Jehovah Witness Bible Translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jean_1958
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
since I quoted directly from the trail word for word in the transcript it is not distortions as you pretend. The fact is a translator should be able to translate first grade materials without even thinking about it.

Your responses, copy and pastes were inadequate replies.
 
Tuesday, 23rd November, 1954:
Frederick William Franz, Examined:

Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
A. Yes…
Q. So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
A. Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French?
A. Yes.
Q. It is the case, is it not, that in 1950 there was prepared and issued what is called the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
A. Yes…
Q. I think that it was your duty, was it not, before the issue of that New World Translation by your Society to check that translation for accuracy?
A. That is true.
Q. In light of your studies and in light of your knowledge?
A. That is true.
Q. And did you do so?
A. I did so…
Q. And was it your duty on behalf of the Society to check the translation into English from the original Hebrew of that first volume of the Old Testament Scriptures?
A. Yes…
Q. In so far as translation of the Bible itself is undertaken, are you responsible for that?
A. I have been authorised to examine a translation and determine its accuracy and recommend its acceptance in the form in which it is submitted.
Q. Are the translators members of the Editorial Committee?
A. That is a question which I, as a member of the Board of Directors, am not authorised to disclose…
Q. When did you go to the University?..
Q. Did you graduate?
A. No, I did not…
Q. Had you done any Hebrew in the course of your University work?
A. No, I had not, but in the course of my editorial work, my special research work for the president of the Society, I found it was very necessary to have knowledge of Hebrew, and so I undertook a personal study of that.

ADJOURNED

Wednesday, 24th November, 1954:
Frederick William Franz, Cross Continued:

Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
A. I do not speak Hebrew.
Q. You do not?
A. No.
Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis? A. You mean here?
Q. Yes?
A. No, I won’t attempt to do that.
— Douglas Walsh Trial, Pursuer’s Proof, 1954, pp. 7-9, 88, 91-92, 102-103

Since, we are not convinced by your response to the above literal question and answer from that trail. Here is another trail that you will not be able to give a “sucessful chalenge” to either,

The following is taken from the transcript as Rev. Ross’s attorney, Mr. Staunton cross-examining C.T. Russell in the case Russell v. Ross.

Question: (Attorney Staunton) “Do you know the Greek Alphabet?”

Answer: (Russell) “Oh yes.”

Question: (Staunton) “Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?”

Answer: (Russell) “Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them.”

Question: (Staunton) “Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 I have got here?”

Answer: (Russell) “Well, I don’t know that I would be able to.”

Question: (Staunton) “You can’t tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?”

Answer: (Russell) “My way …” [he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain]

Question: (Staunton) “Are you familiar with the Greek language?”

Answer: (Russell) “No.”
 
What most received back from the Society is a letter saying that they do not make known the names of their scholars because they want to maintain their humility. You will hear the same from the J.W. that will visit you at your home.
Click to expand...
This is some prime, Grade-A bull excrement here… More like “we don’t wanna tell you because then you’ll know we just made all this stuff up”
 
that is the kind of response I would expect from a con artist. The fact is their so-called translators even thou one claims things like

Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French?
A. Yes.

can not even read the most basic text,

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The reason cited is because the “translators were not seeking prominence for themselves.” However, the fact is that the men who comprised this committee had no adequate schooling or background to function as skilled critical Bible translators.

The translation committee was headed by (then vice -president of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), **Frederick W.Franz. Other members included Nathan H. Knorr (then president of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), Albert D. Schroeder, Ceorge D. Gangas and Milton Henschel. **

The information as to the identity of the translation committee was made known by former Jehovah’s Witness William Cetnar. (See further, We Left lehovah’s Witnesses, A Non-Profit Organization; Edmond C. Gruss.) Cetnar was able to supply this information as he worked at the International Headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the time the translation was being prepared.

