XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christianity   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic   
      
   >>>Friend james, a few questions if you please, a short even single word   
   >>>answer is requested for each, a "I don't know" is fine; the answer will be   
   >>>provided.  Not to worry, if you go wobbling all over the place into   
   >>>irrelevant responses, we will bring you back to the core questions:   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>He wobbled about and was unable to answer or attempted to answer another   
   >>question.  Let's help him out and get him off the hook of reality:   
   >>   
   >>>1. How many were on the committee who did the "translation"?   
   >>There was a group of 5, all known by name.   
   >   
   >Please prove it.   
      
   Smile, hint, it was one of the five who let the cat out of the bag, a bag   
   the jw vatican wanted firmly never to be opened; too late..  If you were   
   given the list of names what would it mean to your ideas about jw vatican   
   claims and concealment practices?   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>2. Did it have any trained scholars of biblical languages?   
   >>   
   >>No, one had some ancient greek from some 500 years BC, a different form of   
   >>greek, a greek biblical scholar would have years of formal education he   
   >>lacked.   
   >   
   >Please prove it.   
      
   What, the difference between classical greek and biblical greek he did not   
   ever have to do biblical translation?   
   >>   
   >>He claimed knowledge of hebrew.  In a trial under oath he could not   
   >>translate a simple hebrew sentence.  In effect, no one qualified nor   
   >>experienced in biblical translation was in the group.   
   >   
   >Again, Please prove it.   
      
   See above, no real translation possible for lacking the many years of   
   biblicalgreek required by any of the five.   
      
   >>>   
   >>>3. Of the NT sources listed, how many render John 1:1 as did the   
   >>>"translation"?   
   >>   
   >>Friend james listed some  5 possible examples.  Only one had "Word was a   
   >>god; a very obscure translation no one uses."   
   >>   
   >>More telling, none he mentioned is in the list below, the questioned   
   >>asked of him.   
   >>   
   >>In short, he did some hand waving and foot stomping with the lists of   
   >>sources which do not support the nwt.  He tried to impress by an irrelevant   
   >>long list.   
   >   
   >Your opinion is noted.   
      
   Smile, as also the reality of the point, no help for the nwt shown from the   
   list below for John 1:1; the question at hand.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>NT   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Armenian Version   
   >>>>Coptic Versions   
   >>>>Syriac Versions-Curetonian, Philoxenian, Harclean,   
   >>>>Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta   
   >>>>Old Latin   
   >>>>Latin Vulgate   
   >>>>Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts   
   >>>>Greek Cursive MSS.   
   >>>>Erasmus Text   
   >>>>Stephanus Text   
   >>>>Textus Receptus   
   >>>>Griesbach Greek Text   
   >>>>Emphatic Diaglott   
   >>>>Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)   
   >>>>Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (H>),   
   >>>>Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)   
   >>>>Westcott and Hort Greek Text   
   >>>>Bover Greek Text   
   >>>>Merk Greek Text   
   >>>>Nestle-Aland Greek Text   
   >>>>United Bible Societies Greek Text   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)