Subject: Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? |
Bible Note: 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 |