Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Honest translations

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
How does one judge the honesty of a translations?

It is very simple to prove, beyond any possible, honest, doubt, that most translations are not honest enough to include Jehovah's name, in any form or translation, in places where it is easy to demonstrate it belongs.

There are only two translations available which even attempt to be honest.

The American Standard Version, and the New World Translation.

Why?

One goes a step further in it's honesty than the other in that it not only includes Jehovah's name in the places it belongs in the Hebrew Scriptures, it also carries it forward into passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures which include quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the name is to be found.

There may well be other places where the Apostles would have used Jehovah's name, and ancient Hebrew copies of Matthew indicate that, because the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah's name in Hebrew characters, is found copiously in those pages.

Why would you choose to trust a translation which is so obviously dishonest as to alter or remove Jehovah's holy name?

By that most important standard alone, the American Standard is an extremely honest translation.

The NWT takes that honesty to it's logical conclusion.

Those two facts are absolute and indisputable, whatever the prejudices of others may force them to choose to say.

Every translation in existence has been altered from what was originally in the scriptures.

The NWT demonstrably has the least alterations of all translations when compared to the nearest to the originals we can obtain.

All of the alterations found in the NWT can be shown to have been based on earlier translations which appear to fit into the overall pattern of scripture better than the previous alterations do. Especially their correction of John 1:1 as shown below.

1808 "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.

1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);

1864 "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" A New Emphatic Version (right hand column) - But not the left hand column, note below.

1864 "and a god was the Word" (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. - Same transaltor with an altered translation, I wonder why the change?

1867 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. - but not God

1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);

1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);

1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);

1935 "and the Word was divine" - The Bible"An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. - But again, not God

1955 "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. - But again, not God

1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"[8] - Again, the same essence, a spirit, but not God himself.

1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1962, 1979 "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God." - Yup he is, but that does not say he is God.

1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was." - Very true, both are spirits, just as the Angels are also.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, G"ttingen, Germany

1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

The above statements are not only true, they are easily demonstrably true.

Therefore it cannot truly be denied, without prejudice or bias, that the NWT is in fact the single most honest translation in existence, closely followed by the ASV.

Which is why the WTBTS also publish the ASV.

So why are those obviously dishonest translation still in use?

Because many people prefer the lie to the truth because it demands less back from them than the truth does.

Truth has a high price which few are prepared to pay.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 11:25:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The Botchtower have already conceded the term jehovah is inferior to YHWH

The Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge that the name "Jehovah" is improper. Their book, "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" freely admits on pages 16 and 18 that Yahweh is the superior translation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). This book has lately been withdrawn. However, in the preface of their "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," we find on page 23 the following admission:

"While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 11:50:25 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
How does one judge the honesty of a translations?

It is very simple to prove, beyond any possible, honest, doubt, that most translations are not honest enough to include Jehovah's name, in any form or translation, in places where it is easy to demonstrate it belongs.

There are only two translations available which even attempt to be honest.

The American Standard Version, and the New World Translation.

Why?

One goes a step further in it's honesty than the other in that it not only includes Jehovah's name in the places it belongs in the Hebrew Scriptures, it also carries it forward into passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures which include quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the name is to be found.

There may well be other places where the Apostles would have used Jehovah's name, and ancient Hebrew copies of Matthew indicate that, because the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah's name in Hebrew characters, is found copiously in those pages.

Why would you choose to trust a translation which is so obviously dishonest as to alter or remove Jehovah's holy name?

By that most important standard alone, the American Standard is an extremely honest translation.

The NWT takes that honesty to it's logical conclusion.

Those two facts are absolute and indisputable, whatever the prejudices of others may force them to choose to say.

Every translation in existence has been altered from what was originally in the scriptures.

The NWT demonstrably has the least alterations of all translations when compared to the nearest to the originals we can obtain.

All of the alterations found in the NWT can be shown to have been based on earlier translations which appear to fit into the overall pattern of scripture better than the previous alterations do. Especially their correction of John 1:1 as shown below.


1808 "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.

1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);

1864 "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" A New Emphatic Version (right hand column) - But not the left hand column, note below.

1864 "and a god was the Word" (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. - Same transaltor with an altered translation, I wonder why the change?

1867 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. - but not God

1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);

1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);

1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);

1935 "and the Word was divine" - The Bible"An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. - But again, not God

1955 "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. - But again, not God

1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"[8] - Again, the same essence, a spirit, but not God himself.

1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1962, 1979 "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God." - Yup he is, but that does not say he is God.

1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was." - Very true, both are spirits, just as the Angels are also.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, G"ttingen, Germany

1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

The above statements are not only true, they are easily demonstrably true.

Therefore it cannot truly be denied, without prejudice or bias, that the NWT is in fact the single most honest translation in existence, closely followed by the ASV.

Which is why the WTBTS also publish the ASV.

So why are those obviously dishonest translation still in use?

Because many people prefer the lie to the truth because it demands less back from them than the truth does.

Truth has a high price which few are prepared to pay.

translation is difficult as often a word in one language does not exist in another, the difference is whether a translation has attempted to keep the meaning of the original as closely as possible...

clearly the nwt does not do this instead it clearly manipulates the meanings to align with it's own peculiar doctrines...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:40:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
How does one judge the honesty of a translations?

It is very simple to prove, beyond any possible, honest, doubt, that most translations are not honest enough to include Jehovah's name, in any form or translation, in places where it is easy to demonstrate it belongs.

There are only two translations available which even attempt to be honest.

The American Standard Version, and the New World Translation.

Why?

One goes a step further in it's honesty than the other in that it not only includes Jehovah's name in the places it belongs in the Hebrew Scriptures, it also carries it forward into passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures which include quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the name is to be found.

There may well be other places where the Apostles would have used Jehovah's name, and ancient Hebrew copies of Matthew indicate that, because the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah's name in Hebrew characters, is found copiously in those pages.

Why would you choose to trust a translation which is so obviously dishonest as to alter or remove Jehovah's holy name?

