Demonism and the Watchtower

[Cos]

15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I've been looking for this online, is it available? I haven't seen anything that says this. I've tried to look up:

Evangelium Secundum Ioannem - Chapter 1 The Gospel According To John

nada

 

Hi Shiwiii

 

These sites are in Latin.

 

http://www.maxmet.com/vulgate/Ioannem.html

 

And of course the place where Latin is still used as a language,

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html

 

Hope this aids you with what you seek. <><

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

What throws a shoe into the careful logic is that the Christian Greek Scriptures were written in ...oh ... what's the word I am looking for ...OH YEAH! ... Greek!

ACID TEST: Get a Bible written IN GREEK, their equivalent of the KJV, whatever that is ... and ask a native Greek educated person to explain John 1:1 to you.

Probably some regular folks at any Greek Orthodox Church. Might be a good experiment on a Sunday morning, after breakfast.

To find out who knows what ... ask him (or her) if they understand what a greek anarthrous predicate is. If they do ... show them the scripture.

All else is fibrillation for delusion.

[Noble Berean]

On 9/11/2017 at 7:21 AM, Alessandro Corona said:

Rutherford claims that an angel revealed to him the identity of the great crowd, we know Angels wouldn't contact humans unless Jehovah sent them, so this was obviously an Angel of light. Does it mean the identity of the great crowd is wrong? If you read the Bible, in Revelation, you will see there are two groups of survivors, one that is numbered at 144000 and another that no man can number, is this a lie? No. 

Could you provide a source on this?

[Shiwiii]

3 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

You still need Aramaic to Greek, and Hebrew to Greek, and then interpret those to Latin and then to English.

This doesn't make much sense to me. So you are suggesting a translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? Now why would you go and do all of that? We already have the Aramaic to Greek and the Hebrew to Greek, so why insert another language into the mix? Not necessary. Don't you think?  

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

28 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

This doesn't make much sense to me. So you are suggesting a translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? Now why would you go and do all of that? We already have the Aramaic to Greek and the Hebrew to Greek, so why insert another language into the mix? Not necessary. Don't you think?  

Isn't that what happened with the church fathers between the time frame you gloriously indicated in 100CE to the 15^th century? Now you want to change the prospective to fit your ideal? Your type of ideology is the one that is not necessary. But, I do understand your disinterest in not wanting to learn a complex way of reasoning, since that is the issue with “past” translations, who is correct. That’s why I find The Watchtower NWT to be a more reliable translation above all others. But, I'm glad you admit it doesn't make sense to you, as a nonlinguist, it shouldn't.        

[Shiwiii]

Just now, J.R. Ewing said:

Isn't that what happened with the church fathers between the time frame you gloriously indicated in 100CE to the 15^th century? Now you want to change the prospective to fit your ideal?  

 

 

wrong, I was asking what did they believe not what language they wrote in or how many languages they played "telephone" in. 

1 minute ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Your type of ideology is the one that is not necessary. But, I do understand your disinterest in wanting to learn a complex way of reasoning, since that is the issue with “past” translations, who is correct.

What I choose not to do it allow you to try and create a convoluted mess to try and distort what is written. 

 

3 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

That’s why I find The Watchtower NWT to be a more reliable translation above all others. But, I'm glad you admit it doesn't make sense to you, as a nonlinguist, it shouldn't.    

You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court. 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

4 hours ago, Cos said:

When studying Latin, I was struck with the directness of the language.

 

Google translate is good only to a point, not something I would use or rely upon.

Mr. COS

Google is a fine example of the owner wishing to be as accurate with his program as possible. Everyone knows that. Technology advancements have made it possible. Would I rely on it to be 100 percent? No! but isn’t that what you want people to believe with your assertion?

Come! Come! You can’t be dismissing everything just to subjugate your interest. As for the Latin language, it’s not that language that has a “definite or indefinite article proposed in it, isn’t it?

Google translate was used as a simple tool to show the “deception” of publishers and those bible translations that wish to use the term “Word was God.” with a simple “period” to make it so, in Latin.

As for the usage of other bible versions to illustrate that the NWT is not the only one to use and “indefinite article” with its translation was over emphasized by your attempt to discredit the example provided. Just like the frivolous attempt to discredit the second example, that you insist the word “divine” can only mean GOD, even though you cannot refute the usage of “a” on an earlier bible. 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

25 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

wrong, I was asking what did they believe not what language they wrote in or how many languages they played "telephone" in. 

Now you can say, your understanding makes no sense!

26 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

What I choose not to do it allow you to try and create a convoluted mess to try and distort what is written. 

Isn't that what you are doing? Isn't your version of bible text are doing?

27 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court. 

I enjoy the NWT because it's more accurate as I stated. No one is putting a gun to my head to accept it. How many scholars do you think God used to transcibe his words. At any rate, you seem to forget, that Brother F. Franz was up to the task, scholarly!

As for the rest, of your "angry" rant, it's just your personal opinion!!

[Shiwiii]

4 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I enjoy the NWT because it's more accurate as I stated

This is only within your own mind, which is ok.  Numerous scholars disagree with you. F Franz was a very educated man, but...

According to Raymond Franz, only Fred Franz had "sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self taught In Hebrew." Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983)

 

Two years of Greek does not compare in the slightest to the Greek scholars who disagree with Franz and the nwt. It really doesn't matter too much, as I'm sure you have convinced yourself otherwise. I'm just not wired that way, I choose to search and see for myself if things are true or not. 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt.

 

13 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

F Franz was a very educated man, but...

According to Raymond Franz, only Fred Franz had "sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self taught In Hebrew." Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983)

I believe you own your crosswords. But at any rate, I'm sure you can't look beyond the "deception" offered by Christendom, But at least you're willing to admit, you need to further your studies.

[Shiwiii]

Just now, J.R. Ewing said:

 

I believe you own your crosswords. But at any rate, I'm sure you can't look beyond the "deception" offered by Christendom, But at least you're willing to admit, you need to further your studies.

Can you show me where I said he was a scholar?

You must think two years of Greek is all it takes to become a scholar. So that means, to you anyway, that 'sufficient' and 'scholar' are synonyms. And you were going to guide us through the translations from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? lol

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court. 

This is stupid. 

I don't care if Franz's dog translated it. The fact is that it exists and it gets high scholarly marks. Witness the experts testifying with regard to Russia's attempt to ban it. Not their witnesses, of course, but everyone knows their witnesses couldn't translate their way out of a paper bag.

Not Trinitarian witnesses, either, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship instead of the other way around. And there are some who genuinely have trouble with 'Jehovah' in the New Testament - it is cutting edge based upon Septuagint fragments and not all want to cut so deep. But except for that, the NWT is very well received. 

Who can say how much of the NWT translation was farmed out to experts who, being Witnesses, also wished to remain anonymous like Franz so as not to distract from the true author of the work?

You want to find the 'qualifications' of the translators so you can gloat that they don't have any, in case they don't. How 'qualified' do you have to be with language? Put a baby in a bi-lingual home and he grows up knowing two, without any teaching at all. Put it in a tri-lingual home and it grows up knowing three. Okay, ancient language adds a degree of complication, but even so, it is just communication and that is humankind's oldest trick in the book. Since jw.org is translated into 900 languages, it seems clear that the prestigious universities that teach language ought to come crawling to us, and not the reverse.

It's the technique of the lazy lout who must know the qualifications of the translators to determine if the work is any good or not. Before my wife and I bought the home we now live in, we looked it over carefully for quality. We even hired an inspector. Satisfied, we moved in. We have no idea who actually built the house and have never lost a moment of sleep on that account.