Jehovah`s Witness/your list of "scholars"..cont'd
Yeah, you misunderstood me. I didnt ask you to apologize. I just said you SHOULD apologize for misleading the public with your answer, knowing you were being misleading. I never once thought you would apologize because I have read enough of your answers to know that you are too cocky to do such a thing.
That wasnt the point anyway. The point was showing that you listed "scholars" who arent scholars and even are not above listing an occultist to support your translation.
Also you are not going to change the subject as you always do when made to look silly. That is the game Ive seen you play and Im not playing it. The issue is why you listed names many of which are not scholars, and some of which were in contact with demons, and then arrogantly claim that your list of scholars is "as long" as those scholars who oppose your false translation.
Nice try on dodging that but it didnt work. Since you are fully ok with using Greber, a believer in letting demons help translate the Scripture, then it should also be pointed out that you listed John Thompson also who was another man who had contact with spirits.
Thompson himself acknowledged that a spirit entered his room one night and told him to present Jesus as only the instrument of God, and nothing more.
I will quote Mr Thompson, another of your "scholars" who agree with the nwt rendering of John 1:1.
<<<<"I will now proceed to relate things, just as I have before done, agreeably to the views and impressions I then had ; leaving every one to form his own opinion. I acknowledge, my mind was in a state of great excitement, at the time I had these extraordinary impressions; but it did not then seem to me, nor does it yet, that the degree of the excitement was adequate to the phenomena. I awoke, one night, and heard a considerable noise in my room. I listened carefully for some time, and the sound was that of a thousand pens, writing in great haste what was dictated. I heard a voice very distinctly, saying, - ‘In all your writings, be careful to represent Jesus as only the instrument of God in all he does.’ I immediately interrupted, by exclaiming,- ‘Silence! I’ll not believe one of you.’ The noise immediately stopped; and I was often afterward sorry that I had interrupted the dictation. I examined; but there was no person in the room, the door being locked, and none had yet arisen in the house.
"Not long after, sleeping in the same room, I awoke by pressure, which removed immediately on awaking. I began to reflect, whether it was a dream, or an external force applied to my body. Whilst I doubted, some being took hold of my hands, and pressed with violence, which excited in me great surprise. My hands were let loose, but, in one minute, they were again seized, with renewed violence. I then cried, - 'Let me loose! I believe! do not injure me! I am entirely satisfied of your existence!’ The pressure on my hands was immediately removed, and I then felt greatly agitated, and tossed in my bed. In two minutes after, my hands were seized a third time : I then complained loudly, but, in a minute of time, I was again set at liberty. I leaped on the floor, determined that I would make full proof, whether any person had got into the room : though I believed that no man could apply so much strength as I had experienced on my hands. The first thing I did was to examine the door, which I found as I had left it, locked, with they key in the inner side. I took the key out of the door and again trying it, found it fast. I then groped all over the room, but found nobody. I retired to my bed, placing the key under me, and waiting for the light of day.’"
If this isnt bad enough you proceed to list "scholars" who are Unitarians which means they do not even believe the Scriptures are the inspired words of God. Others you listed are not even recognized scholars. So what we see is that you use occultists, people hearing from demons, bible-deniers, and unqualified individuals. When you remove those from your list then your list is no longer "as long" as the list of scholars who debunk your translation.
Oh and I also found by studying the names you listed that many of them were not even commenting on John 1:1 in particular, but some on OTHER verses in the nwt. Yet you specificly said they suppored the reading of John 1:1.
So you lied. I do not expect you to apologize because you arent going to. You would if you cared about truth or giving your readers the truth. But you are ok with giving false information and then moving on like nothing happened. Ok, just so we know where you stand.
And thanks for listing where you got the names. That is an excellent website, but you must not have known that the site you gave actually shows where your religion twisted what the scholars said in most instances, or took it out of their intended context. I would recomend every body read that site you linked to. But did YOU read it? If you did, it sure was dumb for you to use the names in your list.
Yeah I read the list and I knew it was an opposing site but that doesn't change who the scholars are ,first you said I mislead then at the end you acknowledged it was a excellent website.I listed it the Shane as well go check.
To mislead it would mean I tried to hide where the names came from so you are the one who looks dumb.
Everything you say here doesn't change what I said before ,which I noticed you ignored ,not only did you ignore but to try to completely change the subject you started a new subject ,you were supposed to follow up there was no need to start a whole new subject ,you did that I suppose because you cant answer my question ,the issue is not the whole list the issue you raised was John 1-1 what you said was this:
"since you so arogantly claim victory, and your list of so called scholars was designe to mislead the public and make it appear your nwt has solid support for John 1;1"
My answer was:
I claim victory for the simple fact that if just one Greek scholar support JW rendering that Jesus is a god and not God that tells me its the correct terminology that John was conveying.
That is why I provided the website as proof we have one who does I dont care about the fact he
was against our list in the Watchtower.
Now I will copy what I said in the last thread which was designed in such a way that that you have to answer yourself ,you cant go to a website and copy what someone else says ,you made the mistake of entering where you were not invited.
I said this remember :
So its clear both can be used as we see ,so what about the context,the context should reveal which one agree:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God
: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”
Which translation of text agrees with the context
What then is the context
Later we see the context:
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
(John 1:14) . . .So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; . . .
so then the context is Jesus is God or godlike,yet if Jesus is GOD then men seen GOD because it clearly said:
"So the Word became flesh and resided among us"
or in other words GOD became flesh since the word is God,but in the complete context John makes it clear:
"No man hath seen God at any time"
So to accept the word as God in the rendering verse 14 has to be explained or ignored,it cant be said Jesus is GOD then say he was seen but was not God at the time because no one can see GOD.
These questions has to be answered ,it cant be both ways but one way.In your follow up you explain the context of John that he clearly expresses the word logos is GOD,I would like to see it.
So again I await your explanation in a follow up not a whole new thread
If you fail this time I will personally post in a thread named "Scott failed to answer"