Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Colossians 1:16, 17

tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:21:03 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
It has come to my attention that some people take an issue with the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:16, 17:
"because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Specifically, they take issue with the underlined "other" additions. Compare this to a more "acceptable" translation like the NIV:
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

So why did the NWT committee add the word "other" to both of these verses? Is it grammatically acceptable to do so? First, let me address whether or not it was grammatically correct. The short answer is yes. Consider Acts 5:29, which reads:
"Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!" (NIV)

The KJV, NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, etc. all add the word "other" in this verse despite it not being in the Greek. This is completely acceptable! Isaiah 45:14 is rendered as "there is no other god" in the NASB, NEB, REB, NIV, JB, NJB, NKJV, ETRV, BBE, NLV, MKJV, MLB, etc. despite the word "other" not being in the Hebrew manuscripts. Similarly, translations such as the NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, and LB translate Ezekiel 31:5 as "all other trees." This is in regards to a tree being taller that "all other trees." The word "other" was added in those translations because the tree cannot be taller than itself. It is not taller than "all trees," but "all other trees."

Compare this to Colossians 1:16, 17. Jesus did not create himself, so all other things were created through him. He cannot be before himself, so he is before all other things. This is why the NWT adds the word "other" in these verses.

In conclusion, the renderings of Colossians 1: 16, 17 in the NWT are grammatically acceptable and reasonable.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:42:41 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Yep, it's okay to correct and improve God's grammar. He would approve, I'm sure. It makes him look like a better writer.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:06:06 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:21:03 AM, tstor wrote:
It has come to my attention that some people take an issue with the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:16, 17:
"because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Specifically, they take issue with the underlined "other" additions. Compare this to a more "acceptable" translation like the NIV:
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

So why did the NWT committee add the word "other" to both of these verses? Is it grammatically acceptable to do so? First, let me address whether or not it was grammatically correct. The short answer is yes. Consider Acts 5:29, which reads:
"Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!" (NIV)

The KJV, NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, etc. all add the word "other" in this verse despite it not being in the Greek. This is completely acceptable! Isaiah 45:14 is rendered as "there is no other god" in the NASB, NEB, REB, NIV, JB, NJB, NKJV, ETRV, BBE, NLV, MKJV, MLB, etc. despite the word "other" not being in the Hebrew manuscripts. Similarly, translations such as the NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, and LB translate Ezekiel 31:5 as "all other trees." This is in regards to a tree being taller that "all other trees." The word "other" was added in those translations because the tree cannot be taller than itself. It is not taller than "all trees," but "all other trees."

Compare this to Colossians 1:16, 17. Jesus did not create himself, so all other things were created through him. He cannot be before himself, so he is before all other things. This is why the NWT adds the word "other" in these verses.

In conclusion, the renderings of Colossians 1: 16, 17 in the NWT are grammatically acceptable and reasonable.

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

kjv..

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
nkjv

for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.

asv

not seeing other, it is a deceptive nwt game played to change the word to fit the jw doctrines..
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:14:02 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
When it comes to NWT, it"s not about grammar it"s about the scripture stating what the original writers wrote. As opposed to what a group of people agreeing on what they think it ought to say.

Its my understanding that the JW denomination doesn"t acknowledge Jesus Christ as "God with us" and say otherwise. Hence the intent of the translation. It"s a classic case of make the scriptures match your own beliefs. They went as far as publishing it.

A example of a key conflict is the Gospel according to John

NWT 1:1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God.3 All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.5 And the light is shining in the darkness,+ but the darkness has not overpowered it.

KJV
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4: In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5: And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Acknowledgment of who Jesus is, is key to one"s salvation demonstrated in the thief on the cross who acknowledged the Lord and was promised paradise that day on acknowledgment alone.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 8:27:24 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 2:06:06 PM, graceofgod wrote:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

kjv..


For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
nkjv

for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.

asv

not seeing other, it is a deceptive nwt game played to change the word to fit the jw doctrines..
Read what I have already stated. I am not going to repeat myself just because you are lazy.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 8:27:27 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 3:14:02 PM, DPMartin wrote:
When it comes to NWT, it"s not about grammar it"s about the scripture stating what the original writers wrote. As opposed to what a group of people agreeing on what they think it ought to say.

