3, 7, 12 and 40

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you look through the thread Wolfgang provided a plethora of these pagan trinities. Are you denying that they exist or that the trinity is of pagan origin? No? well the statement is true. I suspect that its a weakness of your argument or lack of evidence to the contrary that you feel the necessity to make reference to the watchtower magazine, Jehov ...[text shortened]... prejudices rather than being able to argue objectively on the merits of the argument by itself.

"People like you". The fallback resorted to by those with a weak argument, almost always, as in this case, born of sheer ignorance.

You have no idea of what I'm like. You don't know me.

As it happens, I am not and have never been a Jehovah's Witness but unfortunately know a very great deal in detail about their organisation, doctrines and methods. Thus I say with certainty that your statement on the Trinity was straight out of the Watchtower's Trinity booklet. Because it was.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not a Biblical teaching.

"Not a Biblical teaching" according to Watchtower guidelines based upon their erroneous, mistaken and manipulative translation of the Bible, known to them as "the most accurate translation".

Originally posted by Startreader
"People like you". The fallback resorted to by those with a weak argument, almost always, as in this case, born of sheer ignorance.

You have no idea of what I'm like. You don't know me.

As it happens, I am not and have never been a Jehovah's Witness but unfortunately know a very great deal in detail about their organisation, doctrines and methods ...[text shortened]... r statement on the Trinity was straight out of the Watchtower's Trinity booklet. Because it was.

This thread is not about you, its not about Jehovahs witnesses the discussion is actually about biblical numbers and has evolved into a discussion about the trinity. If you have not the decency or manners or sense of forum etiquette keep to the topic then may I suggest that you find some other outlet for your prejudices? The fact there are pagan trinities is well known I provided a link demonstrating the fact. This link is not a watchtower publication. Was not printed by, authored by, conceived by or distributed by Jehovahs Witnesses. Now either address the topic at hand or take your prejudices elsewhere.

Originally posted by Startreader
"Not a Biblical teaching" according to Watchtower guidelines based upon their erroneous, mistaken and manipulative translation of the Bible, known to them as "the most accurate translation".

Another pathetic, plastic and transparent ad hominem. Again if you have not the manners or decency or sense of forum etiquette to argue a case based on its merits but instead need to resort to cheap tactics then this is not the place for you. People are not so naive that they cannot see through such charlatan like behaviour easily.

Originally posted by Startreader
"Not a Biblical teaching" according to Watchtower guidelines based upon their erroneous, mistaken and manipulative translation of the Bible, known to them as "the most accurate translation".

The new world translation of the Holy Scriptures was independently verified by associate professor Jason BDhunn in his book truth in transaltion - accuracy and bias in English translations of the New Testament as the most accurate English translation. Are you more qualified than him. Can you tell us what translations you have compared so as to dispute or refute his assessment?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This thread is not about you, its not about Jehovahs witnesses the discussion is actually about biblical numbers and has evolved into a discussion about the trinity. If you have not the decency or manners or sense of forum etiquette keep to the topic then may I suggest that you find some other outlet for your prejudices? The fact there are pagan tr ...[text shortened]... by Jehovahs Witnesses. Now either address the topic at hand or take your prejudices elsewhere.

Exactly. This thread is about the numbers mentioned and the Trinity, on which I have posted, accurately and definitively.

Pagan gods are not the Holy Trinity which is One God, Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, born of the Father with whom he is consubstantial, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The pagan gods you mention bear no relation to this. The fact that you, a declared Jehovah's Witness, make a response indistinguishable from literature published by that organisation is entirely relevant to this thread and pertinent to the discussion.

Please don't extend your stentorian tactics from the Clan forum into this forum. It's extremely poor forum etiquette, let alone atrociously bad manners, and your attempts to browbeat a poster new to this forum merely speak of your own limitations and nothing further.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Another pathetic, plastic and transparent ad hominem. Again if you have not the manners or decency or sense of forum etiquette to argue a case based on its merits but instead need to resort to cheap tactics then this is not the place for you. People are not so naive that they cannot see through such charlatan like behaviour easily.

Please learn what an ad hominem argument really is before using the term so readily, so weakly and so woefully inaccurately.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The new world translation of the Holy Scriptures was independently verified by associate professor Jason BDhunn in his book truth in transaltion - accuracy and bias in English translations of the New Testament as the most accurate English translation. Are you more qualified than him.

It's true that Jason BeDuhn claims that the NWT is a "remarkably good translation", however he also pointed out that "...the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times "[was] not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that "[it] violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament". [wiki]

Originally posted by Startreader
Exactly. This thread is about the numbers mentioned and the Trinity, on which I have posted, accurately and definitively.

Pagan gods are not the Holy Trinity which is One God, Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, born of the Father with whom he is consubstantial, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the ...[text shortened]... to browbeat a poster new to this forum merely speak of your own limitations and nothing further.

Good you have been reeled in and are back on track.

Your position is akin to that of Hinduism with its pantheon of Gods allegedly being the manifestation of a single deity.

Please try to argue objectively on the merits of what is known to you. Have I made any reference to your Catholicism no? Why not? because the merits of your arguments are not dependent upon which faith you profess, they are dependent solely upon their content.

Originally posted by FMF
It's true that Jason BeDuhn claims that the NWT is a "remarkably good translation", however he also pointed out that "...the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times [b]"[was] not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that "[it] violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions f ...[text shortened]... s worth its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament". [wiki]

I do not see why this negates the fact that he found the New World translation to be the most accurate English translation of the Bibles that he surveyed. You will have of course read his book and can proffer an objective assessment of his findings.

Here is what BeDhunn actually says, which you seem to have omitted, ' The New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the most accurate of the translations compared"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

Are you now disputing his findings and if so on what basis?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I do not see why this negates the fact that he found the New World translation to be the most accurate English translation of the Bibles that he surveyed. Perhaps you can tell us how it does. You will have of course read his book and can proffer an objective assessment of his findings.

I've just made a reply to roigam in the "spirituality quotations - part 2" thread which is related to this point about the name of God. That the name Jehovah was added to the NT hundreds of times is indicative of your watchtower leaders attempts to alter the truth therein.

Originally posted by divegeester
I've just made a reply to roigam in the "spirituality quotations - part 2" thread which is related to this point about the name of God. That the name Jehovah was added to the NT hundreds of times is indicative of your watchtower leaders attempts to alter the truth therein.

Which one of those hundreds of references are you disputing and on what basis? Restoring the divine name is not an attempt to alter truth and in fact we can simply ask you why it was removed in the first place and replaced with inane substitutes like kyrios (Lord) and adonia (God?). You were of course aware of the fact were you not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
which one of those hundreds of references are you disputing and on what basis?

All of them on the basis that they were added into the NT by the translators of you NWT, as referenced in the book you like, by Mr Jason BeDuhn

Originally posted by divegeester
All of them on the basis that they were added into the NT by the translators of you NWT, as referenced in the book you like, by Mr Jason BeDuhn

You are disputing all of them? BeDhunn does not reference any of them specifically, so you will tell us which ones you find objectionable and on what basis? You have of course read his book, have you not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are disputing all of them? BeDhunn does not reference any of them specifically, so you will tell us which ones you find objectionable and on what basis? You have of course read his book, have you not?

No. Let's stick to what the author said as referenced by FMF.