25 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOther version add words in an attempt to give the sense too. Your NWT does not always put their added words in brackets or parenthesis, so that is a bunch of baloney.
Any words that we add in our bibles are put in parenthesis so that the reader knows, they are not slyly hidden away like in other publications. This is done to give sense, not to change the sense as is the case in the NIV. Why will you not admit that they have added a word and changed the meaning?
The Instructor
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsadd words? they have changed the sense completely and not told a soul, why? because they are sly trinitarians like you, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they visited chess sites with their chess engines either, masquerading as something they are not.
Other version add words in an attempt to give the sense too. Your NWT does not always put their added words in brackets or parenthesis, so that is a bunch of baloney.
The Instructor
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow you are playing ignorant. Okay, be ignorant then.
add words? they have changed the sense completely and not told a soul, why? because they are sly trinitarians like you, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they visited chess sites with their chess engines either, masquerading as something they are not.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
5 edits
why can you not say it Jaywill, they have added the term, 'above', because they are trinitarians and what to make it appear that Christ is distinct from the creation, i know it, you know it and the very stones are crying it out, but I want to hear you say it.
Can we talk about a version that I use ?
If "above" is not a good translation for the Greek text in that passage then I do not agree with it being supplied (even if it does seem trinitarian).
I do not read Greek directly. And if I was sitting across from you and handed you my Greek Text edited by Dr. Bruce Metzger I think you'd end up being embarrassed if I opened to a random page and asked you to translate on the spot.
I think so Robbie.
Now let's take it your way for argument's sake. IF you have Christ as the first thing that God created according to Arius then do you have Christ as the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End?
Or since He uttered these things, do you have the First after the First and the Last before the Last ?
If we are under neo-platonian influence to confess Jesus as our Lord and God as Thomas did, then Jesus Himself must have been under your "Pagan Influence" too.
" ... and He placed His right hand on me, saying, Do not fear;
I am the First and the Last and the living One; and I became dead, and behold, I am living forever and ever." (Revelation 1:17,18)
I confess that I believe that Jesus Christ is the First and the Last who became dead and is living forever and ever. He must be the same God who said -
"Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called; I am He; I am the First, I am also the Last..." (Isaiah 48:12)
"I, Jehovah, am the first, And with the last, I am He." (Isaiah 41:4)
"Thus says Jehovah the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts, I am the First and I am the Last, and apart from Me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
IF I am neo-platonian influenced that Christ is Jehovah the First and the Last become a man who could die and resurrect then Jesus Christ must be neo-platonian influenced for stating that He is the First and the Last in Revelation 1:11.
25 Jun 13
What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
"Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
The translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm
The Instructor
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonshipstill cannot bring yourself to say it, ouch, must be hard.why can you not say it Jaywill, they have added the term, 'above', because they are trinitarians and what to make it appear that Christ is distinct from the creation, i know it, you know it and the very stones are crying it out, but I want to hear you say it.
Can we talk about a version that I use ?
If "above" is not a good transla ...[text shortened]... nced for stating that He is the First and the Last in [b] Revelation 1:11. [/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat do you think this means which I wrote you above ?
still cannot bring yourself to say it, ouch, must be hard.
If "above" is not a good translation for the Greek text in that passage then I do not agree with it being supplied (even if it does seem trinitarian).
You think you've hit some kind of home run?? Stop bluffing. Time to move on from the loose paraphrase of the NIV on that particular verse.
Is there a FIRST and another FIRST ?
Is there a LAST and another LAST ?
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonshipa loose paraphrase, hardly, a sly trinitarian attempt to usurp the written word of God and supplant a foreign doctrine into the text.
what do you think this means ?
If "above" is not a good translation for the Greek text in that passage then I do not agree with it being supplied (even if it does seem trinitarian).
You think you've hit some kind of home run?? Stop bluffing. Time to [b]move on from the loose paraphrase of the NIV on that particular verse.
Is there a FIRST and another FIRST ?
Is there a LAST and another LAST ?[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThankyou.
a loose paraphrase, hardly, a sly trinitarian attempt to usurp the written word of God and supplant a foreign doctrine into the text.
You cannot squeeze any more juice out of NIV's rendering of the Colossian verse - how sneaky and sly they may have been.
Now where is the answer to my question ?
Is Jesus Christ the secondary First after Jehovah the First ?
Is Jesus Christ another Last other than Jehovah the Last ?
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonshipyou are once again determined to enter the realms of theology, i am interested in language.
Thankyou.
You cannot squeeze any more juice out of NIV's rendering of the Colossian verse - how sneaky and sly they may have been.
Now where is the answer to my question ?
Is Jesus Christ the secondary First after Jehovah the First ?
Is Jesus Christ another Last other than Jehovah the Last ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh. You are only interested in the realm of language.
you are once again determined to enter the realms of theology, i am interested in language.
Then you are like an atheist who goes to seminary just to learn about language ?
This is a free country in the US. Atheists who care NOTHING for God can go to a Union Theological Seminary and come out with credentials in some ancient language along with their Divinity Degree.
Is that you too? You don't believe in God, you are only interested in language of the sacred texts ?