By that most important standard alone, the American Standard is an extremely honest translation.

The NWT takes that honesty to it's logical conclusion.

Those two facts are absolute and indisputable, whatever the prejudices of others may force them to choose to say.

Every translation in existence has been altered from what was originally in the scriptures.

The NWT demonstrably has the least alterations of all translations when compared to the nearest to the originals we can obtain.

All of the alterations found in the NWT can be shown to have been based on earlier translations which appear to fit into the overall pattern of scripture better than the previous alterations do. Especially their correction of John 1:1 as shown below.


1808 "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.

1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);

1864 "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" A New Emphatic Version (right hand column) - But not the left hand column, note below.

1864 "and a god was the Word" (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. - Same transaltor with an altered translation, I wonder why the change?

1867 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. - but not God

1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);

1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);

1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);

1935 "and the Word was divine" - The Bible"An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. - But again, not God

1955 "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. - But again, not God

1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"[8] - Again, the same essence, a spirit, but not God himself.

1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1962, 1979 "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God." - Yup he is, but that does not say he is God.

1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was." - Very true, both are spirits, just as the Angels are also.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, G"ttingen, Germany

1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

The above statements are not only true, they are easily demonstrably true.

Therefore it cannot truly be denied, without prejudice or bias, that the NWT is in fact the single most honest translation in existence, closely followed by the ASV.

Which is why the WTBTS also publish the ASV.

So why are those obviously dishonest translation still in use?

Because many people prefer the lie to the truth because it demands less back from them than the truth does.

Truth has a high price which few are prepared to pay.
But if you take the position that Gods infinite wisdom should be applied to inspired writings then it would seem logical that God, having forethought of the numerous translations, would specifically chose words and ideas that cannot be perverted enough away from its intended lesson to make differing translations a viable issue.
And btw, the whole Jehavoh thing is a guess, nobody actually has knowledge of pronunciation. So it's actually more beneficial to overall integrity to not attempt to address the name or spelling.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:40:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
How does one judge the honesty of a translations?

It is very simple to prove, beyond any possible, honest, doubt, that most translations are not honest enough to include Jehovah's name, in any form or translation, in places where it is easy to demonstrate it belongs.

There are only two translations available which even attempt to be honest.

The American Standard Version, and the New World Translation.

Why?

One goes a step further in it's honesty than the other in that it not only includes Jehovah's name in the places it belongs in the Hebrew Scriptures, it also carries it forward into passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures which include quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the name is to be found.

There may well be other places where the Apostles would have used Jehovah's name, and ancient Hebrew copies of Matthew indicate that, because the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah's name in Hebrew characters, is found copiously in those pages.

Why would you choose to trust a translation which is so obviously dishonest as to alter or remove Jehovah's holy name?

By that most important standard alone, the American Standard is an extremely honest translation.

The NWT takes that honesty to it's logical conclusion.

Those two facts are absolute and indisputable, whatever the prejudices of others may force them to choose to say.

Every translation in existence has been altered from what was originally in the scriptures.

The NWT demonstrably has the least alterations of all translations when compared to the nearest to the originals we can obtain.

All of the alterations found in the NWT can be shown to have been based on earlier translations which appear to fit into the overall pattern of scripture better than the previous alterations do. Especially their correction of John 1:1 as shown below.


1808 "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.

1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);

1864 "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" A New Emphatic Version (right hand column) - But not the left hand column, note below.

1864 "and a god was the Word" (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. - Same transaltor with an altered translation, I wonder why the change?

1867 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. - but not God

1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);

1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);

1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);

1935 "and the Word was divine" - The Bible"An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. - But again, not God

1955 "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. - But again, not God

1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"[8] - Again, the same essence, a spirit, but not God himself.

1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1962, 1979 "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God." - Yup he is, but that does not say he is God.

1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was." - Very true, both are spirits, just as the Angels are also.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, G"ttingen, Germany

1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

The above statements are not only true, they are easily demonstrably true.

Therefore it cannot truly be denied, without prejudice or bias, that the NWT is in fact the single most honest translation in existence, closely followed by the ASV.

Which is why the WTBTS also publish the ASV.

So why are those obviously dishonest translation still in use?

Because many people prefer the lie to the truth because it demands less back from them than the truth does.

Truth has a high price which few are prepared to pay.

But if you take the position that Gods infinite wisdom should be applied to inspired writings then it would seem logical that God, having forethought of the numerous translations, would specifically chose words and ideas that cannot be perverted enough away from its intended lesson to make differing translations a viable issue.
And btw, the whole Jehavoh thing is a guess, nobody actually has knowledge of pronunciation. So it's actually more beneficial to overall integrity to not attempt to address the name or spelling.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 2:44:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 11:50:25 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
How does one judge the honesty of a translations?

It is very simple to prove, beyond any possible, honest, doubt, that most translations are not honest enough to include Jehovah's name, in any form or translation, in places where it is easy to demonstrate it belongs.

There are only two translations available which even attempt to be honest.

The American Standard Version, and the New World Translation.

Why?

One goes a step further in it's honesty than the other in that it not only includes Jehovah's name in the places it belongs in the Hebrew Scriptures, it also carries it forward into passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures which include quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the name is to be found.

There may well be other places where the Apostles would have used Jehovah's name, and ancient Hebrew copies of Matthew indicate that, because the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah's name in Hebrew characters, is found copiously in those pages.

Why would you choose to trust a translation which is so obviously dishonest as to alter or remove Jehovah's holy name?

By that most important standard alone, the American Standard is an extremely honest translation.

The NWT takes that honesty to it's logical conclusion.

Those two facts are absolute and indisputable, whatever the prejudices of others may force them to choose to say.

Every translation in existence has been altered from what was originally in the scriptures.

The NWT demonstrably has the least alterations of all translations when compared to the nearest to the originals we can obtain.

All of the alterations found in the NWT can be shown to have been based on earlier translations which appear to fit into the overall pattern of scripture better than the previous alterations do. Especially their correction of John 1:1 as shown below.


1808 "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.