In addition, former member of the Watchtower’s Governing Body, Raymond V. Franz, in his book, Crisis of Conscience, lists the translators’ names as Franz, Knorr, Schroeder and Cangas. His list omits Henschel. Franz further acknowledges his uncle Frederick Franz as the “principal translator of the Society’s New World Translation” (Crisis, pg. 50).

Yet, Frederick Franz’s translation ability is open to serious question.

During a court trial held in Scotland in 1954 (during the same period that the New World Translation was being made) Franz was asked if he had made himself familiar with Hebrew. His reply was “Yes.” He also acknowledged under oath that he could read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French. The following day, during the same court trial, his linguistic abilities were put to the test.

He was asked to translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew. He failed the test as he was unable to do so. In fact he did not even try, but rather stated “No, I wouldn’t attempt to do that.” (See, Court of Session, Scotland - Douglas Walsh vs. The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde - November 1954.)
ukapologetics.net/newworld.html

Fred Fanz, William LaSor, and the NWT:

Whose Assessment of the Franz Testimony is Misleading?

A Response to Appendix B in Greg Stafford’s Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended

Robert Hommel

forananswer.org/Top_JW/FranzNWT.htm

The New World Translation

What the Scholars Really Said

forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm

The Watchtower leadership has repeatedly refused to divulge the names and/or academic qualifications of the people within their organization who produced the New World Translation (4). Common sense should tell anyone that it is not wise to trust a Bible translation produced by totally anonymous translators, whatever might be their stated reasons for wishing to remain anonymous. How are we to know whether they have the necessary expertise to produce an accurate translation? Let me illustrate. Suppose your ten-year-old son needs a kidney transplant. Suppose that a man you have never met before approaches you, claiming to be a surgeon, and offers to perform the operation free of charge. Yet your repeated requests to know this man’s name, to find out whether or not he graduated from medical school, or to learn whether he is a member of the American Medical Association are politely rebuffed. The “surgeon,” allegedly because he is extremely humble and wishes to receive no glory or credit for his good deeds, simply refuses reveal this information about himself. Would you allow this man to operate on your son? If you would not trust a loved ones mortal life to an anonymous (possibly unqualified) “surgeon”, why would you trust your eternal destiny to a committee of anonymous (possibly unqualified) Bible translators?

spiritwatch.org/jwnwt.htm
 
Jean_1958 said:
I understand that Jehovah Witnesses use their own Bible translation. Can someone give me examples of how Scripture was changed and how the meaning was altered?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I’ll give you the first one: the title. New World Translation. “New World” Translation…:hypno:
 
“Your responses, copy and pastes were inadequate replies.” BD

Reply, Part I

To the readers,

The Walsh Trial the Facts
thoughts.com/letusreason/walsh-trial-1954-f-franz

Where BD and other anti-Witness opposers get there information from, their so-called facts, is from people like Walter Martin, Ron Rhodes and other biased anti-Witness critics!

No BD, you quoted from some one else’s so-called “word for word” of the trial. The evidence I gave you is from our archives and you have clearly ignored how opposers twisted what was said and the context, making it look as though JW’s were lying etc! You are not the first one to post such half truths and you will not be the last either!

How about we compare these trial notes of yours, word for word with ours and then analyze them and see where they differ!

The Walsh Trial

Below is a typical Trinitarian anti-Witness web site, that most opposers and critics obtain their biased and misleading information from, regarding the 1954 Walsh Trial in Scotland!
forananswer.org/Top_JW/WalshTrial.htm

The site authors omit pertinent information and leave the reader with a false impression about JW’s!

Below is an extract from the above link.

"1954 in Scotland the Jehovah’s Witnesses sued the Ministries of Labour and National Services. This was a test case brought by the Society to set a precedent for future Witnesses.

