Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78135 | ||
First, you are incorrect in stating Russell ever claimed to know Greek or Hebrew. You need to make a closer investigation of such. Again, as I corrected myself twice already regarding, it is the NAB, not the NASB. Please do not quote me such poor scholarship as that of the late Walter Martin. You can note his poor scholarship by simply making a careful read of what he states: Martin: "he could not translate Genesis 2:4 from the Hebrew." However, this is quite the opposite of what was requested of Franz. "Q:Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?" He was not asked to translate something from Hebrew, but into Hebrew. Something that one Hebrew professor has gone so far as to claim that few who teach Hebrew could even do. So the Hebrew teacher at Biola was asked to do the opposite of Franz, so of course it was of no difficulty. Finally, I will again state this: I am here to discuss translation. However, I do not want to be quoted websites if you personally have no idea whether or not the information is even remotely accurate. For example, again, the site that mentioned the translations of ginwskw at John 17:3 The authory clearly did not even have a basic handle on the Greek language, and therefore had no business stating what he did. If somebody cares to discuss something however, I will be more than happy to. |
||||||
2 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 78150 | ||
Tsmith I would then say you probably have no place here. We stand on scholarship of men and women that are respected and not ashamed to be quoted. To suggest on NASB forum that NWT is even a creditable work is startling. To ask us to discuss the work of men that refused to be identified is ridiculous. The NWT has no credence and to carry any form of further discussion is only an attempt to lend it an air of credence. In other words the NWT is so lacking creditable scholarship it is pointless to discuss it. My last response on this ridiculous subject. EdB |
||||||
3 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78152 | ||
Well, there is considerable opinion within that post, but no fact to support it. The reason I am aware of this forum is because somebody suggested I should check it out. I was hoping there would be some how might like to take a scholarly examination of the facts. I seem to have found at least one such person. If you are unwilling or unable to participate in such, that is your choice. |
||||||