1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);

1864 "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" A New Emphatic Version (right hand column) - But not the left hand column, note below.

1864 "and a god was the Word" (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. - Same transaltor with an altered translation, I wonder why the change?

1867 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. - but not God

1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);

1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);

1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);

1935 "and the Word was divine" - The Bible"An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. - But again, not God

1955 "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. - But again, not God

1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"[8] - Again, the same essence, a spirit, but not God himself.

1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1962, 1979 "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God." - Yup he is, but that does not say he is God.

1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was." - Very true, both are spirits, just as the Angels are also.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, G"ttingen, Germany

1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

The above statements are not only true, they are easily demonstrably true.

Therefore it cannot truly be denied, without prejudice or bias, that the NWT is in fact the single most honest translation in existence, closely followed by the ASV.

Which is why the WTBTS also publish the ASV.

So why are those obviously dishonest translation still in use?

Because many people prefer the lie to the truth because it demands less back from them than the truth does.

Truth has a high price which few are prepared to pay.

translation is difficult as often a word in one language does not exist in another, the difference is whether a translation has attempted to keep the meaning of the original as closely as possible...

clearly the nwt does not do this instead it clearly manipulates the meanings to align with it's own peculiar doctrines...

You cannot have it both ways.

You say that they manipulate scripture to their doctrine.

And yet you and others also criticise them for changing their doctrine, to fit scripture.

It is you who refuses to change doctrine to fit what scripture reveals, not them, it is you who clings to dishonest translations to support your false teachings.

It is you who uses your false doctrines to interpret scripture, just as the translators of all those dishonest translations did when translating them.

There is not one translation which the NWT contains which has not been propounded before them.

They simply selected the versions which do not disturb the overall harmony of scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

I wonder how you will feel when you finally find out how wrong you are?

I know how I felt, and the longer you take to learn, the harder it will be for you, until it is too late for you to benefit from the knowledge.

Just as it was for those who suddenly realised, too late, that pesky Noah was right after all.

Christ will judge you adversely unless you repent and turn around from your wrong course.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 2:54:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:40:38 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Truth has a high price which few are prepared to pay.

But if you take the position that Gods infinite wisdom should be applied to inspired writings then it would seem logical that God, having forethought of the numerous translations, would specifically chose words and ideas that cannot be perverted enough away from its intended lesson to make differing translations a viable issue.

And there you have it. That is precisely what Jehovah has done.

He has made sure that any wrong translation or interpretation disturbs the harmony of the whole.

That is how such as I know that the NWT is the most accurate translation, because they have removed many of the stumbling blocks to understanding.

They chose the version of John 1:1 which they did, from the available versions, because it does not disturb the harmony of other similar verses.

The same can be said for all the changes they have made, or will make in future because they are still working on getting it closer to what Jehovah wanted.

And btw, the whole Jehavoh thing is a guess, nobody actually has knowledge of pronunciation. So it's actually more beneficial to overall integrity to not attempt to address the name or spelling.

No you are wrong there.

Yes, you are correct in saying that there is a certain amount of guesswork involved, hence the fact that there are so many different language versions around, I know of 99 of them.

However it is vital to at least try and get it as right as possible.

Why?

Because as Peter and Paul both remind us it is only those calling no that great and holy name who will survive ( Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13).

Do you not think Jehovah will be prepared to accept an honest attempt at calling on his name?

I do not think it. I know it. Jehovah is merciful, and whatever it be, whether it be calling on his name, or any other of his requirements he is more than content to accept our best possible efforts at getting it right.

He does not expect perfection of us in any sense, not least because he knows far better than we do what we are up against.

No, using Jehovah is not perfect, but it, or one of it's equivalents, is the best we can do, and Jehovah knows and accepts that.

He is not a pedant, especially over something we cannot control.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 3:02:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
How does one judge the honesty of a translations?

They are made by translators. The jehovians who rewrote others translations weren't translators.
Your question answered by the Not a Word Translated NWT.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 3:07:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
There is about 75 different names used for God in the bible. I think it could get confusing to translate them literally each time.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 3:23:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
How does one judge the honesty of a translations?

It is very simple to prove, beyond any possible, honest, doubt, that most translations are not honest enough to include Jehovah's name, in any form or translation, in places where it is easy to demonstrate it belongs.

Could you please tell us from which Greek manuscript you are citing? We want to see some sort of evidence that the Bible scholars who translated our standard versions did not translate the Greek words properly into English.
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
12/16/2015 3:33:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
The translation that has stood the test of time, in the English speaking world is the KJV. Over 400 yr"s now, in the mist of public scrutiny, and still favored by the most fundamental of believers. Many of the translations that followed where based on the KJV. It"s my understanding that all three languages of documents Hebrew, Greek and Latin, where used to produce it. (Note the same three languages used on the Cross by Pilot when he wrote "King of the Jews").

There are some others, for example the Jerusalem bible is considered a reliable translation. One might look to a Jewish document that is translated to English like the Stone Edition of the Torah. The catholic church has a good translation but I"m not sure of it"s title.

Thing is, with the KJV the language doesn"t change nor it"s meaning do to the availability of OED dictionary that covers the use of English word as far back as it has been documented. For example the word "saw" in the early 1600's is either a saw blade or to cut with saw, or to speak in saws or to command or decree. No use of the word saw as in seeing. Which changes the American use of the word for saw to the British use of the word saw in something like: Gen 1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Could that be God decreed it good?

The trouble with these factory translations and paraphrased bibles is they trifle with the importance of the definition and the document need to remain unchanged. Whether you agree with the Catholic Church or not, it has kept that concept in mind because the definitions used in the Latin and the Latin document hasn"t changed even though you can bet the public use of Italian has changed greatly since the three or four hundreds AD.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 3:37:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 2:44:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:50:25 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

translation is difficult as often a word in one language does not exist in another, the difference is whether a translation has attempted to keep the meaning of the original as closely as possible...

clearly the nwt does not do this instead it clearly manipulates the meanings to align with it's own peculiar doctrines...

You cannot have it both ways.

You say that they manipulate scripture to their doctrine.

