Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do you make an accurate Bible translation

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 4:46:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you just use one manuscript? What if that manuscript itself contains errors?

This post and the next gives a list of the manuscripts and other writings that Jehovah's Witnesses used to ensure the accuracy of the NWT. It is taken from the introduction to their Reference Bible, as can be seen on the end of this link.

http://wol.jw.org...

א (F0;Aleph) Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
A Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
ad Aid to Bible Understanding, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1971.
Al Aleppo Codex, Heb., c. 930 C.E., Israel, H.S.
Aq Aquila"s Gr. translation of H.S., second cent. C.E., Cambridge, England.
Arm Armenian Version, fourth to thirteenth cent. C.E.; H.S., G.S.
B Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S.
B 19A See Leningrad.
Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by W. Bauer, second English ed., by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, Chicago and London (1979).
BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, Oxford, 1978 reprint.
BHK Biblia Hebraica, by Kittel, Kahle, Alt and Eissfeldt, Privilegierte W"rttembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, seventh to ninth ed., 1951-55, H.S.
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, by Elliger and Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart, 1977, H.S.
C Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., Paris, H.S., G.S.
Ca Cairo Codex, Heb., 895 C.E., Cairo, Egypt, H.S.
D Bezae Codices, Gr. and Lat., fifth and sixth cent. C.E., Cambridge, England, G.S.
Gins. Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible, by C. D. Ginsburg, London, 1926.
Gins.Int Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, by C. D. Ginsburg, Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1966 reprint.
Gins.Mas The Massorah, by C. D. Ginsburg, Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1975 reprint.
GK Gesenius" Hebrew Grammar, by E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, Oxford, England (1910).
Grn The Interlinear Hebrew/English Bible, Vol. I-III, by J. Green, Wilmington, U.S., 1976.
Int The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1969, a word-for-word rendering from Greek into English.
It Old Latin Versions, Itala, second to fourth cent. C.E.; H.S., G.S.
J1 Matthew, Heb., edited by J. du Tillet, with a Lat. translation by J. Mercier, Paris, 1555.
J2 Matthew, Heb., incorporated as a separate chapter in F0;ER42;ven boR42;chan ["Tried Stone"], by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385. Mss of 16th and 17th cent., Jewish Theological Seminary, New York.
J3 Matthew and Hebrews, Heb. and Lat., by Sebastian M"nster, Basel, 1537 and 1557 respectively.
J4 Matthew, Heb., by J. Quinquarboreus, Paris, 1551.
J5 Liturgical Gospels, Heb., by F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1573.
J6 Liturgical Gospels, German, Lat., Gr. and Heb., by Johann Clajus, Leipzig, 1576.
J7 Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.
J8 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Robertson, London, 1661.
J9 Gospels, Heb. and Lat., by Giovanni Battista Jona, Rome, 1668.
J10 The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vol. I-III, containing Matthew"1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805.
J11 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Thomas Fry and others, London, 1817.
J12 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Greenfield, London, 1831.
J13 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by A. McCaul, M. S. Alexander, J. C. Reichardt and S. Hoga, London, 1838.
J14 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt, London, 1846.
J15 Luke, Acts, Romans and Hebrews, Heb., by J. H. R. Biesenthal, Berlin, 1855, 1867, 1853 and 1858 respectively.
J16 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt and J. H. R. Biesenthal, London, 1866.
J17 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Franz Delitzsch, London, 1981 ed.
J18 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London.
J19 John, Heb., by Moshe I. Ben Maeir, Denver, Colorado, 1957.
J20 A Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, fourth ed., Edinburgh, 1963.
J21 The Emphatic Diaglott (Greek-English interlinear), by Benjamin Wilson, New York, 1864, reprint by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1942.
J22 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by United Bible Societies, Jerusalem, 1979.
J23 Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. Bauchet, Rome, 1975.
J24 A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter, London, 1863.
J25 St. Paul"s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford, London, 1900.
J26 Psalms and Matthew 1:1-3:6, Heb., by Anton Margaritha, Leipzig, 1533.
J27 Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments, by Dominik von Brentano, third ed., Vienna and Prague, 1796.
JTS Journal of Theological Studies, Clarendon, Oxford.
KB Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Leiden, Netherlands, 1953.
KB3 Hebr"isches und Aram"isches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, by W. Baumgartner, third ed., Leiden, Netherlands, 1967 and later ed.
Leningrad Codex Leningrad B 19A, Heb., 1008 C.E., H.S., Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
LS A Greek-English Lexicon, by H. Liddell and R. Scott, Oxford, 1968.
LXX Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935).
LXXBagster Septuagint (with an English translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton, S. Bagster & Sons, London, 1851).
LXXL Septuagint (P. de Lagarde, G"ttingen, Germany, 1883).
LXXThomson Septuagint, translated by C. Thomson, Pells ed., London, 1904.
M Masoretic Hebrew text found in Codex Leningrad B 19A as presented in BHK and BHS.
NW New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1984 revision.
P45 Papyrus Chester Beatty 1, Gr., third cent. C.E., Dublin, G.S.
P46 Papyrus Chester Beatty 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Dublin, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A., G.S.
P47 Papyrus Chester Beatty 3, Gr., third cent. C.E., Dublin, G.S.
P66 Papyrus Bodmer 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.
P74 Papyrus Bodmer 17, Gr., seventh cent. C.E., Geneva, G.S.
P75 Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.
1QIsa The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, Jerusalem, found in 1947 in Qumran Cave No. 1.
Sam Pentateuch in Samaritan, fourth cent. B.C.E., Israel.
si "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial," Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1963.
Sn Hebrew Old Testament, by N. H. Snaith, Israel, 1970.
Sy, Syp Syriac Peshitta, Christian Aram., fifth cent. C.E., S. Lee, London, 1826, reprint by United Bible Societies, 1979.
Syc Curetonian Syriac, Old Syriac, fifth cent. C.E., Gospels, Cambridge, England.
Syh Philoxenian-Harclean Syriac Version, sixth and seventh cent. C.E.; G.S.
Syhi Jerusalem (Hierosolymitanum) Version, Old Syriac, sixth cent. C.E.; G.S.
Sys Sinaitic Syriac codex, fourth and fifth cent. C.E., Gospels.
Sym Greek translation of H.S., by Symmachus, c. 200 C.E.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 4:47:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
T Targums, Aram. paraphrases of parts of H.S.
TJ Jerusalem Targum I (Pseudo-Jonathan) and Jerusalem Targum II (Fragmentary Targum).
TO Targum of Onkelos (Babylonian Targum), Pentateuch.
TP Palestinian Targum, Vatican City, Rome, Pentateuch.
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (English ed.), Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., 1974 and later ed.
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (English ed.), Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., 1964 and later ed.
Th Greek translation of H.S., by Theodotion, second cent. C.E.
TR Textus Receptus (Received Text) of G.S., by R. Stephanus, 1550.
Vg Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem,W"rttembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975).
Vgc Latin Vulgate, Clementine recension (S. Bagster & Sons, London, 1977).
Vgs Latin Vulgate, Sixtine recension, 1590.
Vgww Novum Testamentum Latine secundum editionem Sancti Hieronymi ad Codicum Manuscriptorum Fidem, by J. Wordsworth and H. J. White, Oxford, 1911.
VT Vetus Testamentum, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands.
W Freer Gospels, fifth cent. C.E., Washington, D.C.
WH The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, 1948 ed. (reprinted in Int).
ZorellGr Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, third ed., by F. Zorell, Paris, 1961.
ZorellHeb Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti, by F. Zorell, Rome, 1968.
* Reading of the original (first) hand of a Greek manuscript.
c Reading of any corrector of a Greek manuscript.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 7:56:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All unnecessary, for even if they possessed them, they laid aside many basic rules of translation in order to push their own crazy ideas, and people like you seek to justify the changes. And that's the reason that you'd like to have EVERYONE use the NWT. That's why you quote it. The so-called and self-styled "Witnesses" prey upon the ignorant and dupe the credulous.

