Should people be religious?

[Ms.Redd]

alrighty, I think I'm done for now... *cracks knuckles* hee hee

Thought this was an interesting thread and I hope it keeps going...
Oh and in case any of you were wondering, if you haven't figured it out yet already, , I'm a Jehovah's Witness... Yep, onnah those annoying people who knock on your door at 10:00 in the morning offering you free Watchtowers and Awakes and such. (And no we are not Mormon). Really, considering just how far this thread has gone, maybe slamming the door on our face isn't really all that necassary? hee hee, I know I know...

Its just that everyone thinks that we are trying to make them convert their religion and become a Jehovah's Witness, but really, thats not it at all... Ah well.

[Will]

NWT everywhere! *screams*

*clutches his copy of the critical text*

[Ms.Redd]

NWT... so what if its the New World Translation? hee hee, Is there something wrong with that?

[Ms.Redd]

Another thought in general...

*** 8 Matthew 5:3 ***

Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them.

EDIT: bwah ha ha ha, had to make this long. haha. jk--guess I just couldn't get around it.

New World Translation

Definition: A translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah. These expressed themselves regarding their work as follows: "The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation." This translation was originally released in sections, from 1950 to 1960. Editions in other languages have been based on the English translation.

On what is the "New World Translation" based?

As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.

Who were the translators?

When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures.

Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: "We have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits."

Is it really a scholarly translation?

Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.

What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.

Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally find that some other translators have also seen the need to express the matter in a similar manner.

Why is the name Jehovah used in the Christian Greek Scriptures?

It should be noted that the New World Translation is not the only Bible that does this. The divine name appears in translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew, in passages where quotations are made directly from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott (1864) contains the name Jehovah 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures in at least 38 other languages also use a vernacular form of the divine name.

The emphasis that Jesus Christ put on the name of his Father indicates that he personally used it freely. (Matt. 6:9; John 17:6, 26) According to Jerome of the fourth century C.E., the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew, and that Gospel makes numerous quotations of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contain the divine name. Others of the Christian Greek Scripture writers quoted from the Greek Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, begun about 280 B.C.E.), early copies of which contained the divine name in Hebrew characters, as shown by actual fragments that have been preserved.

Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: "Since the Tetragram [four Hebrew letters for the divine name] was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text."-Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1977, p. 77.

Why are some verses apparently missing?

Those verses, found in some translations, are not in the oldest available Bible manuscripts. Comparison with other modern translations, such as The New English Bible and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, shows that other translators have also recognized that the verses in question do not belong in the Bible. In some instances, they were taken from another part of the Bible and added to the text being copied by a scribe.

[Will]

NWT... so what if its the New World Translation? hee hee, Is there something wrong with that?

Quite a bit if you ask an average Protestant.

The whole John 1:1 "kai theos en ho logos" thing has been done to death already, but it is a good example why the NWT is, for the most part, an unfaithful translation of the scriptures ( the OT is very good in some places, while the NT barely resembles the actual text).

John 1:1 ends in the NWT as "and the word was a god." Every other major translation renders this as "and the word was God."

The explanation given for this by the Watchtower is that in Greek, there is only a definite article and no indefinite article. John 1:1 ends "kai theos en ho logos" in the Greek, not "kai ho theos en ho logos." They claim that an indefinte article should be inserted. Well, that could happen. With no context, either reading is technically correct. Context and later reading tells us, however, that it shouldn't be inserted. John 1:13 uses just "theos," not "ho theos" when it says "will of God." Unless you want to translate that as "will of a god." Also, Jesus claims to be God (and the word is Jesus [John 1:14]) in John 8:58.

"'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'"

This is another place where the Bible has been mistranslated in the NWT. They translate "ego emi" here as  "I have been." In all fairness, the NLT falls into the same trap here. But, I don't use the NLT :wink:. "Ego emi" is translated everywhere else in the NWT (or, as much as I have read of it) as "I am."

If any doubt exists to this trasnlation, why did the crowd try to stone him immediately afterward? Yet another thing where the truth has been obscured. In the OT, God was refered to in the scriptures as YHWH. No vowels were ever written and it was rarely spoken out of reverence for the name. When the Massorites did their edition and added vowel points, they added the vowel points for Adonai (lord) to remind people to speak Adonai when reading the scriptures, instead of YHWH.

This is where the mistransliteration of "Jehovah" comes from. However, in some ancient texts, the name is transliterated as Yahweh. And that sounds like "he is" in Hebrew. God refers to himself as "I am." (Ex. 3:14, mistranslated yet again in the NWT,  too long to explain this one :? )

So, Jesus was claiming to be God. The people knew this and tried to stone him. So, John 1:1 should be translated as "and the word was God," not "the word is a god," even though either of them is technically correct out of context.

Sorry for the long winded post. But there is quite a bit wrong with the NWT. It was written to fit JW doctrine. There is a reason why no other group out there uses it. You will find that most of the people who the Watchtower claims endorse the translation were misquoted, or they are Jehovah's Witnesses. That, or they are Jews who use the Old Testiment.