Its my understanding that the JW denomination doesn"t acknowledge Jesus Christ as "God with us" and say otherwise. Hence the intent of the translation. It"s a classic case of make the scriptures match your own beliefs. They went as far as publishing it.

A example of a key conflict is the Gospel according to John

NWT 1:1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God.3 All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.5 And the light is shining in the darkness,+ but the darkness has not overpowered it.

KJV
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4: In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5: And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Acknowledgment of who Jesus is, is key to one"s salvation demonstrated in the thief on the cross who acknowledged the Lord and was promised paradise that day on acknowledgment alone.
This post is not about John 1:1. I have discussed it at great lengths numerous times on this forum. This thread is not the place for it.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:06:53 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 8:27:24 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 2:06:06 PM, graceofgod wrote:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

kjv..


For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
nkjv

for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.

asv

not seeing other, it is a deceptive nwt game played to change the word to fit the jw doctrines..
Read what I have already stated. I am not going to repeat myself just because you are lazy.

I did read it you claimed various versions had the word other in those scriptures and they clearly do not..

just the perverted nwt version does and we all know why because it works with their doctrines and nothing else...

same as the word for worship, which is used correctly in the nwt until it interferes with their michael Jesus rubbish...lol

and lets not forget the infamous "A god" in john...

the nwt goes beyond poor translation and goes straight in to deceit...

it's not surprising only the jw's will use it..
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:18:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:06:53 PM, graceofgod wrote:

Read what I have already stated. I am not going to repeat myself just because you are lazy.

I did read it you claimed various versions had the word other in those scriptures and they clearly do not..
I did not claim that the word "other" was in Colossians 1:16, 17 for the KJV or ASV. You would be fully aware of that if you read what I typed.

just the perverted nwt version does and we all know why because it works with their doctrines and nothing else...
I showed that it is grammatically valid and perfectly acceptable. Once again, read what I typed and then respond.

same as the word for worship, which is used correctly in the nwt until it interferes with their michael Jesus rubbish...lol
Perhaps your lack of understanding comes from a lack of research. Well, I know it does.

and lets not forget the infamous "A god" in john...
This thread is not about John 1:1c. Since you cannot even understand this very elementary post I have made in regards to Colossians 1:16, 17, then I cannot imagine how tedious it would be to discuss 1:1c with you.

the nwt goes beyond poor translation and goes straight in to deceit...

it's not surprising only the jw's will use it..
I appreciate your thorough examination of NWT. Ever thought of publishing a book about it?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:46:59 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:18:32 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:06:53 PM, graceofgod wrote:

Read what I have already stated. I am not going to repeat myself just because you are lazy.

I did read it you claimed various versions had the word other in those scriptures and they clearly do not..
I did not claim that the word "other" was in Colossians 1:16, 17 for the KJV or ASV. You would be fully aware of that if you read what I typed.

just the perverted nwt version does and we all know why because it works with their doctrines and nothing else...
I showed that it is grammatically valid and perfectly acceptable. Once again, read what I typed and then respond.

same as the word for worship, which is used correctly in the nwt until it interferes with their michael Jesus rubbish...lol
Perhaps your lack of understanding comes from a lack of research. Well, I know it does.

and lets not forget the infamous "A god" in john...
This thread is not about John 1:1c. Since you cannot even understand this very elementary post I have made in regards to Colossians 1:16, 17, then I cannot imagine how tedious it would be to discuss 1:1c with you.

the nwt goes beyond poor translation and goes straight in to deceit...

it's not surprising only the jw's will use it..
I appreciate your thorough examination of NWT. Ever thought of publishing a book about it?

non the nwt translations are valid, they are not done for correct reasons merely to peddle the jw doctrines...

never thought about using the nwt for anything other than toilet paper to be honest...

1 john it is yet another example of the nwt deceit...
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:51:06 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:46:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:

non the nwt translations are valid, they are not done for correct reasons merely to peddle the jw doctrines...
That sentence does not make any sense. Are you suggesting that the NWT does not render a single verse correctly? That is ridiculous. Consider Genesis 1:1:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Tell me, which one of the above renderings is the KJV and which one is the NWT?

never thought about using the nwt for anything other than toilet paper to be honest...
It is a shame, as it is arguably the most accurate rendering of the Bible today.