And yet you and others also criticise them for changing their doctrine, to fit scripture.

I do not recall anyone on here even suggesting that the WatchTower changes its teachings to fit scripture. Nobody's accusing them of that. They have, however, many times altered passages - added unnecessary words, altered tenses of verbs, etc - in order to force the passages into conformity with their doctrines.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:22:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 2:54:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:40:38 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Truth has a high price which few are prepared to pay.

But if you take the position that Gods infinite wisdom should be applied to inspired writings then it would seem logical that God, having forethought of the numerous translations, would specifically chose words and ideas that cannot be perverted enough away from its intended lesson to make differing translations a viable issue.

And there you have it. That is precisely what Jehovah has done.

He has made sure that any wrong translation or interpretation disturbs the harmony of the whole.
You didn't understand my post. There is NO wrong interpretation. There is only interpretation that was pre-expected y God. And keep with the Jehahovah , it's an unproven pronunciation. In other words, you're guessing what Gods name is and how it's said. That is a fact.
That is how such as I know that the NWT is the most accurate translation, because they have removed many of the stumbling blocks to understanding.
Most accurate is irrelevant.
They chose the version of John 1:1 which they did, from the available versions, because it does not disturb the harmony of other similar verses.

The same can be said for all the changes they have made, or will make in future because they are still working on getting it closer to what Jehovah wanted.


And btw, the whole Jehavoh thing is a guess, nobody actually has knowledge of pronunciation. So it's actually more beneficial to overall integrity to not attempt to address the name or spelling.

No you are wrong there.

Yes, you are correct in saying that there is a certain amount of guesswork involved, hence the fact that there are so many different language versions around, I know of 99 of them.

However it is vital to at least try and get it as right as possible.

Why?

Because as Peter and Paul both remind us it is only those calling no that great and holy name who will survive ( Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13).

Do you not think Jehovah will be prepared to accept an honest attempt at calling on his name?

I do not think it. I know it. Jehovah is merciful, and whatever it be, whether it be calling on his name, or any other of his requirements he is more than content to accept our best possible efforts at getting it right.

He does not expect perfection of us in any sense, not least because he knows far better than we do what we are up against.

No, using Jehovah is not perfect, but it, or one of it's equivalents, is the best we can do, and Jehovah knows and accepts that.
No the best you can do is not guess at Gods name and just say God and stop making a non issue an issue of contention.
He is not a pedant, especially over something we cannot control.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 9:13:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 5:22:14 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 2:54:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:40:38 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Truth has a high price which few are prepared to pay.

But if you take the position that Gods infinite wisdom should be applied to inspired writings then it would seem logical that God, having forethought of the numerous translations, would specifically chose words and ideas that cannot be perverted enough away from its intended lesson to make differing translations a viable issue.

And there you have it. That is precisely what Jehovah has done.

He has made sure that any wrong translation or interpretation disturbs the harmony of the whole.
You didn't understand my post. There is NO wrong interpretation. There is only interpretation that was pre-expected y God. And keep with the Jehahovah , it's an unproven pronunciation. In other words, you're guessing what Gods name is and how it's said. That is a fact.
That is how such as I know that the NWT is the most accurate translation, because they have removed many of the stumbling blocks to understanding.
Most accurate is irrelevant.
They chose the version of John 1:1 which they did, from the available versions, because it does not disturb the harmony of other similar verses.

The same can be said for all the changes they have made, or will make in future because they are still working on getting it closer to what Jehovah wanted.


And btw, the whole Jehavoh thing is a guess, nobody actually has knowledge of pronunciation. So it's actually more beneficial to overall integrity to not attempt to address the name or spelling.

No you are wrong there.

Yes, you are correct in saying that there is a certain amount of guesswork involved, hence the fact that there are so many different language versions around, I know of 99 of them.

However it is vital to at least try and get it as right as possible.

Why?

Because as Peter and Paul both remind us it is only those calling no that great and holy name who will survive ( Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13).

Do you not think Jehovah will be prepared to accept an honest attempt at calling on his name?

I do not think it. I know it. Jehovah is merciful, and whatever it be, whether it be calling on his name, or any other of his requirements he is more than content to accept our best possible efforts at getting it right.

He does not expect perfection of us in any sense, not least because he knows far better than we do what we are up against.

No, using Jehovah is not perfect, but it, or one of it's equivalents, is the best we can do, and Jehovah knows and accepts that.
No the best you can do is not guess at Gods name and just say God and stop making a non issue an issue of contention.
He is not a pedant, especially over something we cannot control.

To not even attempt to pronounce his name is to disobey him and his son. Simple as.

He gave us his name for a reason, and that reason was not for it to be ignored or forgotten as it has been.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 9:30:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 3:37:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/16/2015 2:44:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:50:25 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

translation is difficult as often a word in one language does not exist in another, the difference is whether a translation has attempted to keep the meaning of the original as closely as possible...

clearly the nwt does not do this instead it clearly manipulates the meanings to align with it's own peculiar doctrines...

You cannot have it both ways.

You say that they manipulate scripture to their doctrine.

And yet you and others also criticise them for changing their doctrine, to fit scripture.

I do not recall anyone on here even suggesting that the WatchTower changes its teachings to fit scripture. Nobody's accusing them of that. They have, however, many times altered passages - added unnecessary words, altered tenses of verbs, etc - in order to force the passages into conformity with their doctrines.

You have criticised them for just that, accusing them of all sorts of things, and we have discussed these things in the past also. Once again when all else fails you, as it always does, you turn to lies.

The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.

It is because of what they learned from scripture that they ceased their use of the cross, which you have commented on them doing.

It is because of what they found in scripture they accepted their name Jehovah's Witnesses, as you well know.

And those are just a very few of the changes they have made along the way.

Like many of the JWs of today, I was also brought up in a trinitarian community. My parents were CoE, and I was made to attend a Baptist Sunday School.

However I left the Trinity behind because of what I saw in scripture just as those early Brothers and Sisters did, and I did so long before I had ever herd of the JWs, or any of the other non-trinitarian faiths.