H. H. Rowley, who the Watchtower said supported the NWT, was furious when they took a quote about it out of context as an endorcement. He said in response, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."

Peace,

William

P.S. There are no reputable scholars today that claim Matthew was orignally written in any other language other than Greek, save the JWs and Assyrian Catholics, who swear Matthew was written in Christian Aramaic. We have already established that nothing counts just because Jerome says so :wink:. Insertion of the Tetragrammaton into the NT, is therefore inappropriate. Besides, they are trying to revise the Bible this way. They delibrately insert "Jehovah" (incorrect anyway) in place of "kurios" in Greek that means "lord." No ifs, ands, or buts.

I had never heard that the Septuagint had YHWH in it. When I read it last, it said "kurios" instead. At any rate, by the time the OT was written, all working copies of the Septuagint translated YHWH as "kurios." That is the whole thing that started the translation of YHWH as "Lord" in English as well. Just following the tradition of the Septuagint. Well, the Septuagint was copying how the scriptures were read... so I guess it goes back further. Meh... too tired.

[Ms.Redd]

 Also, Jesus claims to be God (and the word is Jesus [John 1:14]) in John 8:58.

"'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'"

Do you like to just read one scripture? I know you don't. You take in the others and add context and later reading as you said... So if Jesus claims to be God, then WHY? do these scpritures read as so?


(Proverbs 8:22) "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.



(John 17:5) So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.



(Philippians 2:6) who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.



(Colossians 1:17) Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,



(1 John 2:13) I am writing YOU, fathers, because YOU have come to know him who is from [the] beginning. I am writing YOU, young men, because YOU have conquered the wicked one. I write YOU, young children, because YOU have come to know the Father.

P.S. There are no reputable scholars today that claim Matthew was orignally written in any other language other than Greek, save the JWs and Assyrian Catholics, who swear Matthew was written in Christian Aramaic. We have already established that nothing counts just because Jerome says so :wink:. Insertion of the Tetragrammaton into the NT, is therefore inappropriate. Besides, they are trying to revise the Bible this way. They delibrately insert "Jehovah" (incorrect anyway) in place of "kurios" in Greek that means "lord." No ifs, ands, or buts.

I had never heard that the Septuagint had YHWH in it. When I read it last, it said "kurios" instead. At any rate, by the time the OT was written, all working copies of the Septuagint translated YHWH as "kurios." That is the whole thing that started the translation of YHWH as "Lord" in English as well. Just following the tradition of the Septuagint. Well, the Septuagint was copying how the scriptures were read... so I guess it goes back further. Meh... too tired.

This is gunna be LONG but bare with me...

The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures

"Jehovah." Heb., ? (YHWH or JHVH)

From App 1A and 1C it is evident that the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters (?) was used in both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint. Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in either Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name. In the synagogue at Nazareth, when Jesus rose and accepted the book of Isaiah and read 61:1, 2 where the Tetragrammaton occurs twice, he pronounced the divine name. This was in accordance with his determination to make Jehovah's name known as can be seen from his prayer to his Father: "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known."-Joh 17:6, 26.

There is evidence that Jesus' disciples used the Tetragrammaton in their writings. In his work De viris inlustribus [Concerning Illustrious Men], chapter III, Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote the following: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it." (Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Vol. 14, Leipzig, 1896, pp. 8, 9.)

Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Where these quotations included the divine name he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in his Hebrew Gospel account. When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was left untranslated within the Greek text according to the practice of that time.

Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter's speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. (See App 1C §1.) As a follower of Christ, Peter used God's name, Jehovah. When Peter's speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.

Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, "Lord" or The·os´, "God."

Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, ? (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate ? [abbreviation for Ky´ri·os, "Lord"]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the 'Lord God' and the 'Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself."

We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a "theory," rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts.

RESTORING THE DIVINE NAME

Throughout the centuries many translations of parts or of all the Christian Greek Scriptures have been made into Hebrew. Such translations, designated in this work by "J" with a superior number, have restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures in various places. They have restored the divine name not only when coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures but also in other places where the texts called for such restoration.

To know where the divine name was replaced by the Greek words and ?, we have determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way we determined the identity to give Ky´ri·os and The·os´ and the personality with which to clothe them.

To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from the Hebrew versions to confirm our rendering. Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have no agreement from the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely, 1Co 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support rendering the divine name.-See 1Co 7:17 ftn, "Jehovah."

Following is a list of the 237 places where the name "Jehovah" occurs in the main text of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Supporting the rendering are various sources listed by their respective symbols. For an explanation of the symbols ("J" references), see the Introduction under "Textual Symbols."

The following list also indicates the Greek word to be found at these locations in the Westcott and Hort Greek text. Ky´ri·os, "Lord," and its various forms are designated by Ky. Similarly, The´os, "God," and its various forms are designated by Th. An asterisk (*) preceding either of these symbols indicates that the Greek word is accompanied by the definite article in the Greek text. A plus sign (+) following the verse citation indicates that there is additional information to be found in a footnote on that verse.