1 john it is yet another example of the nwt deceit...
Any specific verse in 1 John? Stop trying to derail the thread. This thread deals with Colossians 1:16, 17, not any verse in 1 John.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:57:51 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:51:06 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:46:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:

non the nwt translations are valid, they are not done for correct reasons merely to peddle the jw doctrines...
That sentence does not make any sense. Are you suggesting that the NWT does not render a single verse correctly? That is ridiculous. Consider Genesis 1:1:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Tell me, which one of the above renderings is the KJV and which one is the NWT?

never thought about using the nwt for anything other than toilet paper to be honest...
It is a shame, as it is arguably the most accurate rendering of the Bible today.

1 john it is yet another example of the nwt deceit...
Any specific verse in 1 John? Stop trying to derail the thread. This thread deals with Colossians 1:16, 17, not any verse in 1 John.

lol the nwt can get it right unless it mentions Jesus as God then it must be changed...lol

that is pure perversion of God's word...

you know that little pesky the word is "a" god...lol

it is in keeping with the thread as it highlights other jw deceits and shows us what to expect from the nwt..

did you say you are or aren't a jw?/
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:59:06 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 8:27:27 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:14:02 PM, DPMartin wrote:
When it comes to NWT, it"s not about grammar it"s about the scripture stating what the original writers wrote. As opposed to what a group of people agreeing on what they think it ought to say.

Its my understanding that the JW denomination doesn"t acknowledge Jesus Christ as "God with us" and say otherwise. Hence the intent of the translation. It"s a classic case of make the scriptures match your own beliefs. They went as far as publishing it.

A example of a key conflict is the Gospel according to John

NWT 1:1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God.3 All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.5 And the light is shining in the darkness,+ but the darkness has not overpowered it.

KJV
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4: In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5: And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Acknowledgment of who Jesus is, is key to one"s salvation demonstrated in the thief on the cross who acknowledged the Lord and was promised paradise that day on acknowledgment alone.
This post is not about John 1:1. I have discussed it at great lengths numerous times on this forum. This thread is not the place for it.

If the differences in text is deliberate to make the text mean something different then grammatical differences anywhere else in the text is not an issue at all, is it? So what was the thread for again?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:07:38 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:57:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:

lol the nwt can get it right unless it mentions Jesus as God then it must be changed...lol
Sorry, but Jesus is not God. The trinity was forced onto Christians in 325AD by a pagan emperor. The Bible has no part of it. Unless the user "damey" takes up the debate soon, you can debate me on it here:
http://www.debate.org...

that is pure perversion of God's word...
How ironic.

you know that little pesky the word is "a" god...lol

it is in keeping with the thread as it highlights other jw deceits and shows us what to expect from the nwt..
The only people who are deceitful are the anti-JWs. I exposed quite a bit of deceit here:
http://witnessofjah.blogspot.com...

did you say you are or aren't a jw?/
Nope
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:07:40 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:59:06 PM, DPMartin wrote:

If the differences in text is deliberate to make the text mean something different then grammatical differences anywhere else in the text is not an issue at all, is it? So what was the thread for again?
Read the title.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:12:45 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:07:38 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:57:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:

lol the nwt can get it right unless it mentions Jesus as God then it must be changed...lol
Sorry, but Jesus is not God. The trinity was forced onto Christians in 325AD by a pagan emperor. The Bible has no part of it. Unless the user "damey" takes up the debate soon, you can debate me on it here:
http://www.debate.org...

that is pure perversion of God's word...
How ironic.

you know that little pesky the word is "a" god...lol

it is in keeping with the thread as it highlights other jw deceits and shows us what to expect from the nwt..
The only people who are deceitful are the anti-JWs. I exposed quite a bit of deceit here:
http://witnessofjah.blogspot.com...

did you say you are or aren't a jw?/
Nope

So you are saying you are not a jw??

no the trinity is quite clear in scripture, far more clear than the idea that michael is Jesus yet you seem to think that is fine??

the anti jw's, you mean those who show the jw's for the decievers they are and always will be..??
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:18:41 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:12:45 PM, graceofgod wrote:

So you are saying you are not a jw??
That is precisely what I am saying. Read my profile.

no the trinity is quite clear in scripture, far more clear than the idea that michael is Jesus yet you seem to think that is fine??
Then debate me on the topic. Just let me know if you want the debate and I will give it to you.

