01 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you believe Jesus is an angel?
more irrelevancy and unworthy of serious comment
James Moffat - 'the Word is divine', anyone that knows anything about the Bible willing to proffer an opinion that is actually related to the threads theme? I repeat, James Moffats translation of John 1:1, 'the word is divine'.
Do you believe he is another god along with Jehovah?
Dude, stop for one moment and think about this. Please!
01 Feb 14
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterJames Moffat - 'the Word is divine', anyone that knows anything about the Bible willing to proffer an opinion that is actually related to the threads theme? I repeat, James Moffats translation of John 1:1, 'the word is divine'.
Do you believe Jesus is an angel?
Do you believe he is another god along with Jehovah?
Dude, stop for one moment and think about this. Please!
All irrelevancy will be ignored.
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat exactly are you asking robbie? Why Moffat translates a word differently to the majority of the mainstream Christian texts, and in a way which happens to agree with your interpretation which is also different to the majority of Christian texts? Is that it, is that your question? Really?
James Moffat - 'the Word is divine', anyone that knows anything about the Bible willing to proffer an opinion that is actually related to the threads theme? I repeat, James Moffats translation of John 1:1, 'the word is divine'.
All irrelevancy will be ignored.
01 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterno i am asking why he translated the verse in the way that he did, how hard can it be to understand the question? how other people translate the verse is irrelevant.
What exactly are you asking robbie? Why Moffat translates a word differently to the majority of the mainstream Christian texts, and in a way which happens to agree with your interpretation which is also different to the majority of Christian texts? Is that it, is that your question? Really?
01 Feb 14
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterhe translated the verse the way he did because he was wrong, thanks, anyone else.
Because he is wrong.
so far we have had Jaywill state, he translated the verse the way he did because,
1. he wanted to make his mark
2. he wanted to rock the boat (unspecified)
3. he was a polytheist
4. he was wrong (divesgeester)
5. he believed that the term theos in the latter part of the clause related to (a quality about God) RJ Hinds.
01 Feb 14
4 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterwhat evidence do you have that he was wrong, for while I am sure that you are equally up to the task of correcting a Professor of Greek, what evidence do you have for your assertion that he translated the verse because he was wrong. Wrong in what way? He woke up on the wrong side of the bed? Combed his hair with a parting to the wrong side?
Because he is wrong.
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"For the New Testament he used the Greek text of Hermann von Soden, which was generally regarded as an eccentric text, and he often substituted conjectural emendations for the text of both Testaments. In the New Testament alone he adopts some thirty conjectures unsupported by any manuscripts."
sorry i can see no reason why he translated the text as he does, perhaps you can enlighten us, you have after all only been asked numerous times, if you don't know, just say so.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/moffatt.html
Acknowledgement withheld.
Originally posted by divegeestermore irrelevancy, you were not asked what other verses are supported or not supported by conjecture and you were not asked whether the base text upon which he based his translation is to be considered eccentric, you were actually asked why he translated the verse in the way that he did, to which you have yet given no answer, in fact, all you have done is to state that its an erroneous translation again without providing any reasons other than these irrelevancies.
"For the New Testament he used the Greek text of Hermann von Soden, which was generally regarded as an eccentric text, and he often substituted conjectural emendations for the text of both Testaments. In the New Testament alone he adopts some thirty conjectures unsupported by any manuscripts."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/moffatt.html
Acknowledgement withheld.
are you saying that he has done so on the basis of conjecture? what proof do you have? are you saying that he has done so because the base text is considered eccentric and thus has tainted his ability to translate accurately, what evidence do you have?
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLol. It never ends does it Robbie? We ask simple questions trying to just get at least a couple pages of a decent conversation going here to see what others believe and think and why and if they can back it up by the Bible, but always they have to deflect the simple questions with what seems to be to only disrupt the threads.
more irrelevancy, you were not asked what other verses are supported or not supported by conjecture and you were not asked whether the base text upon which he based his translation is to be considered eccentric, you were actually asked why he translated the verse in the way that he did, to which you have yet given no answer, in fact, all you have don ...[text shortened]... d eccentric and thus has tainted his ability to translate accurately, what evidence do you have?
When it actually does happen it almost knocks me out from being supprised that it was an honest to the point answer and not just "another attack on the JW'S".
It seems that most here do not have it in their makeup to be willing to learn or at least see others views and possible help us understand theeirs.
I've actually appreciated Manny's approach to communicating on the forums lately. It has been enjoyable.
01 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75As you seem to find it amusing that people don't seem to want to get drawn into what is obviously a JW doctrine pitch, perhaps you can add a different perspective to Robbie's on this topic?
Lol. It never ends does it Robbie? We ask simple questions trying to just get at least a couple pages of a decent conversation going here to see what others believe and think and why and if they can back it up by the Bible, but always they have to deflect the simple questions with what seems to be to only disrupt the threads.
When it actually does happ ...[text shortened]... ually appreciated Manny's approach to communicating on the forums lately. It has been enjoyable.
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by galveston75Manny is objective enough to realise when an extreme bias is present and open mined enough to entertain alternative perspectives.
Lol. It never ends does it Robbie? We ask simple questions trying to just get at least a couple pages of a decent conversation going here to see what others believe and think and why and if they can back it up by the Bible, but always they have to deflect the simple questions with what seems to be to only disrupt the threads.
When it actually does happ ...[text shortened]... ually appreciated Manny's approach to communicating on the forums lately. It has been enjoyable.
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps it is to distinguish between God the Father and God the Son. Since we know the God the Son is referred to as "THE WORD OF GOD" in the book of Revelation.
more irrelevancy and unworthy of serious comment
James Moffat - 'the Word is divine', anyone that knows anything about the Bible willing to proffer an opinion that is actually related to the threads theme? I repeat, James Moffats translation of John 1:1, 'the word is divine'.