MATTHEW

1:20+    Ky;  J3,4,7-14,16-18,22-24

1:22     Ky;  J1-4,7-14,16-18,22-24,26

1:24     Ky;  J1-4,7-14,16-18,22-24

2:13     Ky;  J1-4,6-14,16-18,22-24

2:15     Ky;  J1,3,4,6-14,16-18,22-24

2:19     Ky;  J1-4,6-14,16-18,22-24

3:3      Ky;  J1-4,7-14,16-18,20,22-24,26

4:4      Th;  J1-14,17,18,20,22,23

4:7      Ky;  J1-14,16-18,20,22-24

4:10     Ky;  J1-14,16-18,20,22-24

5:33    *Ky;  J1-4,7-14,16-18,22,23

21:9     Ky;  J1-14,16-18,20-24

21:42    Ky;  J1-4,7-14,16-18,20-24

22:37    Ky;  J1-14,16-18,20-24

22:44    Ky;  J1-14,16-18,20-24

23:39    Ky;  J1-14,16-18,21-24

27:10    Ky;  J1-4,7-14,16,17,22-24

28:2     Ky;  J1-4,7-13,16-18,22-24

MARK

1:3      Ky;  J7-14,16-18,22-24

5:19    *Ky;  J7-10,17,18,22

11:9     Ky;  J7,8,10-14,16-18,21-24

12:11    Ky;  J7-14,16-18,21-24

12:29    Ky;  J7-14,16-18,20-24,27

12:29    Ky;  J7-14,16-18,20-24

12:30    Ky;  J7-14,16-18,21-24

12:36    Ky;  J7-14,16-18,21-24

13:20    Ky;  J7,8,10,13,16-18,22-24

LUKE

1:6     *Ky;  J7-17,23

1:9     *Ky;  J7-18,22,23

1:11     Ky;  J7-13,16-18,22-24

1:15     Ky;  J7,8,10-18,22,23

1:16     Ky;  J7-18,22-24

1:17     Ky;  J7-18,22-24

1:25     Ky;  J7-18,22,23

1:28    *Ky;  J5,7-18,22,23

1:32     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

1:38     Ky;  J5,7-18,22-24

1:45     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

1:46    *Ky;  J5-18,22,23

1:58     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

1:66     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

1:68     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

1:76     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

2:9      Ky;  J5,7-13,16,17,22-24

2:9      Ky;  J5,7,8,10-18,22-24

2:15    *Ky;  J5,7,8,10-18,22,23

2:22    *Ky;  J5-18,22,23

2:23     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

2:23    *Ky;  J5-18,22,23

2:24     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

2:26     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

2:39     Ky;  J5-18,22-24

3:4      Ky;  J7-15,17,18,22-24

4:8      Ky;  J7-18,22-24

4:12     Ky;  J7-18,22-24

4:18     Ky;  J7-15,20,23,24

4:19     Ky;  J7-18,20,22-24

5:17     Ky;  J7-18,22-24

10:27    Ky;  J5-18,21-24

13:35    Ky;  J7-18,21-24

19:38    Ky;  J7-18,21-24

20:37    Ky;  J9,11-18,21-24,27

20:42    Ky;  J7-18,21-24

JOHN

1:23    Ky;  J5-14,16-19,22-24

6:45    Th;  J7,8,10,14,17,19,20,22,23

12:13   Ky;  J7-14,16-19,21-24

12:38   Ky;  J12-14,16-18,22,23

12:38   Ky;  J7-14,16-20,22-24

ACTS

1:24     Ky;  J7,8,10,22,23

2:20     Ky;  J7,8,10-18,20,22-24

2:21     Ky;  J7,8,10-18,20,22-24

2:25    *Ky;  J7,8,10-18,20,22,23

2:34     Ky;  J7,8,10-18,21-24

2:39     Ky;  J7,8,10,17,18,22-24

2:47    *Ky;  J7,8,10

3:19    *Ky;  J13-18,22,23

3:22+    Ky;  J7,8,10-18,20,22-24

4:26    *Ky;  J7,8,10-18,20,22,23

4:29     Ky;  J7,8,10

5:9      Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24

5:19     Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24

7:31     Ky;  J11-18,22-24

7:33    *Ky;  J11-18,22,23

7:49     Ky;  J11-18,20,22-24

7:60     Ky;  J17,18,22,23

8:22+   *Ky;  J18,22,23

8:24+   *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23

8:25+   *Ky;  J7,8,10,17,18

8:26     Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24

8:39     Ky;  J13,15-18,22-24

9:31    *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15,16,18,22

10:33+  *Ky;  J17,18,23

11:21    Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23

12:7     Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24

12:11   *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15,16,18,23

12:17   *Ky;  J7,8,10

12:23    Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24

12:24+  *Ky;  J7,8,10,23

13:2    *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23

13:10   *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23

13:11    Ky;  J7,8,10,15-18,22-24

13:12   *Ky;  J7,8,10

13:44+  *Th;  J17,22

13:47   *Ky;  J7,8,10,22,23

13:48+  *Th;  J7,8,10,13,15-17,22,23

13:49   *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23

14:3    *Ky;  J7,8,10,15-18,23

14:23   *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15,16

15:17   *Ky;  J11-18,22,23

15:17    Ky;  J7,8,10-18,20,22-24

15:35+  *Ky;  J17,18,22,23

15:36+  *Ky;  J7,8,10,17,18,22,23

15:40+  *Ky;  J17,18,22

16:14   *Ky;  J7,8,10,17,18,23

16:15+  *Ky;  J7,8,10

16:32+  *Th;  J7,8,10,17,18,22,23

18:21   *Th;  J17

18:25   *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15,16,24

19:20+  *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,15-18,23

21:14   *Ky;  J7,8,10,17,18,23

ROMANS

4:3     *Th;  J7,8,10,17,20,22

4:8      Ky;  J7,8,10-18,20,22-25

9:28     Ky;  J7,8,10,13,16,20,25

9:29     Ky;  J7,8,10-18,20,22-24

10:13    Ky;  J7,8,10,13-18,22-24

10:16    Ky;  J7,8,10,13-18,23

11:3     Ky;  J7,8,10-18,23,25

11:34    Ky;  J7,8,10,13-18,20,22-25

12:11   *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,16,18

12:19    Ky;  J7,8,10-18,22-24

14:4+   *Ky;  J18,23

14:6     Ky;  J7,8,10,13,16,18,22,24

14:6     Ky;  J7,8,10,13,16,18,22,24

14:6     Ky;  J7,8,10,13,16,22,24

14:8    *Ky;  J7,8,10,13-16,18

14:8    *Ky;  J7,8,10,13-16,18

14:8    *Ky;  J7,8,10,13-16,18

14:11    Ky;  J7,8,10-18,22-25

15:11   *Ky;  J7,8,10-18,20,22,23,25

1 CORINTHIANS

1:31    Ky;  J7,8,10-14,16-18,22-24

2:16    Ky;  J13,14,16-18,22-24

3:20    Ky;  J7,8,10-14,16-18,20,22-24

4:4     Ky;  J7,8,10,17,18,23,24

4:19   *Ky;  J7,8,10,22,23

7:17+  *Ky;  

