Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownFrom time to time we need to remove all the irrelevan weeds friend james
Below we willag ain be weedingg with snipps when relevant.
The reader can judge if friend james answers the questions put to him or
just make a reply, any reply regardless of how relevant it is. Watch out
for the tap dancing and waffleing.
Let the reader see if reasoning and Scriptural evidence and research,
is a logical way to study the Scriptures.
Post by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netNo. The oldest NT manuscripts do not contain the divine name. Thus
when a translator translates from it, he is not technically wrong. But
just as the later Septuagint copies had it removed, the NT was
tampered with.
When a NT verse quotes from an OT verse that has the Tetragrammaton,
it should show up in the NT as well. BUT IT DOESN'T. Thus it was
changed.
Below in the original post a series of questions to test friend james
personal knowledgeabout the above were posed, the reader can judge if he
answered them; or did he reply, any reply just to have a reply regardless
of
how relevant to the question. Check out how much tap dancing was done in
place of direct answers.
Let the reader decide for himself (herself) without, as above,
prejudice.
Post by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownI have to chuckle each time i see this jw learned by rote response and the
very circular "logic" it attempts to pass off.
In a "bible study" the jw learnes these rote plugins for topics that arise.
In this case why did the jw vatican substitute "jehovah" in some places
for God or Lord and not all places in their "translation"?
Because they did translating. They looked at the best documents for
Hebrew and Greek, and translated what they saw. Is that not the proper
way to translate.
The "proper" reply would be the truth. They had *not* one greek scholar to
do the "translating". Rehashing of english translations were used.
Even if that were true, they still had many Bible scholars praise the
NWT Bible. One of these was Dr Goodspeed. He is widely remembered for
his translations of the Bible: The New Testament: an American
Translation (1923), and (with John Merlin Powis Smith) "The Bible, An
American Translation" (1935), the "Goodspeed Bible".
He said,
I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world
wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous
translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious
learning, as I
Post by z***@windstream.netcan testify.Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed,
translator of the Greek New Testament in An American Translation."
(g87.3/22, p.14)
Very good, now consider this evidence why this smells:
'The New World Translation, What the Scholars Really Said
http://apologeticacatolica.org/Protestantismo/Sectas/SectasN11_1.htm#Goodspeed
However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's
Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity
of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written
signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed
(to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second,
though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an
endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several
very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more
controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own
translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts.
Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed
forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal
conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed
actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to
endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial
evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures,
either.
'>
Post by z***@windstream.netBecause he complimented the NWT, was he a moron also?
I have made *no* mention of the iq of the jw vatican people involved, a
red herring remark.>
I have said that *no* jw vatican person was a greek scholar for the
"translation" from greek sources.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.net(they also consulted other manuscripts) Here is what
How could they be "consulted" if no jw vatican person could read them?
Obviously you are wrong.
Smile, and exactly how "wrong"? Consult in english, no problem at all; but
a significant difference and misleading as to scholarship ability. .
Smle, another circular lolgic bit, if the jw vatican has a list of
translations consulted in other languages they must be able to read them.
No, "consult" means only to use, just as friend james "consults" the nwt as
the jw vatican directts. He also does not read greek but does none the
less "consult" a book.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownAlist of languages snipped as nonrelevant weedss. No jw vatican person can
read *any* of them, period.
Wrong again. You were not there, so you are guessing.
Neither where you, but jw vatican inside sources said the 5 "translators"
had no greek scholar among them. One had 2 years of university, the
others none.>
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPalestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
I know about that one,I left it to see if the most infamous jw vatican
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, ^[Meltho.] and the Word himself
was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and
the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,
"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".
"The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately
following Jesus earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an
early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic
Weeds of diversion snipped. Tell us what *any* rcc translation uses.
Post by z***@windstream.netthe [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being
translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version
is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the
vast majority of extant witnesses." (www.jw.org)
Very good, the above aramaic bible, with the english translations,was the
original source be fore being translated into greek.l It is in the everyday
every day language of 1st century palistine. l
There is a group of churches in the middle east, iran, and inda who use it
as their bible. They say it came from the hands of the apostles with the
original words Christ poke in the gospels.
Post by z***@windstream.netAnd how does the Coptic language render John 1:1? And the Word was a
Given the above claims, it is irrelevant because it is the original and
thrugh greek translation was translated into coptic 3rd hand.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownThese were not snipped because the NT was in greek.
Post by z***@windstream.netGreek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
Chuckle, how did they "consult" the greek if none of them was a greek
scholar, translation into english of course. English translations use
them, not one has the jw vatican corruptions from those sources.
If you were not there, then all you have is a mistaken opinion.
Correction, see above the jw vatican first hand info that confirms it.>
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netThey were morons who translated the NWT? If you want to believe
falsehoods, that is up to you.
Chopping out the word "If" at the beginning of the sentence, shows the
corruption you do to those you are prejudiced against.
Post by unknownI have no view on their iq, only that they had *no* person to do
translations from the greek nor to consult the other language sources
listed, nuff said.