the anti jw's, you mean those who show the jw's for the decievers they are and always will be..??
That is their goal, yes. Turns out they have to lie to achieve it.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:25:55 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:18:41 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 11:12:45 PM, graceofgod wrote:

So you are saying you are not a jw??
That is precisely what I am saying. Read my profile.

no the trinity is quite clear in scripture, far more clear than the idea that michael is Jesus yet you seem to think that is fine??
Then debate me on the topic. Just let me know if you want the debate and I will give it to you.

the anti jw's, you mean those who show the jw's for the decievers they are and always will be..??
That is their goal, yes. Turns out they have to lie to achieve it.

lol so you constantly defend the jw's even their terrible effort at rewriting the bible and yet you are not a jw...lol

go ahead start a thread on the trinity.... we can chat there...

So why would they lie about the jw's?? are all the errors the jw's have made not proof of the jw's deceit??
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:28:14 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:25:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:

lol so you constantly defend the jw's even their terrible effort at rewriting the bible and yet you are not a jw...lol
I can find the good and bad in any religion.

go ahead start a thread on the trinity.... we can chat there...
Or you can debate me. I see that you not been in a debate, so this should be an easy one for you to get warmed up.

So why would they lie about the jw's?? are all the errors the jw's have made not proof of the jw's deceit??
Errors? Nope. They are allowed to make errors.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:36:20 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:28:14 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 11:25:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:

lol so you constantly defend the jw's even their terrible effort at rewriting the bible and yet you are not a jw...lol
I can find the good and bad in any religion.

go ahead start a thread on the trinity.... we can chat there...
Or you can debate me. I see that you not been in a debate, so this should be an easy one for you to get warmed up.

So why would they lie about the jw's?? are all the errors the jw's have made not proof of the jw's deceit??
Errors? Nope. They are allowed to make errors.

I only do open debate, start a thread....

they are not allowed to make errors at all, if they are the only true organisation talking to God, they would get everything right or are you saying God can be wrong??

I think you yourself are practiced in deceit...
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:54:22 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:36:20 PM, graceofgod wrote:

I only do open debate, start a thread....
And by that do you mean you like to let Anna and others debate for you?

they are not allowed to make errors at all, if they are the only true organisation talking to God, they would get everything right or are you saying God can be wrong??
Sorry, but that is not what the Watchtower publishes. They openly admit that they can make mistakes, as well as the fact that they have.

I think you yourself are practiced in deceit...
Sure.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 10:47:29 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:54:22 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 11:36:20 PM, graceofgod wrote:

I only do open debate, start a thread....
And by that do you mean you like to let Anna and others debate for you?

they are not allowed to make errors at all, if they are the only true organisation talking to God, they would get everything right or are you saying God can be wrong??
Sorry, but that is not what the Watchtower publishes. They openly admit that they can make mistakes, as well as the fact that they have.

I think you yourself are practiced in deceit...
Sure.

No i don't do open debate, I will happily debate you on a topic you care to start unlike you I have my own voice I don't have to tow the official line of an organisation...

they have to admit they make mistakes because the cat is out the bag, if they are told by God they should always be right it is that simple...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 10:48:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 10:47:29 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 12/14/2015 11:54:22 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 11:36:20 PM, graceofgod wrote:

I only do open debate, start a thread....
And by that do you mean you like to let Anna and others debate for you?

they are not allowed to make errors at all, if they are the only true organisation talking to God, they would get everything right or are you saying God can be wrong??
Sorry, but that is not what the Watchtower publishes. They openly admit that they can make mistakes, as well as the fact that they have.

I think you yourself are practiced in deceit...
Sure.

No i don't do direct debate, I will happily debate you on a topic you care to start unlike you I have my own voice I don't have to tow the official line of an organisation...

they have to admit they make mistakes because the cat is out the bag, if they are told by God they should always be right it is that simple...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 1:23:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:21:03 AM, tstor wrote:
It has come to my attention that some people take an issue with the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:16, 17:
"because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Specifically, they take issue with the underlined "other" additions. Compare this to a more "acceptable" translation like the NIV:
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

So why did the NWT committee add the word "other" to both of these verses? Is it grammatically acceptable to do so? First, let me address whether or not it was grammatically correct. The short answer is yes. Consider Acts 5:29, which reads:
"Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!" (NIV)

The KJV, NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, etc. all add the word "other" in this verse despite it not being in the Greek. This is completely acceptable! Isaiah 45:14 is rendered as "there is no other god" in the NASB, NEB, REB, NIV, JB, NJB, NKJV, ETRV, BBE, NLV, MKJV, MLB, etc. despite the word "other" not being in the Hebrew manuscripts. Similarly, translations such as the NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, and LB translate Ezekiel 31:5 as "all other trees." This is in regards to a tree being taller that "all other trees." The word "other" was added in those translations because the tree cannot be taller than itself. It is not taller than "all trees," but "all other trees."

