Marvin Shilmer said to non-scholar:
: You do accept the Bible, don?t you?
Clearly not. He accepts the Watchtower Society's teaching whenever it contradicts the Bible. Worse, even when it contradicts simple facts.
I'll let your standard stupid comments stand to prove how stupid and dishonest you are, since you're merely repeating claims that have been disproved time and again. Everyone who has contributed to this thread knows that I'm speaking Truth with a great big T.
When confronted with the need to supply evidence for your beliefs, you cowardly run away. When challenged you give pitiful excuses. Why do not you admit that there is no positive and direct evidence that identifies those scholars on the NWT Committee and that your claims are based on opinion, speculation and gossip. If there were insiders who claim to know about this matter then why is it that there is no substantive evidence that can be used.? Is it not the course of wisdom to get ALL the facts before replying to a matter?
I read with amusement your stupid criticisms of the NWT in your previous post and you are a little upset about my modest claims about the NWT's superiority. You now challenge me to prove these modest claims and I am more than happy to provide specific examples, but I hesitate because when I have challenged others in respect to chronology there is a total reluctance from WT critics to participate. I ask myself as to the sincerity of such critics and whether it is worthwhile for me to respond to your request,
.But, all is not lost. In order to demonstrate the genuineness of my convictions I will respond to your specific questions on the NWT and will provide relevant examples of the superiority of the NWT in a private manner. You will need to contact me by the messenging service provided on this board. I will only respond to matters that indicate that you have done some research by consulting reference works and the journals. I would ask that such an interchange will be private and that you will not publicly disclose such matters.
BA MA Studies in Religion
W hen confronted with the need to supply evidence for your beliefs, you cowardly run away. When challenged you give pitiful excuses.
I asked the same of you. About your neo-Babylonian kings list. With years of reign. Your reply was not a answer but you responded with "show me your list of Judean kings and I'll show you mine".
I'd be very interested in your list although off topic here.
If you so sure of the WT chronology make it work for me. Show me from 625 bc to 539 bc. who ruled and for how long. Your scholarly credentials should help you provide this.
I do accept biblical standards and heartily embrace the two-three witness burden of proof concept. So, what, where, who are your witnesses to the identity of the Committe. There are NO witnesses to the identity of the NWT only claims by some people who claim to know because these claimed to have worked on the NWT project. No doubt there were many people involved in the NWT project from proofreaders, secretaries, priinters etc but such proximity does not endorse, substantiate, prove the identity of the scholars on the comittee otherwise it would not have been possible for a gaurantee of anonymity by the publishing agency namely the WTS of Pennsylvannia.
BA MA Studies in Religion
Is our moronic, self proclaimed Scholar, the WTBS's complement of Bibleman, on the loose again?
Can I please direct your attention once more to this monumental thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx ? And can we then reevaluate your comments right here:
When confronted with the need to supply evidence for your beliefs, you cowardly run away. When challenged you give pitiful excuses. Why do not you admit that there is no positive and direct evidence that identifies ... [the silly chronological fantasies you've dared to call a "sacred chronology"]
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --- Elbert Hubbard.
Your assertion about the superiority of the NWT was public and I suggested you should back it up publicly. My sample criticisms of the NWT were public and you publicly called them stupid, without answering them either. Now you cringe from debating the subject publicly, pretexting that on some other matter "there is a total reluctance from WT critics to participate"... Come on. I guess even you know better.
If the NWT has brought anything valuable to the history of Bible translation (and this is fairly possible, although I presently fail to see exactly what it would be), wouldn't it be important for all JWD posters to know? What do you expect from a private discussion if I can't even say how right you are (believe me or not, I would if you convinced me...).
But that's OK, I'll play on your rules for a moment. Check your PM.
You'd be funny, non-scholar, if it weren't for the fact that so many JWs are just like you -- fingers in the ears, blinders solidly on the eyes and singing La-la-la-la-la-la! JW-land is La-La-Land!
ellderwho : In short the NWT comes from the same Org. that has contradicted itself over and over in the Watchtower, books, and statements over the years and actually inserted words into the NWT(text) but used the KingJames Bible for the first seventy years while their doctrine was formed. Why the change in Bibles?
ellderwho, there are words inserted in the NWT to clarify the meaning of the translation but this is true of every Bible translation in every language. It is the nature of translation and occurs far less in a translation using formal correspondence as the NWT does, than in other methodologies. Translation of the word of God is more difficult than other forms of translation as you need to "know" the mind of God, and the best a translator can do when translating an ambiguous passage is to do so in the sense he believes to be true and consistent. And this provides good reason for the "change in Bibles". The King James Version was primarily a translation with a trinitarian bias, as were most subsequent translations, so it was necessary to have a translation free of that bias to allow readers without a knowledge of the original languages to appreciate the breadth of meaning in ambiguous passages.
Has the WT earned the trust of the scholarly community with all their "flip-flops"?
The "flip-flops" have been the result of exegesis, not translation, and so are irrelevant to this thread.