Have you seen any scholars from non-trinitarian groups praising the NWT? Not many, I assure you. You can't take Thayer's Lexicon (Thayer was a unitarian) and get a NWT.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 8:01:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Finally, a word should be said about the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Due to the sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New World Translation is by far the worst translation in English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a sacred cow is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses twist the text and resort to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros. -

Source: Why So Many Versions? and which translation is best? by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

My Source: http://www.gospelcom.net...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:44:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 7:56:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
All unnecessary, for even if they possessed them, they laid aside many basic rules of translation in order to push their own crazy ideas, and people like you seek to justify the changes. And that's the reason that you'd like to have EVERYONE use the NWT. That's why you quote it. The so-called and self-styled "Witnesses" prey upon the ignorant and dupe the credulous.

Have you seen any scholars from non-trinitarian groups praising the NWT? Not many, I assure you. You can't take Thayer's Lexicon (Thayer was a unitarian) and get a NWT.

Yes I have, and so have you, in the list provided by Wikipedia. in their "review" section which is complete with the references to be checked if you wish.

No they didn't they realised that true translation means getting the original ideas of the author across which cannot easily be pinned to a particular set of words.

There is no point in reading anything if you do not truly make the effort to understand, not the words, but what the author intended by those words. Something you fail in dismally. You only demonstrate an interest in what you want words to mean, not what the author wanted them to mean.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:48:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 8:01:39 PM, Composer wrote:
Finally, a word should be said about the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Due to the sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New World Translation is by far the worst translation in English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a sacred cow is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses twist the text and resort to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros. -

Source: Why So Many Versions? and which translation is best? by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

My Source: http://www.gospelcom.net...


