviour in its version of scripture?
sav·ior n.
1. A person who rescues another from harm, danger, or loss.
2. Savior Christianity Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle English saviour
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/savior
22 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, rather than defend your rather indefensible NWT, you choose to attack the KJV, which your church used until 1950, when the Greek Scriptures was published, and fully by 1961 when the combined Greek and Hebrew Scriptures was published.
oh dear oh dear, I know you dont do reality, but check this out, concerning the King James version of the Bible,
Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. (ouch!) Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that ref ...[text shortened]... g their religious bias on scripture making your assertions rather hypocritical, don't you think!
The KJV was fine, even preferred, until then, wasn't it? Until the WTS published their own Bible which supports JW doctrine explicitly, unlike the KJV.
22 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSince we're throwing around quotes from people, how about:
Hugh Broughton,
"I would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation (KJV) should ever be foisted upon the English people".
The translators appear to have otherwise made [b]no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them - ouch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version[/b]
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."
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."
Robert McCoy stated "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation. 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."
And finally,
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 the 1970 and later revisions.
As to the Codex Bezae, oh please, it wasn't even used by the WTS when compiling the NWT, why would you complain that those who translated the KJV didn't use it when the writers of the NWT didn't? I daresay they both did not use the Codex Bezae for nearly the same reasons.
And another thing, this concept that 'older is better' and 'shorter is better' are both ludicrous. The first is not necessarily so, and the second is just stupid on the face of it, shorter is often a paraphrase.
And as far as 'removing archaic language' is concerned, since the writers of the NWT claim that this was their motivating factor, why did most of the revisions for this reason not occur until the 2013 revision? I wonder if we'll see any more of your harping about the 'dumbing down' of the English language after this, because that is basically what this amounts to.
Originally posted by Suziannewow trying to reason with someone who believes in unicorns stretches ones patience I must admit.
So, rather than defend your rather indefensible NWT, you choose to attack the KJV, which your church used until 1950, when the Greek Scriptures was published, and fully by 1961 when the combined Greek and Hebrew Scriptures was published.
The KJV was fine, even preferred, until then, wasn't it? Until the WTS published their own Bible which supports JW doctrine explicitly, unlike the KJV.
Ok Dee Dee, which one of these scholars that you quoted have actually made a comparison with other translations and made an unbiased evaluation, none, with the exception of associate professor Jason BeDhun,
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"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scripture
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee uuuuuuuuuuunicorns