For gentle owl, Totaled error rates
Mr. Bla
World translation.
I've taken the reviews I've done regarding the three books of the New
Testament. I have divided up the errors into; quirky readings but within
reasonable boundaries, clear errors which change, or confuse what the
original texts says, and absolute fabrications or alterations which
completely change the reading of the verse into the opposite of what was
said. This 3rd category includes any instances of the word Jehovah not
supported by Old Testament quotation.
Galatians:
in total there are 149 verses in the book of Galatians
there are 34 significant errors, and 7 serious alterations in this book
Colossians:
in total there are 95 verses in the book Colossians
there are 37 significant errors, and 19 serious alterations in this book
Ephesians:
in total there are 155 verses in the book of Ephesians
there are 30 significant errors, and 11 serious alterations in this book
That gives a total of 399 verses in these three books, 101 significant
errors, and 37 serious alterations in total.
That means that the random probability of finding a verse where at least
part of that verse has a major problem is: 0.253 or 1 in 3.95, this yields
an accuracy rate of approximately 75 percent.
The probability of encountering a verse where there has been a specific
alteration in the word of God so as to change the original meaning into
something completely different is: 0.092 or 1 in 10.78
Using these numbers as a general guideline, the use of the New World
translation as an accurate representation of the word of God will allow you
to go approximately 4 verses before you draw the wrong conclusion on the
basis of what you've read. After you go approximately 11 verses you'll
actually come to the opposite conclusion from what the Bible has
specifically said. Essentially, you will be forced into an error at least
one out of every 11 verses. This would give slightly over 2 major
alterations per chapter. Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to
extract yourself from that error as the errors are systematic and any other
verse which could shed light on the incorrect conclusion drawn, have also
been altered in a similar fashion.
On the basis of this level of accuracy this translation of the Bible should
be considered a non Bible. The error rate is unacceptably high, and the
direct fabrications present in the text negate the clear message of God
coming through. This is far worse than a bad translation, this is a
deceptive translation. Poor translations have random distribution of the
error. Their errors do not affect systematic doctrine because they randomly
affect various words. The whole counsel scripture can be used to
essentially "filter out" the random errors. When errors become nonrandom,
no such method of checks and balances can be maintained unless one uses
another translation other than the New World translation. In such a case,
the clear and the obvious deception of the New World translation would be
seen.
GentleOwlSpirit
Doc, these are absolutely wonderful!!!!!!!! Thank you so very, very
much for posting these. I can never thank you enough. I can't wait to
study them, nor can I wait to compare them...WOW, what a treasure you
have given us on this NG. May God richly bless you.
Lot of love in Christ,
Sioux
WT Watcher
"Mr. Bla" <b...@bla.com> wrote in message
news:w-Wdncx6wdq...@comcast.com...
> Totaled error rates for Ephesians, Galatians, and Colossians in the New
> World translation.
When I studied with these shysters known as the JWs they insisted I use
THEIR version of the bible. Now I can see why. They didn't come right out
and say it but "hinted" my King James version was somehow tainted by their
ever present demons....
--
ME......
The Watchtower Reprints, September 1, 1893,
p. 1572
The endeavor to compel all men to think alike
on all subjects, culminated in the great apostasy
and the development of the great Papal
system; and thereby the "gospel," the "one
faith," which Paul and the other apostles set
forth, was lost--buried under the mass of uninspired
decrees of popes and councils.
NOW ALL JWS MUST THINK ALIKE!
=========================================
L Perez
we wouldn't want that now would we?
--
BEWARE! there are people on this newsgroup who are only here to slander and
lie about Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not offer any alternative
organization... as a matter of fact, some are admitted atheists (Matthew
12:30; John 8:44-47) I have all of their posts filtered out because they can
not hold an intelligent conversation and often resort to lies. They claim to
be quoting from Watch Tower literature but these are *NOT* exact quotes,
they change words and quote things out of context. I don't respond to
spurious fabrications. Hence if you see that I am not answering someone, it
is because their previous attempts at deception have earned them a place in
the 'block sender' file. They exist here only to destroy (1 Corinthians
10:6-11) They speak not as Christians (Ephesians 4:31-32) I do not need to
name them for by their fruits you will recognize them (Matthew 7:16-20) One
has to wonder, why was a newsgroup set up to attack this *one* organization?
Matthew 5:10-12
"Mr. Bla" <b...@bla.com> wrote in message
news:w-Wdncx6wdq...@comcast.com...
John C.
"L Perez" <LPere...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K9SdnffuSZv...@comcast.com...
> shall I summarize the "error rates" of the king james or duay-rheims...
>
> we wouldn't want that now would we?
>
For one who continues to post erroneous Scripture references while
"preaching" to the newsgroup, even if you could pull off something that had
a stitch of accuracy in it, its value for us would be equally dubious.
John C.
~ * OO * ~
> we wouldn't want that now would we?
Sure - go for it - after you summarize the error rates and scriptural
changes made by the WTS. ;-)
You still haven't given us a summary of all the lands you lived in and all
the religions of the WORLD you studied.