The complete record of this trial is available to anyone for the price of the microfilm (details at the end of this article). It is the invaluable testimony given by the leaders of the Society. They make admissions in court that they have not made anywhere else

Those who testified for the Society were Fred Franz, the Vice-President; H.C.Covington, the head legal counsel of the Society at that time; Grant Suiter, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Society; A.R.Hughes, the British Branch Servant; and D. Walsh, the Congregation Servant who brought the suit. Just a few quotations appear in this article, those covering interesting statements. They speak for themselves…"

Here is BD’s earlier post about the Walsh trial,

“Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
In 1950, the Watch Tower Society came out with their own translation of the Bible, the New World Translation. Jehovah’s Witnesses are told that this translation is the most accurate, unbiased translation available. The Society claims that the New World Translation Committee was made up of highly trained Greek scholars who did their best to “transmit his [God’s] thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible.” However, when one endeavors to check into the credentials of these translators, one finds that the Society is unwilling to release this information, stating that the Committee desires that all the glory for this translation go to Jehovah God and therefore the translators desire to remain anonymous.

On the surface, this may sound quite noble and honorable; but one may wonder, is this the real reason why they desire to remain anonymous? Over the years, further investigation has revealed who the translators of the New World Translation were, and the facts show that they were totally unqualified for the task of translation. Five of the six Watchtower Governing Body members who were on the Translation Committee had no formal training whatsoever in the Biblical languages. The fifth one, Fred Franz, (former Governing Body member and Watchtower president from 1977-1992) claimed to have some education, but in the Douglas Walsh Trial in Scotland, he gave this testimony under oath:

Tuesday, 23rd November, 1954:
Frederick William Franz, Examined:

Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
A. Yes…
Q. So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
A. Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French?
A. Yes.
Q. It is the case, is it not, that in 1950 there was prepared and issued what is called the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
A. Yes…
Q. I think that it was your duty, was it not, before the issue of that New World Translation by your Society to check that translation for accuracy?
A. That is true.
Q. In light of your studies and in light of your knowledge?
A. That is true.
Q. And did you do so?
A. I did so…
Q. And was it your duty on behalf of the Society to check the translation into English from the original Hebrew of that first volume of the Old Testament Scriptures?
A. Yes…
Q. In so far as translation of the Bible itself is undertaken, are you responsible for that?
A. I have been authorised to examine a translation and determine its accuracy and recommend its acceptance in the form in which it is submitted.
Q. Are the translators members of the Editorial Committee?
A. That is a question which I, as a member of the Board of Directors, am not authorised to disclose…
Q. When did you go to the University?..
Q. Did you graduate?
A. No, I did not…
Q. Had you done any Hebrew in the course of your University work?
A. No, I had not, but in the course of my editorial work, my special research work for the president of the Society, I found it was very necessary to have knowledge of Hebrew, and so I undertook a personal study of that.

To be continued:
 
Reply, Part 2

ADJOURNED

Wednesday, 24th November, 1954:
Frederick William Franz, Cross Continued:

Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
A. I do not speak Hebrew.
Q. You do not?
A. No.
Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis? A. You mean here?
Q. Yes?
A. No, I won’t attempt to do that.
— Douglas Walsh Trial, Pursuer’s Proof, 1954, pp. 7-9, 88, 91-92, 102-103

This exercise which Franz was unable to do is something which the average first or second year Hebrew student could have accomplished without any difficulty. Is it any wonder the Society refuses to publicly reveal the people who were involved in the translation of their Bible? Would you put your trust in a doctor who refused to give his credentials? Yet, this is what many Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing when it comes to vital Bible truth.”
End of quote

Reply,

All BD has done, is copied and pasted from a web site that he has googled, as is seen from
“Best Answer - Chosen by Asker”

What is thoroughly reprehensible about BD trying to denigrate JW’s by the use of mis-information from biased sources is seen in two points that he makes from such sources!

Point 1

“Over the years, further investigation has revealed who the translators of the New World Translation were, and the facts show that they were totally unqualified for the task of translation.”