Then again, why the praises by BIBLE SCHOLARS about the NWT Bible?
Using the goodspeed example above, read what people who kmew him an his
work said as to the jw vatican claim..>
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownWe will leave aside the fact the jw vatican knows without doubt, the
"jehovah" was a corrupted middle ages rcc attempt at a transsliteration of
the 4 hebrew letters for the name given Moses.
Isn't insisting to use "jehovah" disrespect to God when it is known to be a
corruption?
Then you better start criticizing many other languages. Here is God's
In Danish "Jehova"
In Fijan "Jiova"
In Italian "Geova"
In Japanese "Ehoba"
In Spanish "Jehová"
In French "Je'hovah (conventional literary form)
In German "Jehovah" (German Elberfelder version)
(See Deut 4:2)
All of those come from the 13th century corruption. Only the jw vatican
makes the "disrespect" remark as part ofan excuse for substituting
"jehovah" in some places for God and Lord. Qustion; why not for places
they appeared?>
The NWT translates the Tetragrammaton in nearly 7000 places in the OT.
Very ood, in the NT some but not all uses of God and Lord are not changed,
why not?
In the OT the names the hebrews used instead of he 4 letters for God and
Lord had the jw vatican substitution, why when the hebrews did not use it?
OT have the
vowls in the 4 letters and
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownthe name is correctly spoken and written as "Yehovah.".
NO one knows the correct vowels to add to the Divine name. This it is
only a GUESS.
A jewish scholar found 1000 plus written hebrew documents with the vowles
above included.
No one knows exactly what vowels go where in the Tetragrammaton. You
Smile, and you are not,? Who should we believe, a jewish scholar with
knowledge of hebrew or the jw vatican?
Post by z***@windstream.net"The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of
the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th
century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was
lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries
BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being
substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai
were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting
form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[2] The
derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appeared in the 16th century."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah)
Very good, "avoided" not unused. Also, the substitution mentioned is by
jews who wanted the correct full name to be know.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownBtw, temple priestss knew the full name and spoke it in temple rituals.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownLet's review, no current NT translation, even examples from the 2nd century
have the 4 hebrew letters. It is absolute "proof" "jewish scribes" took it
somehow sometime the jw vatican can only respond.
Then when the NT quotes the OT with the Tetragrammaton, and inserts
Lord or God in its place, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIVINE NAME WAS
FOUND IN THAT VERSE. the translators are being censors for you. You
are happy with that?
Chuckle, I'm not happy with the lame circular logic just used. We know
they were removed because we don't find them now. What else did those
pesky
"jewish scribes" remove? We know they did because they are not there now.
As Wiki said above, they had a superstition about pronouncing the
divine name. So they changed it.
"Superstition", it said nothing of the sort. Why then would the jw vatican
make very questionable changes to support a "superstition"? The wiki does
not in the least refute my points tht ovr 1000 exmples with the vowls, not
the ones mentioned in the wiki, and that temple priests knew and used the
full spoken name. .
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownThey present 4 late examples of greek OT with a transliteration of the
hebrew letters.
Here we turn to friend james to share his broad independent research on the
question as might be seen on the web.
Do all greek OT examples before the 1st century only have a greek
transliteration of the hebrew 4 letters?
The greek translation took place over a couple of centuries. The first 4
bookss of Moses were done first. What was used in them forthe name of God?
The 4 Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton.
You didn't answer the question, did *all* copies use that because only 4
did not?
You are talking about things 6 or 7 thousand years old. I have no
idea.
Thanks for being frank. What it means in practice is the jw vatican has no
canned plugin as an answer. They took 4 examples and made a sweeping
unsupported conclusion. That's crack scholarship, no?
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownAre all copies of the 1st centry greek OT using the greek names for God and
Lord only?
Fragments of the early Septuagint (first century B.C.E) show the 4
Hebrew consonant letters used. (see Fouad 266) Later copies of the
Septuagint chopped out the divine name and put in substitutes. If you
are happy with their tampering with it, that's up to you.
I'm not hahppy with your lame attempts to tap dance.
I have too much weight to tap dance.
Post by unknownThat reply was not relevant to my question, note NT not greek Ot was the
question.
Weds snipped, friend james just reposts the original bit which is *not* an
relevant answer to the question. The question was about NT not OT info. >
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownHow does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made the changes
to the greek OT? Not why but who is the question.
Its just logical. We are talking about the Jewish nation's religious
writings, so why not Jewish Scribes?
Correction, no logic there, and I asked how the jw vatican knew which is
about hard historical evidence, not lame best guesses.
I don't know their methodology for finding out facts. Write them if
you have to know.
Sad, you are happy to repeat what is not known to you as "facts", if the
jw vatican said, it is true, no?
One would think *you* would want confirmation by asking them, no?
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownLikewise, what word for the hebrew 4 letters was used by 1st century jews,
including the apostles when speaking/reading God and Lord in their
language
They used the Septuagint a lot. So they would have said God's personal
name, as the Septuagint fragment Fouad 66 shows.