Everyone who becomes a JW has to change their wrong beliefs to fit what scripture teaches, and a JW will teach you suing any translation you care to name, which does rather defeat your claim or changing scripture to fir doctrine.

As you well know, I teach everything the JWs teach on here, and I do so using your preferred translation, the ASV.

Which again shows you to be a liar desperately clutching at an straw, not matter how fragile to save how others see you.

It is a shame you do not worry more about how God and Christ see you rather than other humans, since currently they see you as an enemy.

No Anna, you know as well as I do that scripture, and not human doctrine, is the basis of all that the JWs teach.

As I am always telling you Anna, Make your doctrine fit scripture as the JWs do, don't try to make scripture fit your doctrine as you do at present, and end up with many contradictions by so doing.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 9:40:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 3:33:06 PM, DPMartin wrote:
The translation that has stood the test of time, in the English speaking world is the KJV. Over 400 yr"s now, in the mist of public scrutiny, and still favored by the most fundamental of believers. Many of the translations that followed where based on the KJV. It"s my understanding that all three languages of documents Hebrew, Greek and Latin, where used to produce it. (Note the same three languages used on the Cross by Pilot when he wrote "King of the Jews").

On the contrary it does not stand up to the test for honesty because it has removed Jehovah's holy name from so many of it's pages, and replaced it with Lord.

The KJV was translated to please a human King, not to please God. That is why it is called the King James Version. It is also one of the least accurate in existence having verses which have been changed, omitted and added.


There are some others, for example the Jerusalem bible is considered a reliable translation. One might look to a Jewish document that is translated to English like the Stone Edition of the Torah. The catholic church has a good translation but I"m not sure of it"s title.

Thing is, with the KJV the language doesn"t change nor it"s meaning do to the availability of OED dictionary that covers the use of English word as far back as it has been documented. For example the word "saw" in the early 1600's is either a saw blade or to cut with saw, or to speak in saws or to command or decree. No use of the word saw as in seeing. Which changes the American use of the word for saw to the British use of the word saw in something like: Gen 1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Could that be God decreed it good?

The trouble with these factory translations and paraphrased bibles is they trifle with the importance of the definition and the document need to remain unchanged. Whether you agree with the Catholic Church or not, it has kept that concept in mind because the definitions used in the Latin and the Latin document hasn"t changed even though you can bet the public use of Italian has changed greatly since the three or four hundreds AD.

I admit it does have a consistency of language, but unfortunately it is also consistently wrong.

It is not the words which matter, it is what they mean.

However the question remains, how can you actually trust any translation which does not even attempt to honestly render the holy name of God as accurately as it can? To change it from what it was to a mere title, such as LORD or God, is not honesty.

After all they could at least have used the Romance versions of the Hebrew Characters there, though even that would have varied from language to language since for centuries the letters I, Y, and J were seen as interchangeable, as were the letters W and V.

That ancient interchangeability is the reason that where some languages have a W (double U or in Germany double V) others use V and so on.

It is also the reason there are 99 versions of the holy name of God in different languages.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 9:49:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
here's an example of the watch towers honest translations..

Who is The 'Lord' as mentioned in Romans 10:12-16

1903 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1940 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
1978 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1980 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 10:17:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 9:30:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 3:37:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/16/2015 2:44:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:50:25 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

translation is difficult as often a word in one language does not exist in another, the difference is whether a translation has attempted to keep the meaning of the original as closely as possible...

clearly the nwt does not do this instead it clearly manipulates the meanings to align with it's own peculiar doctrines...

You cannot have it both ways.

You say that they manipulate scripture to their doctrine.

And yet you and others also criticise them for changing their doctrine, to fit scripture.

I do not recall anyone on here even suggesting that the WatchTower changes its teachings to fit scripture. Nobody's accusing them of that. They have, however, many times altered passages - added unnecessary words, altered tenses of verbs, etc - in order to force the passages into conformity with their doctrines.

You have criticised them for just that, accusing them of all sorts of things, and we have discussed these things in the past also. Once again when all else fails you, as it always does, you turn to lies.

The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.

No, they changed their beliefs because what they couldn't find in scripture.

It is because of what they learned from scripture that they ceased their use of the cross, which you have commented on them doing.

No, I haven't. Others have, but I couldn't care less. I do not wear crosses nor display them or anything else, but not because I care a whit about "upright stake" versus "cross". It's a meaningless and useless quibble.

It is because of what they found in scripture they accepted their name Jehovah's Witnesses, as you well know.

Yeah, they had to run all the way back to Isaiah to a statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with them, or with any Christian for that matter, and they erroneously made up a totally new name for themselves - then claimed some of that extra-special, one-on-one, direct Spirit guidance. "Jehovah's Witnesses" was never an authorized name for anyone, Jew or Gentile, Israelite or Christian, or anybody else. So they "went back to the scripture" and concocted a name that nobody ever heard of. Great!

And those are just a very few of the changes they have made along the way.

Yes, I see them. Not a one has to do with "what they found in scripture." All they did was make one big mess.

Everyone who becomes a JW has to change their wrong beliefs to fit what scripture teaches,

No, they all have to acquiesce to whatever the BotchTower is botching at the moment. That's the condition - the ONE condition.
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
12/18/2015 1:21:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 10:17:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/16/2015 9:30:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 3:37:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/16/2015 2:44:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:50:25 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

translation is difficult as often a word in one language does not exist in another, the difference is whether a translation has attempted to keep the meaning of the original as closely as possible...

clearly the nwt does not do this instead it clearly manipulates the meanings to align with it's own peculiar doctrines...

You cannot have it both ways.

You say that they manipulate scripture to their doctrine.

And yet you and others also criticise them for changing their doctrine, to fit scripture.

I do not recall anyone on here even suggesting that the WatchTower changes its teachings to fit scripture. Nobody's accusing them of that. They have, however, many times altered passages - added unnecessary words, altered tenses of verbs, etc - in order to force the passages into conformity with their doctrines.