This tactic is a disgraceful tactic, as scholars are now realising that the NWT is a very accurate translation and if the translating committee of the NWT were that incompetent, then that is to say that those who recognise the NWT are idiots and incompetent themselves, but that is not the case, because biased opposers are hiding the true facts…!

NWT and what other scholars have to say to its critics!
thoughts.com/letusreason/nwt-and-what-other-scholars-have-to-say-to-its-critics

Point 2

Here is another disreputable tactic used by BD

“This exercise which Franz was unable to do is something which the average first or second year Hebrew student could have accomplished without any difficulty.”

The impression given above that the text of Gen 2:4 is a very simple text to translate, “…something which the average first or second year Hebrew student could have accomplished without any difficulty.” The information that opposers like BD propagate, is taken from several biased sources and one mentioned was Walter Martin (Kingdom of the Cults) who, like Ron Rhodes withholds information and then proceeds to give the impression, that first/second year student would never pass unless he/she could translate such a simple text, such as in Gen 2:4. Rhodes, like Martin gives a misleading partial quote from the trial i.e. “can you translate that into Hebrew?” And the pair have Franz saying “No”, when Franz actually said, “No, I won’t attempt to do that” and the above source that BD quotes above, actually slips up and put the full quote of Franz, so why did the others not do so, so as to give a false and misleading impression?

But is that the truth of the matter, is it a very simple matter to translate Gen 2:4 and that a first/second year student would have no difficulty?

Here is how that lie is exposed, which BD is a part of, as he uses such to promote biased criticisms of JW’s!

One scholar said,

“It should not be overlooked that this verse is actually somewhat complicated. It has no finite verb but one Niphal infinitive construct, with suffix, and one Qal infinitive construct” Even Hommel’s own star witness, Millard, recognizes that there is “uncertainty over the passage.”! Indeed, (Prof.) Rolf Furuli relates his own experiment with two professors of Hebrew: “I asked two of my colleagues who teach Hebrew at the University of Oslo, to translate the passage. Both had problems with the translation from English to Hebrew, even though they both are experienced teachers, and their results were very different.” In fact, all Bible translators, not just the NWT translators, make generous use of lexicons, grammars, commentaries and other translation aids. Few, if any, of them approach their work so casually as to attempt to translate without recourse to all the printed scholarship that is available. It is simply not expected of a translator that he or she should be able to work without all these aids. As The Translator’s Handbook puts it: No translator, no matter how accomplished or well versed in both the source and target languages, can do without dictionaries and reference literature.
Two of my colleagues who teach Hebrew at the University of Oslo … had problems with the translation [of Genesis 2:4] from English to Hebrew (Prof.) Rolf Furuli So, translation involves careful study of a wide variety of resources. Furthermore, translation is a synergistic group effort, in which a number of different translators contribute their expertise and talents. Additionally, there is no reason why the New World Translation Committee could not have sought the (name removed by moderator)ut and comments of a number of authorities on Bible languages, both inside and outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization. Finally, Millard observes that ‘there is a difference between translating into a language and freely composing in it’.”
Another point left out by opposers, is that Franz was asked if he could translate the English (Gen 2:4) into Hebrew, not the other way round and he responded “No, I won’t attempt to do that” is understood why above and when, “Indeed, (Prof.) Rolf Furuli relates his own experiment with two professors of Hebrew: “I asked two of my colleagues who teach Hebrew at the University of Oslo, to translate the passage. Both had problems with the translation from English to Hebrew, even though they both are experienced teachers, and their results were very different.”

To be continued:
 
Reply, Part 3

So the nonsense sentence that BD comes back with,

“Over the years, further investigation has revealed who the translators of the New World Translation were, and the facts show that they were totally unqualified for the task of translation.”

…is just not true and the evidence of others is before us!

BD has ignored everything in all three parts (I, II, II) and when he comes back with such nonsense, especially against the evidence,

“Your responses, copy and pastes were inadequate replies.”

