You know Basic, back in the day... I studied with the JW for about a
year or so. Went to bible studies and the kingdom hall like 4 nights a
week.
Everything you read and study from is written and approved of by the
"board" in New York. Most of the time you study from Watchtower tracks
and different "authorized" books from this board. The "bible" that is
used is a special one that is translated by this "board" of people in
New York. So just think about it for a minute....
Everything you have been taught, believed, studied...All this knowledge
came from a governing board who has translates and decifers what
everything in the original text means. Then books are put forth for you
to study to "defend" what you beleive. Training on how to handle
objections and what to say to people when they put forth things like
"trinity"... I know this because I had first hand knowledge of it.
Why can't you read the orignial greek, hebrew and aramiac yourself?
There are plenty of info, bible research programs out there. My Strongs
Concordance it my best friend. As soon as I read something, I go right
to my concordance and get all the meanings, root words and tense's to
completely understand what the Word is really saying.
Your arguing a point based on the information given to you by others
but have no direct first hand knowledge in the acutal text. What would
be the harm in looking up the scriptures and decifering them yourself
to see if they match what is the your New Translation?
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
In article <095.54.20.05.073180000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
>
>
>basicallyblues wrote:
>
>> 2. In translations, the important thing is consistancy. In
>> the NWT, most of the time the phrase here is translated "God".
>> EXCEPT in this verse, where it would quite inconvenient for
>> the JW's.
>>
>> see Acts 28:6 how does the Bible on your desk render this verse?
>>
>
>I'd like to deal with this in more depth, and I'll try to come back to
>this, but I'm really pressed for time the next day or so.
>
>However, in John 1:1, in the contested translation "and the Word was
>God", theos is in the nominative case.
True...
> This means, for example, that
>"God" is the _subject_ of this phrase and not "the Word".
Your phrasing is a little odd here. It is also important to remember that the
rule you just gave applies to finite transitive verbs only. For infinitives,
both subject and predicate (best not call it 'object') are normally accusative.
For finite intransitives, both subject and predicate are in the nominative case.
And this is what is relevant for
