Quote an extremely biased paraphrase–Is 1;18, a couple pages back.This is so incorrect I don't know where to start.Whereas many Bible's that people quote from do paraphrase, the NWT is a highly literal, even described as “hyper-literal” translation that is so literal it's often attacked by those same scholars that Is 1:18 quotes at being wooden,…[Read more]

Quote Hi David,I'm going to reserve comment on the grammar and context of John 1:1-4 passage at this stage, as I'll probably be using as a proof text in the debate. Feel free to offer your opinions then….I'm quite curious to know what Is 1:18 is going to say on John 1:1–The “grammer” could go either way and CERTAINLY DOES NOT NECESSITATE IT…[Read more]

Inasmuch as Jesus Christ was Jehovah’s representative who became “the exact representation of his very being”, in piercing Jesus they could be said to be piercing Jehovah. (Heb. 1:3)When sending out his followers to preach Jesus said:“He that receives you receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth.” (Matt. 10…[Read more]

“So, while Dodd (and Harris, Vine, and a number of others) say that “a god” in not UNGRAMMATICAL, they nevertheless argue that the proper translation is “The Logos was God.””–Taken from a website arguing against JW's.The point I am trying to make, is that even those who argue strongly against the NWT do so on GROUNDS OTHER THAN GRAMMER.It is…[Read more]

Murray J. Harris:“According, from the point of view of grammar alone,could be rendered “the Word was a god.”-Jesus As God, 1992, pp.60. (If it was just grammer, it could certainly be translated this way. Many scholars have pointed out that it is “grammatically possible” and reject it on other grounds, THEIR theology or THEIR interpretation of…[Read more]

“Coptic was the language spoken by Christians in Egypt in the Sahidic dialect, until replaced by the Fayyumic and the Bohairic dialects in Coptic church liturgy in the 11th century C.E.Coptic itself was the last stage of the Egyptian language spoken since the time of the Pharaohs. Under the influence of the widespread use of koine Greek, the…[Read more]

Cult guy, (first, please go back a page and look at my last post) If appeals to authority is how this is going to work and we're going to throw rational out, here goes:”It Is The Best Interlinear New Testament Available”This is what Jason Debuhn said of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures as translated by JW's.Why does Dr.…[Read more]

Quote David.The New World Translation bible was written by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses. Its translation is biased toward Jehovah's Witnesses church arian doctrine.No serious theologian outside the JWs use it. Most serious theologians denounce it for the dishonesty of its translation.See again the following.Taken from http://www.apo…[Read more]

John 1:1A footnote in the New American Bible says regarding John 1:1 in translating it “Was God.”: “Was God: lack of a definite articlewith “God” in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.I find that extraordinarily interesting. Don't you?Also, just an observation:”you may participate in the divine nature..”-New International…[Read more]

Quote So if people are going to sit to the left of, and to the right of Jesus, they must be where He is. True.EPHESIANS 2:6“and he raised us up together and SEATED US TOGETHER IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES in union with Christ Jesus,”Quote “The meek shall inherit THE EARTH.” –NickAlso true.So, then? ? ?EPHESIANS 1:9-11“he made known to us the sacre…[Read more]

Quote So my question is here, if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, where are they if not in Heaven?Hi Oxy. There is a thread on this. I was suprised to learn that many on here don't think that anyone goes to heaven ever. You will find a lot in the heaven thread.

Quote It does seem strange that the NWT stands out alone as being the only Bible with that translation of John 1:1–Oxy.In what sense does it stand alone?Please read this thread.Quote David.So the hundreds of scholars that all seemed to agree that the proper translation of John 1:1 was as we read it, yet somehow they all were wrong and biased or…[Read more]

Quote Like I said before, I'll probably use John 1:1-4 as a proof text in the debate (if t8 ever responds!!)…feel free to make comments to anything I write there. I dind't know you were still doing that debate thing.Ok, I'm turning the ocmpuer of f noww…..

Quote You spend quite a bit of time trying to discredit the NWT based on the fact that it translates John 1:1 differently from the majority of other Bibles–a fact so evident that it is the very basis of the question.I was just reading this over. After this, I'm sleeping. I just thought this sentence was quite amusing.

On second thought, you're right. It is late, and it took me about 10 minutes just to copy and paste the first section in. And I actually do work during the day.david

i have added the rest of my responce to Is 1:18's previous post. I edited it in, above, rather than adding it at some point later.

I responded to it a few months later, but never posted it.

I don't know. Don't live there.I work late. I never feel like sleeping when I get home.

Quote If you were having this conversation I could tell you that because you ask this question you have obviously not been born again. Had you been born again, or if you dare to be born again, the Kingdom will be obvious to you.I'm not asking this question because I don't know the answer. I'm asking this question because Jesus linked entering…[Read more]

Quote Yes, but if you have a problem with quotes you should address the error in the content of the quoted material, otherwise you are using a fallacy to combat a fallacy….Fighting false logic with false logic is an approach I have actually used when frustrated to the point of exhaustian.