I doubt if he even bothered to read all three parts, as it should have kept him quiet!

And if dredging the bottom of the barrel wasn’t enough for BD, he comes back with more half truths and outright lies about C T Russell, which have had to be dealt a blow to in the past on other forums, with brainwashed anti-Witness fanatics…?

Letusreason
 
"Since, we are not convinced by your response to the above literal question and answer from that trail. Here is another trail that you will not be able to give a “sucessful chalenge” to either,

The following is taken from the transcript as Rev. Ross’s attorney, Mr. Staunton cross-examining C.T. Russell in the case Russell v. Ross.

Question: (Attorney Staunton) “Do you know the Greek Alphabet?”

Answer: (Russell) “Oh yes.”

Question: (Staunton) “Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?”

Answer: (Russell) “Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them.”

Question: (Staunton) “Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 I have got here?”

Answer: (Russell) “Well, I don’t know that I would be able to.”

Question: (Staunton) “You can’t tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?”

Answer: (Russell) “My way …” [he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain]

Question: (Staunton) “Are you familiar with the Greek language?”

Answer: (Russell) “No.”"

Reply,

“Since, we are not convinced by your response to the above literal question and answer from that trail. Here is another trail that you will not be able to give a “successful challenge” to either,

The following is taken from the transcript as Rev. Ross’s attorney, Mr. Staunton cross-examining C.T. Russell in the case Russell v. Ross.

Question: (Attorney Staunton) “Do you know the Greek Alphabet?”

Answer: (Russell) “Oh yes.”

Question: (Staunton) “Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?”

Answer: (Russell) “Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them.”

Question: (Staunton) “Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 I have got here?”

Answer: (Russell) “Well, I don’t know that I would be able to.”

Question: (Staunton) “You can’t tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?”

Answer: (Russell) “My way …” [he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain]

Question: (Staunton) “Are you familiar with the Greek language?”

Answer: (Russell) “No.””

Reply,

“Since, we are not convinced by your response to the above literal question and answer from that trail. Here is another trail that you will not be able to give a “successful challenge” to either,”

No, it’s you that is not convinced, even in the face of the empirical evidence relating to the linguistical complexities of Gen 2:4 and how trained professors have complications with such and you said a one/two year student would have no difficulty…you ooze with bias and incompetence BM!

Now to expose another lie and half truth!

It is important that both links be read in full, especially the bit about the tricky Rev Ross

Re: C T Russell

BD, which ten a penny Trinitarian anti-Witness web site did you trawl this one from?

Here are the twisted lies and propaganda that people like BD would like the readers to swallow, as he has swallowed them himself!

Lies and Smear Against Russell and Rutherford!

“Q. “Do you know the Greek?”
A. “Oh, yes.” (Russell)

“By omitting the word “alphabet” from this question, Ross sought to establish an…”
thoughts.com/letusreason/lies-and-smear-against-russell-and-rutherford

Twisted perversions of the facts
thoughts.com/letusreason/wwwwatchmanorg-jw-and-its-lies-against-c-t-russell

The truth and facts speak for themselves!

NB,

If Russell was in it for the money, consider this; he sold his thriving businesses in the late 1800’s for some $300,000 equivalent to about $9,000,000 by today’s reckoning, so what would a mere $1,000 mean to Russell, ask yourself?

BD is so desperate, that now he will believe just about anything and he wants the readers to believe, hook line and sinker, just like he does!

So, the readers will understand, why I will spend no more time with this blatant trouble maker, but it will not stop him or others being incompetent and spreading lies and half truths as he dredges anti-Witness web sites for any morsel of rubbish he can use as a weapon!

NB,

The trial transcript has the full and proper quote (as seen above),

“Do you know the Greek Alphabet?”

Whereas, the pamphlet published by the Rev Ross, only had,

“Do you know the Greek?”

Ross deliberately omitting the term “alphabet”, thus giving a perverted view to the readers
of his published pamphlet and we see that BD has been trained well in this field too!

