16 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's more like your fight against reasoned debate and overwhelming evidence against your position.
Not quite Suzzianne, its not a matter of pride, its a fight against ignorance and a fight
against prejudice, their dogma and their prejudices. Ignorance can be forgiven, we
cannot possibly know everything, but to slanderously portray others as being errant
when in fact they are not, is inexcusable. All RJH has to state is 'yes, we have done s ...[text shortened]... do it, so i must prove again and
again and again, what a thoroughly scurrilous fellow he is.
16 Oct 11
4 edits
Originally posted by menace71Do i tell you with whom to correspond and where to express yourself? Do I? Have I
Well that's just silliness if RC does that!! However if it's too hot in the kitchen the RC should not be in a forum were people might not agree with or even challenge Him
Manny
like Jaywill told others not to talk with you? Have I? If I dont want to correspond with
a person for whatever reason am i not entitled to desist? well? i have no problem on
people challenging my actual arguments, but when they resort to slander and
defamation, your this and your that, then i dont have to take their crap. Its not as if I
did not issue a warning that if it continued then i would simply ignore them, not
because of the strength of their arguments, but because of their lack of civility.
16 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy do you bring up JASON DAVID BEDUHN? I have already proved
As i suspected, you have actually no idea what you are talking about. I will repeat
the quotation as you seemed to have either misunderstood it or chosen to ignore it,
In most sentences where we see a past tense verb and a present tense verb, we
would assume that the action of the past verb is earlier in time than the action of
the present v
So if you apologise, like I know your gonna, we'll be on our way.
he was biased in our discussion of John 1:1. Have you got amnesia again?
He is only giving his biased opinion and I have already pointed out that
he is not among the recognized Greek language linguists. None of them
agree with JASON DAVID BEDUHN. It is strange that during that
discussion you were not interested in how it should make sense in English
but was only interested in the Greek because you thought "a" should be
added before God. Now, in this verse, it must make sense in English
and you can no longer follow the Greek. I believe it is because you do
not want it to say what it says in English, but want to change it to suit
your dogma. I gave you the reference to the Greek grammer rule that
states "eimi" is translated as a present tense verb in English. I don't
know if Professor BeDuhn is a Jehovah's Witness or not but he is using
his own bias to get in the way of an accurate translation. No matter how
hard you guys want to substitue another tense verb in English, it can not
be done honestly. Because the rule requires a present tense verb and
in this case it should read "I AM" or at least "I am". The best you could
do is put the "I am" in front so that it would read:
I am before Abraham came into being.
or
I am before Abraham was.
P.S. You ignored my question: Why did they pick up stones to stone Him?
16 Oct 11
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy dont you answer the points that he is making RJH, why dont you? I am
Why do you bring up JASON DAVID BEDUHN? I have already proved
he was biased in our discussion of John 1:1. Have you got amnesia again?
He is only giving his biased opinion and I have already pointed out that
he is not among the recognized Greek language linguists. None of them
agree with JASON DAVID BEDUHN. It is strange that during that
discussion y am was.
P.S. You ignored my question: Why did they pick up stones to stone Him?
interested in the text, not what you think of professor BeDuhn. Are you going to
admit bias? Are you going to admit that the NWT is accurate? Will I need to produce
other instances where the translators of Christendom have observed the Greek
idiom only to deliberately ignore it in the text at John 8:58?
I am before Abraham came into being.
I am before Abraham was.
what the heck are they, can anyone tell me, anyone who knows anything about
English, even the fundamental basics, why they are not correct,
Slaphead i am, before Robbie tore the wheels of my wagon. Is that how you speak
and write English RJH, is it? Why wont you admit that its bias?
16 Oct 11
lets take a look at John 14:9
'tosouto xrono meth humon eimi', literally, 'for this much time with you, I am'.
what about John 15:27, 'ap arches met emou este', literally, 'from (the) beginning
with me, you are'.
In both of these passages we can see that there is a relationship between the
present tense form, 'to be', (i am, you are) and an expression of past time, (for this
much time, from the beginning). This is EXACTLY the same grammatical construct
as found at John 8:58 where these same translators ignore the larger grammatical
construct and translate the text as 'am'. Why have the translators , whose job it is
to make the Bible into comprehensible English chosen an awkward and
ungrammatical rendering instead? Why have the translators which in thousands of
other verses freely change word order relative to the original Greek suddenly find a
reason to produce a word for word lexical portrayal, producing an ungrammatical
and systematically strained sentence? The answer? Theological bias.
when will you admit it RJH?
16 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCalm down chap. Where did I "slander" or "defame" you?
Do i tell you with whom to correspond and where to express yourself? Do I? Have I
like Jaywill told others not to talk with you? Have I? If I dont want to correspond with
a person for whatever reason am i not entitled to desist? well? i have no problem on
people challenging my actual arguments, but when they resort to slander and
defamatio ...[text shortened]... e them, not
because of the strength of their arguments, but because of their lack of civility.
This is the typical cage-rattling tactics you employ whenever you get found out.
And don't pretend you're not reading my posts, I know you are 😉
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy don't you answer my question that you have ingnored for these
Why dont you answer the points that he is making RJH, why dont you? I am
interested in the text, not what you think of professor BeDuhn. Are you going to
admit bias? Are you going to admit that the NWT is accurate? Will I need to produce
other instances where the translators of Christendom have observed the Greek
idiom only to deliberately ...[text shortened]... wagon. Is that how you speak
and write English RJH, is it? Why wont you admit that its bias?
two days?
