- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote And what proof do you have in questioning the integrity of over 600 scholars? WJ. Read more closely. I'm not questioning the integrity of over 600 scholars. First, most of those scholars had nothing to do with translating John 1:1.
Is 1:18 said:
“Although some Greek scholars insist that the last two words should be rendered “a god” or “divine”, by far the vast majority of them accept the former translation and reject that latter.”
So there are some “Greek scholars” who question, not the integrity of the other scholars, but their choice in translation.As I've said, this verse really can be translated a number of ways.
If those 600 scholars all believed in the trinity, which way do you think they are more inclined to render it?
All I'm asking is that you own up to the answer of that question.
When given a choice, there is a huge tendancy to lean towards the translation that favors your understanding as a whole. And they (your 600 scholars) were trinitarians, were they not?
So you tell me: If given a choice, if it could go either way grammatically, how are they going to translate it.
be honest now.
Quote Is 1:18 has made it clear up front that he was not trying to prove the trinity using this verse
Yes I know he has said that.He has said this:
“Generally speaking, I don’t believe John 1:1 is used (or rather should be used) as a proof text to support the trinity doctrine per se. However, it certainly is (and should be) used in support of one of the foundation tenets of the doctrine, namely the deity of Jesus Christ. . . .I will not be attempting to prove the trinity from this one verse. “And, somewhat of a contradiction, he's said this, on page 344 of the “trinity” thread:
“Properly understood, John 1:1 is very strong evidence in support of the trinity. Here's one reason why…”It’s not “a proof text to support the trinity.” It is “very strong evidence in support of the trinity.”
All this attacking of the NWT shows how week you truly are. Why must you so often start a separate conversation or attack some other point when you cannot rightly defend yourself. It is the definition of fallacious reasoning.
You know, WJ, there is a thread on the NWT.
Perhaps your unwarranted attacks would be more welcome there. At least then, you wouldn't be using false logic to somehow support yourself.
Just of of curiosity, WJ, do you ascribe to “the majority must be right because it is the majority.”
If you do, you may want to read your Bible again.There is a spirit of slumber, that is a decree from God given from the fathers Kingdom, King David, Lets say a voodoo, God created everything, even, powers, curse, over and on the eyes of some of the children, that they just shall not see or understand,
Now the spirit of Jesus is not going to stand there and torment these blind people, but Satan will use this blindness and thrives on the spoil, of those that did not understand, Psa 69:21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Psa 69:22 Let their table become a snare before them: and [that which should have been] for [their] welfare, [let it become] a trap.
Psa 69:23 Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.
Psa 69:24 Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.
Psa 69:25 Let their habitation be desolate; [and] let none dwell in their tents.
Psa 69:26 For they persecute [him] whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded.
Psa 69:27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness.
Psa 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Psa 69:29 But I [am] poor and sorrowful: let thy salvation, O God, set me up on high.Now the Government, A child is given, and there is no end on the throne of David, that Justice and judgment be done according
Here is a seat in office of this government, being used well
Informing us of this spirit of Slumber, and not to give up, but perhaps stay clear of fighting with such that are under this slumber, pointless, even as he charged his disciples not tell anyone he was the Christ, for that in its self could produce evil, wisdom, if they could not hear, they would be driven to become consumed with jealousy by acussing, and full of fury, till, life was taken over it.
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Rom 11:11 ¶ I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:David
You say…
Quote
So there are some “Greek scholars” who question, not the integrity of the other scholars, but their choice in translation.And?
So whats your point? People questioned the very words and actions of Jesus!You say…
Quote
As I've said, this verse really can be translated a number of ways.Exactly, “as you have said”!
But where is the evidence and the footnotes that those “Who Did” have something to do with the rendering of Jn 1:1 in all the translations found on Bible Gateway and BlueletterBible.com, that says it could be interpreted in more than 1 way?
You say…
Quote
If those 600 scholars all believed in the trinity, which way do you think they are more inclined to render it?
All I'm asking is that you own up to the answer of that question.And yet you say…
Quote I'm not questioning the integrity of over 600 scholars No. I don’t own up to your accusations and insinuations. Is1:18 puts it very well…
Quote
This shows that there is a strong consensus of opinion that disagrees with t8’s little “g” ascription. T8 may argue that the ratio simply reflects the disproportionality of translators with a trinitarian bias’ but I think most sound-thinking people would agree that the impetus of the scholars that translated the versions listed on the aforementioned websites mentioned was to preserve the integrity of the original texts and not to promote their own doctrinal axioms. And let’s bear in mind that these English versions were translated by teams of the world’s expert New Testament Greek scholars:New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars.