Or you are interested in theology only up to what you want to believe. After that point you're only "interested in the realm of language."
Try it on some Sunday school kids. Doesn't work on me.
If you were really interested in language translation the first thing you'd do is throw that NWT into the dumpster.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTake some of your own medicine now Robbie.
still cannot bring yourself to say it, ouch, must be hard.
still cannot bring yourself to say it, ouch, must be hard.
Is Christ the First and the Last Jehovah the First and the Last or not ?
25 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipFirst of all i resent your assertions of atheism on my part and i resent your tone towards atheists as well. The reason that there are so many atheists is in part due to the infighting and conflicts as well as the greed, corruption and warmongering of the so called Christian church, which has turned many aside, evidence to me that God has removed his spirit and blessing from it.
Oh. You are only interested in the realm of language.
Then you are like an atheist who goes to seminary just to learn about language ?
This is a free country in the US. Atheists who care NOTHING for God can go to a Union Theological Seminary and come out with a credentials in some ancient language along with their Divinity Degree.
Is that you sted in language translation the first thing you'd do is throw that NWT into the dumpster.
You need to support your beliefs with interpretations because as we see, the language of the inspired word does not support that view, that is why you need to resort to interpretation in order to support it, for its extra Biblical.
As for the New world translation, its a superlative translation, not perfect, but the best to date, Muslims have more respect for Gods word than you people, they would never consider putting it even upon the ground than in a dumpster, yes indeed, that is how far removed you are from respecting the scriptures, you are simply interested in using them to support your bias.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
First of all i resent your assertions of atheism on my part and i resent your tone towards atheists as well.
Sure. But I be "sneaky" and "sly" as a Trinitarian who is a disciple of neo-platonian philosophy.
Okay. Let's be big boys. The Athiests on the Forum can take care of themselves fine.
The First and the Last ? Who is He ? Is He Jehovah of the OT and NOT Christ or Christ in the NT and NOT Jehovah of the Old ?
I believe that the Word became flesh and tabernacle among us. The language says that you know?
The reason that there are so many atheists is in part due to the infighting and conflicts as well as the greed, corruption and warmongering of the so called Christian church, which has turned many aside, evidence to me that God has removed his spirit and blessing from it.
The church in Corinth had plenty of problems too. Are you suggesting that Christians all without exception should be instantaneously totally mature the moment they believe in Christ?
Strange that you feel compelled suddenly to run to the defense of Atheists. As if they gave a flip about your sympathy.
Some people are turned off because they WANT to be turned off. None of this effects what the language (which you say you're interested in) SAYS.
Christ does not talk like He is the first created being. He talks as He is the uncreated ever existing Creator become a man who died and rose.
Don't believe if you don't like it. I believe Him.
You need to support your beliefs with interpretations because as we see, the language of the inspired word does not support that view, that is why you need to resort to interpretation in order to support it, for its extra Biblical.
"Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17)
But WHO is the Lord that Paul refers to ? ? ?
"For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ..." (4:5)
I confess that I believe that the Holy Spirit is the Lord Jesus Christ in another form. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Spirit like Paul said in the language of Greek, translated into English and many other languages.
But wait. The Spirit is eternal - "Christ, who offered Himself through the eternal Spirit" (Hebrews 9:14)
I confess that I believe that Christ the Lord is the life giving Spirit who He became (1 Cor. 15:45) and is the Spirit, the eternal Spirit through Whom He also offered Himself.
Do you really want to stump me ? Ask me to explain this. I can't.
But it didn't say "he that can [ explaneth ] would not perish but have eternal life" rather "he that believes into Him might not perish but have eternal life."
We can experience and enjoy the Triune God but not be able to fully explain the Triune God with our limited human language.
I know that God became real to me the night I received Christ into my heart. The higher I exalt Jesus the happier Jehovah is.
As for the New world translation, its a superlative translation, not perfect, but the best to date, Muslims have more respect for Gods word than you people,
I know of no one who recommends NWT as superlative. Only you.
It is a translation at war with Jehovah.
You should change your names to Jehovah's Rebels.
Your organization is in revolt AGAINST Jehovah. You hate that the First and the Last became dead and behold is living forever and ever as the Son of Man.
they would not consider putting it even upon the ground than in a dumpster, yes indeed, that is how far removed you are from respecting the scriptures, you are simply interested in using them to support your bias
You JWs should have stuck with a decent translation like the 1901 American Standard. You couldn't because it exposed the errors of your theology. It just took a little time for the editorial staff down in Brooklyn to realize it.
Go back to the 1901 ASV. That is what I would advize you JWs to do.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonshipMuslims have more respect for the Bible than you do, you think about that.First of all i resent your assertions of atheism on my part and i resent your tone towards atheists as well.
Sure. But I be "sneaky" and "sly" as a Trinitarian who is a disciple of neo-platonian philosophy.
Okay. Let's be big boys. The Athiests on the Forum can take care of themselves fine.
The First and the Last ? Who is He ...[text shortened]... [b]Go back to the 1901 ASV. That is what I would advize you JWs to do.[/b]