You have criticised them for just that, accusing them of all sorts of things, and we have discussed these things in the past also. Once again when all else fails you, as it always does, you turn to lies.

The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.

No, they changed their beliefs because what they couldn't find in scripture.

It is because of what they learned from scripture that they ceased their use of the cross, which you have commented on them doing.

No, I haven't. Others have, but I couldn't care less. I do not wear crosses nor display them or anything else, but not because I care a whit about "upright stake" versus "cross". It's a meaningless and useless quibble.

It is because of what they found in scripture they accepted their name Jehovah's Witnesses, as you well know.

Yeah, they had to run all the way back to Isaiah to a statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with them, or with any Christian for that matter, and they erroneously made up a totally new name for themselves - then claimed some of that extra-special, one-on-one, direct Spirit guidance. "Jehovah's Witnesses" was never an authorized name for anyone, Jew or Gentile, Israelite or Christian, or anybody else. So they "went back to the scripture" and concocted a name that nobody ever heard of. Great!

And those are just a very few of the changes they have made along the way.

Yes, I see them. Not a one has to do with "what they found in scripture." All they did was make one big mess.

Everyone who becomes a JW has to change their wrong beliefs to fit what scripture teaches,

No, they all have to acquiesce to whatever the BotchTower is botching at the moment. That's the condition - the ONE condition.

Since the JWs teach what scripture and holy spirit reveal to them at that time, then in fact you are agreeing with what I say.

Of course they all have to teach the same things. That is what scripture commands.

1 Corinthians 1:10American Standard Version (ASV)

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Unity of teaching is thus not an option.

Therefore trust in Jehovah to correct any errors, in his own time, is also essential.

How else can we be part of the answer to Jesus prayer?

John 17:11American Standard Version (ASV)

11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

John 17:22American Standard Version (ASV)

22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;

As those three scriptures show, absolute unity, not just with each other, but with Christ and Jehovah is not an option, it is an absolute necessity.

Did Christ knowingly very from his father's teachings?

Not in even the smallest detail?

Did he never make mistakes?

By no means, scripture shows that he made at least two.

By recording those errors, scripture reveals to us that making honest mistakes does not prevent one from being a servant of Jehovah.

However scripture corrects those errors for us, by reporting what history revealed actually happened. That proves to us that sometimes Jehovah allows the error to correct itself, as he did with the brothers wrong expectations about events which follow on from 1914.

Jehovah will correct any errors the Governing Body makes, and all who follow Christ must trust him to do so.

After all, there truly is no-one else we can trust.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 1:32:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 9:30:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.
I doubt that any of them were around in 1954 when they changed that teaching.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 1:47:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 9:49:11 PM, graceofgod wrote:
here's an example of the watch towers honest translations..

Who is The 'Lord' as mentioned in Romans 10:12-16

1903 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1940 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
1978 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1980 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.

Typically enough you are getting confused by the use of dishonest translations. In fact you have only told a part of the story, the part that such as you twist into a lie.

The answer is very simple, both are correct.

Why?

I shall explain.

Romans 10:12-16American Standard Version (ASV)

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him:

13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Verse 12 refers to Christ.

Verse 13 refers to Jehovah because it is a quotation from Joel 2:32.

This confusion is what results from using dishonest translations which do not place the name of God where it belongs, and instead reduce him to Lord.

Joel 2:32, correctly reproduced reads: American Standard Version (ASV) 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call.

Correctly translated Romans 10:12-16 read:

Romans 10:12-16
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. There is the same Lord over all, who is rich toward all those calling on him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!"
16 Nevertheless, they did not all obey the good news. For Isaiah says: "Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us?"

Verse 12 refers to Christ for the simple reason that Christ has indeed been appointed our King and Lord.

However verse 13 can only refer to Jehovah, since as scripture tells us at Joel 2:32, whilst salvation comes through the sacrifice of the Christ, it comes only from Jehovah.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 1:50:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 1:32:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/16/2015 9:30:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.
I doubt that any of them were around in 1954 when they changed that teaching.

They have not, if you read the whole article, changed any teaching there, because two of the articles deal with verse 12, and two with verse 13, which quotes Joel 2:32 where Jehovah's name has been replaced by Lord.

By simply citing such brief excerpts a half truth has been turned into a lie.

In other words, both versions are true because both version are from articles discussing difference verses.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 1:56:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 1:47:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 9:49:11 PM, graceofgod wrote:
here's an example of the watch towers honest translations..

Who is The 'Lord' as mentioned in Romans 10:12-16

1903 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1940 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
1978 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1980 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.

Typically enough you are getting confused by the use of dishonest translations. In fact you have only told a part of the story, the part that such as you twist into a lie.

The answer is very simple, both are correct.

Why?

I shall explain.

Romans 10:12-16American Standard Version (ASV)

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him:
The above refers to Christ according to the underlined below thus making Christ Lord of all or God in your terms. All that call upon him, Lord of All.
13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Verse 12 refers to Christ.

Verse 13 refers to Jehovah because it is a quotation from Joel 2:32.
Show us the verse that supports this claim.
This confusion is what results from using dishonest translations which do not place the name of God where it belongs, and instead reduce him to Lord.

Joel 2:32, correctly reproduced reads: American Standard Version (ASV) 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call.

Correctly translated Romans 10:12-16 read:

Romans 10:12-16
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. There is the same Lord over all, who is rich toward all those calling on him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!"
16 Nevertheless, they did not all obey the good news. For Isaiah says: "Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us?"

Verse 12 refers to Christ for the simple reason that Christ has indeed been appointed our King and Lord.

However verse 13 can only refer to Jehovah, since as scripture tells us at Joel 2:32, whilst salvation comes through the sacrifice of the Christ, it comes only from Jehovah.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 1:58:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 1:50:38 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/18/2015 1:32:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/16/2015 9:30:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.
I doubt that any of them were around in 1954 when they changed that teaching.

They have not, if you read the whole article, changed any teaching there, because two of the articles deal with verse 12, and two with verse 13, which quotes Joel 2:32 where Jehovah's name has been replaced by Lord.