Yes they are biased, they are biased towards truth, as am I, which is the only thing with any value to them and to the whole of humanity.

They would not profit in any way from lies, and profit is not their motivation anyway. If it were they wouldn't give everything away free.

Can you point me to one translation which was not slanted towards a bias of some sort? No of course you can't because all translations were made by humans, and even subconsciously they biased their work towards their beliefs.
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 9:04:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here is a novel idea that you might propose to the jehovians.
USE SOMEONE WHO CAN TRANSLATE KOINE GREEK INTO ENGLISH.

They'll never go for it. Oh well I tried.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 9:28:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 4:44:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/16/2013 7:56:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
All unnecessary, for even if they possessed them, they laid aside many basic rules of translation in order to push their own crazy ideas, and people like you seek to justify the changes. And that's the reason that you'd like to have EVERYONE use the NWT. That's why you quote it. The so-called and self-styled "Witnesses" prey upon the ignorant and dupe the credulous.

Have you seen any scholars from non-trinitarian groups praising the NWT? Not many, I assure you. You can't take Thayer's Lexicon (Thayer was a unitarian) and get a NWT.

Yes I have, and so have you, in the list provided by Wikipedia. in their "review" section which is complete with the references to be checked if you wish.

No they didn't they realised that true translation means getting the original ideas of the author across which cannot easily be pinned to a particular set of words.

There is no point in reading anything if you do not truly make the effort to understand, not the words, but what the author intended by those words. Something you fail in dismally. You only demonstrate an interest in what you want words to mean, not what the author wanted them to mean.

Yeah, and when we examined the WatchTower-cited "scholars", we find some of them aren't scholars in the first place - and others of them had statements lifted out of context.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 9:30:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 9:04:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
Here is a novel idea that you might propose to the jehovians.
USE SOMEONE WHO CAN TRANSLATE KOINE GREEK INTO ENGLISH.

They'll never go for it. Oh well I tried.

For all you know, they did, lol. You are good at claiming to know what you cannot have the faintest idea abut aren't you, and gullible enough to listen to those who tell you what you want to hear.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 10:14:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 9:30:23 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/17/2013 9:04:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
Here is a novel idea that you might propose to the jehovians.
USE SOMEONE WHO CAN TRANSLATE KOINE GREEK INTO ENGLISH.

They'll never go for it. Oh well I tried.

For all you know, they did, lol ....

No way. No team of reputable scholars would have put forth the ridiculous translations of the New World perversion. It's one big joke. Who, other than Jehovah's Witnesses, even recommend the translation?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 12:00:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 10:14:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/17/2013 9:30:23 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/17/2013 9:04:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
Here is a novel idea that you might propose to the jehovians.
USE SOMEONE WHO CAN TRANSLATE KOINE GREEK INTO ENGLISH.

They'll never go for it. Oh well I tried.

For all you know, they did, lol ....

No way. No team of reputable scholars would have put forth the ridiculous translations of the New World perversion. It's one big joke. Who, other than Jehovah's Witnesses, even recommend the translation?

That's your opinion, but it is not fact. and since I can, as you have seen demonstrate the same things from every translation that exists isn't even all that relevant.

I know you prefer not to accept what I teach from any of them and that is a choice on which you will be judged, as will we all, but the truth is still the truth whether you want it to be or not.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 12:02:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 9:28:22 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:44:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/16/2013 7:56:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
All unnecessary, for even if they possessed them, they laid aside many basic rules of translation in order to push their own crazy ideas, and people like you seek to justify the changes. And that's the reason that you'd like to have EVERYONE use the NWT. That's why you quote it. The so-called and self-styled "Witnesses" prey upon the ignorant and dupe the credulous.

Have you seen any scholars from non-trinitarian groups praising the NWT? Not many, I assure you. You can't take Thayer's Lexicon (Thayer was a unitarian) and get a NWT.

Yes I have, and so have you, in the list provided by Wikipedia. in their "review" section which is complete with the references to be checked if you wish.

No they didn't they realised that true translation means getting the original ideas of the author across which cannot easily be pinned to a particular set of words.

There is no point in reading anything if you do not truly make the effort to understand, not the words, but what the author intended by those words. Something you fail in dismally. You only demonstrate an interest in what you want words to mean, not what the author wanted them to mean.

Yeah, and when we examined the WatchTower-cited "scholars", we find some of them aren't scholars in the first place - and others of them had statements lifted out of context.

But still accurate statements, and the list I gave you came from Wikipedia not the Watchtower.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 12:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 9:28:22 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:44:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/16/2013 7:56:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
All unnecessary, for even if they possessed them, they laid aside many basic rules of translation in order to push their own crazy ideas, and people like you seek to justify the changes. And that's the reason that you'd like to have EVERYONE use the NWT. That's why you quote it. The so-called and self-styled "Witnesses" prey upon the ignorant and dupe the credulous.