Arius
 
Nicea325 said:
I’ll give you the first one: the title. New World Translation. “New World” Translation…:hypno:
Click to expand...
Reply,

You have a wonderful economy with words, and I look forward to your next syllable with the greatest eagerness of mind!
 
Big_Dummy said:
that is the kind of response I would expect from a con artist. The fact is their so-called translators even thou one claims things like

Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French?
A. Yes.

can not even read the most basic text,

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The reason cited is because the “translators were not seeking prominence for themselves.” However, the fact is that the men who comprised this committee had no adequate schooling or background to function as skilled critical Bible translators.

The translation committee was headed by (then vice -president of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), **Frederick W.Franz. Other members included Nathan H. Knorr (then president of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), Albert D. Schroeder, Ceorge D. Gangas and Milton Henschel. **

The information as to the identity of the translation committee was made known by former Jehovah’s Witness William Cetnar. (See further, We Left lehovah’s Witnesses, A Non-Profit Organization; Edmond C. Gruss.) Cetnar was able to supply this information as he worked at the International Headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the time the translation was being prepared.

In addition, former member of the Watchtower’s Governing Body, Raymond V. Franz, in his book, Crisis of Conscience, lists the translators’ names as Franz, Knorr, Schroeder and Cangas. His list omits Henschel. Franz further acknowledges his uncle Frederick Franz as the “principal translator of the Society’s New World Translation” (Crisis, pg. 50).

Yet, Frederick Franz’s translation ability is open to serious question.

During a court trial held in Scotland in 1954 (during the same period that the New World Translation was being made) Franz was asked if he had made himself familiar with Hebrew. His reply was “Yes.” He also acknowledged under oath that he could read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French. The following day, during the same court trial, his linguistic abilities were put to the test.

He was asked to translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew. He failed the test as he was unable to do so. In fact he did not even try, but rather stated “No, I wouldn’t attempt to do that.” (See, Court of Session, Scotland - Douglas Walsh vs. The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde - November 1954.)
ukapologetics.net/newworld.html

Fred Fanz, William LaSor, and the NWT:

Whose Assessment of the Franz Testimony is Misleading?

A Response to Appendix B in Greg Stafford’s Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended

Robert Hommel

forananswer.org/Top_JW/FranzNWT.htm

The New World Translation

What the Scholars Really Said

forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm

The Watchtower leadership has repeatedly refused to divulge the names and/or academic qualifications of the people within their organization who produced the New World Translation (4). Common sense should tell anyone that it is not wise to trust a Bible translation produced by totally anonymous translators, whatever might be their stated reasons for wishing to remain anonymous. How are we to know whether they have the necessary expertise to produce an accurate translation? Let me illustrate. Suppose your ten-year-old son needs a kidney transplant. Suppose that a man you have never met before approaches you, claiming to be a surgeon, and offers to perform the operation free of charge. Yet your repeated requests to know this man’s name, to find out whether or not he graduated from medical school, or to learn whether he is a member of the American Medical Association are politely rebuffed. The “surgeon,” allegedly because he is extremely humble and wishes to receive no glory or credit for his good deeds, simply refuses reveal this information about himself. Would you allow this man to operate on your son? If you would not trust a loved ones mortal life to an anonymous (possibly unqualified) “surgeon”, why would you trust your eternal destiny to a committee of anonymous (possibly unqualified) Bible translators?

spiritwatch.org/jwnwt.htm
Click to expand...
Reply,

The proof of the pudding as they say, is in the pie!

I have asked Trinitarians time and time again, even though they quote anti-NWT scholars, why is it, that none of you will choose your best and most accurate Trinitarian translation and then, along with the NWT compare both to the original Greek and if your Trinitarian, your very best one is superior to the NWT and you can clearly demonstrate such, then I will become a Catholic Trinitarian again and join you all, but the sad fact is, Trinitarians are cowards when it comes to such a matter, after all, if the NWT is as bad as your anti-NWT scholars say it is, then it should be a walk in the park for you Trinitarians, shouldn’t it be???