By simply citing such brief excerpts a half truth has been turned into a lie.

In other words, both versions are true because both version are from articles discussing difference verses.

See if you can get someone to read this to you:
The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.
And then try again.
Your education does not progress well at all.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
graceofgod
Posts: 5,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 2:42:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 1:47:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 9:49:11 PM, graceofgod wrote:
here's an example of the watch towers honest translations..

Who is The 'Lord' as mentioned in Romans 10:12-16

1903 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1940 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
1978 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1980 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.

Typically enough you are getting confused by the use of dishonest translations. In fact you have only told a part of the story, the part that such as you twist into a lie.

The answer is very simple, both are correct.

Why?

I shall explain.

Romans 10:12-16American Standard Version (ASV)

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him:

13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Verse 12 refers to Christ.

Verse 13 refers to Jehovah because it is a quotation from Joel 2:32.

This confusion is what results from using dishonest translations which do not place the name of God where it belongs, and instead reduce him to Lord.

Joel 2:32, correctly reproduced reads: American Standard Version (ASV) 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call.

Correctly translated Romans 10:12-16 read:

Romans 10:12-16
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. There is the same Lord over all, who is rich toward all those calling on him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!"
16 Nevertheless, they did not all obey the good news. For Isaiah says: "Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us?"

Verse 12 refers to Christ for the simple reason that Christ has indeed been appointed our King and Lord.

However verse 13 can only refer to Jehovah, since as scripture tells us at Joel 2:32, whilst salvation comes through the sacrifice of the Christ, it comes only from Jehovah.

ha ha so you are edging your bets now saying both are right.. i guess that's better than choosing between the two...

Will the people of Sodom and Gomorrah be eligible for resurrection

1879 - Will be resurrected
1955 - Will not be resurrected
1965 - Will be resurrected
1967 - Will not be resurrected
1974 - Will be resurrected
1988 - Will not be resurrected
1988 - Will be resurrected
1989 - Will not be resurrected

what about this one...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 3:59:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 1:21:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 10:17:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/16/2015 9:30:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 3:37:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/16/2015 2:44:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:50:25 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 12/16/2015 11:19:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

translation is difficult as often a word in one language does not exist in another, the difference is whether a translation has attempted to keep the meaning of the original as closely as possible...

clearly the nwt does not do this instead it clearly manipulates the meanings to align with it's own peculiar doctrines...

You cannot have it both ways.

You say that they manipulate scripture to their doctrine.

And yet you and others also criticise them for changing their doctrine, to fit scripture.

I do not recall anyone on here even suggesting that the WatchTower changes its teachings to fit scripture. Nobody's accusing them of that. They have, however, many times altered passages - added unnecessary words, altered tenses of verbs, etc - in order to force the passages into conformity with their doctrines.

You have criticised them for just that, accusing them of all sorts of things, and we have discussed these things in the past also. Once again when all else fails you, as it always does, you turn to lies.

The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.

No, they changed their beliefs because what they couldn't find in scripture.

It is because of what they learned from scripture that they ceased their use of the cross, which you have commented on them doing.

No, I haven't. Others have, but I couldn't care less. I do not wear crosses nor display them or anything else, but not because I care a whit about "upright stake" versus "cross". It's a meaningless and useless quibble.

It is because of what they found in scripture they accepted their name Jehovah's Witnesses, as you well know.

Yeah, they had to run all the way back to Isaiah to a statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with them, or with any Christian for that matter, and they erroneously made up a totally new name for themselves - then claimed some of that extra-special, one-on-one, direct Spirit guidance. "Jehovah's Witnesses" was never an authorized name for anyone, Jew or Gentile, Israelite or Christian, or anybody else. So they "went back to the scripture" and concocted a name that nobody ever heard of. Great!

And those are just a very few of the changes they have made along the way.

Yes, I see them. Not a one has to do with "what they found in scripture." All they did was make one big mess.

Everyone who becomes a JW has to change their wrong beliefs to fit what scripture teaches,

No, they all have to acquiesce to whatever the BotchTower is botching at the moment. That's the condition - the ONE condition.

Since the JWs teach what scripture and holy spirit reveal to them at that time, then in fact you are agreeing with what I say.

Neither scripture nor "holy spirit" revealed that panorama of nonsense that they taught for 100 years. You left out their most important source: the 23rd chapter of their imagination.

Of course they all have to teach the same things. That is what scripture commands.

Not a false unity based upon promulgation of error.

Therefore trust in Jehovah to correct any errors, in his own time, is also essential.

Jehovah hasn't corrected any of their errors: the calendar proved them wrong most of the time.

Did Christ knowingly very from his father's teachings?

Not in even the smallest detail?

Did he never make mistakes?

No

By no means, scripture shows that he made at least two.

No, it doesn'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
12/19/2015 9:12:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 3:59:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/18/2015 1:21:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Since the JWs teach what scripture and holy spirit reveal to them at that time, then in fact you are agreeing with what I say.

Neither scripture nor "holy spirit" revealed that panorama of nonsense that they taught for 100 years. You left out their most important source: the 23rd chapter of their imagination.

No Anna you are, as always, wrong.

Yes they made mistakes, and no their mistakes did not come via holy spirit, but by their misunderstanding of scripture.

What excuse are you going to present to Christ for your deliberately clinging to much grosser errors than any they have ever made?


Of course they all have to teach the same things. That is what scripture commands.

Not a false unity based upon promulgation of error.

Therefore trust in Jehovah to correct any errors, in his own time, is also essential.

Jehovah hasn't corrected any of their errors: the calendar proved them wrong most of the time.

Oh he has corrected some, but yes, he let the calendar prove them wrong, in precisely the same way he let the calendar prove his son wrong in his two recorded errors.

None the less Jehovah allowed them to be corrected that way, and they accepted that correction as it unfolded to them, a bit at a time.


Did Christ knowingly very from his father's teachings?

Not in even the smallest detail?

Did he never make mistakes?

No

Sorry Anna but you can only be lying there because you know as well as I do that scripture reveals two mistakes made in ignorance, ignorance such as he admitted at Matthew 24:36American Standard Version (ASV)

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.

