other bible jws use.

[TheHolyBookEnds]

Did the founder know greek or hebrew?

C. (Charles) T. (Taze) Russell? No.

Here is a court case, where he (C.T. Russell) testified under oath:

"... After Russell was "sworn" in, and was at the witness stand, the Crown attorney took Reverend Ross' pamphlett, and read point by point asking Mr. Russell after each point, "Is this true?" So the basic questioning went like this: "Is it true that you never attended higher schools of learning? Is this true that you know nothing about philosophy, and theology? Is this true that you are totally ignorant of the dead languages?

Russell's answers from the various points given were "No, no, no," "Absolutely untrue," "Decidedly untrue," and "That is not true." 35

According to Reverend Ross, by denying these charges in court, Russell claimed for himself a "high scholastic standing, having a knowledge of the dead languages, having taken a course in theology, systematic and historical theology, ordination, church affiliation and so on." 36

So what were the facts brought out in court on March 17, 1913? As we saw, under oath Mr. Russell was questioned by the Crown attorney. He said that all charges in Reverend Ross' pamphlet were untrue. But under cross examination, by attorney Mr. Staunton, "Pastor" Russell admitted that he had attended a public school only seven years of his life, and that he left school about the age of fourteen. Then came the question about Mr. Russell's knowledge of Greek:

Staunton: "Do you know Greek?

Russell: "Oh, yes."37

At this moment, Staunton handed Russell a copy of the New Testament in Greek, by publishers Westcott & Hort. Opening to page 447, the attorney asked Russell to read the letters that were on top of the page.


Mr. Russell stared for a moment and admitted that he couldn't read the letters. What was brought out in court was that Mr. Russell was simply asked to read the Greek alphabet. He couldn't. So, Russell was asked again:


Staunton: "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"

Russell: "No."38

Moving on to another point, because Russell had claimed to having an "ordination" that was equal if not superior to ordained and accredited ministers, Staunton decided to challenge the issue of ordination.

Staunton: "Is it true that you were never ordained?"

Russell: "It is not true."

The court at this time informs Mr. Russell that he must answer yes or no.

Staunton: "You never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, Presbytery, council, or any body of men living."


After a considerable pause with Russell's eyes fixed on his feet in the witness box, the answer came:

Russell: "I never was."39

Russell lost his suit against Reverend Ross when the High Court of Ontario ruled that there were no grounds for libel. Instead of Mr. Russell stopping Reverend Ross, the court case ended up giving him enough fuel to write another pamphlet about Mr. Russell titled, Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Charles T. Russell (also still in print 40). Ross informed the public in this second pamphlet that "the case was thrown out of Court by the evidence furnished by `Pastor' Russell himself."41
..." - Faith & Reason: Apologetic Methods

The same goes for "Fred W. Franz" - Jehovah's Witnesses - officially known as 'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society'

 

[OzSpen]

Lets say i did ask. What if they say to me "those names are classified"

You seem really eager to dig up dirt on jws

Are you part of some anti jw website.

You just want "evidence" to support your anti jw front

Michael,

You are engaging in the use of another logical fallacy: Argument from Silence.

It is an error in reasoning.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

okay what's the true meaning of the text to you

What text? We are discussing the difference between getting the meaning from the text (exegesis) and adding meaning to the text (eisegesis).

 

[Mister Michael]

Michael,

You are engaging in the use of another logical fallacy: Argument from Silence.

It is an error in reasoning.

Oz

I am too scared to ask

 

[Mister Michael]

Michael,

You are engaging in the use of another logical fallacy: Argument from Silence.

It is an error in reasoning.

Oz

Do you hate witnesses yes or no

 

[OzSpen]

No. This is what the scripture (KJB) states:

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Whatever you quoted, added to God's word, a parenthetical brackets, which if you understood why that is done, then you would understand John 10:35.

Real scripture, "cannot be broken". It self identified itself.

Ben,

There is no space between words in the original Greek. There are no punctuation marks in the original Greek. So any punctuation marks in John 10:35 were put there by the ASV translators (the version I quoted) or the KJV translators.

In this verse there is not a word that says the Scripture that 'cannot be broken' refers to the KJV.

In fact, the only Scripture available at the time of John's writing was the OT. And it was not the KJV.

Oz

 

[Mister Michael]

What text? We are discussing the difference between getting the meaning from the text (exegesis) and adding meaning to the text (eisegesis).

the bible the scriptures

 

[OzSpen]

I am too scared to ask

I think I can understand that it would be an awesome task for a young man to ask for details about translators. However, I'm asking a question to determine if the Watchtower organisation can be trusted to give you correct information about the translators.

