Originally posted by robbie carrobieSomeone lent you the book ~ and you read it "on numerous occasions" before giving it back ~ and now you "made a mistake" about whether its claims were specific or not? That's a bit odd, robbie. You borrowed the book for a long time, was that it?
it was a long time ago someone lent me the book. I made a mistake, clearly he does reference specific verses.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo let me get this straight. You are claiming you read "Appendix: The Use of 'Jehovah' in the NWT" - from Jason BeDuhn's book "Truth in Translation" - "on numerous occasions"?
Is this pettiness really all you have to offer or will you make an attempt to actually say something with content?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo someone lent me the book and i read it from beginning to end and gave it back then read a pdf version when i needed it in debate, why that should be surprising i cannot say. What you find it is neither here nor there.
Someone lent you the book ~ and you read it "on numerous occasions" before giving it back ~ and now you "made a mistake" about whether its claims were specific or not? That's a bit odd, robbie. You borrowed the book for a long time, was that it?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI have made my position clear and i refuse to engage in pettiness with you, if you have something to say about the content of the book say it otherwise i am uninterested in your inane drivel.
So let me get this straight. You are claiming you read "Appendix: The Use of 'Jehovah' in the NWT" - from Jason BeDuhn's book "Truth in Translation" - "on numerous occasions"?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, I do. Do you endorse his analysis of how "the most basic principle of accuracy" is violated in the NWT with regard to the use of the name "Jehovah" in the NT?
... if you have something to say about the content of the book say it otherwise i am uninterested in inane drivel.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWasn't page 4 of this thread an example of being "in debate"? How could you have forgotten whether Jason BeDuhn's claims were specific or not?
No someone lent me the book and i read it from beginning to end and gave it back then read a pdf version when i needed it in debate...
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI did not memorise the book and I see your drooling continues. Oh well, when you have something with content let me know because i have better things to do than remonstrate with someone that seeps slobber.
Wasn't page 4 of this thread an example of being "in debate"? How could you have forgotten whether Jason BeDuhn's claims were specific or not?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs Jason BeDuhn a Greek specialist, robbie? I see that he is Associate Professor of Religious Studies in the Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, at Northern Arizona University. So linguistics is not his speciality.
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?
His profile at wikipedia doesn't mention the word "Greek". His personal page at his university doesn't mention the word "Greek".
His profile at the Northern Arizona University web site doesn't mention the word "Greek".
And his online CV mentions the word "Greek" just once on a list of languages but not in association with any of the 30 or so professional papers he has written.
Nor does it mention the word "Greek" in the subject of any of the 12 major book reviews he has written.
Nor any of the 16 academic articles he has produced, or any of the courses he offers or in the titles or subtitles or descriptions of any of the books he has authored.
No mention of the word "Greek" anywhere, except that it's on his list of languages.
But none of his professional appointments have directly involved teaching language or lingusitics of any kind, let alone Greek.
Is he a Greek specialist of any renown, robbie? And if he is, why does neither he nor his university feature it ~ or even mention it ~ in his profile?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_BeDuhn
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/
http://nau.edu/CAL/CCS/Faculty-and-Staff/Beduhn/
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.htm
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you borrowed the book, read it on numerous occasions, and even have a pdf version of it, why are the only words you have ever quoted from it taken from the wikipedia entry about it and nothing else?
No someone lent me the book and i read it from beginning to end and gave it back then read a pdf version when i needed it in debate, why that should be surprising i cannot say. What you find it is neither here nor there.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
Originally posted by StartreaderI've thought and prayed a lot about your question during the day. It's not a true question, despite the question mark. It's a confrontational challenge.
Thank you for pointing out to this forum that I am Catholic, although the discerning will already have guessed that.
I'll be delighted to answer your question, but later, after prayer and consideration, and when the busy day I have ahead of me allows.
Not everyone has the spare time apparently available to you, given the volume and abundance of all your posts everywhere.
On such a very serious matter I'm not going to enter into any debate with you. Others here may wish to, though I see that many of the vocal contributors don't themselves believe in the Trinity. Maybe there's someone in this forum who does and who wishes to debate with you.
I don't. Not on this central tenet of faith, which is a treasure, the greatest treasure I know, a pearl of great price. I'm not going to reduce it to an inane trivial debate on an Internet forum. And I know better than to debate with a Jehovah's Witness. You don't ask with any sincere desire to know. You pretend to ask but you wish only to score points, to "prove" wrong.
I will not play your game. I promised you an answer and my answer, knowing you will jeer but anyway, after much prayer, is No.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
Originally posted by FMFFMF, I don't know you at all, but it seems you have scored Game, Set and Match against Mr Carrobie.
If you borrowed the book, read it on numerous occasions, and even have a pdf version of it, why are the only words you have ever quoted from it taken from the wikipedia entry about it and nothing else?
Well done. Exemplary.