Christ did not know everything, and we are not told exactly how much he did not know.

Of course, had he truly been God, equal to his father as the Trinity teaches, he would have had equal knowledge.

But he didn't.


By no means, scripture shows that he made at least two.

No, it doesn't.

Face the facts Anna that is precisely what scripture shows, unless you wish to present Christ as a liar?

He was completely wrong on two counts, one involving the nature of his resurrection, and other involving the length of his stay in the grave.

To claim that he was resurrected in his original body in the face of the scriptural evidence to the contrary is as ridiculous as most of the rest of your doctrine. Absolutely ridiculous.

Consider:

1: Not one of his closest associates recognised him by sight. Had he been resurrected in his original body, there would have been no failure of recognition.

2: No-one saw the obvious wounds in his hands and feet until he produced them, and since hands and feet would have been on clear display they could not have missed them, especially since they would have looked. As it was, he had to produce them in his materialised body.

3: After walking and discussing with him on the road to Emmaus, he reclined at a meal with the disciples who invited him to do so. The moment they recognised who they were dining with, by his mannerisms not his appearance, he simply vanished from their sight. Something that had not been possible for him in his original body.

4: He materialised in the middle of a crowded room, so suddenly that they thought they had seen a ghost. Something else not available to him in his original body.

5: There is nothing unusual about spirit beings taking on materialising, human bodies with all the normal functions.

The disobedient Angels before the flood did so and fathered children

The Angels who visited Abraham and Lot did so, and even ate food in their materialised bodies.

6: His own body was not available to him from the moment of his death. It was a part of the sacrifice and therefore could not be resurrected. The only possible means of resurrection, which would not invalidate at least parts of the sacrifice was for him to be resurrected as a spirit being, his original form.

All of the above, taken along with 1 Peter 3:18-19American Standard Version (ASV)

18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,

As Peter there points out, Christ first went to preach to the spirits "in prison". He could only go into the spirit realm to do so as a Spirit.

Sorry Anna, the evidence from scripture is 100% conclusive. Christ was resurrected a Spirit, and had to materialise a body for his disciples to be able to see his resurrection as a fact.

Therefore when Christ apparently indicated that it was his body which would be resurrected he was indeed in error.

Equally not open to any disagreement is his other error.

He told the Pharisees that he would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights.

Scripture proves that he was not. He was in fact in the grave for:

The last few hours of Friday.
Saturday night followed by all day Saturday.
Sunday light and the first few hours of Sunday.

A total of approximately 48 hours, or parts of 3 days and 2 nights only.

There is no way you can claim Christ was not in error unless you wish, as with his other error, to make him out to have been a liar, something which would have been anathema both to himself and his father.

In fact if you apply the same standard to his errors as to those of the JWs you are thus claiming him as a false prophet, which, of course, is not true in either case.

You can lie about it all you like Anna, the fact is that Christ was wrong in two cases, and demonstrably so.

You know it. I know it, and every honest hearted person accepts it with gratitude, because it gives us lesser mortals hope that we can be forgiven our errors also.

When are you going to stop being such a hypocrite Anna, and correct your own gross errors? Matthew 7:5.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 9:17:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 2:42:53 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 12/18/2015 1:47:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/16/2015 9:49:11 PM, graceofgod wrote:
here's an example of the watch towers honest translations..

Who is The 'Lord' as mentioned in Romans 10:12-16

1903 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1940 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
1978 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1980 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.

Typically enough you are getting confused by the use of dishonest translations. In fact you have only told a part of the story, the part that such as you twist into a lie.

The answer is very simple, both are correct.

Why?

I shall explain.

Romans 10:12-16American Standard Version (ASV)

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him:

13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Verse 12 refers to Christ.

Verse 13 refers to Jehovah because it is a quotation from Joel 2:32.

This confusion is what results from using dishonest translations which do not place the name of God where it belongs, and instead reduce him to Lord.

Joel 2:32, correctly reproduced reads: American Standard Version (ASV) 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call.

Correctly translated Romans 10:12-16 read:

Romans 10:12-16
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. There is the same Lord over all, who is rich toward all those calling on him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!"
16 Nevertheless, they did not all obey the good news. For Isaiah says: "Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us?"

Verse 12 refers to Christ for the simple reason that Christ has indeed been appointed our King and Lord.

However verse 13 can only refer to Jehovah, since as scripture tells us at Joel 2:32, whilst salvation comes through the sacrifice of the Christ, it comes only from Jehovah.


ha ha so you are edging your bets now saying both are right.. i guess that's better than choosing between the two...


Will the people of Sodom and Gomorrah be eligible for resurrection

1879 - Will be resurrected
1955 - Will not be resurrected
1965 - Will be resurrected
1967 - Will not be resurrected
1974 - Will be resurrected
1988 - Will not be resurrected
1988 - Will be resurrected
1989 - Will not be resurrected

what about this one...

I have already answered you on that point.

Scripture is absolutely uncertain on that particular problem and there is evidence either way.

Of course if you looked at the articles you might find that they were discussing it from different scriptural perspectives.

But of course you don't want people to know that do you?

You are dishonest in the way you present your evidence, cherry picking and not presenting the full statements.

When are you going to correct your much more gross errors? Matthew 7:5.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 9:18:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 1:58:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/18/2015 1:50:38 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/18/2015 1:32:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/16/2015 9:30:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.
I doubt that any of them were around in 1954 when they changed that teaching.

They have not, if you read the whole article, changed any teaching there, because two of the articles deal with verse 12, and two with verse 13, which quotes Joel 2:32 where Jehovah's name has been replaced by Lord.

By simply citing such brief excerpts a half truth has been turned into a lie.

In other words, both versions are true because both version are from articles discussing difference verses.

See if you can get someone to read this to you:
The Brothers and Sisters who started off what became the WTBTS, such as C T Russell all came from backgrounds that had been trinitarian, but changed their beliefs because of what they found in scripture.
And then try again.
Your education does not progress well at all.

But still far better than yours, lol.