--
Wize Willie....
Wise men stare at the unknown, and boldly asks, WHY?
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling...
(God did it! God did it!)
~ Thus Spake God's Creator ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~><> ><>
~ * OO * ~
"John C." <hoo...@hoochiegoo.com> wrote in message
> For one who continues to post erroneous Scripture references while
> "preaching" to the newsgroup, even if you could pull off something that
had
> a stitch of accuracy in it, its value for us would be equally dubious.
Plus L Perez LIED about all the countries he lived in while studying ALL the
religions of the world. He is yet to list all the countries and religions
he studied and learned about. L Perez has zero credibility on this NG.
--
Carrol....
The JWs keep saying it (Armageddon) is imminent, just a matter of time,
only a matter of weeks or months from the predicted date: 1874(+40),
1878(+40), 1910,
1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1922, 1925, 1940, 1945, 1975, 1999/2000...
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Terry/Anti
I've got one. The use of Jehovah in place of YHWH.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
Mr. Bla
> shall I summarize the "error rates" of the king james or duay-rheims...
>
> we wouldn't want that now would we?
Already done it ! You are such a dolt perez. If one has original language
skills a common question is "which bible is best" this question can't be
answered intelligently without an objective comparison. It is difficult to
compare douay as it is a translation from latin but overall it could be
done. I personally did a KJV critical analysis. Can post the data if you
need. For the sake of knowledge KJV has no direct alterations in the text as
NWT does but the innacuracies are there, as are a number of poor readings
due to elizabethan english. YOU cant post KJV error rates as you don't have
sufficient language skills to tell good from bad from a translation
standpoint.
Bla
L Perez
news:1049nes...@corp.supernews.com...
only equalled by the use of Jesus in place of Y'hoshua
did you have a point Terry?
L Perez
>
> > shall I summarize the "error rates" of the king james or duay-rheims...
> >
> > we wouldn't want that now would we?
>
>
>
>
ah, that's a good member of christendom!
Mr. Bla
>
> ah, that's a good member of christendom!
>
Christendom, nor do I know how one signs up for membership. As regards the
accuracy of the King James translation is one of the first personal
translation revisions I ever did in my life. For me, it is important that
something claims to be the word of God it stands the test. Not everything
that claims to be something is something. The difference between the "King
James error rate" and the New World translation error rate is the fact that
the King James error rate appears to be based mainly on a few specific
things; Elizabethan English is a major difficulty, the fact that the King
James's only based on one manuscript specifically also has small
limitations. However the New World translation is both poorly done from a
language standpoint, and is openly and actively deceptive in so many cases.
It also seems to use quirky vocabulary when there is no justification for
that quirky vocabulary. One can understand Elizabethan English in the King
James version because that was the time, and context in which the
translation was last revised. However, the quirky vocabulary used by the
New World translation is sociologically illogical. The Fruitage of the
spirit? Since when was the word fruitage in common use? This is a strange
word which adds no data to the word fruit. What is the difference between
the fruit of the spirit, and the fruitage of the spirit? If there is no
difference, and the Greek word is karpos, then why have we invented a new
English word, or resurrected an unused English word? There is no reason for
this type of foolishness.
Mr. Perez, I'm certain you never had a weight problem when you were in
grammar school-high school. It is hard to believe someone like yourself
made it past 10 AM with your lunch money still intact. Somehow every time I
picture you, I picture a helpless little troll hanging by a wedgie out in
the schoolyard. I picture an impotent little thing with a big mouth. I
always enjoyed guys like you the first day of training camp in hockey. Big
mouth, lots of Chiclets on the ice.
Bla
L Perez
removal of the Divine Name alone! This of course applies to all other
translations that attempt to "preach a Christ other than we preach" by
removing the God of Christ's name, Jehovah
Mr. Bla
> I think the "error rate" of the KJV is much higher than the NWT based on
the
> removal of the Divine Name alone! This of course applies to all other
> translations that attempt to "preach a Christ other than we preach" by
> removing the God of Christ's name, Jehovah
>
This is the interesting part;
what you think is irrelevant. Essentially you don't "think" that the error
rate is higher for the King James version. What you wish to say is you WANT
the error rate to be higher. You want to be on the side of the better
translation. The problem is that the evidence does not support your
conclusion. You see I did the thinking instead of you. Essentially, you
don't have the tools necessary to "think" that the New World translation is
better. You don't know enough to know that that is false. That is why
people like myself exist. We exist as third party observers who can assess
from an academic standpoint whether or not something is more or less
accurate. So you can think whatever you want, however the evidence does not
support your conclusion. Another difficulty in comparing these two
translations is that the nature of the errors are quite different. It is
almost like asking which is a worse car, a Yugo, or a pacer. It depends on
what you mean by worse. Poorest design? The Yugo is of much poorer design.