That was in greek, they did not use greek as a common language, it was
something else.. In both hebrew and the language they spoke every day
there were personal names for God and Lord used in place of speaking the
Tetragrammaton.
The first century Jews spoke the common language of the day; Koine
Greek. (you didn't do your homework)
Correction, only those jews living outside palistine used it, those in
palistine used quite another language.>
Did someone say "homework"?
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownthere names used in place of
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownand what english words are directly translatable for them? Why
did they as jews use those words?
Nonresponsive weeds snipped. It was examples of Christ referring to the
You snip out things unfavorable to you. I snip out NOTHING.
No, it is the irrelevant unresponsive bits of diversion snipped.
Sad you are forced to post such bits to leave an image your remarks are
creadible, "homework" notwithstanding
. The jw vatican has left you very vulnerable in their narrow canned
plugin "bible study" and cherry picked historical info.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownhint; it wasn't in hebrew? .
How does the jw vatican know it was "jewish scribes" who made NT changes
into the 3rd century? Not the claim of why, but who is the question.
Weed snipped, nonresponsive answer about the question. I asked "who" not
"why" the jw vatican makes that excuse. >>
Again you snipped. Is that because you can't respond to the statement?
You should know better then that childish remark, I have provided ample
ample evidence in many threads of my borad knowledge of the topic, and more
inportant when you are tap dancing just to attempt diversion bcause of
your
info limitations. Say someting, anything to appear informed is the reality
here.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownI know the answers to these questions, my faith tradition has no jw
vatican like prohibition against individual independent study of the
evidence. for *anything*.
Your source about JW's is lying to you. I suggest you leave it.
I do tons of "individual independent study". One of my sources is a
subscription of "Biblical Archaeology Review"
Smile, whichis very jw reader safe. They do not take into consideration
any jw
doctrines that might be dug from the groun as support.d
Nonsense. They write any articles they want, and even make comments on
opposers of their articles.
Bingo, you know nothing about the motivations and lack of limitations
among archaeologists. No, absolutely no research they make is relevant to
jw vatican corruptions of scripture, the topic remember?
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownPost by z***@windstream.netAnother JW may not want to. And another do even more than me. It is
whatever our conscious tells us.
Really? Excep;t for the jw vatican safe sources nad a few fulltime unpaid
"volunteers" at the jw vatican who do cheery picking "research" to support
jw vatican doctrine; con sider the below.
Yes, of course they hope to find sources that support their claims.
Don't you do that?
Smile, a confession the jw vatican makes scripture changes then looks for
support after the fact, no? You have *no* independent way to know how
relevant and/or cherry picked their "research" is, no?
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknownFriend james will not read the web page, he risks expulsion if he did and
spoke to other jw about it or in jw "bible study" sessions.
You don't know me. If a lie is a falsehood, then I can tell you, you
lied.
Post by unknown'Does the Watchtower organization control the Jehovah's Witnesses
thinking?'
Actually I need to get a blind fold if I read the antiJW propaganda. I
face a firing squad right after my being tortured with a wet noodle.
Post by unknownhttps://carm.org/watchtower-organization-control-jehovahs-witnesses
3. If you don't understand something, meekly wait for the Watchtower to
tell you what the truth is; otherwise, you are foolish.
Thank You, I will gladly observe writings of truth based on the Holy
Bible.
Bingo, I will only look to jw vaican info.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknown1. Quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us,
without shying away from parts of the food because it may not
suit the fancy of our mental taste . . . We should meekly go
along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought
unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and
opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of
spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible
organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel
their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings," (
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 79-80)."
You quote something over 60 years old. There have been a lot of
changes since then.
I once read in the Watchtower Bible aid magazine, that if you read
something you know isn't true, then do not go by the magazine until
they correct things. That's fair isn't it?
That's hilarious, you repeat thepoint. Even if one questions something,
keep it to yourrself and they will correct it if required as they see fit
only.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by unknown2. Comment: Here, the Watchtower tells us that submission is to God's
"theocratic organization," the Watchtower organization, and that submission
must be complete and meek. Undoubtedly, this is clearly teaching that
independent thought is not welcome in the Watchtower Organization.
Yes, you have no deeper spiritual knowledge so you don't know.
Ah ha, a mind reader too among your jw vatican allowed methods, no?>
Post by z***@windstream.netJesus talked about handing all his belongings to his "faithful and
discreet slave". This occurred in the 19th century. They have been
'feeding' God's people ever since. It is God's path for understanding
the Bible.
Yes, he "discreat slave" a title that is jw vatican self rewarded and self
defined . It helps them keep the "opposers and others "in line at the
"hall" don't you know?>
Post by z***@windstream.netGod is an organized God. He has His own organization, and uses it to
dispense His spiritual food.
Hmm, why did He wait 1900 years to put it into effect?>
Does it replace the church Christ established and said "the gates of hell
would not prevail" against it? Or did He lie?