Why would you not want to know more about your organisation and whether it tells the truth about qualified translators for the first edition of the NWT?

Oz

 

[Mister Michael]

Why would you not want to know more about your organisation and whether it tells the truth about qualified translators for the first edition of the NWT?

Who cares if it tells the truth as long as it doesn't tell lies fine with me.

 

[Mister Michael]

C. (Charles) T. (Taze) Russell? No.

Here is a court case, where he (C.T. Russell) testified under oath:

"... After Russell was "sworn" in, and was at the witness stand, the Crown attorney took Reverend Ross' pamphlett, and read point by point asking Mr. Russell after each point, "Is this true?" So the basic questioning went like this: "Is it true that you never attended higher schools of learning? Is this true that you know nothing about philosophy, and theology? Is this true that you are totally ignorant of the dead languages?

Russell's answers from the various points given were "No, no, no," "Absolutely untrue," "Decidedly untrue," and "That is not true." 35

According to Reverend Ross, by denying these charges in court, Russell claimed for himself a "high scholastic standing, having a knowledge of the dead languages, having taken a course in theology, systematic and historical theology, ordination, church affiliation and so on." 36

So what were the facts brought out in court on March 17, 1913? As we saw, under oath Mr. Russell was questioned by the Crown attorney. He said that all charges in Reverend Ross' pamphlet were untrue. But under cross examination, by attorney Mr. Staunton, "Pastor" Russell admitted that he had attended a public school only seven years of his life, and that he left school about the age of fourteen. Then came the question about Mr. Russell's knowledge of Greek:

Staunton: "Do you know Greek?

Russell: "Oh, yes."37

At this moment, Staunton handed Russell a copy of the New Testament in Greek, by publishers Westcott & Hort. Opening to page 447, the attorney asked Russell to read the letters that were on top of the page.


Mr. Russell stared for a moment and admitted that he couldn't read the letters. What was brought out in court was that Mr. Russell was simply asked to read the Greek alphabet. He couldn't. So, Russell was asked again:


Staunton: "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"

Russell: "No."38

Moving on to another point, because Russell had claimed to having an "ordination" that was equal if not superior to ordained and accredited ministers, Staunton decided to challenge the issue of ordination.

Staunton: "Is it true that you were never ordained?"

Russell: "It is not true."

The court at this time informs Mr. Russell that he must answer yes or no.

Staunton: "You never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, Presbytery, council, or any body of men living."


After a considerable pause with Russell's eyes fixed on his feet in the witness box, the answer came:

Russell: "I never was."39

Russell lost his suit against Reverend Ross when the High Court of Ontario ruled that there were no grounds for libel. Instead of Mr. Russell stopping Reverend Ross, the court case ended up giving him enough fuel to write another pamphlet about Mr. Russell titled, Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Charles T. Russell (also still in print 40). Ross informed the public in this second pamphlet that "the case was thrown out of Court by the evidence furnished by `Pastor' Russell himself."41
..." - Faith & Reason: Apologetic Methods

The same goes for "Fred W. Franz" - Jehovah's Witnesses - officially known as 'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society'

Yo do know barely any of russle way r le ft in the jw religon.

 

[Mister Michael]

C. (Charles) T. (Taze) Russell? No.

Here is a court case, where he (C.T. Russell) testified under oath:

"... After Russell was "sworn" in, and was at the witness stand, the Crown attorney took Reverend Ross' pamphlett, and read point by point asking Mr. Russell after each point, "Is this true?" So the basic questioning went like this: "Is it true that you never attended higher schools of learning? Is this true that you know nothing about philosophy, and theology? Is this true that you are totally ignorant of the dead languages?

Russell's answers from the various points given were "No, no, no," "Absolutely untrue," "Decidedly untrue," and "That is not true." 35

According to Reverend Ross, by denying these charges in court, Russell claimed for himself a "high scholastic standing, having a knowledge of the dead languages, having taken a course in theology, systematic and historical theology, ordination, church affiliation and so on." 36

So what were the facts brought out in court on March 17, 1913? As we saw, under oath Mr. Russell was questioned by the Crown attorney. He said that all charges in Reverend Ross' pamphlet were untrue. But under cross examination, by attorney Mr. Staunton, "Pastor" Russell admitted that he had attended a public school only seven years of his life, and that he left school about the age of fourteen. Then came the question about Mr. Russell's knowledge of Greek:

Staunton: "Do you know Greek?

Russell: "Oh, yes."37

At this moment, Staunton handed Russell a copy of the New Testament in Greek, by publishers Westcott & Hort. Opening to page 447, the attorney asked Russell to read the letters that were on top of the page.