Which one is the worst looking? It's difficult to say but probably the
pacer. They were both bad vehicles, they were just bad for different
reasons. I am no big fan of the King James version of the Bible. However,
its shortcomings typically are arche isms. That is to say, the King James
version is not currently a good translation, but it was an excellent
translation for the language it was translated into...... Elizabethan
English. The difficulty is that the New World translation should be a
translation into "modern English" of the 1950s. As such it is a very poor
translation even in that time frame. Not to mention there are a number of
cases where the New World translation is a boldfaced alteration of the text.
It actually seeks to alter the message present in the original so as to send
a different message. All one needs to do is look at the use of the word
"other" especially in the book of Colossians, and what you find is someone
who is advancing a theology which is not present in the original
manuscripts. As regards the Divine Name, remember something very clearly,
there is no command in the Bible to not refrain from using the Divine Name.
There is no "Thou shalt not refrain from using my name" however, there is a
command to refrain from inappropriate use thereof. Therefore if someone is
concealing the Divine Name there is no specific sin that they are doing by
doing that. However if someone inappropriately uses the Divine Name even
under the best of alleged motives he is still guilty of violating the
command of God. Your questions regarding the King James version are also
rather puzzling considering the fact that it was good enough for the
watchtower to use for all of those years until they could build their own
Bible. It's the old story of an adolescent boy; your girlfriend is really
cool when you're with her, but then when you have a new girlfriend suddenly
the old one was bad!
I wish there was a way I could transfer to you what I see when I read
the New World translation. If you had any idea how bad this thing was you
would buy a woodstove, and considerate as an optional fuel source. It is
that bad. It's not just that it's a bad translation, it's that it's a
destructive translation. When you look at data transfer this is not a case
of missing bits of data, this is a case of altered bits of data. the message
being delivered is different not obscured. That makes it the most dangerous
type of mistranslation possible. Something that is just bad should be bad
by simple random mathematical processes. Something that is poorly designed
has intrinsic flaws. If you build a suspension upright and you do not
follow good engineering practices, then no matter how good the metal is that
you use the part is destined to fail under stress. If you engineer an
excellent suspension upright, and you use substandard metal, there is still
a chance that the engineering will allow the part to survive despite the bad
material. The New World translation is bad engineering, within this bad
engineering is also bad metal, but there is no denying the fact that this is
one of the worst Bible translations ever produced in this planet. There is
an individual who did his Ph.D. on nothing but how poor this translation is.
That's pretty bad! Unfortunately, I tried to find the old " corrected King
James version" I had around but I seem to have misplaced it, or I might have
given it to someone else. I was going to total up the rates, but again the
applicability of this to the New World translation would be minimal inasmuch
as the "errors" that I found in the King James version were typically
archeisms rather than full-blown errors.
And just to repeat the same theme over again; the Divine Name has not
been removed! Notwithstanding your stolen, and poor scholarship, there is
one reason why the Hebrew Divine Name is not in the New Testament documents:
because when God supernaturally authored those documents he did not see fit
to put it there. I know you do like that, I know you don't find that
personally palatable, but that's too bad, the fact exists that God did not
put the word there. It was not removed by scribes. Essentially you cannot
blame your theology on gremlins. It's not there because God didn't want it
there. Why? I have absolutely no idea. By the same token I have no idea
why he did not reveal the Divine Name to the patriarchs. I don't get the
luxury of questioning God's motives, all I can question is the data. And
the data is right there in front of me. The Divine Name never existed in
any of the New Testament documents and there is no evidence to counter that
claim. Whether or not the Tetragrammaton was found in some copies of the
Septuagint is irrelevant. Your comparing apples and titanium bolts. Let me
ask you to run a strange hypothetical situation through your brain; if
indeed the reason why the Tetragrammaton never existed in the New Testament
documents is because God didn't want it there, then what are you guilty of
when you try to "reinstate" the Divine Name? Would it not be using the
Divine Name in vain? Absolutely it would, because the 237 instances of
"reinstatement" of the Divine Name in the New World translation shall all
prove to have been lies as it was never there in the original documents.
You will have been found to have mishandled the Divine Name under your
alleged good motives. If indeed the documents have been altered, and I
refrain from reinstating the Divine Name, am I guilty of any sin? Is there
some Divine mandate to reinstate the Divine Name in the New Testament
documents? If so where is this mandate found? I find is strangely ironic
considering I use a Hebrew Old Testament, and your "Divine Name" is Jehovah,
an adulteration of the Hebrew original. If you believe in the Divine Name
so much why have you not learned Hebrew? Why is it that you have not sought
to look into the Tetragrammaton in greater detail. Are you not guilty of
the same sin you claim others to buy using the substitute English word
Jehovah instead of the Tetragrammaton?
In the future, before you use the construction "I think" do your self,
and the people on this newsgroup of favor, actually think rather than speak
only. Thinking takes time and effort you would be much benefited to expand
this time and effort in the future. Who knows, at your core you may not be
as bad of a person as I expect you are. Maybe with a little
self-discipline, and significantly improved intellect, you might actually be
salvageable. I have my doubts but nothing is impossible (except skiing
through a revolving door).
Bla