Compare this to Colossians 1:16, 17. Jesus did not create himself, so all other things were created through him. He cannot be before himself, so he is before all other things. This is why the NWT adds the word "other" in these verses.

In conclusion, the renderings of Colossians 1: 16, 17 in the NWT are grammatically acceptable and reasonable.

The thing people wilfully ignore is the simple fact that the word "other" makes no difference whatever to the meaning of the verse, it simply clarifies it.

They ignore that because Satan blinds them to the stupidity of their complaint.

After all, whatever you believe about the origin of the Word, whom John describes as Jehovah's only begotten son, he can only have helped in the creation of all other things. He cannot have created himself.

It is so typical of the "arguments about words" which scripture tells us to avoid.

Some people are so determined to support their biased objections about the JWs that they fail to recognise the truth of what scripture teaches.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 1:29:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:54:22 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 11:36:20 PM, graceofgod wrote:

I only do open debate, start a thread....
And by that do you mean you like to let Anna and others debate for you?

they are not allowed to make errors at all, if they are the only true organisation talking to God, they would get everything right or are you saying God can be wrong??
Sorry, but that is not what the Watchtower publishes. They openly admit that they can make mistakes, as well as the fact that they have.
You are obviously not acquainted with the jehovian publications concerning how they are just the mouthpieces for their unaware god.
Here I'll help:
1931 The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or set of any of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in the Watchtower. (Watchtower, Nov. 1 1931 p. 327)
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 1:29:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 1:23:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:21:03 AM, tstor wrote:
It has come to my attention that some people take an issue with the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:16, 17:
"because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Specifically, they take issue with the underlined "other" additions. Compare this to a more "acceptable" translation like the NIV:
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

So why did the NWT committee add the word "other" to both of these verses? Is it grammatically acceptable to do so? First, let me address whether or not it was grammatically correct. The short answer is yes. Consider Acts 5:29, which reads:
"Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!" (NIV)

The KJV, NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, etc. all add the word "other" in this verse despite it not being in the Greek. This is completely acceptable! Isaiah 45:14 is rendered as "there is no other god" in the NASB, NEB, REB, NIV, JB, NJB, NKJV, ETRV, BBE, NLV, MKJV, MLB, etc. despite the word "other" not being in the Hebrew manuscripts. Similarly, translations such as the NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, and LB translate Ezekiel 31:5 as "all other trees." This is in regards to a tree being taller that "all other trees." The word "other" was added in those translations because the tree cannot be taller than itself. It is not taller than "all trees," but "all other trees."

Compare this to Colossians 1:16, 17. Jesus did not create himself, so all other things were created through him. He cannot be before himself, so he is before all other things. This is why the NWT adds the word "other" in these verses.

In conclusion, the renderings of Colossians 1: 16, 17 in the NWT are grammatically acceptable and reasonable.

The thing people wilfully ignore is the simple fact that the word "other" makes no difference whatever to the meaning of the verse, it simply clarifies it.

They ignore that because Satan blinds them to the stupidity of their complaint.

After all, whatever you believe about the origin of the Word, whom John describes as Jehovah's only begotten son, he can only have helped in the creation of all other things. He cannot have created himself.

It is so typical of the "arguments about words" which scripture tells us to avoid.

Some people are so determined to support their biased objections about the JWs that they fail to recognise the truth of what scripture teaches.

You have no idea if anything featured in the Bible is true. Anything which has the JW spin on it is bound to be GARBAGE!
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 2:22:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:21:03 AM, tstor wrote:
It has come to my attention that some people take an issue with the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:16, 17:
"because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Specifically, they take issue with the underlined "other" additions. Compare this to a more "acceptable" translation like the NIV:
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

So why did the NWT committee add the word "other" to both of these verses?

Because it suited their motives to do so.

Is it grammatically acceptable to do so?