Have you seen any scholars from non-trinitarian groups praising the NWT? Not many, I assure you. You can't take Thayer's Lexicon (Thayer was a unitarian) and get a NWT.

Yes I have, and so have you, in the list provided by Wikipedia. in their "review" section which is complete with the references to be checked if you wish.

No they didn't they realised that true translation means getting the original ideas of the author across which cannot easily be pinned to a particular set of words.

There is no point in reading anything if you do not truly make the effort to understand, not the words, but what the author intended by those words. Something you fail in dismally. You only demonstrate an interest in what you want words to mean, not what the author wanted them to mean.

Yeah, and when we examined the WatchTower-cited "scholars", we find some of them aren't scholars in the first place - and others of them had statements lifted out of context.

I have said this so many times before, I wish you would forget about the Watchtower, you prejudice against them colours everything you think and do.

It is scripture we should be concentrating because it is scripture you have such a need to understand.

The fact that the JWs agree fully with scripture is not really relevant, and if they were ever to depart from it they would be completely irrelevant.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 12:52:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 12:02:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/17/2013 9:28:22 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:44:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/16/2013 7:56:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
All unnecessary, for even if they possessed them, they laid aside many basic rules of translation in order to push their own crazy ideas, and people like you seek to justify the changes. And that's the reason that you'd like to have EVERYONE use the NWT. That's why you quote it. The so-called and self-styled "Witnesses" prey upon the ignorant and dupe the credulous.

Have you seen any scholars from non-trinitarian groups praising the NWT? Not many, I assure you. You can't take Thayer's Lexicon (Thayer was a unitarian) and get a NWT.

Yes I have, and so have you, in the list provided by Wikipedia. in their "review" section which is complete with the references to be checked if you wish.

No they didn't they realised that true translation means getting the original ideas of the author across which cannot easily be pinned to a particular set of words.

There is no point in reading anything if you do not truly make the effort to understand, not the words, but what the author intended by those words. Something you fail in dismally. You only demonstrate an interest in what you want words to mean, not what the author wanted them to mean.

Yeah, and when we examined the WatchTower-cited "scholars", we find some of them aren't scholars in the first place - and others of them had statements lifted out of context.

But still accurate statements, and the list I gave you came from Wikipedia not the Watchtower.

A statement can become inaccurate when someone lifts it out of its original context and attempts to make it say something totally different than what the author intended.

For instance, I could say, "The New World Translation perverted many passage, but did manage to render John 11: 35 accurately. In this case, the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation."

Then you turn it around and quote it as and say, "Concerning the New World Translation, Anna Nicole said, 'the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation'."

You didn't misquote me - and what you said is technically true - but it would be a total misrepresentation. THAT is an example of how the WatchTower handled things. Then they managed to get some quotes from real, living, breathing people - but these people were not Greek or Hebrew scholars in the first place. One was just a magazine editor.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 2:21:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
omnis traductor traditor, every translator is a traitor.
Every translation is a corruption of the original; the reader should take heed of unavoidable imperfections, and if at all possable study the origional language. & if not realize that there will be inacuracies and missed nuances.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:49:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 4:48:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/16/2013 8:01:39 PM, Composer wrote:
Finally, a word should be said about the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Due to the sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New World Translation is by far the worst translation in English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a sacred cow is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses twist the text and resort to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros. -

Source: Why So Many Versions? and which translation is best? by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

My Source: http://www.gospelcom.net...


Yes they are biased, they are biased towards truth, as am I, which is the only thing with any value to them and to the whole of humanity.

They would not profit in any way from lies, and profit is not their motivation anyway. If it were they wouldn't give everything away free.

Can you point me to one translation which was not slanted towards a bias of some sort? No of course you can't because all translations were made by humans, and even subconsciously they biased their work towards their beliefs.

It's impossible for sinners to translate the scriptures from one language to another. We saints are the only one's who contain God's servant to testify to His Truth in writing and speaking. Even our bodily movements are testimonies to the Truth.

Christians don't have any knowledge of God to testify to so they translate from their flesh that deceives them. This is why there's so many different translations and why most of the original writings of the saints were never used for the Roman new testament. The new testament was produced to make sure that no more saints would exist in this world. The Vatican made sure that they added plenty of their religious ideas mixed with some ideas taken from the saint's writings to confuse the readers of their new testament. They did a great job in this deception.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 5:20:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 4:49:03 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:48:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/16/2013 8:01:39 PM, Composer wrote:
Finally, a word should be said about the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Due to the sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New World Translation is by far the worst translation in English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a sacred cow is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses twist the text and resort to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros. -

Source: Why So Many Versions? and which translation is best? by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

My Source: http://www.gospelcom.net...