King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars.
New King James Version – 119 scholars.
New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars
Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars
English Standard Version – 100+ scholarsThe checks and balances used in the translation process is designed to eliminate the possibility of a radical influence dictating the mishandling of a particular verse (i.e. making it say something other than the original Greek annotated). Would these hundreds of Kione Greek-English grammarians have universally blundered by falsely translating “theos” with a capital ‘G’ in John 1:1c? I think the odds on that having occurred in every single English version offered on BibleGateway and the Blueletterbible English Bible lists are infinitesimally-small, it’s absurd to even imagine this could happan. The preponderance scholarly opinion on the correct case of the word God (theos) in John 1:1c issue falls on solidly the side of capitalization.
You say…
Quote
When given a choice, there is a huge tendancy to lean towards the translation that favors your understanding as a whole. And they (your 600 scholars) were trinitarians, were they not?And yet you say…
Quote
I'm not questioning the integrity of over 600 scholars.No they were not all Trinitarians. But we do know that the translating committee for the NWT were all watch tower, dont we?
You say…
Quote
So you tell me: If given a choice, if it could go either way grammatically, how are they going to translate it.be honest now.
And yet you say…
Quote
I'm not questioning the integrity of over 600 scholars.Refer to above! I don’t think that they could have interpreted any different and stay true to the text and greek rules of interpretation. If so, you are saying that the hundreds had a conspiracy to do so. So where is the proof this is so and the footnotes that suggest such?
You say…
Quote
All this attacking of the NWT shows how week you truly are. Why must you so often start a separate conversation or attack some other point when you cannot rightly defend yourself. It is the definition of fallacious reasoning.LOL. You spent your whole post attacking the credibility and integrity of the hundreds of translators on Bible Gateway and BlueletterBible.com, with no evidence of your claims except a few scattered quotes, and you get upset because I go after the NWT which shows clear evidence that the translators were not even qualified to make a credible English translation, and definitely show bias in their interpretation not only on Jn 1:1 but hundreds of scriptures.
Who is the weak one? No David, the weakness is in trusting in a faulty translation like the NWT.
The NWT is how you base your belief in Jn 1:1 isnt it, be honest David. Tell me this is not so?
Should we pull up the evidence on that.
Sorry David, don’t expect that you can trash the translators and the translations that disagree with you and watch tower and not expect there to be some exposing of the corrupted version NWT.
Fair game my friend! If you dont want to get into this kind of discussion then stick with the text and the grammatical reasons why you believe you can interpret it another way. If you want to drag the translators motives in, then NWT is fair game as evidence that those who disagree with the “Majority” are not so righteous themselves!
You say…
Quote
Just of of curiosity, WJ, do you ascribe to “the majority must be right because it is the majority.”
If you do, you may want to read your Bible again.Not at all. In fact, I dont subscribe to the majority text.
Do you?
But you have not shown where the majority is “Wrong”, so should I run over to the minority, when there is clear evidence that their motives are obviosly biased?
Maybe you should change Bibles! I have to give it to your organization though, at least they went ahead and wrote their own Bible rather than continue to use the translations that we have and wrest and twist and blot out the scriptures that we have, rather than accepting them for what they say.
Like many here do!
Quote (david @ July 12 2007,12:03) Yes I know he has said that. He has said this:
“Generally speaking, I don’t believe John 1:1 is used (or rather should be used) as a proof text to support the trinity doctrine per se. However, it certainly is (and should be) used in support of one of the foundation tenets of the doctrine, namely the deity of Jesus Christ. . . .I will not be attempting to prove the trinity from this one verse. “And, somewhat of a contradiction, he's said this, on page 344 of the “trinity” thread:
“Properly understood, John 1:1 is very strong evidence in support of the trinity. Here's one reason why…”It’s not “a proof text to support the trinity.” It is “very strong evidence in support of the trinity.”