10:9+  *Ky;  J18,22,23

10:21   Ky;  J7,8,10,24

10:21   Ky;  J7,8,10,24

10:22  *Ky;  J7,8,10,14

10:26  *Ky;  J7,8,10,11,13,14,16-18,20,22,23

11:32  *Ky;  J13,16,18

14:21   Ky;  J7,8,10-14,16-18,22-24

16:7   *Ky;  J7,8,10,13,14,16-18,22,23

16:10   Ky;  J7,8,10,13,14,16-18,24

2 CORINTHIANS

3:16    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16,22,24

3:17   *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16

3:17    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16,22,24

3:18    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16,22,24

3:18    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16,22,24

6:17    Ky;  J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24

6:18    Ky;  J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24

8:21+   Ky;  J7,8,24

10:17   Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

10:18  *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

GALATIANS

3:6     *Th;  J7,8

EPHESIANS

2:21    Ky;  J7,8,13,16-18,22-24

5:17+  *Ky;  J7,8

5:19   *Ky;  J7,8,13,16,23

6:4     Ky;  J7,8,22,24

6:7    *Ky;  J7,8

6:8     Ky;  J22,24

COLOSSIANS

1:10+  *Ky;  J7,8

3:13+  *Ky;  J23

3:16+  *Th;  J7,8,13,14,16,17

3:22+  *Ky;  J18,22

3:23   *Ky;  J7,8,17,18,22,23

3:24    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

1 THESSALONIANS

1:8+   *Ky;  J7,8,17,18,22,23

4:6     Ky;  J7,8,17,18,22-24

4:15    Ky;  J7,8,17,18,24

5:2     Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

2 THESSALONIANS

2:2    *Ky;  J18,22,23

2:13+   Ky;  J13,16,24

3:1    *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

2 TIMOTHY

1:18    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

2:19    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,20,22-24

2:19    Ky;  J18,22-24

4:14   *Ky;  J7,8,13,16-18,22,23

HEBREWS

2:13   *Th;  J3,7,8,17,20,22

7:21    Ky;  J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24

8:2    *Ky;  J7,8,13-16,18,22,23

8:8     Ky;  J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24

8:9     Ky;  J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24

8:10    Ky;  J3,7,8,11-18,20,22,24

8:11   *Ky;  J3,7,8,11-18,20,22,23

10:16   Ky;  J3,7,8,11-18,22-24

10:30   Ky;  J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24

12:5    Ky;  J7,8,11-18,20,22-24

12:6    Ky;  J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24

13:6    Ky;  J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24

JAMES

1:7    *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

1:12+        J7,8,13,16,17

2:23   *Th;  J14,17,20,22

2:23    Th;  J17

3:9+   *Ky;  J18,23

4:10    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

4:15   *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

5:4     Ky;  J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24

5:10    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

5:11    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16,18,22-24

5:11   *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

5:14   *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22

5:15   *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

1 PETER

1:25+   Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,20,22,23

3:12    Ky;  J7,8,11-14,16-18,20,22-24

3:12    Ky;  J7,8,11-14,16-18,20,22,24

2 PETER

2:9     Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

2:11+   Ky;  J7,8,13,16-18,22-24

3:8     Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

3:9     Ky;  J7,8,13,16-18,22-24

3:10    Ky;  J7,8,13,16-18,22-24

3:12+  *Th;  J7,8,17

JUDE

5+     Ky;  J7,8,11-14,16-18,22,23

9+     Ky;  J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24

14     Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

REVELATION

1:8      Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

4:8      Ky;  J7,8,11-14,16-18,22,24

4:11    *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16,18

11:17    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

15:3     Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

15:4     Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

16:7     Ky;  J13,14,16-18,22,23

18:8+    Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

19:6     Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24

21:22   *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23

22:5     Ky;  J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24

22:6    *Ky;  J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,24

Following is a list of the 72 places where the name "Jehovah" occurs, not in the main text of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, but only in the footnotes.

Mt 22:32; Mr 11:10; Lu 1:2; 2:11, 29, 38; 4:4, 18; Joh 5:4; Ac 2:30; 7:30, 37; 10:22; 13:43, 50; 14:25; 19:23; 20:25; 22:17; 26:7; Ro 7:6; 10:17; 11:8; 1Co 7:17; 10:28; 11:23; Ga 2:6; 3:20; 5:10, 12; Php 4:1, 4, 5, 10, 18; Col 3:15; 1Th 4:9, 16, 17, 17; 5:27; 1Ti 2:2, 10; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 5:4, 8; 6:2, 3, 6, 11; 2Ti 1:16, 18; 2:14, 22, 24; Tit 2:12; Heb 4:3; 9:20; 10:30; 1Pe 2:13; 3:1, 15; 5:3; 2Pe 1:3; 2Jo 11; Re 11:1, 19; 16:5; 19:1, 2.

