Subject: Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st |
Bible Note: Neither I nor the person I quoted was trying to make the argument that an original Hebrew Matthew must not be true since the JWs believed it. If I had made that argument then, yes, I would be mistaken. But that is not the argument I made. Not even close. The only point I was making with that part of my post is that "In doing so, JW’s (and all others who do this) openly trash the reliability of the Bible." How do you interpret the following to mean that the JW's belief in a Hebrew Matthew makes the belief false? It just isn't there. "'Jehovah’s Witnesses falsely claim the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. In doing so, JW’s openly trash the reliability of the Bible. 'YHWH "Yahweh" (The Tetragrammaton) Jehovah’s Witnesses are guilty of adding to the word of God by adding the divine name YHWH in the New Testament where it is never found in the original Greek manuscripts, and blamed the Bible as being corrupted. Rather than trashing their false doctrine, they trash the Bible! Their central premise is that Matthew was written in Hebrew but this is entirely false." --Kalos |