SuperDebat.dk > Politik & Samfund > Religion & Livssyn
2tilføjet af jalmar
______ JV Bibelen NWT Findes IKKE
´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´😮
HVIS DEN KRISTNE BIBEL IKKE FINDES
Så - findes der ingen Bøger med guds ord?
Hvis der findes Bøger med GUDS ORD og Disse BØGER indeholder GUDS og
dermed TROENS Ord og der er en Markant TROSFORSKEL i TOLKNING og TROSOPFATTELSE -
MÅ man nødvendigvis skelne mellem - TO BIBLER -
Da DEN KRISTNE BIBEL indeholder TROEN på DEN MONOTEISTISKE TREENIGE GUD YHVH
OG "NEW WORLD TRANSLATION"
VIA JW/WTS-FORTOLKNINGEN BLIVER TIL ET MARKANT POLYTEISTISK GUDSFORHOLD!
"Sbrh skrev i et andet indlæg:
Hvis man dykker ned i de mindre tilgængelige dele af Jehovas Vidners, og dermed den teologi de bekender dig til, vil I se, at den eneste forskel der i dag mellem Gud og Jesus er, i følge Jehovas Vidner, at Jehovas er uden begyndelse som guddommelig livgiver, Jesus blev først guddommelig livgiver ved sin opstandelse.
jehovas vidner kalder Jehova for Gud og Jesus for Søn, og mener at der forskel på de to i JW/WTS-Læren - Men det er KUN i ord, men ikke i praksis for:
- De er begge guddommelige
- De er begge udødelige
- De kan begge skabe
- De kan begge give liv
- De kan begge tage liv
- etc.
Der er i dag i praksis ikke er nogen større forskel mellem Jehova og Jesus i Jehovas Vidners teologi.
Resten kan læses her: http://debat.sol.dk/show.fcgi?category=6&conference=217&posting=1286144
I rest my case!
Med venlig hilsen
jalmar
tilføjet af ftg
Bibelen findes, men at kalde den kristen er forkert
Det er at monopolisere Bibelen.
Med venlig hilsen, ftg.
tilføjet af jalmar
Jamen så er NWT "DEN FALSKE bibel"
´
....... KONTRA "DE SANDE OG ÆGTE BIBLER"! ....... For min skyld ingen alarm?
"DE SANDE OG ÆGTE BIBLER" er så alle andre BIBLER jeg har stiftet bekendtskab med!
FOR MIN SKYLD INGEN ALARM -
Jeg synes det er REN BLASFEMI
at komme NWT i samme KLASSE SOM "DE SANDE og ÆGTE BIBLER"
NWT er jo trods alt benævnt: "THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS BOOK!!"
Og det er den simpelthen fordi:
4. The men who comprised the Translation Committee had no adequate
schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators.
The self-appointed "scholars" who made up this Translation Committee were:
N.H. Knorr, F.W. Franz, A.D. Schroeder, G.D. Gangas and M. Henschel.
FRED FRANZ er SPROGGENIET - Den største "Sprog-Ekspert" af alle:
Citat:...................................................................................
Frederick W. Franz: Main translator.
Took liberal arts sequence at University of Cincinnati;
21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin.
Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year; course titled "The New Testament--A course in grammar and translation."
Left in spring of 1914 before completing junior year.
Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. (PÅSTOD HAN SELV - Se NB!)
Entered Brooklyn headquarters facility of Watchtower Society in 1920.
Probable ghost writer for J. F. Rutherford (2nd president of WTS) from late 1920s through 1942. Vice president of WTS from 1942 to 1977, president from 1977 until death in 1992 at age 99.
-----------------------------------------------------
NB!
Senere finder man ud af, at Fred Franz kun nødtørftigt kan begå sig på andet end Engelsk -
Re.: HEBRAISK kunne han ikke engang oversætte et enkelt velkendt Bibelvers
(Retssag i Skotland 1954)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan H. Knorr:
No training in biblical languages.
Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1923; 3rd president of WTS from 1942 to 1977. Died 1977 at age 72.
-----------------------------------------------------
Milton G. Henschel:
No training in biblical languages.
Private secretary and traveling companion to N. H. Knorr from late 1940s until early 1970s. 4th president of WTS from 1992 to 2000. Still living, age mid-80s.
-----------------------------------------------------
Albert D. Schroeder:
No training in biblical languages.
Took 3 years of mechanical engineering, unspecified language courses in college, dropped out in 1932 and soon entered Brooklyn headquarters. Registrar of "Gilead School" from 1942 to 1959. Still living, age 90.
-----------------------------------------------------
Karl Klein:
No training in biblical languages.
Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1925; member of Writing Dept. since 1950. Died 2001 at age 96.
-----------------------------------------------------
George D. Gangas:
No training in biblical languages.
Greek-speaking Turkish national, entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1928 as a Greek translator from English to modern Greek publications. Died 1994 at age 98.
-----------------------------------------------------
Nedenstående ER disse såkaldte Scholar's -
SOM HVIS NWT ER KORREKT,
ALLE SOM EN ER MULIGE IGNORANTER OG BURDE FYRES FRA DERES RESPEKTIVE STILLINGER!
About the New World's translation : "...the Word was a god."
Dr. J. R. Mantey
(who is quoted on pages 1158-1159)
of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect."
"It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):
"A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious""reprehensible"
"If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski
Zurich, Switzerland:
"This anarthrous (used without the article)
construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English.
It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman
Portland, Oregon:
"The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance
of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg
La Mirada, California:
"I can assure you that the rendering which
the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. James L. Boyer
Winona Lake, Indiana:
"I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...
I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Walter R. Martin
(who does not teach Greek but has studied the language):
"The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. William Barclay
University of Glasgow, Scotland:
"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations.
John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,'
a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that
a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. F. F. Bruce
University of Manchester, England:
"Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite
article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is
common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible."
[Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek
scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell
University of Chicago:
"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does
not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded
as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession
of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Phillip B. Harner
Heidelberg College:
"The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a
god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a
distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is
places at the beginning for emphasis."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. J. Johnson
California State University, Long Beach:
"No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.'
There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in
indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Eugene A. Nida,
head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:
"With regard to John 1:1,
there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was
apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek."
[Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. B. F. Wescott
(whose Greek text is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):
"The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without
the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is
declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. J. J. Griesbach
(whose Greek text is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):
"So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour
of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of
the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation,
this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3,
is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either
commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
-----------------------------------------------------