xero

I think they’d call us liars for mistranslating, inserting a phrase that’s not there simply because we like it. 
You can say ‘a god’ or an adjective like ‘divine’ by handling the indefinite article as we do. You can say ‘God’ by botching the significance of the indefinite article. But by no stretch of the imagination can you say ‘Son of God.’ It’s not there.
You have to translate the Greek or Hebrew as accurately as you can, and then let that translation instruct you. You can’t do it the other way around—let your beliefs dictate your translating (as though you are instructing God). ‘Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament’ by Jason Beduhn, examines John 1:1 in several translations and concludes only the New World Translation gets it right, translating in accord with the actual Greek. It’s most of the other translations that read their beliefs into the translating and thereby mess it up, he says. We never want to be like that. It’s dishonest. It’s taking liberties with the Word of God.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2009/06/scholars-bias-and-the-new-world-translation.html

I see your point. I never came across a true literal translation. I don't think none exist. But if there was such a thing, the only fair thing to do is a literal translation without articles, capitalization and punctuation. Also the third clause was flipped but did not change the meaning from earlier translations. A literal translation often is cold and gives no meaning. Not only do we speak with words but we tend to emphasis our words with Capitalization, articles and punctuation!
The reason why we know the introduction of John is speaking about Michael is because of the meaning of Michael's name. The third clause is not speaking of the Logos identity but rather his qualitive sense. Case in point. Michael means "who is like God"? or "who is godlike"? We also know the qualitive sense of the Logos is divine.
Following comes from Our Research of the Logos: Quote-
1808 “and the word was a god”
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864 “and a god was the Word”
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935 “and the Word was divine”
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1950 “and the Word was a god”
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.
1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1979 “and a god was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.
 
These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·osʹ) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·osʹ. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·osʹ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·osʹ.
Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. -End of Quote
Anyways what about giving the reader the most accurate translation as possible with the most correct rendering of meaning and inserting a footnote to the reason why it was done that way?
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was Divine*." * The third clause is not speaking of the Logos identity but rather his qualitive sense. Case in point. Michael means "who is like God"? or "who is godlike"? and that qualitive sense of the Logos is Divine. I'm sure with a multitude of counselors, one should be able to find a scripture full of truth and the one reading it could be moved to exclaim, this is the truth!  A scripture so accurate and convincing that the reader could not be swayed.  Even the footnote itself should be written in a way that it would support without question. See what you can come up with?
 
 

Man, I wish all this whining about the organization would quit. You'd think these idiots would be able to better able to prioritize their annoyances.
With these idiots the answer to the question:
"What is the one problem facing humanity which deserves the most from your scarce resources and time?"
It's always whining about the organization.
Faced with that level of idiocy and lack of self awareness , what can you do? You might as well be talking to a chatbot.

@TrueTomHarleyDoesn't she realize how obsessively neurotic she appears? Even a worldly person would tell her she should get a life and that no one is listening. Can't apostates realize that they simply aren't needed any more? If anyone wants to find a catalog of errors w/regard to the WTBS or wants to find more apostate smut to get thrilled by, the internet is packed w/that crap. Now it's all just the background noise made by a degrading transformer.

Witness said the C-word?
I mean, I can do it because I don’t pretend to be shining brightly as the sun,  but her!

….. Which of course would mean that “Gog of Magog” is really Lawrence Welk, or some other polka-Geist, and when Armageddon starts you will hear accordion “Lady of Spain”!

Could be worse ….……
….. could be slide trombones ….

...at the risk of being annoying, you never hear anyone say ...
"Well!, At least we've got it all right w/regard to the trumpets in the book of Revelation and what each mean. The rest of Christendom is stumbling in the dark about all that."

⬆️⬆️(Satire Alert)⬆️⬆️
 
Critical discussions of theology, over time, make our own better.