Well John 1:1 is strong evidence in support of the trinity in the sense that it can be used as proof of one of the main tenets of the doctrine, namely the Logos is true God. But it's also true that in and of itself it can't be used to prove the trinity is legitimate. So the two assertions are not as blatant contradictory that your trying to make them to be….You've been a little nit picky lately David. It's very unbecoming of you…
Quote No they were not all Trinitarians. Which ones weren't?
Just out of curiosity.
Quote LOL. You spent your whole post attacking the credibility and integrity of the hundreds of translators on Bible Gateway and BlueletterBible.com, with no evidence of your claims except a few scattered quotes, and you get upset because I go after the NWT I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you use absurdly false reasoning.
Every time Is 1:18 posts one of these long posts on John 1:1, he starts by repeatedly emphasizing that the “word was God” translation is in the majority and insinutes that this is proof of something. He does this over and over and over again, repeatedly.
Quote attacking the credibility and integrity of the hundreds of translators on Bible Gateway and BlueletterBible.com, I wasn't attacking their credibility or integrity. I'm simply stating the common belief among scholars that grammatically, this can be translated more than one way.
And secondly, that it comes down to how the translators view the context as a whole that will determine how they choose to translate it.
And thirdly, that they were all, 99.9% if not 100% trinitarians who were human and therefore not perfect. (I'd still like to know which Bible's had translators that weren't trinitarian.)So, when they came to a scripture that could grammatically go a few ways, with no real perfect way to translate it into english, it's understandable that they would choose the way that fits their own belief systems, that fits the belief systems of their friends, that fits the belief systems of those who hired them, and that fits tradition.
It was the easy, obvious choice. And I understand why many would follow that path.
Quote Not at all.
So “you [do “not at all”] ascribe to “the majority must be right because it is the majority.”Now repeat that 10 times and actually believe it. For someone who doesn't believe it, you do tend to use it as proof of something quite a bit.
But, it's good to know that you don't actually count it as proof of anything.
Quote But you have not shown where the majority is “Wrong”, And nor do I intend to, anymore than you intend to show that they were right, other than to say they are the majority and therefore….
What I do intend to do and have done is shown from other scholars that this is by far not the only translation, that those who did translate it that way were following tradition and when it came down to a choice that could go either way, following their own beliefs and their interpretation of John's beliefs.
Quote Maybe you should change Bibles!
Biblegateway:
“What it is
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice!”It seems to have Bible's available in about 35 languages!
Wikipedia:
“As of 2007, the NWT has been published in 64 languages.”Those Bible's largely confuse people helping them to believe to the trinity belief, by removing God's name from the Bible thousands and thousands of times, each.
There are people out there reading those versions who don't even know God has a name. Many think his name is Jesus.I wonder how the author of the Bible feels about them taking his name out and replacing it with “LORD” and “GOD” thousands of times.
If you wrote a book about yourself, how would you feel if someone translated that book and completely removed your name?Quote Well John 1:1 is strong evidence in support of the trinity Yes, “Properly understood, John 1:1 is very strong evidence in support the trinity.”
And I don’t believe John 1:1 is used (or rather should be used) as a proof text to support the trinity doctrine per se.”
So, it's “very strong evidence to SUPPORT the trinity.”
And it “should not be used) as a proof text to SUPPORT the trinity doctrine per se.”I know it's nit picky. But it seems you made a mistake. And it's rare. I don't want you thinking you're all perfect and everything.
David
There you go about the name thing again!
What is “YHWH”s name? Do you know the exact pronunciation of his name. So your organization says the tetragammation should be Jehovah in english.
David, ask yourself the question if God wanted his name YHWH to be known would he have not preserved it.
Wouldnt Jesus have told us his name? What is the Fathers name? Yet the Father gives us a name that is above all names.
Who is that David! Who is it that the writers of the NT ascribed “kurios” to the majority of the time?
Yet the same word “kurios” is ascribed a few times to God!
Yet your organization changes “kurios” to Jehovah!
Whats up with that?
David
Quote And thirdly, that they were all, 99.9% if not 100% trinitarians who were human and therefore not perfect. (I'd still like to know which Bible's had translators that weren't trinitarian.) You seem to know for sure in the first part of your statement, then the second part of your statement you seem not to know!
David, the burden of proof is on you to show the translators were biased!
We have our Bible and you have yours!