Mr. Russell stared for a moment and admitted that he couldn't read the letters. What was brought out in court was that Mr. Russell was simply asked to read the Greek alphabet. He couldn't. So, Russell was asked again:


Staunton: "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"

Russell: "No."38

Moving on to another point, because Russell had claimed to having an "ordination" that was equal if not superior to ordained and accredited ministers, Staunton decided to challenge the issue of ordination.

Staunton: "Is it true that you were never ordained?"

Russell: "It is not true."

The court at this time informs Mr. Russell that he must answer yes or no.

Staunton: "You never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, Presbytery, council, or any body of men living."


After a considerable pause with Russell's eyes fixed on his feet in the witness box, the answer came:

Russell: "I never was."39

Russell lost his suit against Reverend Ross when the High Court of Ontario ruled that there were no grounds for libel. Instead of Mr. Russell stopping Reverend Ross, the court case ended up giving him enough fuel to write another pamphlet about Mr. Russell titled, Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Charles T. Russell (also still in print 40). Ross informed the public in this second pamphlet that "the case was thrown out of Court by the evidence furnished by `Pastor' Russell himself."41
..." - Faith & Reason: Apologetic Methods

The same goes for "Fred W. Franz" - Jehovah's Witnesses - officially known as 'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society'

at least he told the truth in the end

 

[OzSpen]

Do you hate witnesses yes or no

Michael,

I most definitely do not hate JWs. I live in a 55+ village and one of my neighbours (across the road) is a JW. I speak with her semi-regularly. She's not well at the moment and a biopsy has been taken from her thyroid.

I love JWs, as I love you, and I speak with them whenever they knocked on my door (they can't come into this gated complex).

I was leading a Bible study in another house a few weeks ago and 2 JW women knocked on the door. I interacted gently with them and asked the same question I'm asking you about who were the translators and what were their qualifications. They didn't come back the next week with the information.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Who cares if it tells the truth as long as it doesn't tell lies fine with me.

You have redefined truth with that sentence. Don't you want to know if the Watchtower tells the truth with its translation of OT and NT?

Don't you want to know the biblical truth of what happens at death for believer and unbeliever.

I'm staggered that you take the line that you don't care 'if it tells the truth'.

Is the NWT a truthful translation? That's why I'm asking for the names and qualifications of the translators.

Oz

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

at least he told the truth in the end

Under oath that is called perjury.

"Definition of perjury
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing" - Definition of PERJURY

 

[Mister Michael]

You have redefined truth with that sentence. Don't you want to know if the Watchtower tells the truth with its translation of OT and NT?

Don't you want to know the biblical truth of what happens at death for believer and unbeliever.

I'm staggered that you take the line that you don't care 'if it tells the truth'.

Is the NWT a truthful translation? That's why I'm asking for the names and qualifications of the translators.

Oz

Give me one good reason and one only why i should know the "bible truth"

 

[Mister Michael]

Under oath that is called perjury.

"Definition of perjury
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing" - Definition of PERJURY

so what people lie does that surprise you

 

[Mayflower]

FYI: the "Mormon" Bible is the KJV.
Also, you words here are very offensive and show great ignorance. Please, be mindful of what you say.

Sorry if I am behind, but I have in the past almost became Mormon... You believe "The Book of Mormon" is like another inspired book like the Bible, right Jane? I do not believe this or Joseph Smith. Just wanted to clarify what you mean. I know Mormons use KJV also.

 

[Mister Michael]

You have redefined truth with that sentence. Don't you want to know if the Watchtower tells the truth with its translation of OT and NT?

Don't you want to know the biblical truth of what happens at death for believer and unbeliever.

I'm staggered that you take the line that you don't care 'if it tells the truth'.

Is the NWT a truthful translation? That's why I'm asking for the names and qualifications of the translators.

Oz

Do you look up "ten top wayz to defeat jws"

Curious cause it sounds like you use every opposing claim made by those people who make such lists such as. Who the translator.

How bout you ask me a genuine question throw away the script and actually ask me something

 

[Mayflower]

Give me one good reason and one only why i should know the "bible truth"

Now that is a good question after seeing Jane's post first. Give me time to respond too to this...

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Sorry if I am behind, but I have in the past almost became Mormon... You believe "The Book of Mormon" is like another inspired book like the Bible, right Jane? I do not believe this or Joseph Smith. Just wanted to clarify what you mean. I know Mormons use KJV also.

The "Mormon" Bible is the KJV. Gets studied twice as much as the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon is also believed to be scripture, a sister to the Bible, not a replacement.

In practice this is similar to every other non-sola-Biblia viewpoint: yes the Bible is considered to be the word of God, but not the only place God speaks to us.