"Jah," the shorter form of the divine name, occurs in the Greek expression hal·le·lou·i·a´, a transliteration of the Hebrew ha·lelu-Yah´, "Praise Jah, you people!" Re (4 times) 19:1, 3, 4, 6.-See Ps 104:35 ftns.

[Ms.Redd]

Jehovah

Definition: The personal name of the only true God. His own self-designation. Jehovah is the Creator and, rightfully, the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. "Jehovah" is translated from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, ?--(i see that the nh.com or something doesn't recognize these Hebrew symbols... therefore the four question marks), which means "He Causes to Become." These four Hebrew letters are represented in many languages by the letters JHVH or YHWH.

Where is God's name found in Bible translations that are commonly used today?

The New English Bible: The name Jehovah appears at Exodus 3:15; 6:3. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35. (But if this and other translations use "Jehovah" in several places, why not be consistent in using it at every place where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text?)

Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: "The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH."

Today's English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: "THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions."

King James Version: The name Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24.

American Standard Version: The name Jehovah is used consistently in the Hebrew Scriptures in this translation, beginning with Genesis 2:4.

Douay Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 says: "My name Adonai. The name, which is in the Hebrew text, is that most proper name of God, which signifieth his eternal, self-existing being, (Exod. 3, 14,) which the Jews out of reverence never pronounce; but, instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies the Lord; and, therefore, they put the points or vowels, which belong to the name Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name, Jod, He, Vau, He. Hence some moderns have framed the name of Jehovah, unknown to all the ancients, whether Jews or Christians; for the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse is now quite lost." (It is interesting that The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: "Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.")

The Holy Bible translated by Ronald A. Knox: The name Yahweh is found in footnotes at Exodus 3:14 and 6:3.

The New American Bible: A footnote on Exodus 3:14 favors the form "Yahweh," but the name does not appear in the main text of the translation. In the Saint Joseph Edition, see also the appendix Bible Dictionary under "Lord" and "Yahweh."

The Jerusalem Bible: The Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with its first occurrence, at Genesis 2:4.

New World Translation: The name Jehovah is used in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures in this translation, appearing 7,210 times.

An American Translation: At Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 the name Yahweh is used, followed by "the LORD" in brackets.

The Bible in Living English, S. T. Byington: The name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.

The 'Holy Scriptures' translated by J. N. Darby: The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, also in many footnotes on Christian Greek Scripture texts, beginning with Matthew 1:20.

The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson: The name Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and in 17 other places in this translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text-A New Translation, Jewish Publication Society of America, Max Margolis editor-in-chief: At Exodus 6:3 the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appears in the English text.

The Holy Bible translated by Robert Young: The name Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in this literal translation.

[Grakthis]

Mal,
Every single point you just made in all of those posts suffers from two major flaws.

1. Translations (which I think Will did a good job of establishing)

2. Source

You HEAVILY quote and rely on PEOPLE in the Bible such as Matthew and Mark yet you don't seem to realize.  The words of these men, no matter how great they were, are NOT THE WORDS OF GOD.  They are the words of MEN interpreting the wishes of God.

Which means they are prone to error.  The gospels DIRECTLY contradict eachother on events and interpretations MANY MANY times.  This just proves that they are not flawless accounts and are subject to the errors of men.