@WitnessI'll make it simple. In order for anyone to be convinced that you're capable of learning anything new about the bible, you have to state what you don't know and then go from there until you have some idea. Then you submit the same to others and see if they see the same thing or if you aren't reading things into scripture which aren't really there.
Take for example the trumpet blasts in the book of revelation. I know the current arguments from the society about these, but these don't work for me. I say to myself "A convention!?". Now I know the book of acts highlighted the anointing w/holy spirit on an arguably tiny number in a what the world would consider an inconsequential location, however this event IS part of the Bible, and for these and other facts I believe it was in fulfillment of scripture.
These trumpet blasts of revelation having their fulfillment in some conventions just doesn't have the same gravitas as pentecost, so I take the interpretations as speculation, not definitive fact.
So I say openly, that I'm not quite sure about any of that and I'm hopeful that with more study whatever I can learn about this will become clear over time.
You don't waste your time puffing yourself up as if you're needed to rescue people from some (in your view) false ideas.
Work on yourself.
I don't need to read much of what you spew, because it's the same old crap. You appear (I was going to say ARE) to be so incredibly full of yourself. Who else do we know who doesn't know how to be brief? Anyone who can't be brief needs to learn how.
TLDR is what people do with people who can't do that. Now Pudgy is great because he doesn't take himself seriously, but he does take ideas seriously and intersperses the same with humor - a great teaching tool. I think Jehovah is much more likely to listen to his prayers than a bloviating pharisee (whose chief complaint is that they aren't the HEAD pharisee)

People who don't know what they are talking go on and on. They hope to rope-a-dope you into believing they actually said anything.

I put it first on my own blog. It’s also in TTvtA.
It didn’t carry the day with that Reddit bunch, but then they ARE a hostile crowd. And even I have to admit those mannerisms do take getting used to, regardless of their origin. I think we have to drop back to Pudgy’s comment:
Coming from cynical Pudgy, this is extraordinary praise, the equivalent of ‘Stellar’ from anyone else. 
It may be just an example of God ‘laughing at the wisdom of this systems’s wise ones,’ proof that his anointed are, as in the first century, seldom of ‘noble birth,’ nor ‘wise,’ but decidedly ‘uneducated and ordinary.’
I’ll take substance over style any day. Turn on the TV and you can see endless people whose ‘style’ is impeccable. Among them are some of the stupidest people whom God ever let roam the earth.

I don’t read citations either.
it’s hard work, but the burden of proof is with a coherent self contained …. SHORT …. arguement. 
That’s why people watched the Muppets!
If there was a “running gag”, Kermit would tell you.

Witness …. Oh, so your grandmother also thought you about that game ….
I ask you a “yes or no” question.
You answer with 16 paragraphs.
I have to guess if that means yes, or no.
 

@WitnessI'll make it simple. In order for anyone to be convinced that you're capable of learning anything new about the bible, you have to state what you don't know and then go from there until you have some idea. Then you submit the same to others and see if they see the same thing or if you aren't reading things into scripture which aren't really there.
Take for example the trumpet blasts in the book of revelation. I know the current arguments from the society about these, but these don't work for me. I say to myself "A convention!?". Now I know the book of acts highlighted the anointing w/holy spirit on an arguably tiny number in a what the world would consider an inconsequential location, however this event IS part of the Bible, and for these and other facts I believe it was in fulfillment of scripture.
These trumpet blasts of revelation having their fulfillment in some conventions just doesn't have the same gravitas as pentecost, so I take the interpretations as speculation, not definitive fact.
So I say openly, that I'm not quite sure about any of that and I'm hopeful that with more study whatever I can learn about this will become clear over time.
You don't waste your time puffing yourself up as if you're needed to rescue people from some (in your view) false ideas.
Work on yourself.
I don't need to read much of what you spew, because it's the same old crap. You appear (I was going to say ARE) to be so incredibly full of yourself. Who else do we know who doesn't know how to be brief? Anyone who can't be brief needs to learn how.
TLDR is what people do with people who can't do that. Now Pudgy is great because he doesn't take himself seriously, but he does take ideas seriously and intersperses the same with humor - a great teaching tool. I think Jehovah is much more likely to listen to his prayers than a bloviating pharisee (whose chief complaint is that they aren't the HEAD pharisee)

@WitnessYou like to scribble, why don't you do something useful, like scribble out a verse by verse commentary on the book of revelation since you claim to have it all figured out.

No one has a coherent and believable narrative on the whole book of revelation. At critical points it all goes crazy conspiracy theory. 

No one has a coherent and believable narrative on the whole book of revelation. At critical points it all goes crazy conspiracy theory. 

No one has a coherent and believable narrative on the whole book of revelation. At critical points it all goes crazy conspiracy theory. 

I do not debate with her any longer - but I did make comments about being deaf and speaking with body language so people can understand.  Jesus only answered the Pharisees when someone else could learn by his words..... 

To be really politically incorrect

I'd say that Jehovah is the judge of whose conscience is in order. Anyone who disagrees is an ass.

To be really politically incorrect

What a maroon. No elder is judging a conscience. It's all about behavior. 

I'd say that Jehovah is the judge of whose conscience is in order. Anyone who disagrees is an ass.