Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
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 | Hank | 78149 | ||
Tsmith: Six hundred years ago, the date you fix for the KJV, neither King James nor any of the translators were even born! Your "facts" on this -- and I suspect on many of your other "facts" from which you draw so many other of your wild assertions -- are faulty. You state that anyone with a basic understanding of Hebrew and Greek can make a quick examination and determine that the NWT is a translation. Have you yourself a decent knowledge of these ancient languages? Do you not know that it takes far more than a "basic" knowledge of biblical Hebrew and Greek in order to qualify as a legitimate translator? What real and hard evidence can you provide that the NWT is right and other time-honored translations are in serious error? Have not your eyes indeed been clouded over by the same deception and lies that characterize the propaganda of the cult known as Jehovah's Witnesses and their leadership known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society? The New World Translation is the only undertaking in modern times that has held fast in its refusal to reveal to its readers the identity of its so-called translators. What does this suggest to you? Modesty on their part? But it is not modesty at all. It is dishonesty, pure and simple. Dishonesty fuelled by their continuing efforts to hood wink and deceive their followers into believing that this "translation" is legitimate, that it was made by seasoned, qualified, and honest scholars. The truth is, no qualified translator would dare render John 1:1 the way the NWT heretically renders it. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78154 | ||
LOL. 600. Haha. I'm surprised I said that. I do realize that KJV is 1611. I guess I just threw out a number. As for my statement about someone with a basic knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, I was not expressing that they should make a translation of their own, but simply examine the NWT. As for the cult statement, you are again stating an opinion. As for John 1:1. Well, unfortunately, this is where you REALLY go wrong. Probably falling back to Colwell's rule again. John 1:1c should certainly not be rendered "and the Word was God" if that is what you are trying to maintain. |
||||||
3 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 78157 | ||
If indeed I go wrong on the rendering of John 1:1, so do all the translators from Jerome to the lastest translation whose ink is still wet. You cannot justify your stand that the New World Translation is anything but a cult's evil undertaking to tamper with the sacred texts of Scripture in order to twist it and adulterate it into compliance with their teachings of heresy and deception. --Hank | ||||||
4 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tsmith | 78160 | ||
Actually, there are MANY translations that have alternate renderings. My personal choice, this qualitative anarthrous PN is "and the Word was a divine being". Here: Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person" Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god" Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was" Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God" Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" "In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god” Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god" J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god" George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word" James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God" Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being" Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]. John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God" Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god" Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)" Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.' Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. "a God" Lant Carpenter, LL.D "a God" Andrews Norton, D.D. "a god" Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church "a God |
||||||