Yes they are biased, they are biased towards truth, as am I, which is the only thing with any value to them and to the whole of humanity.

They would not profit in any way from lies, and profit is not their motivation anyway. If it were they wouldn't give everything away free.

Can you point me to one translation which was not slanted towards a bias of some sort? No of course you can't because all translations were made by humans, and even subconsciously they biased their work towards their beliefs.

It's impossible for sinners to translate the scriptures from one language to another. We saints are the only one's who contain God's servant to testify to His Truth in writing and speaking. Even our bodily movements are testimonies to the Truth.

Christians don't have any knowledge of God to testify to so they translate from their flesh that deceives them. This is why there's so many different translations and why most of the original writings of the saints were never used for the Roman new testament. The new testament was produced to make sure that no more saints would exist in this world. The Vatican made sure that they added plenty of their religious ideas mixed with some ideas taken from the saint's writings to confuse the readers of their new testament. They did a great job in this deception.

That is, to be blunt, a load of "bodily movements", lol
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 5:23:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 2:21:36 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
omnis traductor traditor, every translator is a traitor.
Every translation is a corruption of the original; the reader should take heed of unavoidable imperfections, and if at all possable study the origional language. & if not realize that there will be inacuracies and missed nuances.

That is very true, and I have to admit I would like to,, but the point is that with scripture it is possible to get to the essence of it if you get to know the theme of it well enough
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 5:26:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 12:52:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/17/2013 12:02:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/17/2013 9:28:22 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:44:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/16/2013 7:56:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
All unnecessary, for even if they possessed them, they laid aside many basic rules of translation in order to push their own crazy ideas, and people like you seek to justify the changes. And that's the reason that you'd like to have EVERYONE use the NWT. That's why you quote it. The so-called and self-styled "Witnesses" prey upon the ignorant and dupe the credulous.

Have you seen any scholars from non-trinitarian groups praising the NWT? Not many, I assure you. You can't take Thayer's Lexicon (Thayer was a unitarian) and get a NWT.

Yes I have, and so have you, in the list provided by Wikipedia. in their "review" section which is complete with the references to be checked if you wish.

No they didn't they realised that true translation means getting the original ideas of the author across which cannot easily be pinned to a particular set of words.

There is no point in reading anything if you do not truly make the effort to understand, not the words, but what the author intended by those words. Something you fail in dismally. You only demonstrate an interest in what you want words to mean, not what the author wanted them to mean.

Yeah, and when we examined the WatchTower-cited "scholars", we find some of them aren't scholars in the first place - and others of them had statements lifted out of context.

But still accurate statements, and the list I gave you came from Wikipedia not the Watchtower.

A statement can become inaccurate when someone lifts it out of its original context and attempts to make it say something totally different than what the author intended.

For instance, I could say, "The New World Translation perverted many passage, but did manage to render John 11: 35 accurately. In this case, the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation."

Then you turn it around and quote it as and say, "Concerning the New World Translation, Anna Nicole said, 'the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation'."

You didn't misquote me - and what you said is technically true - but it would be a total misrepresentation. THAT is an example of how the WatchTower handled things. Then they managed to get some quotes from real, living, breathing people - but these people were not Greek or Hebrew scholars in the first place. One was just a magazine editor.

Yes I know you can Anna and you frequently do. You have to to support your beliefs. You cannot support your beliefs without ignoring the overall context of scripture.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 7:09:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: "A statement can become inaccurate when someone lifts it out of its original context and attempts to make it say something totally different than what the author intended.

For instance, I could say, "The New World Translation perverted many passage, but did manage to render John 11: 35 accurately. In this case, the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation."

Then you turn it around and quote it as and say, "Concerning the New World Translation, Anna Nicole said, 'the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation'."

You didn't misquote me - and what you said is technically true - but it would be a total misrepresentation. THAT is an example of how the WatchTower handled things. Then they managed to get some quotes from real, living, breathing people - but these people were not Greek or Hebrew scholars in the first place. One was just a magazine editor."

MCB: "Yes I know you can Anna and you frequently do. You have to to support your beliefs. You cannot support your beliefs without ignoring the overall context of scripture."

Anna: Yes, I can ... what? "Overall context of scripture" has nothing to do with whether "ego eimi" is first person, present tense or not. The fact of the matter is: "ego eimi" is first person, present tense and as such in a declarative sentence is translated "I am". You have offered no reliable proof of any kind, anywhere, anyhow. Now you down to whining, "Overall context" - knowing that context can't change the present to the present perfect - or vice versa.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 9:05:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 12:41:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/17/2013 9:28:22 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:44:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/16/2013 7:56:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
All unnecessary, for even if they possessed them, they laid aside many basic rules of translation in order to push their own crazy ideas, and people like you seek to justify the changes. And that's the reason that you'd like to have EVERYONE use the NWT. That's why you quote it. The so-called and self-styled "Witnesses" prey upon the ignorant and dupe the credulous.