David'
You say…
Quote
Those Bible's largely confuse people helping them to believe to the trinity belief, by removing God's name from the Bible thousands and thousands of times, each.
There are people out there reading those versions who don't even know God has a name. Many think his name is Jesus.Again David, what is Gods name?
The Apostles preached the name of Jesus! Was there another name they should have been preaching whereby men shoud be saved?
Hi W,
Indeed the apostles preached the name of Jesus.
He is the Christ, the Son of God
and the only way to God.Quote Yet your organization changes “kurios” to Jehovah! Each of your Bible's in Gateway has removed God's name (the tetragrammaton) from those Bible's roughly 7000 times each.
They have changed God's name to “LORD.”
Yet, you say that we have changed “lord” to Jehovah.
I think you need to do some more research.
There are hundreds of quotes in the NT from the old testament, which in the old testament contained God's name. Do you think they misquoted from the Hebrew Scriptures?
“I have made your name manifest” said Jesus.
It was the religious Jewish leaders who succumbed to superstition in their neglect of God's name.
Why follow them?
It should be noted that the New World Translation is not the only Bible that has restored Gods' name to it's rightful place.
The divine name appears in translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew, in passages where quotations are made directly from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.
The Emphatic Diaglott contains the name Jehovah 18 times.
Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures in at least 38 other languages also use a vernacular form of the divine name.The emphasis that Jesus Christ put on the name of his Father indicates that he personally used it freely. (Matt. 6:9; John 17:6, 26)
Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote:
“Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”—Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1977, p. 77He's speaking of the Greek Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, begun about 280 B.C.E.), early copies of which contained the divine name in Hebrew characters, as shown by actual fragments that have been preserved.
(You had stated that not all of those translators were trinitarians. I have asked a couple times if you know which ones of these were not. Yet, no response. This makes me think you were making stuff up.)
Were you?
David
Do you or your organization know the exact pronunciation of the Fathers name?
What is it?
Where did Jesus speak his name in scripture?
Is Jehovah without a doubt the exact pronunciation of the tetragammation?
So since no one knows the exact pronunciation of the tetragammation then you are making a fallacious argument!
For as long as it is understood that the tetragammation “YHWH” or “YHVH” is translated Jehovah or LORD or steve makes no difference because the exact pronunciation of the Fathers name was lost.
Therefor his name was lost.
Good news though David. He has given us a name. Yahshua, wich means “YHWH is salvation”!
This is the name men need to know to be saved. Jesus, the name above all names!
Tell me David, why did your organization change the scriptures concerning this one name whereby men must be saved?
NWT Acts 2:21
And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”’
KJV Acts 2:31
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord [kurios] shall be saved.Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.Which is the name men are to call on to be saved David?
Jehovah or Jesus?
David you say…
Quote They have changed God's name to “LORD.” Yet, you say that we have changed “lord” to Jehovah.
What is this…
NWT Acts 2:21
And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”’KJV Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Kurios) shall be saved.Did they not change Lord (Kurios) to Jehovah?
God has many names in scripture. Whatever title you refer to, the important part is to know he is God and to do what he says. Jesus said, Why do ye call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?
Hi W,
You quote
“Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN
of course excludes his God.
Jesus Christ, the man from Nazareth, is the Lord of all, under God.
Quote Where did Jesus speak his name in scripture? So you believe that Jesus, said:
“I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world”didn't follow with the rest of the Bible which used God's name thousands of times, more times than the word “God” and “Lord” and “Father” and “almighty” combined!
You're saying that when Jesus quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, he took out his Father's name and substituted “lord” or “God,” altering the scriptures.
HEBREWS 2:12
“as he says: “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the middle of [the] congregation I will praise you with song.””Quote Is Jehovah without a doubt the exact pronunciation of the tetragammation?
It is the exact way most people pronounce it in English, the common preferred version for centuries. It is pronounced differently in different languages.“What is this…
NWT Acts 2:21
And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”’KJV Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Kurios) shall be saved.Did they not change Lord (Kurios) to Jehovah?”
YOU REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DO YOU? ? ?
You'll also find the same phrase here:
ROMANS 10:13
“For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.””BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU'LL FIND IT IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES WHERE THAT BIBLE WRITER QUOTED IT FROM, HERE:
JOEL 2:32
“And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling.”So, they were quoting from Joel, which used God's name.