No

First, let me address whether or not it was grammatically correct. The short answer is yes. Consider Acts 5:29, which reads:
"Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!" (NIV)

We'll use the ASV:

" But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5: 29)

You will notice that the 101 ASV translators did not see fit to violate the rules of grammar/translation by adding a word that is unnecessary to the meaning.

The KJV, NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, etc. all add the word "other" in this verse despite it not being in the Greek. This is completely acceptable! Isaiah 45:14 is rendered as "there is no other god" in the NASB, NEB, REB, NIV, JB, NJB, NKJV, ETRV, BBE, NLV, MKJV, MLB, etc. despite the word "other" not being in the Hebrew manuscripts.

Again, we see that the ASV reads:

"Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God" (Isa 45: 14)

Similarly, translations such as the NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, and LB translate Ezekiel 31:5 as "all other trees." This is in regards to a tree being taller that "all other trees." The word "other" was added in those translations because the tree cannot be taller than itself. It is not taller than "all trees," but "all other trees."

Certainly one would come to that conclusion based upon common sense, but "based upon common sense" is not exactly a rule for acceptable translation:

"Therefore its stature was exalted above all the trees of the field" (ASV)

Compare this to Colossians 1:16, 17. Jesus did not create himself, so all other things were created through him. He cannot be before himself, so he is before all other things. This is why the NWT adds the word "other" in these verses.

In conclusion, the renderings of Colossians 1: 16, 17 in the NWT are grammatically acceptable and reasonable.

The NWT renderning of the passage is their own commentary on what they think the passage means. That's fine, but such a rendering is not exactly a translation: it is a commentary.

That's why we generally use the ASV. You'll notice that it does not contain the errors of the other "translations" that you cited.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 2:43:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 1:23:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:21:03 AM, tstor wrote:
It has come to my attention that some people take an issue with the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:16, 17:
"because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Specifically, they take issue with the underlined "other" additions. Compare this to a more "acceptable" translation like the NIV:
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

So why did the NWT committee add the word "other" to both of these verses? Is it grammatically acceptable to do so? First, let me address whether or not it was grammatically correct. The short answer is yes. Consider Acts 5:29, which reads:
"Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!" (NIV)

The KJV, NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, etc. all add the word "other" in this verse despite it not being in the Greek. This is completely acceptable! Isaiah 45:14 is rendered as "there is no other god" in the NASB, NEB, REB, NIV, JB, NJB, NKJV, ETRV, BBE, NLV, MKJV, MLB, etc. despite the word "other" not being in the Hebrew manuscripts. Similarly, translations such as the NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, and LB translate Ezekiel 31:5 as "all other trees." This is in regards to a tree being taller that "all other trees." The word "other" was added in those translations because the tree cannot be taller than itself. It is not taller than "all trees," but "all other trees."

Compare this to Colossians 1:16, 17. Jesus did not create himself, so all other things were created through him. He cannot be before himself, so he is before all other things. This is why the NWT adds the word "other" in these verses.

In conclusion, the renderings of Colossians 1: 16, 17 in the NWT are grammatically acceptable and reasonable.

The thing people wilfully ignore is the simple fact that the word "other" makes no difference whatever to the meaning of the verse, it simply clarifies it.

It wasn't "unclear" to start with - and if the addition of all those "others" had made no difference to anyone, the BotchTower would have never seen fit to add them.

They ignore that because Satan blinds them to the stupidity of their complaint.

The only stupidity around here is your claim that, "Oh, they make no difference". But apparently they did to the BotchTower! The standard translations do not have any of those added "others" - and for good reason: none of them are present in the original. However, I will add that if the BotchTower wants to publish their own commentary, they have a right to. However, they need to quit calling it a "translation".

After all, whatever you believe about the origin of the Word, whom John describes as Jehovah's only begotten son, he can only have helped in the creation of all other things. He cannot have created himself.

The Word alone is not called "Jehovah's only begotten son". I repeatedly asked you exactly who or what they were looking at when it was said, " ... and we beheld His glory." Who or what were they looking at when they did the "beholding"?

It is so typical of the "arguments about words" which scripture tells us to avoid.

There is no argument about it. No standard translation produced by teams of Greek scholars renders the passage as does the BotchTower. None. And many of the translators, like Thayer, were Unitarians in the first place. The only difference is that Thayer and others were translators, not reckless commentators.

