22 Nov 12
Originally posted by FMFand neither have you out of the alleged thousands that you say exist, thanks, that's all
So, you haven't found a single scholar who corroborates Jason DeBuhn's opinions. Fine. That was all I wanted to know.
I wanted to know, strange really that you could not do so, perhaps they exist only in
your mind.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnalysis of the translation of bible texts is "unprecedented" as far as you are aware?
there are very few authors with either the knowledge or the motivation who could
undertake a work like this, it seems somewhat unique to me. Yes there are Bible
translations and translators, but to actually try to make an evaluation of how good the
translation is and make a comparison with other translations and to publish those
findings in ...[text shortened]... ion is not only an accurate
rendering of the base text, its the most accurate for that matter.
the New world translation is not only an accurate rendering of the base text, its the most accurate for that matter.
How many prominent bible scholars subscribe to this view?
22 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFDr BeDhun and again how many have examined the texts and made a comparison, that is correct, Dr BeDhun.
Analysis of the translation of bible texts is "unprecedented" as far as you are aware?
[b]the New world translation is not only an accurate rendering of the base text, its the most accurate for that matter.
How many prominent bible scholars subscribe to this view?[/b]
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn the wake of Jason DeBuhn "effectively blowing the lid off the whole lot" with his opinions (what was it, about a decade ago?) how many other scholars have either corroborated or critiqued what he claimed?
Dr BeDhun and again how many have examined the texts and made a comparison, that is correct, Dr BeDhun.
22 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFare you now disputing his claims, on what basis are you disputing his claims, that you
In the wake of Jason DeBuhn "effectively blowing the lid off the whole lot" with his opinions (what was it, about a decade ago?) how many other scholars have either corroborated or critiqued what he claimed?
cannot find anyone who has corroborated or critiqued his book and on the basis of not
having read it yourself, thanks, i think its a rather damning portrayal of your position, I
myself will waste no time on the matter further, smugly safe in the knowledge that I
have actually read it and concur with all its findings (with the exception of his somewhat
critical evaluation of our use of the divine name) and you can harp on about lack of
corroboration and thousands of non existent scholars who you cannot cite to either
corroborate it or otherwise until the cows come home, have a good day.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not disputing his claims. I have been trying to ascertain the extent to which biblical scholars corroborate his claims. You have answered: they don't. Right?
are you now disputing his claims, on what basis are you disputing his claims, that you
cannot find anyone who has corroborated or critiqued his book and on the basis of not
having read it yourself, thanks, i think its a rather damning portrayal of your position, I
myself will waste no time on the matter further, smugly safe in the knowledge tha ...[text shortened]... u cannot cite to either
corroborate it or otherwise until the cows come home, have a good day.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by FMFyes all the reviews i have read collaborate it, but as to the qualifications of those who
So the scholarly reviews of DeBuhn's work corroborate it?
offered their opinions, I cannot say. so let us ask you, have you found a scholarly
work which casts doubt on its veracity? if so, please provide the details, if not then your
attempt to try to draw some inferences from the lack of critique amount to what?
gaseous hot air I would say.
22 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am fascinated by your reliance on this one scholar. My inquiry as to whether his opinions have been corroborated by his peers is in connection with this reliance you appear to have. The veracity of DeBuhn's opinions isn't really the issue, as you know. But how influential he is - or isn't - among biblical scholars is interesting.
so let us ask you, have you found a scholarly work which casts doubt on its veracity? if so, please provide the details, if not then your attempt to try to draw some inferences from the lack of critique amount to what?
gaseous hot air I would say.
yes all the reviews i have read collaborate it, but as to the qualifications of those who offered their opinions, I cannot say.
So can we conclude that you believe bible scholars are more or less unanimous about the New World Translation being the best translation of the bible?
22 Nov 12
2 edits
sorry where have i stated that i believe that 'bible scholars are more or less unanimous
about the New World Translation being the best translation of the bible', and the answer
is nowhere. I have stated that associate professor Jason BeDhun has examined nine or
so translations of the most popular English translations and found the New world
translation to be, and i quote, 'a remarkably good translation', and the most ,'accurate',
of those reviewed. This kind of insinuation the basis of which is in falsehood is what
marks your texts FMF, you are simply not interested in truth and time and again you
must resort to these types of nefarious fabrications, Machiavellian machinations and
slight of hand. I hope it works out for you.
yes we can conclude here, thanks, have a nice day.
22 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell Jason DeBhun's key opinion is that the New World Translation is the best translation of the bible, right? And when I asked if the scholarly reviews of DeBuhn's work corroborate it, you answered "yes all the reviews i have read collaborate it". [You meant "corroborate" right?] So does this - or does it not - mean you believe that the scholarly reviews of Jason DeBhun's assertion about the New World Translation corroborate it? Perhaps you could just state clearly what the scholarly consensus is and what impact Jason DeBhun's opinions have had on it in the last decade?
sorry where have i stated that i believe that 'bible scholars are more or less unanimous about the New World Translation being the best translation of the bible', and the answer is nowhere.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedo you argree with beduhn when he said this about the nwt.
Dr BeDhun and again how many have examined the texts and made a comparison, that is correct, Dr BeDhun.
"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"?