********************************************
Your Bible took out God's name and replaced it with “Lord” a very deceptive thing to do that no doubt again, helps to confuse people into thinking it's talking about Jesus and helps the trinity doctrine.
********************************************
You need serious help in understanding. Please be humble.just so i understand you, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND YOU, YOU ARE SAYING THAT WE CHANGED THE SCRIPTURE AND NOT THE MANY BIBLES ON GATEWAY?
Let's look at the WHOLE scripture and see where he's quoting from:
ACTS 2:16-21 nwt
“On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel, ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and YOUR sons and YOUR daughters will prophesy and YOUR young men will see visions and YOUR old men will dream dreams; and even upon my men slaves and upon my women slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. And I will give portents in heaven above and signs on earth below, blood and fire and smoke mist; the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and illustrious day of Jehovah arrives. And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”’”“THIS IS WHAT WAS SAID THROUGH THE PROPHET JOEL…”
HMMMM.
Man.
In Acts, he was clearly quoting from Joel. Where in Joel?
Let me help:
JOEL 2:32
“And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling.””CASE CLOSED.
Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6, 26.
In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write הוהי within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.
So in answer to your question:
Quote Did they not change Lord (Kurios) to Jehovah?
No, all your Bible's changed Jehovah to Lord. His name has appropriately been restored. To think that Jehovah's name occurs almost 7000 times in the Hebrew scriptures and then God's true followers just stopped using it is absurd.
Yes, Jewish superstition and a misapplication of one of the ten commandments did lead to the name no longer being even written in the manuscripts, it erroneously being considered too holy to even write or pronounce. But, those who actually did have a proper understanding, Jesus included, did make use of God's name, did quote from the Hebrew scriptures without removing God's name from these quotes.Early disciples saw God’s name in the Septuagint—the translation of the Bible into Greek, which the early Christians used in teaching and writing.
True, at one time it was thought that God’s name did not appear in the Septuagint, but it is now definitely known that this name was so respected that the Tetragrammaton was copied in Hebrew letters, right into the Greek text.
In the third century Origen wrote that “in the most faithful manuscripts THE NAME is written in Hebrew characters.”
In the fourth century the Bible translator Jerome wrote: “We find the four-lettered name of God (i.e., הוהי) in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in the ancient letters.”Dr. Paul E. Kahle writes: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by ky′rios [Lord], but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts].”—The Cairo Geniza, pages 222, 224.
Whether they spoke Hebrew or Greek, when Jesus’ hearers read the Scriptures they saw God’s name in them.
It is only reasonable that when they quoted these texts they would follow the custom they had observed—putting the four Hebrew letters of Jehovah’s name in the text of their Chr
istian Greek Scripture writings.It seems that the divine name was later dropped from both the Septuagint and the “New Testament” when non-Jewish Christians no longer understood the Hebrew letters.
Dr. Kahle writes: “It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by ky′rios [Lord], when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.”—The Cairo Geniza, page 224.Professor Howard says: “This removal of the Tetragram, in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ.’”—Page 63 (see above)
For example, Psalm 110:1 says: “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is.” This is quoted in Matthew 22:44 where, after the name Jehovah was dropped, most modern translations read: “The Lord said to my Lord.” Thus, to members of Christendom’s churches the definite distinction between Jehovah (“the Lord”) and Jesus (“my Lord”) was lost.
WJ, there are many advantages in following the Biblical example of using God’s name:
(1) It helps us to view God as a Person, not just a force.
(2) It helps us to draw closer to him.
(3) It eliminates confusion, sharpening our thinking about him, bringing our thoughts closer to what the Bible really teaches.
WJ, There is a thread somewhere on the NWT, if you like.
If I remember correctly, you began attacking the NWT when you couldn't deal with other stuff I was saying.
Please feel free to attack in the appropriate thread.
Quote (david @ July 14 2007,13:32) WJ, There is a thread somewhere on the NWT, if you like. If I remember correctly, you began attacking the NWT when you couldn't deal with other stuff I was saying.
Please feel free to attack in the appropriate thread.
DavidI will respond to your huge post later.
But I will say this…
The NWT is a corrupted version of the scriptures from hell!!
It has no credibility! Its translators were not qualified to translate Jack and Jill went up a hill in english!
Now you can paste this in your precious NWT thread if you like!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