This is the primary reason I do directly quote scripture in ANY argument I make.  Because taken directly, the quotes can have MANY meanings or can be attacked based on the source.  They were written by men and are prone to all kinds of mistakes.  The point of scripture is not the letter, but the emotion.

As for David not going to heaven, we can argue semantics on what Heaven and Hell are (there are EASILY as many passages to support the Catholic views on this, and i think you realize there are a TON of passages in the new testament that say that ALL GOOD PEOPLE make it o heaven), and we can argue the difference between ascension into heaven and dying to go heaven (and Catholics believe there is a big difference) but the fact of the matter is David was a military leader.  He killed.  He was known for his ruthlessness.  He may have killed for the "favored" people, but he still killed.

To suggest that him not going to heaven is proof that all good men don't go to heaven is silly.

Also, that passage about John could easily be interpreted to say that John as a LIVING man is not as great as a man who has gone to heaven.  It does NOT neccesarily say that John's spirit did not go to heaven when he died.

Although, as the Catholics teach, it didn't, because no one who died in between Adam and Jesus went to heaven until AFTER Jesus died and opened the gates.

My close friend's father is a Witness.  And he and I use to have MANY discussions on this topic, and the major flaw with ALL Witnesses is that you see your own interpretation as LAW and you conveniently ignore anything which doesn't fit your own views.  He even acknowledged this as he got older.  JW's have exceptionally narrow vision.  Not to say Catholics, protestants, jews and Muslims don't, but that's beyond the point I'm making here.

I have to respond to Kev now, so im not getting drug into a long JW debate....
---Andrew

[Grakthis]

Jehovah

Holy cow.  Does anyone here really think it matters what we call God?  Seriously.  YHWH, Yaweh, God, Jesus, Alah, Paramatman,  or whatever.  It's the same dude.  Arguing over religious semantics doesn't help anyone.
---Andrew

[Ms.Redd]

You HEAVILY quote and rely on PEOPLE in the Bible such as Matthew and Mark yet you don't seem to realize.  The words of these men, no matter how great they were, are NOT THE WORDS OF GOD.  They are the words of MEN interpreting the wishes of God.

Which means they are prone to error.  The gospels DIRECTLY contradict eachother on events and interpretations MANY MANY times.  This just proves that they are not flawless accounts and are subject to the errors of men.

---Andrew

One more thing and then I will step out.

*** 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ***

16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

[Grakthis]

Yes, I will counter with the argument that the original human genome was created without genetic flaws (Gen 1:31). Genetic flaws accumulated with the transfer (with error) of getectic information down the generations following the fall/curse (Gen 3).

Science can't discount this idea to the best of my knowledge, and personally, it fits pretty well with my own beliefs on this subject.  So I won't argue with this.

The idea that God created one type of Cat and this cat spawned all others seems valid too.  If you start from the notion that you believe in God, and then fit it to the facts, I buy that.

mtDNA is the DNA contained in the mitochondria (the powerplants) of cells, rather than in the nucleus. Only DNA in the nucleus is transmitted via a sperm cell. So all mtDNA is supplied by the mother (via the egg). It's a lot easier to extract than normal nuclear-DNA.

So i'm intrigued by this.  I'm gonna do some research on mtDNA when i have time.  I am familair with mitochnodria and their role, and I seem to remember there being theories that they were actually their own organism that existed inside the human cell, but I hadn't heard that they had their own DNA.
 

If the evidence of these catastrophies and the subsiquent rapid evolution is available in the prehistoric record, why not in the more recent record too?

It is available, in a VERY limited way.  For example, we have evidence of animals transplanted because of explorers (for example, breeds of rats carried across oceans) adapting VERY rapidly to new environments.  Often in a single generation.  We have especially seen it in plants carried to new regions.  These would be similar to rapid evolutionary changes due to catasrophes.

granted, we have not seen this at the species level, just at the variety level.  But we have seen it.  Again, it comes down to the species barrier that scientists haven't broken.

Without such evidence evolutionists maintain nothing more than faith in these ad hoc catastrophic events. Of course, you are perfectly right in suggesting that, if it's true, this would explain the missing steps. This is fine if people are only looking for a reason to believe in evolution.

But isn't this just as valid as believing in a God?  Like you say, it just depends on the preconcieved notion you start out with.  I'm not saying we can PROVE natural evolution is the way it happened (cause we can't), I'm just saying we can't PROVE that it didn't.  It's still AS valid an option as believing in God.

Well I can't account for those documentaries, there is (unfortunatley) a lot of compromise in all parts of the church these days (Gap theory, Theistic evolution, Day-Age theory) often employing 'local flood' ideas. Perhaps this was the fate of your documentaries.

Ugh. yeah there is.  The Catholic church drives me up a wall with all the compromise and debate and disagreement.  Too political IMO.

There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for the global flood. The most notable being the fossil layers (millions of dead things layed down by water). This is exactly what you would expect to find.