Have you seen any scholars from non-trinitarian groups praising the NWT? Not many, I assure you. You can't take Thayer's Lexicon (Thayer was a unitarian) and get a NWT.

Yes I have, and so have you, in the list provided by Wikipedia. in their "review" section which is complete with the references to be checked if you wish.

No they didn't they realised that true translation means getting the original ideas of the author across which cannot easily be pinned to a particular set of words.

There is no point in reading anything if you do not truly make the effort to understand, not the words, but what the author intended by those words. Something you fail in dismally. You only demonstrate an interest in what you want words to mean, not what the author wanted them to mean.

Yeah, and when we examined the WatchTower-cited "scholars", we find some of them aren't scholars in the first place - and others of them had statements lifted out of context.

I have said this so many times before, I wish you would forget about the Watchtower, you prejudice against them colours everything you think and do.

It is scripture we should be concentrating because it is scripture you have such a need to understand.

The fact that the JWs agree fully with scripture is not really relevant, and if they were ever to depart from it they would be completely irrelevant.

Not true, in fact a blatant lie.
Scripture without the watchtower will lead you astray, jehovian doctrine.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 9:50:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bulproof: "Not true, in fact a blatant lie. Scripture without the watchtower will lead you astray, jehovian doctrine."

Anna: Bingo! That's why he's constantly redefining plain words, retranslating scripture, and making prophesies a potpourri of "partially fulfilled" and "short-term" and "long-term" fulfillments. It all links back to what he calls "God's original plan" and the "overall context of scripture" - that is, the plan and context as filtered through the WatchTower's activated charcoal. They know full well that a person cannot take the scriptures alone and possibly come up with WatchTower doctrines: they've said so many times. Many, many times. They've also said that one could understand the scriptures acceptably by only reading their literature. I take that to mean that one can learn more by reading their literature than by reading the scriptures.

Thus, the scriptures are locked, and Bethel holds the key. (He uses the word "veiled", as in obscure, cloudy, hidden.) That's a dangerous policy if one believes it, for it is a giant step towards being brainwashed.

Brainwashed ---> "when you get kicked out, bite your tongue and come groveling back - or you'll die in Armageddon"
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 2:46:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 9:50:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
Bulproof: "Not true, in fact a blatant lie. Scripture without the watchtower will lead you astray, jehovian doctrine."

Anna: Bingo! That's why he's constantly redefining plain words, retranslating scripture, and making prophesies a potpourri of "partially fulfilled" and "short-term" and "long-term" fulfillments. It all links back to what he calls "God's original plan" and the "overall context of scripture" - that is, the plan and context as filtered through the WatchTower's activated charcoal. They know full well that a person cannot take the scriptures alone and possibly come up with WatchTower doctrines: they've said so many times. Many, many times. They've also said that one could understand the scriptures acceptably by only reading their literature. I take that to mean that one can learn more by reading their literature than by reading the scriptures.

Thus, the scriptures are locked, and Bethel holds the key. (He uses the word "veiled", as in obscure, cloudy, hidden.) That's a dangerous policy if one believes it, for it is a giant step towards being brainwashed.

Brainwashed ---> "when you get kicked out, bite your tongue and come groveling back - or you'll die in Armageddon"

We are all brainwashed, at least mine if washed by holy spirit.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 2:52:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 9:05:25 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/17/2013 12:41:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/17/2013 9:28:22 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:44:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/16/2013 7:56:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
All unnecessary, for even if they possessed them, they laid aside many basic rules of translation in order to push their own crazy ideas, and people like you seek to justify the changes. And that's the reason that you'd like to have EVERYONE use the NWT. That's why you quote it. The so-called and self-styled "Witnesses" prey upon the ignorant and dupe the credulous.

Have you seen any scholars from non-trinitarian groups praising the NWT? Not many, I assure you. You can't take Thayer's Lexicon (Thayer was a unitarian) and get a NWT.

Yes I have, and so have you, in the list provided by Wikipedia. in their "review" section which is complete with the references to be checked if you wish.

No they didn't they realised that true translation means getting the original ideas of the author across which cannot easily be pinned to a particular set of words.

There is no point in reading anything if you do not truly make the effort to understand, not the words, but what the author intended by those words. Something you fail in dismally. You only demonstrate an interest in what you want words to mean, not what the author wanted them to mean.

Yeah, and when we examined the WatchTower-cited "scholars", we find some of them aren't scholars in the first place - and others of them had statements lifted out of context.

I have said this so many times before, I wish you would forget about the Watchtower, you prejudice against them colours everything you think and do.

