by Amazing1914 111 Replies latest jw friends
Great comments, btw.
I've been following the thread for days but have absolutely nothing to add.
Every damn time I come up with sumthin good to say......it's already been said dammit!
I hate tryin to sqeeze in a smart comment when Alan and Farkel are blabbin......they never leave ya with nuthin ta say.
I'd just like to find out why scholar likes beatin up dead horses so much. Jesus dude....when it's dead.....it's dead!
Gumby
Non-scholar, not a single reference you've cited supports your claim. Every one -- without exception -- proves the opposite of what you claim.
You're exceptionally stupid not to see this. But then, it's pretty typical of JWs to be able to look at a written passage and see the opposite of what it says, when organizational imperatives demand it.
AlanF
AlanF
To the contrary, I have simply stated the facts as these appear in the reference material. The rendering of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 by the NWT is grammatically and contexually correct: cf.Matthew 24:3 and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Why do you not seek the learned opinions of Greek scholars as I have asked repeatedly? You know very well that when push comes to shove that this most brilliant translation is correct as you in previous postings have admitted that the NWT is a remarkably good translation or words to that effect.
scholar
Scholar,
You said to AlanF:
"You know very well that when push comes to shove that this most brilliant translation is correct as you in previous postings have admitted that the NWT is a remarkably good translation or words to that effect."
AlanF never made any such admission or used any words to that effect. You are making a false claim. The only thing that can be said is that the NWT was translated by one person with a few college course hours in Greek - namely Fred Franz - AlanF did discuss Fred's training and college history in Greek, which was less than I thought. The other members of the NWT committee did not have any training or education in Greek, and none of the committee had any training in Hebrew.
Secondly, you must have missed my post above where I cited a known Greek scholar who repudiates the NWT, and considers it a sloppy work containing thousands of errors. He got into a battle with the Watchtower Society and forced them to stop their dishonest misquoting the Greek manual he wrote.
Third, you also missed the fact that I have requested a Greek scholar from Lunds University to comment on Matthew 24:3 and the translation of "parousia." Therefore, I have done this for AlanF ... who by the way does not really need to contact a scholar, given that he is exposing this quite well, and you are evading ... so much so that you are seriously discrediting yourself.
Non-scholar said:
: To the contrary, I have simply stated the facts as these appear in the reference material.
No you haven't. I demonstrated incontrovertibly that you've either misrepresented the sources, or that what you've cited has nothing whatsoever to do with the proper rendering of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7.
: The rendering of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 by the NWT is grammatically [ ... correct]
Correction: grammatically not disallowable. But not disallowable doesn't mean correct. For example, in John 1:1c, it's grammatically and contextually permissible to render theos as "God", "god" or "a god", but you'll argue that other considerations make only the one permissible.
: and contexually correct:
Wrong. I've demonstrated that context absolutely disallows the meaning "be destined". You've completely avoided discussing that, and dully return, like a dog to its vomit, to your unsupported claim -- without further comment.
: cf.Matthew 24:3
This passage does not contain the Greek mellw (in the subjunctive mood or in any other form) and therefore is irrelevant to the proper rendering of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7. Indeed, we began this discussion with my stating that the latter scriptures, properly rendered, demonstrate by parallel context what Matthew 24:3 means, i.e., the disciples were asking for a sign of what was about to occur. Indeed, even the NWT rendering of the latter allows for this meaning.
: and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Already done, ad nauseum. That you refuse to accept the facts merely shows the power of the JW cult to lobotomize otherwise normal people.
: Why do you not seek the learned opinions of Greek scholars as I have asked repeatedly?
I already explained this: I don't need to, because excellent scholars have already given their learned opinions in various reference works, and in the 60-some-odd New Testament translations I've consulted. Not one agrees with the NWT.
Conversely, I've asked you to seek the opinions of your professors in Greek. Why have you not done this? It should be easy, assuming you're really a student.
The fact that you demand of me what you refuse to do yourself proves that you're a hypocrite of the worst kind, non-scholar.
: You know very well that when push comes to shove that this most brilliant translation is correct as you in previous postings have admitted that the NWT is a remarkably good translation or words to that effect.
Again you've engaged in deliberate misrepresention. For the record, I've stated the following: in my opinion the NWT often gives a particularly precise rendering of a passage, in many cases more precise than most other translations. However, this is often done at the sacrifice of good English and smooth reading. Furthermore, my statement does not apply to passages where pre-1950 Watchtower doctrine would have been compromised by a proper rendering. In other words, when push comes to shove in passages where preexisting doctrine was at stake, Fred Franz chose renderings that were consistent with the doctrine, not with grammar and context.
When will you learn enough about Christian principles to quit lying about people and issues, non-scholar? I think that as long as you're a JW defender, you won't.
Interested readers should note that later today, I'll be going away for a few days, so I won't be contributing to this thread for awhile. I'll be debating a young-earth creationist on evolution/creation at a Christian conference.
AlanF
AlanF,
Interested readers should note that later today, I'll be going away for a few days, so I won't be contributing to this thread for awhile. I'll be debating a young-earth creationist on evolution/creation at a Christian conference.
Faith sonny Jim, that is what this is all about, not facts and reality.
How could *you* ever understand the 'science' of Creation given that you do not believe in God? You need faith to understand why despite all the evidence to the contrary, mankind only stretches back in history 6,030 WTS years. Honestly Alan, sometimes I wonder about you....
Remember, Scholar's believe and shudder.
Best regards - HS
PS - Looking forward to a report on your return, it sounds like a very interesting project.
Alan, I would be interested to know how your discussion goes with the young earth creationists if you have time to post.
Toreador
I just returned from the Christian conference where I "debated" a young-earth creationist. I put "debate" in quotes because the format turned out not to be a debate at all, but just each side presenting some arguments, with almost no chance for rebuttal and no chance for direct challenges. Nevertheless, I think I got some points across even in an environment where there was a ratio of about 50:1 creationists to evolutionists. It was all pretty friendly, thank goodness.
One thing that really struck me was that these evangelicals are serious about their committment to Christian evangelism, and they have worldwide activities. This blows away the JW claim to the the only ones "preaching the good news". Another thing was their enthusiasm during worship services. A JW meeting is dead by comparison. JWs have no soul, no spirit. I was stunned by the difference. If public zeal means anything in the worship of God, then JWs aren't even in the running.
AlanF
AlanF,
If public zeal means anything in the worship of God, then JWs aren't even in the running.
Amen brother!!! Praise Jesus ... Thank you Jesus ... Amen!!! You are 1000% correct ... when I walked into the Baptist church for the first time after leaving the JWs ... I was likewise stunned ... first they spent about a half hour praying for everyone under the sun ... concern first for people ... then they spent about an hour on song ... bring down the house ... then the Preacher gave a 5 min pep talk ... then it was coffee and donuts ...
To JWs, a "talk" is worship ... to Evangelicals, "singing and prayer" are worship ... mmmmm ... this seems like an odd picture indeed ...
PS: Evangleicals are still brain-dead on many issues like the "flood" and "evolution" ... but, all in all they offer a heathier environment over and above the Watchtower world.
I noticed the same thing when I first attended some other churches to see what it was like there compared to the JW's. I was amazed at how much they got involved in their singing and praising the lord. Certainly a lot different than JW's.
Toreador