I have serious problems with the idea of the flood, but like you said, it's way off topic.  However, briefly, it's not feasible that Moses could have collected two of every animal, if he did it's not feasible that he could have gotten them to reproduce afterwards, nor is it feasible he could have then spread them out to the proper geographic region.  MANY of them would have died and MANY of them would have been unable to reproduce after they arrived.  And even if they DID, we would be starting from scratch on the whole genetic diversity issue.  And this time we wouldn't have God there to kick start things in the beggining.  Two post-flood black labradors could not have produced the entire black lab population of the world without severe genetic consequences.

Not to MENTION, plants!  Jesus! Have you ever tried to grow a flower garden? Do you have any idea how hard it would be to maintain EVERY species of flower on the Earth?  YIKES!

The geologic column is not evidence in itself that the earth is older than the bible says. As stated above, that is a conclusion drawn only from naturalistic assumptions about how the layers were formed not the creationist position. If by "Geologically" you mean radioisotopic (RI) dating, they are also based on questionable assumptions. There are also scores of other dating methods (non-isotopic) based on the same kind of uniformitarian assumptions that put a maximum age at far less than the dates usually obtained with RI dating. This is getting way off track, but (again) if you can be bothered we can go down this route.

Normally, I would use stars (the break down of stars), speed of light and background radiation as the primary evidence for the age of the Universe BUT, i just read a very interesting article on one of those sites you linked me too talking about how IF we assume that the Earth is the center of the universe then all of those things are explainable.  Because it would mean that if God were expanding the universe the Earth would be the center of a gravity well which would cause our time to run slower.  Which is a neat premise.  So i need to think about this one a bit more.

Nah, It's my view that Genesis is refering to 7 solar days (24 hour). It's written in literal historical narrative and refered to as such (even by Christ) in the new testament.

This just never made sense to me.  God cannot exist within time, because time requires change.  Without change, there is no time.  If God is PERFECT then God is incapable of change (unless perfection changes, which is a silly notion, there can be only one pinacle).  If God is incapable of change then he cannot do different things on different days.  That limits God to the constraints of time and makes him less than perfect.
 

lol. True, but no creationists or evolutionists book shelf would be complete without it

Much to my dismay......

Amino acid chains are not life.

But they are the basic building blocks of life.

There is no code system adhered to, no syntax or any conveyed meaning within the molecuels, it's just the bonding forces of atoms at work. The arranging of these amino acids into meaningful information carrying sequences by random processes would be good proof that information by chance (and thus evolution) is possible.

...In addition to demonstrating an evolutionary process that can create new information, evolutionary theory fails to explain how the genetic code system used to encode that information became defined in the first place. As it stands, evolutionists can only maintain by faith (in spite of the science) that these things happened naturally. Information and code systems only come from intelligent design.

The theory here is that the information code occured by RANDOM chance.  Things just HAPPENED To fall into play in such a way that the strains formed information.

As I mentioned, the codes structure isn't perfect.  It is flawed and inefficient, which to me is not evidence of an intelligent creator.  An intelligent creator would have made more efficient code.... unless he was developing in VB, in which case im sure it would have been filled with late binds (ba dum dum ching).

Like I said, no evolutionist ever claimed the ODD's were good for life to have happened, but they are saying it "DID" happen, now can we figure out HOW.

But if we go with the theory that the universe is a recurring event (big bang followed by big crunch).... (which is a notion being challenged by the new theory of anti-gravity which is REALLY depressing cause it says the universe is SPEEDING up its expansion) then EVENTUALLY life would happen.  If we have an infinit number of monkies banging on an infinit number of type writters for an infinit period of time, one of them will turn out a script for hamlet  :wink:

As of my last round of  studying on this subject (circa 2001) the evidence still showed that evolution of life from non-living matter was still possible.

So, i maintain that evolutionary creation of life is possible, but perhaps not plausible.  Maybe THAT's the real question.

I think you're right, the Pope may have accepted evolution (and the big bang, I think), but he is not the final authority on the matter. Such compromised theistic evolutionary ideas induce huge theological contradictions such as having death and suffering before sin. Also if you're free to interpret Genesis as metaphor at will (in spite of the context), what's to say that the foundational teaching regarding salvation only through Christ's sacrfice and ressurection isn't also a metaphor?

If you are Catholic then you CANNOT disagree with the pope.  If you're not Catholic, then I agree with you  :wink:

The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.

This is the idea known as theistic evolution (God controlled [or forseen] evolution). I'm not a fan of the idea, for reasons I described above (in regard to the Pope's compromise).

Personally, I have yet to see any real issues with Theistic evolution,  scientific evolution or creationism BEYOND a personal belief system.  I must acknowledge that they are all POSSIBLE.  Beyond that, it's all about personal faith.

Which, really, is all I argue.  Is that there are a TON of explantions for life and the universe that we cannot discount as IMPOSSIBLE.  I think the best reason to believe something is because you it feels right, and because you have "faith" in it.

k, i must get back to work now  :wink:
---Andrew

[Si]

godskolere
lees je dit allemaal nog, Nicky?

Ik niet, teveel gezeik!!
Hahahahaha

Sorry.