It is scripture we should be concentrating because it is scripture you have such a need to understand.

The fact that the JWs agree fully with scripture is not really relevant, and if they were ever to depart from it they would be completely irrelevant.

Not true, in fact a blatant lie.
Scripture without the watchtower will lead you astray, jehovian doctrine.

You might think so but you are wrong, studying the bible outside of God's organisation, whether the Israelites, the 1st century Christians or his modern day people, in their god, chosen turns, has always left you open to Satanic influence, that is one reason there are so many false "Christianities" about. God is all about unity Satan believes in divide and conquer.

Do you think true followers of Christ are any strangers to being called liars by the master liar and those he influences, after all as scripture tells us the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one, currently.

Few are prepared to trust God and Christ fully.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 2:54:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 7:09:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: "A statement can become inaccurate when someone lifts it out of its original context and attempts to make it say something totally different than what the author intended.

For instance, I could say, "The New World Translation perverted many passage, but did manage to render John 11: 35 accurately. In this case, the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation."

Then you turn it around and quote it as and say, "Concerning the New World Translation, Anna Nicole said, 'the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation'."

You didn't misquote me - and what you said is technically true - but it would be a total misrepresentation. THAT is an example of how the WatchTower handled things. Then they managed to get some quotes from real, living, breathing people - but these people were not Greek or Hebrew scholars in the first place. One was just a magazine editor."

MCB: "Yes I know you can Anna and you frequently do. You have to to support your beliefs. You cannot support your beliefs without ignoring the overall context of scripture."

Anna: Yes, I can ... what? "Overall context of scripture" has nothing to do with whether "ego eimi" is first person, present tense or not. The fact of the matter is: "ego eimi" is first person, present tense and as such in a declarative sentence is translated "I am". You have offered no reliable proof of any kind, anywhere, anyhow. Now you down to whining, "Overall context" - knowing that context can't change the present to the present perfect - or vice versa.

I know it can which is why so much of your beliefs exist because you lift scripture our of the context if the whole story, and why I refuse to.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 2:57:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 2:52:49 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Satan believes in divide and conquer.
Still waiting for you to show us your Satan ideology using the YLT & Watchtower E.D narratives?

You are an agent of the J.ws Satan, so you shouldn't have any problems? LMAO at MCB!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 3:28:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 2:57:41 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/18/2013 2:52:49 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Satan believes in divide and conquer.
Still waiting for you to show us your Satan ideology using the YLT & Watchtower E.D narratives?

You are an agent of the J.ws Satan, so you shouldn't have any problems? LMAO at MCB!


My ideology is not Satanic at all, and is spelt out in scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

My "ideology, as you put it is simply stated in two Mosaic Law commands quoted by Christ at:

Matthew 22: 35 And one of them, versed in the Law,+ asked, testing him: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this, "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Those two scriptures are:

Deuteronomy 6:5
5 And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart+ and all your soul+ and all your vital force.

and a distillation of the essence of:

Deuteronomy 6:5
5 And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart+ and all your soul+ and all your vital force.

We need no more because as Paul says:

Romans 13:10
10 Love does not work evil to one"s neighbor; therefore love is the law"s fulfillment.

Galatians 5:14
14 For the entire Law stands fulfilled in one saying, namely: "You must love your neighbor as yourself."

Which of course all begs the question, asked of Jess himself, "who really is my neighbour".

Jesus answered that question with the parable of the Good Samaritan, where a hated enemy took pity on a wounded Jew and cared for him. Jesus point? Our neighbour is anyone who needs our help, even an enemy.

Fr followers of Christ today that means all who do not know the truth and need the help of myself and others like me to help them find it. Even if they are agents of Satan like you.

Luke 11:23
23 He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters.

Which makes it clear that Christ believes that anyone who is not on his side, and therefore not on the side of his allies such as me, is against him and will reap as they sow.

My situation with the heavenly arm of God's organisation is not affected by my situation with the earthly arm. No human, even in God's organisation can tell God and Christ who to accept and who to reject.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 3:45:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 2:54:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/17/2013 7:09:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: "A statement can become inaccurate when someone lifts it out of its original context and attempts to make it say something totally different than what the author intended.

For instance, I could say, "The New World Translation perverted many passage, but did manage to render John 11: 35 accurately. In this case, the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation."

Then you turn it around and quote it as and say, "Concerning the New World Translation, Anna Nicole said, 'the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation'."

You didn't misquote me - and what you said is technically true - but it would be a total misrepresentation. THAT is an example of how the WatchTower handled things. Then they managed to get some quotes from real, living, breathing people - but these people were not Greek or Hebrew scholars in the first place. One was just a magazine editor."

MCB: "Yes I know you can Anna and you frequently do. You have to to support your beliefs. You cannot support your beliefs without ignoring the overall context of scripture."

