XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christianity   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic   
      
   >>Friend james tries out some jw vatican theories:   
   >>   
   >>>With so many translations out there, and many of them having   
   >>>differences, can you tell the 'good stuff' from the 'bad stuff'?   
   >>   
   >>Hmm, the nwt "translation" doesn't escape either, no?   
   >>>   
   >>>Unless you have the first century miraculous knowledge, it isn't easy   
   >>>to tell.   
   >>   
   >>And if you have *NO* scholars of greek/hebrew like the jw vatican   
   >>"translation" tiny group totally lacked, one can have *NO* trust in their   
   >>""translation", no?   
      
   Friend james tries a number game:>   
      
   >I have already posted before how the NWT has been praised by Bible   
   >scholars. If they are so bad at translating, why the praises? It   
   >shouldn't be if you speak the truth.   
      
   If a lie is repeated many times does it cease bieng a lie:?   
      
   Smile, and many of those mentioned have made it clear they do *NOT* support   
   the nwt.  They consistently say the jw vatican corropt and spin what they   
   actually sid.  In other ords, the jw vatican lied.   
      
   Let's do the numbers; 99.9 percent of greek scholars turn thumbs down on   
   the nwt.  Why is the .01 presented as though there is stong support?  Is   
   ommission and misrepresentation also a lie?   
      
   Friend james; thell us again about that ""claimed strong support"  that   
   goes up in smoke when investegated.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)