I’m now calling your bluff!

To the readers, watch and see what happens! All talk!

PS,

"can not even read the most basic text,

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

This has been answered previously and you still carry on with this nonsense!

To be continued:
 
Big Dummy;8280187]that is the kind of response I would expect from a con artist. The fact is their so-called translators even thou one claims things like

Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French?
A. Yes.

can not even read the most basic text,

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The reason cited is because the “translators were not…”

Reply,

Part 2

How BD gives only one side of the theological koine:

Dr.J.Beduhn and R.Hommel: A Discussion upon the translation of John 1:1c.
(originally on the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry JW discussion board during Jan/Feb, 2002 and continuing later elsewhere. There are 4 parts in total to this discussion)

Part 1

(Hommel speaking to Prof. Bedhun)

“You are absolutely correct that reading theos in John 1:1c as individual yields a kind of modalism, conflates God and Word indistinguishably. But that is precisely what is conveyed by the traditional English translation in the absence of any sort of commentary or explanation.”

See link below for the full discussion between them:
onlytruegod.org/defense/beduhn_hommel.1.htm

The above R. Hommel acknowledges what I have written about Modalism on this forum, he himself being a staunch Trinitarian, such taint of Modalism Trinitarians on this site have ignored or pretent doesn’t exist, but here is one of your own Trinitarians scholars admitting such!

Another example involving R Hommel with JW scholars

“A Return Letter to Robert Hommel Regarding Mantey’s Letter to the WTB&TS”
jehovah.to/exe/discussion/hommel.htm

These are but a few examples and people like BD do not want you to be aware of them…!

Prof. George Wesley Buchanan and Hebrews 1

“When I first published some of my ideas in 1970 they stunned most biblical scholars. In response, most pretended that I did not exist; no one was able to refute me; others stopped writing on these subjects. A few…”
onlytruegod.org/defense/buchanan.hebrews1.8.htm

Acts 20:28
onlytruegod.org/defense/acts20.28.htm

Arius
 
Big_Dummy said:
tetragrammaton.org/debate2.html
journal.equip.org/articles/a-summary-critique-jehovah-s-witnesses-defended-
docser.com/A-Summary-Critique%3A-Jehovah’s-Witnesses-Defended%3A-An-Answer-908509
letusreason.org/JW39.htm
google.com/#hl=en&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Witness,+Incorporated%22&sa=X&ei=q71TTrbFGuGosQKFqp2oBw&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ9Ag&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3d7d1a864defd341&biw=1024&bih=524
Click to expand...
Reply,

BD, all you are doing here is to pander to your bias, as you are not able to take me on in a scholarly fashion, unless you call half truths and lies, not to mention biased propaganda a scholarly fashion and boy, can you tell them, a great story and fantasy teller!

I contacted the above “letusreason.org” (nothing to do with the JW ‘letusreason’ (the name is a coincidence) and got much the same baloney from it, as I get from you, they were really clueless!

BD, no wonder you are all mixed up, going to these kinds of biased anti-JW sites, they all say the same thing and they are were you get your comic strip answers from!
 
JohnOneOne said:
Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “New World Translation” Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with “a god”), there is soon to be published a 19+ year study (as of 8/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, “What About John 1:1?”
Click to expand...
Hello JohnOneOne, unfortunately you totally missed the point of my link - but I can tell you it’s not your typical Trinitarian talk. The link I gave will pull the rug right from out under you, and in a sense it already has. 😛

In short, here is the central justification for what the JWs base “a god” on: JWs think Christians actually teach "in the beginning was Bob, and Bob was with Jim, and Bob was Jim. That’s what the JWs repeatedly state in their official literature. But that isn’t at all what Christians are saying, so all the hype about Jn 1:1 is essentially a phantom.