Anna: Yes, I can ... what? "Overall context of scripture" has nothing to do with whether "ego eimi" is first person, present tense or not. The fact of the matter is: "ego eimi" is first person, present tense and as such in a declarative sentence is translated "I am". You have offered no reliable proof of any kind, anywhere, anyhow. Now you down to whining, "Overall context" - knowing that context can't change the present to the present perfect - or vice versa.

I know it can which is why so much of your beliefs exist because you lift scripture our of the context if the whole story, and why I refuse to.

Really? Then why don't you translate the words "ego eimi" for us as it should be translated in a declarative sentence? Give us all the possible translations - and the grammatical/lexicographical support for these translations in a declarative.

You won't do it. Dunno why I bothered typing it. You can't.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 4:28:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 3:45:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/18/2013 2:54:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/17/2013 7:09:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: "A statement can become inaccurate when someone lifts it out of its original context and attempts to make it say something totally different than what the author intended.

For instance, I could say, "The New World Translation perverted many passage, but did manage to render John 11: 35 accurately. In this case, the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation."

Then you turn it around and quote it as and say, "Concerning the New World Translation, Anna Nicole said, 'the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation'."

You didn't misquote me - and what you said is technically true - but it would be a total misrepresentation. THAT is an example of how the WatchTower handled things. Then they managed to get some quotes from real, living, breathing people - but these people were not Greek or Hebrew scholars in the first place. One was just a magazine editor."

MCB: "Yes I know you can Anna and you frequently do. You have to to support your beliefs. You cannot support your beliefs without ignoring the overall context of scripture."

Anna: Yes, I can ... what? "Overall context of scripture" has nothing to do with whether "ego eimi" is first person, present tense or not. The fact of the matter is: "ego eimi" is first person, present tense and as such in a declarative sentence is translated "I am". You have offered no reliable proof of any kind, anywhere, anyhow. Now you down to whining, "Overall context" - knowing that context can't change the present to the present perfect - or vice versa.

I know it can which is why so much of your beliefs exist because you lift scripture our of the context if the whole story, and why I refuse to.

Really? Then why don't you translate the words "ego eimi" for us as it should be translated in a declarative sentence? Give us all the possible translations - and the grammatical/lexicographical support for these translations in a declarative.

You won't do it. Dunno why I bothered typing it. You can't.

Neither do I because I have never claimed to be able to. Apart from which I am not really interested in pointless arguments over words.

1 Timothy 6: 4,5 he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions, 5 violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind and despoiled of the truth, thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 4:44:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: "A statement can become inaccurate when someone lifts it out of its original context and attempts to make it say something totally different than what the author intended.

For instance, I could say, "The New World Translation perverted many passage, but did manage to render John 11: 35 accurately. In this case, the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation."

Then you turn it around and quote it as and say, "Concerning the New World Translation, Anna Nicole said, 'the WatchTower rendered an accurate translation'."

You didn't misquote me - and what you said is technically true - but it would be a total misrepresentation. THAT is an example of how the WatchTower handled things. Then they managed to get some quotes from real, living, breathing people - but these people were not Greek or Hebrew scholars in the first place. One was just a magazine editor."

MCB: "Yes I know you can Anna and you frequently do. You have to to support your beliefs. You cannot support your beliefs without ignoring the overall context of scripture."

Anna: Yes, I can ... what? "Overall context of scripture" has nothing to do with whether "ego eimi" is first person, present tense or not. The fact of the matter is: "ego eimi" is first person, present tense and as such in a declarative sentence is translated "I am". You have offered no reliable proof of any kind, anywhere, anyhow. Now you down to whining, "Overall context" - knowing that context can't change the present to the present perfect - or vice versa.

I know it can which is why so much of your beliefs exist because you lift scripture our of the context if the whole story, and why I refuse to.

Really? Then why don't you translate the words "ego eimi" for us as it should be translated in a declarative sentence? Give us all the possible translations - and the grammatical/lexicographical support for these translations in a declarative.

You won't do it. Dunno why I bothered typing it. You can't.

MCB: Neither do I because I have never claimed to be able to. Apart from which I am not really interested in pointless arguments over words.


Oh, excuse me then. I thought you were the one who argued endlessly over the translation of John 1: 1. As far as being pointless .... oh, it has a point, I assure you. If it didn't, the WatchTower wouldn't have changed it to "I have been" when every scholar and every Greek-English Bible translation renders it "I am".

If it were pointless, you'd have no problem saying that "ego" means I, first person singular nominative. "Eimi" is the singular, present tense conjugate of "to be". Pretty simple. Then you can kinda check yourself by reading twenty or thirty translation, including those by unitarians. Then you can easily check lexicons and grammars. Thirty minutes max. Spend those thirty minutes, and you'll never again be confused over translating those two words in a declarative sentence.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."