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by galveston75I have missed no point, my post was quite clear, any attempt to obfuscate the truth (purposefully) is a lie. There is no way any JW can truthfully and objectively say they are using God's name. No one knows, there are certainly clues and information to be gathered, but no one knows you yourself have just admitted as much in your post.
The point here for all to see is from our viewpoint we do use his name even if it may be pronounced differently or even if it's not entirly correct. But as many here do, they just ignor it and even make up something else to use in it's place.
We take the scripture in the Bible that says: "only those who call on the name of the LORD will have life." An ...[text shortened]... prayer says to use God's name...Jehovah, not Jesus's until the conclusion of the prayer.
The wrong name or the "close enough" name are equally as offensive, especially when used in the manner that you use it. Its like calling someone named Larry Leroy and then when a third party says, Hey I am pretty sure his name isn't Leroy, but you insist it's close enough.
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59read a book, look it up on line etc... it is a well known fact that ancient hebrew had no J sound
How on earth do you know ancient hebrew had no /J/ ???
When I briefly studied Latin at school there was debate over pronounciation ... particularly "v", was it /v/ or /w/. Nobody knows [b]for sure although there will be clever arguments from linguists.
Hebrew being older must be in even more doubt.
For comparison observe how the Spanish "c" ( ...[text shortened]... th/ in most regions) has changed to /s/ in South America. That in just a few hundred years.[/b]
16 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DowardDo you object to the fact the Jesus is pronounced with a J, no, well then you have no
I have missed no point, my post was quite clear, any attempt to obfuscate the truth (purposefully) is a lie. There is no way any JW can truthfully and objectively say they are using God's name. No one knows, there are certainly clues and information to be gathered, but no one knows you yourself have just admitted as much in your post.
The wrong name or the rd party says, Hey I am pretty sure his name isn't Leroy, but you insist it's close enough.
case.
16 Oct 11
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIs your question concerned purely with the text and its translation based on an
Why don't you answer my question that you have ingnored for these
two days?
accurate understanding of the grammatical form or is it of a theological nature?
I will be happy to answer any questions related to the former, i am uninterested in
the latter.
Will you admit that in this instance the translators of Christendom have demonstrated a
religious bias based upon their preconceived ideas with regard to the nature of the
Christ, as demonstrated by their willingness to ignore the Greek idiom, yet recognise it
elsewhere? Will you admit that the New world translation is an accurate portrayal of the
verse according to the Greek idiom and the sense that was intended?
why are you evading these simple and self evident truths RJH. Fess up and free
your mind.
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy question gets to the heart of the correct translation. You can not
Is your question concerned purely with the text and its translation based on an
accurate understanding of the grammatical form or is it of a theological nature?
I will be happy to answer any questions related to the former, i am uninterested in
the latter.
Will you admit that in this instance the translators of Christendom have demonstrat ...[text shortened]...
why are you evading these simple and self evident truths RJH. Fess up and free
your mind.
just ignore the context to try to make the speaker say something He
did not say. This is the same thing Professor BeDuhn and the JW
translators attempt to do in John 1:1 and here in John 8:58. I am
not going to accept Professor BeDuhn's biased translation over all
the recognized expert Greek linguists when I know he only had
intermediate level training in Greek to get his degree and I can see
for myself that He is ignoring the surrounding text just like he has
admitted to doing with John 1:1.
16 Oct 11
2 edits
UPPETSOriginally posted by robbie carrobieI agree we should try to keep personal attacks to a minimum but I've see you call people Muppets idiots snakes............I rather think it's funny on a certain level
Do i tell you with whom to correspond and where to express yourself? Do I? Have I
like Jaywill told others not to talk with you? Have I? If I dont want to correspond with
a person for whatever reason am i not entitled to desist? well? i have no problem on
people challenging my actual arguments, but when they resort to slander and
def ...[text shortened]... e them, not
because of the strength of their arguments, but because of their lack of civility.
Your right you can corrospond with whom you choose but your the one putting yourself out there in the first place.
Manny
16 Oct 11
I was thinking about this an original languages being translated into English there is not always an exact literal translation. Spanish to English is a perfect example. Koine Greek to English same thing I'm sure. Or if you translate it into English it will sound funny so what? Like "I Am" In the example of John 8:58 Jesus says before Abraham was "I Am" the context of this is what is important however and I don't care what the original says (I do care) The reaction of those who heard Jesus words is what RC you keep dodging. (Let's pretend for argument sake your the JW who showed up on my doorstep and I invited you in and asked you this very sincere question) They revered Abraham as a prophet and they obviously associated what Jesus said with some early bit of scripture because of their reaction. So why did they react to Jesus words in such a violent way?
Manny
16 Oct 11
1 edit
If you look at John 1:1 the first thing noticed with the NWT of the scripture is:
John 1:1-51 http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_001.htm
1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God.
The "a god" and it kinda sounds and seems whacky when you read other versions. The bias is so plain to see it's blatant. If Jesus (The Word) is just "a god" who cares if the word became flesh? The logic does not follow. John was making a point that the word that was with God and that was God became flesh.
The "a god became flesh" ??? does not make since at all
Manny