Even many of the very scholars that JWs appeal to against “the Word was God” are not saying what the JWs mistakenly think is being said (“Bob was Jim”).

The JWs flatly misrepresented and misunderstood official Trinitarian teaching, and that’s the bottom line - not what a translation does or does not say. :eek:
 
Fink said:
On the Cross, our Lord says to the repentant thief in Luke 23:43:
“I tell you, this very day you will be with Me in Paradise.”

The Jehovah`s Witnesses believe in soul sleep, so the NWT has it:
“I tell you this very day, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Another example of a seemingly minor change, in this case moving a little old comma, subverting an entire doctrine! :eek:
Click to expand...
And Paradise is, I just had a discussion on this, in this case, Paradise is not Heaven but it did not effectively change the conversation. It is “Sheol” and mentioned elsewhere in Luke. One can research exactly where “Paradise” is in this and it has effects elsewhere such as in the Creed.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
The JWs flatly misrepresented and misunderstood official Trinitarian teaching, and that’s the bottom line - not what a translation does or does not say. :eek:
Click to expand...
And in the publication: “Should You Believe in The Trinity”, they set up straw man arguments which, to an uninformed reader, make a mockery of the doctrine of The Blessed Trinity.
The misrepresenting and “misunderstanding” have to be deliberate! 😦
Add to that dubious supporting sources.

Their theology is shallow: im prepared to call at least some of it childish. Theres no sign of Saint Thomas Aquinas and co. 🤷
 
Road2Damascus said:
And Paradise is, I just had a discussion on this, in this case, Paradise is not Heaven but it did not effectively change the conversation. It is “Sheol” and mentioned elsewhere in Luke. One can research exactly where “Paradise” is in this and it has effects elsewhere such as in the Creed.
Click to expand...
Yep, i know; but in the context of the thread, i didnt want to inject anything superfluous. Explaining that "Paradise" was really the Limbo of The Fathers which ceased to exist at our Lords Assension seemed unnecessary. Obviously, it wasn`t! 😊

Having said that, have you read the JWs explanation of what Jesus **REALLY **meant? In case you havent; and im going only from memory: "You will be with Me in Paradise" was only metaphorical; and meant that Jesus would remember the repentant thief when He entered Paradise. Then, at the resurrection at the beginning of the (literal) Millenium, the repentant thief would be resurrected, and given the chance to learn Jehovahs truth from His Witnesses. At the end of the Millenium, he would be tested; and if found worthy, he would be allowed into the Earthly Paradise.
If found UNworthy, he would be annihilated…along with the rest of the wicked.
So much for assurance! 🤷

Have you ever encountered anything so `round about and drawn out?.. all of it to “prove” a false doctrine! :eek:
So much for the plain meaning of Scripture. 🤷 Twist it to make it fit!
 
Fink said:
Yep, i know; but in the context of the thread, i didnt want to inject anything superfluous. Explaining that "Paradise" was really the Limbo of The Fathers which ceased to exist at our Lords Assension seemed unnecessary. Obviously, it wasn`t! 😊

Having said that, have you read the JWs explanation of what Jesus **REALLY **meant? In case you havent; and im going only from memory: "You will be with Me in Paradise" was only metaphorical; and meant that Jesus would remember the repentant thief when He entered Paradise. Then, at the resurrection at the beginning of the (literal) Millenium, the repentant thief would be resurrected, and given the chance to learn Jehovahs truth from His Witnesses. At the end of the Millenium, he would be tested; and if found worthy, he would be allowed into the Earthly Paradise.
If found UNworthy, he would be annihilated…along with the rest of the wicked.
So much for assurance! 🤷

Have you ever encountered anything so `round about and drawn out?.. all of it to “prove” a false doctrine! :eek:
So much for the plain meaning of Scripture. 🤷 Twist it to make it fit!
Click to expand...
Good points and thank you for responding to my post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top