Quote David, I think it's great that you are referencing your quotes now (long may that continue!), but do you actually understand a lot of what you are quoting? EN ARKHEI EN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOSIN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD EN PROS TON THN, KAI THS EN HO…[Read more]

Quote he he….looks like we have an 'appeal to authority' fallacy infraction here David….yes, I know, but the point is, it's all they have. They don't even have to know what is being discussed. Just find some people that disagree with JW's about anything (throw a rock and you'll hit one) and quote them. Quote them all without question.…[Read more]

Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression.A lexical (“interlinear”) translation of the controversial clause would read: “And a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression:…[Read more]

As to accuracy of the NWT, I always like to say, that opinions are indeed like noses; everyone has one! Please feel free to pick up a University text book, that you can get on-line, or order at a Barnes and Noble, or College Text book store etc. , by the name of “Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New T…[Read more]

Quote David, before I was born again I was ignorant of God and of Scripture. When I asked the Lord to forgive me and chose to live with Jesus as Lord of my life my eyes were opened. I was born of the spirit and shortly after, baptised in water and then baptised in the Holy Spirit. My life has been for the last 28 years an experiential walk with…[Read more]

I found this intersting, especially the last sentence which I underlined:”Dr. Jason Debuhn, a NT scholar, recently wrote a book in which he contended that the NWT NT is translated more correctly than the other Bible versions. He agrees with the NWT rendition of John 1:1. He is not a Jehovah's Witness.(See his book Truth In Translation).Patrick…[Read more]

What is the kingdom?Actually, I'm not having this conversation here. There is a thread on this exact subject.

“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. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear Translation in teaching his college courses? He answers:“Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a…[Read more]

Ok, you want to discuss the NWT in the “God (Elohim)” thread, and I point you to this thread about the NWT and here, you want to discuss the topic of “God (Elohim.)Quote So how many gods are there in your doctrine David?Ask me this question in the other thread where I think I've probably already answered it and I'll address it again.

Quote You appear to be different David. From previous discussions I get the impression that you have been born again. Please correct me if I'm wrong.I'm sorry, but yet again, you are wrong, without question. Please see the “born again” thread. I make many comments in that thread. This is the “God (Elohim) thread.

Quote David,I wonder if I could have a comment from you on the specific information in this post? Is there anything in the quoted section that is factually incorrect?What do you think?Since the translators have never been made known by the translation committee, I wonder how I could comment on it?

Based on what exactly? Your dislike for the truth? Or is it your general feeling of uneasiness when anyone dares question the heresy of trinity doctrine that you so love?Actually, Oxy, if you go up two posts, you'll find that actual conclusion:In conclusion:””The bottom line is that “The Word was a god” is exactly what the Greek says. “The Word…[Read more]

The jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.”We're in the wrong thread. There is an actual thread on this. Any comments made to me should be addressed there.

Quote David, I have to agree with WJ. Here is just one quote from a page I have been reading:If a Jehovah's Witness Would Say…”Our Bible is Reliable.” The Christian should respond that no reputable Greek or Hebrew scholar has given an endorsement of the New World Translation.I'm sorry Oxy, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.I'm…[Read more]

WJ:Quote Your precious NWT goes against hundreds of Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic scholars who were the translators of all the major and credible translations that we have today.FALLACY #1: Yes, that's called an appeal to authority, and apparently, it proves nothing.For if it did prove anything, evolutionary biology would clearly be true. Wait,…[Read more]

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/JWs%20and%20Jn1_1.htmHence, Jesus is either the true God or he is a false god. But since the NT emphatically denies that the Lord Jesus is a false god, the only option left is that he is the true God. To help clarify the implication that De 32:39 has on our exegesis and understanding of John 1:1, as well as on the…[Read more]

C. H. DoddC. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project) rejects the NWT translation of John 1:1 because of his own opinion of what HE THOUGHT WAS JOHN'S 'THEOLOGY', and “Christian thought as a whole.” For these reasons he rejects the NWT's rendering. Yet, note what he says:”If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a…[Read more]

I'd also like to state something that someone named David Dewey wrote with reference to this in the “Bible translation mailing list”:”The usual defence is that QEOS is anarthrous (article dropped) because it is a predicate and preceeds the verb eimi (to be). (Colwell's rule).”But BeDuhn seems to demolish this by citing other instances where the…[Read more]

The most literal translation of John 1:1 would be “and the Word was a god.”The grammatical rules involved in this passage weigh very heavily against the more traditional translation.Jason DeBuhn states:” However, translation is not only about rendering a passage word-for-word. It involves also consideration of broader syntax and the meaning of…[Read more]

“Colwell's Rule” is what this discussion is really all about. And how the Greek scholars look at this rule. So many scholars have based their thinking on this rule, it deserves a look at.Following is the beginning of a rather lengthy discussion between Jason Debuhn and Robert Hommel. (Debuhn is called “professor” in this dialogue and Hommel…[Read more]