Is anyone here a Jehovah's Witness?

[Robert]

They have the same Bible, and have made a translation that they feel better reflects the doctrine of the original texts. They use many translations besides their own.

that's what I said, but now you formulate it the way they would do. Still no difference though.

Yeah, that was before I got my cool superpowers. Now they can burn in hell.

And I offer you a VIP-place among them to see it happen! Now hurry, they close the doors at 10 pm

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy

They have the same Bible, and have made a translation that they feel better reflects the doctrine of the original texts. They use many translations besides their own.

that's what I said, but now you formulate it the way they would do. Still no difference though.

Actually, you said:

They have another bible, ours is corupted.

"Corrupted" would imply something is wrong with the foundation, that the heart of the message has been lost or twisted. For example, Muslims believe, among other things, that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who Abraham almost sacrificed, and that the Bible was corrupted to favor the descendants of Isaac by changing this story. OTOH, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society thinks that modern literal translations are eminently usable, and often valuable for presenting verses with alternate translations. The WTBTS uses the KJV, NIV, Jerusalem Bible, Douay, and others in its literature, which they would not do if they felt the translations were in some way "corrupt".

[Robert]

oh well, that's true.
But they say it's corrupted though at some parts. Most of the time essential parts about the devinity of Jesus.

but you're right that they match most of the time more or less.

[Lord Merciless]

Millions have already died fighting for different interpretations of the Bible.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy
oh well, that's true.
But they say it's corrupted though at some parts. Most of the time essential parts about the devinity of Jesus.

If by "they" you mean Jehovah's Witnesses, and by "it" you mean the Bible, you could not be more incorrect. The JWs think absolutely no part of the Bible is corrupted. Perhaps you could clarify your pronouns here?

but you're right that they match most of the time more or less.

Who/what is supposedly matching whom/what?

[Robert]

One-Brown, are you trying to turn this into a word-game?

I already explained that the JW say our bible is corrupted, we proceeded on that topic, thus in this case I say that the JW think that our version of the bible is corrupted on some parts.

You talk like a JW, you're sure you're not one of them?

Millions have already died fighting for different interpretations of the Bible.

The bible can only be interpreted in one way on the main-issue. On less important issues there are more interpretations possible, as long as you keep in mind that the bible is not a moral-book that teaches morals, and says you should not discuss minor things.

If you disagree that the bible can only be interpreted in one way, you contradict yourself, since you claim in that case that the bible can be interpreted in many ways, which should include my way in that case, so you can't disagree with me.

Conclusion: any "The bible can be interpreted in many ways" opinion is bollocks since it most of the time it means "all interpretations are valid exept yours since yours doesn't agree with mine and is invalid for that reason"

anyway, the authors of the bible had a message,
and people who have a message most of the time want to be clear on it, and they mean something. It's not as if later you can get all kinds of ideas out of it.

but, like I said before, on minor important items there can be a discussion.

anyway, you guys can now trow in the usual funda flame stuff, mostly because you can't read, and you can't look past your own superior and only valid opion. (that accepts all other opinions except opinions that disagree with your opinion which makes your own opinion invalid but you don't understand that)

geeeeez, I'm having a cute end of the day
writing down all those words

I hope you have fun reading them. There's a message in it though, and it's not supposed to be interpreted in many ways. thought I should share that

CS

[Provost Harrison]

I have always wanted to argue with a Jehovah's Witness, but none ever come to my door Perhaps they have been warned

[Lord Merciless]

Then millions have died fighting because they had disagreements on "minor" issues in the Bible. That's even more pathetic.

[Verto]

Not to get off topic, but I'd just like to point out that centuries ago, the Catholic church had a committee that deleted, added, and modified verses in the Bible so that it matched that the Catholic church was teaching at the team.

Thus, the Bible is 'corrupted' in that sense. I don't know if JW considers it corrupted or not, but anywho.

On the other hand, let me just tell you how impressed I am with the respect you give to someone else's religion. Must be nice to hide behind a keyboard.

[Robert]

I have always wanted to argue with a Jehovah's Witness, but none ever come to my door Perhaps they have been warned

same feelings here.

Then millions have died fighting because they had disagreements on "minor" issues in the Bible. That's even more pathetic.

that's a true thing.

On the other hand, let me just tell you how impressed I am with the respect you give to someone else's religion. Must be nice to hide behind a keyboard.

If I disagree with someone I'm not disrespecting someone. Those words do not match. I respect very much people while I think their opinion is wrong, but they're still free to have to opinion.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy
One-Brown, are you trying to turn this into a word-game?

I already explained that the JW say our bible is corrupted, we proceeded on that topic, thus in this case I say that the JW think that our version of the bible is corrupted on some parts.

I assume the mistake in my handle was a typo?

No, they think that many English translations are biased, not that the Bible is corrupt. "Corrupt" would mean the current Hebrew/Greek text is unreliable. The WTBTS teaches that the Hebrew/Greek copies are very reliable. They also think that the best understandings of this text do not support Trinitarian doctrine.

BTW, they do not deny Jesus was divine, they just don't say he is (a part of) God.

You talk like a JW, you're sure you're not one of them?

Quite sure. I stidied for five years, but was never baptized. I've been discussing them on the Internet for about five years, as well.

Millions have already died fighting for different interpretations of the Bible.

The bible can only be interpreted in one way on the main-issue. On less important issues there are more interpretations possible, as long as you keep in mind that the bible is not a moral-book that teaches morals, and says you should not discuss minor things.

I have heard many people say this. Interestingly enough, they often disagreed on what the "main issue" actually is.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I have always wanted to argue with a Jehovah's Witness, but none ever come to my door Perhaps they have been warned

Well, I've never been warned. Care for an argument? I'm only a little rusty.

Perhaps you should be warned...

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Then millions have died fighting because they had disagreements on "minor" issues in the Bible. That's even more pathetic.

Yes, it is. Of course, people have dies for even more petty reasons.

Here' something you'll like: No JW has ever killed a person in a religious dispute or for a religious reason.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by One_Brow


Yes, it is. Of course, people have dies for even more petty reasons.

Here' something you'll like: No JW has ever killed a person in a religious dispute or for a religious reason.

i don't think there is anything more pathetic

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Verto
Not to get off topic, but I'd just like to point out that centuries ago, the Catholic church had a committee that deleted, added, and modified verses in the Bible so that it matched that the Catholic church was teaching at the team.

Thus, the Bible is 'corrupted' in that sense. I don't know if JW considers it corrupted or not, but anywho.

There were a couple of councils that focussed on books and languages (particularly in the 4th and 15th centuries), but generally not on individual verses. For example, some part of Daniel were rejected in the 4th century council because they were not present in the contemporary Hebrew manuscripts, and the entirety of the Sheprad of Hermeas (?) was rejected.

Occasional verses were added over the years as marginal notes or or other individual copyist interpolations, but generally not by the decree of some council.

JWs feel the scholarly texts (in particular, the Nestle-Aland Greek text) are extrememly highly reliable.

On the other hand, let me just tell you how impressed I am with the respect you give to someone else's religion. Must be nice to hide behind a keyboard.

This is only the desreved wrath that traditional theocracies must pour upon new groups that dare disagree with their traditions.