Some people are so determined to support their biased objections about the JWs that they fail to recognise the truth of what scripture teaches.

What you might regard as "the truth of what scripture teaches" has precious little with the art and science of translating words and phrases from one language into another. Revealing the perceived "truth of what scripture teaches" is the job of commentators and theologians.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 3:19:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:07:40 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:59:06 PM, DPMartin wrote:

If the differences in text is deliberate to make the text mean something different then grammatical differences anywhere else in the text is not an issue at all, is it? So what was the thread for again?
Read the title.

Right the subject, or issue you"ve tried rase, is irrelevant, and I showed you why, how is that off subject?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 3:55:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 2:43:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/15/2015 1:23:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


The thing people wilfully ignore is the simple fact that the word "other" makes no difference whatever to the meaning of the verse, it simply clarifies it.

It wasn't "unclear" to start with - and if the addition of all those "others" had made no difference to anyone, the BotchTower would have never seen fit to add them.

Which just shows your lack of understanding.

It simply clarifies it slightly it does not change the meaning.


They ignore that because Satan blinds them to the stupidity of their complaint.

The only stupidity around here is your claim that, "Oh, they make no difference". But apparently they did to the BotchTower! The standard translations do not have any of those added "others" - and for good reason: none of them are present in the original. However, I will add that if the BotchTower wants to publish their own commentary, they have a right to. However, they need to quit calling it a "translation".

No Anna it si not stupid.

What is truly stupid is you seeming to believe that Christ will simply ignore the doctrine of impossibilities you pursue and let you get away with it.

Why should he when he already has the path of truth put before you?


After all, whatever you believe about the origin of the Word, whom John describes as Jehovah's only begotten son, he can only have helped in the creation of all other things. He cannot have created himself.

The Word alone is not called "Jehovah's only begotten son". I repeatedly asked you exactly who or what they were looking at when it was said, " ... and we beheld His glory." Who or what were they looking at when they did the "beholding"?

But no-one else is mentioned in John 1:14, it is they Word John is discussing, and the word alone, since it is the word who does what he is describing.

John wasn't looking at anything or any one. He wrote his Gospel long after Jesus death, and the glory they were viewing was that of Jehovah's only begotten son. Jesus, being human had no glory of his own.

Jesus later highlighted that when he asked his father to return him to the glory he had before.

You choose to ignore that at 1 John 4:9, Jehovah sent his only begotten son into the world.

Jesus was in the world from the moment he was born, so again it is the one sent in the world that John refers to, The Word, Jehovah's only begotten son.

American Standard Version (ASV) 9 Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.

You are most definitely not worshipping with spirit and truth Anna, John 4:23-24, because you refuse to recognise the truth when scripture makes it plain enough.

You are so shackled to your "doctrine of impossible things" you cannot break free.

You just want to twist it to mean what it cannot.


It is so typical of the "arguments about words" which scripture tells us to avoid.

There is no argument about it. No standard translation produced by teams of Greek scholars renders the passage as does the BotchTower. None. And many of the translators, like Thayer, were Unitarians in the first place. The only difference is that Thayer and others were translators, not reckless commentators.

There must be an argument about it because you are arguing against what scripture teaches.

Again you run to the shelter of men, Apostate men, who made all these translation and coloured them to suit their own beliefs.

Again you choose to let doctrine dictates scripture, rather than let scripture dictate doctrine as I and the JWs do.


Some people are so determined to support their biased objections about the JWs that they fail to recognise the truth of what scripture teaches.

What you might regard as "the truth of what scripture teaches" has precious little with the art and science of translating words and phrases from one language into another. Revealing the perceived "truth of what scripture teaches" is the job of commentators and theologians.

No Anna you are right there it does not fit into the mould the world tries to force it into.

It fits into the rest of scripture.

What you refuse to see is that what you cling to is a product of men where scripture is the product of God and therefore should dictate to you what it means not you to it as you do.

You stick to following men if you must Anna, I shall stick to following scripture and the teachings of Christ, who himself taught the has a god, and could not have been God since God knew things which Christ admitted he did not.

That one paragraph above contains all that is needed to blow your teachings right out of the water.

I repeat:

1: Christ cannot have been God because he himself declared that he has a God, after his resurrection John 20:17.