[Will]

Mal, ok, you don't understand the concept of the Trinity. That's ok, lots of Christians don't understand it either. Jesus claims to be God in some places, and in others he claims his father is God. So, assuming Jesus is divine or from God (something I'm sure we can agree on Mal), Jesus is father and he is God, which are one and the same. This is the concept of the Trinity. JWs tend to ignore the fact that Jesus claimed to be God and focus on when Jesus talks about his father. Which, of course, is only half the story.

Saying I take things out of context is stupid. I have read the NT in the orignal Greek, using the critical text. From Matthew to Revelation. I have also read the entire OT (skipping over unimportant geneologies, of course) in many English translations (unfortunately, Biblical Hebrew is so much harder than Koine Greek). I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it. I take the Bible in the context as a whole. And it says this: Man is imperfect. He struggled for awhile to attain perfection, but it was impossible. God had mercy and made a sacrifice to atone for our sins, and freedom from the consequences of sin is granted by just asking. That is it. The rest is details. That is the message of the Bible, in overall context.

And the quote you gave me about the insertion of the divine name into the NT just basically says, "yeah, we did it."

The idea that the divine name appeared in copies of the LXX in use around the time of Christ is totally baseless. All your quotes tell me is that maybe some early editions just had it in Hebrew letters, although I cannot accertain that fact. There is quite a bit of bad Biblical archeology out there that is, at times, downright fabrication.

It ultimately comes down to the Watchtower "correcting" or "revising" the scriptures because they are "led of God."

I read in an old Watchtower (please don't ask me for a reference, there are too many to keep track of) something along the lines of "if someone read the Bible from cover to cover, they would get the same version of Christianity we have today." The Watchtower believes that it is the sole interpreter of God's law on Earth. Ok, I can understand that. I may disagree with their doctrine, but that is true with many religions.

What gets me all mad is their "intellectual dishonesty," claiming that their Bible accurately reflects the original text. If they want to say that they are "led of God" to "restore" the text, then fine. But they can't do that and simultaneously claim that their "translation" is reflective of the source documents. This is what gets me mad.

As soon as they stop claiming their bible is a translation, but instead a different book, then my problems with the sect ends. It would be like the Book of Mormon, or the Koran. I may not agree with the contents, but it's their book then.

"Intellectual dishonesty." That sums up the NWT.

Peace,

William

[kev222]

Okay, I said that was my last post post, and I meant it I think we've given enough information for people to follow up anything they desire and make their own informed decisions. However, I'd like to clear a couple of things up.

Firstly, you misquoted me (accidentally I'm sure). In this quote.

The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.

This is the idea known as theistic evolution (God controlled [or forseen] evolution). I'm not a fan of the idea, for reasons I described above (in regard to the Pope's compromise).

These were seperate paragraphs about seperate issues. It appears in the way you quoted me that the latter paragraph refers to the idea presented in the first. This is not the case. The first paragraph discusses how the creationist account fits with the science (of information) and the observered science of natural selection/mutation (not evolution as I defined it). The second paragraph was a response to something you said and nothing to do with the former paragraph. Just to be totally clear: I do not believe theistic evolution is a viable worldview. In my eyes, it falls for the same reasons as normal evolution and it also falls in the presense of a language study of Genesis. It's a failed compromise (IMO).

If you are Catholic then you CANNOT disagree with the pope.  If you're not Catholic, then I agree with you  :wink:

No I'm not Catholic. I don't consider the Pope infallable. I describe myself as a "non-denominational bible believing Christian". A mouthful. but put simply, this is what I believe. Or, more formally, this statement of beliefs (which I stole from AiG) parellels mine perfectly. I also consider Will's statement above to describe what I believe accuratley.

I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it. I take the Bible in the context as a whole. And it says this: Man is imperfect. He struggled for awhile to attain perfection, but it was impossible. God had mercy and made a sacrifice to atone for our sins, and freedom from the consequences of sin is granted by just asking.

Finally, I cannot resist using the monkey-typewriter quote to summarise the basic argument presented by information theory.

If we have an infinit number of monkies banging on an infinit number of type writters for an infinit period of time, one of them will turn out a script for hamlet  :wink:

Infinite mokeys, infinite typewriters, infinite time and the information coding system for the english language. Money's and typewriters evolution has, information code systems it doesn't.

-Kev

P.S. We only touched breifly on the flood issue. Purely FTR, the best (creationist) technical feasibility study I know of on the subject is "NOAH'S ARK: A Feasibility Study" - John Woodmorappe. Most attacks on the flood account stem from a misunderstanding of what exact went on the ark.

[Grakthis]

*** 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ***

16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

INSPIRED by God.  Not that it is the direct quote of God.

Don't you see the flaw in this quote?  First of all, just because God inspired the writings doesn't mean that man got them RIGHT.  Men misquote Jesus all the time.  And even if we take your passage at face value, this still doesn't explain the discrepencies in the Gospels.

NEXT, the quote you threw at me was from TIMOTHY!  It's from a HUMAN!

Thats like if I told you the Book of Mormon was all false and you quoted me a passage of the Book of Mormon that says "The Book of Mormon is 100% accurate".

Thats circular logic.

Madness!!!!!

LOL.  There's a joke to be made there... but it would make me look like a complete Geek so i'll leave it alone  :wink:
---Andrew