2: Since God knows everything about what is happening and going to happen, again Christ cannot be God because he willingly pointed out that there were things which only his God and Father know.

Those two indisputable scriptural facts prove beyond all doubt that Jesus was not, could not possibly have been God.

1 John 4:9American Standard Version (ASV) 9 Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.

John 3:16American Standard Version (ASV) 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 1:14American Standard Version (ASV) 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

John 17:3American Standard Version (ASV) 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.

Those 4 verses, especially when allied with others on the same subject, prove that it was God's son, the one sent to earth who was only begotten of God, not Jesus who as begotten by holy spirit.

Jesus was not sent, he presented himself willingly.

The Word, Michael, Jehovah's son, was the one who is only begotten, and the only one who could possibly be so.

So he was begotten by creation? Who are you to tell Jehovah what he can or cannot use a word for?

You are no-one in that respect, nor is any human lexicographer. Nor am I.

Eiteher you change your doctrine of impossible things and stop insulting Jehovah, or you perish eternally.

The choice is yours Anna, no-one else can or will make it for you.

Simple as.

End of.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 4:03:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 3:55:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/15/2015 2:43:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/15/2015 1:23:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


The thing people wilfully ignore is the simple fact that the word "other" makes no difference whatever to the meaning of the verse, it simply clarifies it.

It wasn't "unclear" to start with - and if the addition of all those "others" had made no difference to anyone, the BotchTower would have never seen fit to add them.

Which just shows your lack of understanding.

It simply clarifies it slightly it does not change the meaning.


They ignore that because Satan blinds them to the stupidity of their complaint.

The only stupidity around here is your claim that, "Oh, they make no difference". But apparently they did to the BotchTower! The standard translations do not have any of those added "others" - and for good reason: none of them are present in the original. However, I will add that if the BotchTower wants to publish their own commentary, they have a right to. However, they need to quit calling it a "translation".

No Anna it si not stupid.

What is truly stupid is you seeming to believe that Christ will simply ignore the doctrine of impossibilities you pursue and let you get away with it.

Why should he when he already has the path of truth put before you?

Let me repeat the statements, since you elected to do your usual rambling around in circles:

The only stupidity around here is your claim that, "Oh, they make no difference". But apparently they did to the BotchTower! The standard translations do not have any of those added "others" - and for good reason: none of them are present in the original. However, I will add that if the BotchTower wants to publish their own commentary, they have a right to. However, they need to quit calling it a "translation".


After all, whatever you believe about the origin of the Word, whom John describes as Jehovah's only begotten son, he can only have helped in the creation of all other things. He cannot have created himself.

The Word alone is not called "Jehovah's only begotten son". I repeatedly asked you exactly who or what they were looking at when it was said, " ... and we beheld His glory." Who or what were they looking at when they did the "beholding"?

But no-one else is mentioned in John 1:14, it is they Word John is discussing, and the word alone, since it is the word who does what he is describing.

John wasn't looking at anything or any one. He wrote his Gospel long after Jesus death, and the glory they were viewing was that of Jehovah's only begotten son. Jesus, being human had no glory of his own.

Well, exactly when did they "behold" the "glory" of the Word?

It is so typical of the "arguments about words" which scripture tells us to avoid.

There is no argument about it. No standard translation produced by teams of Greek scholars renders the passage as does the BotchTower. None. And many of the translators, like Thayer, were Unitarians in the first place. The only difference is that Thayer and others were translators, not reckless commentators.

There must be an argument about it because you are arguing against what scripture teaches.

No, I'm arguing about a perversion in translation.

Again you run to the shelter of men, Apostate men, who made all these translation and coloured them to suit their own beliefs.

Really? Will you defend your notion that Col 1: 16-17 was MIStranslated by the ASV scholars?

Some people are so determined to support their biased objections about the JWs that they fail to recognise the truth of what scripture teaches.

What you might regard as "the truth of what scripture teaches" has precious little with the art and science of translating words and phrases from one language into another. Revealing the perceived "truth of what scripture teaches" is the job of commentators and theologians.

What you refuse to see is that what you cling to is a product of men where scripture is the product of God and therefore should dictate to you what it means not you to it as you do.

Again, the question is: is Col 1: 16-17 a complete and accurate translation in the American Standard Version? Is it, or not? If it is, then any additions or subtractions or modifications of it must have come about for reasons other than completeness or accuracy.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."