₦airaland Forum

oteneaaron:
Here is another direct quote from their own publication -

Watchtower 2011 Nov 15 pp.19,24 -

“Vigilant Christians refrain from using the world to the full with regard to higher education. Many people in this world consider higher education an indispensable stepping-stone to prestige and an affluent life. But we Christians live as temporary residents and pursue different goals. We avoid “minding lofty things.” (Rom. 12:16; Jer. 45:5) Since we are Jesus’ followers, we heed his warning: “Keep your eyes open and guard against every sort of covetousness, be- cause even when a person has an abundance his life does not result from the things he possesses.” (Luke 12:15)

Consequently, young Christians are encouraged to pursue spiritual goals, getting only as much education as is required to meet their basic needs while focusing on preparing themselves to serve Jehovah ‘with their whole heart, soul, strength, and mind.’ (Luke 10:27) By doing so, they can become “rich toward God.”…

Men often put material security ahead of spiritual pursuits. Getting higher education and securing a well-paying job are priorities for many of them. According to their way of thinking, the reward of making money is more urgent and practical than any benefits that might come from studying the Scriptures and seeking a close relationship with God."

What does the above quote tell you @FxMasterz?

There are many other quotes, but let me just add one more -

Watchtower 2011 Jun 15 pp.30,31 -

"If you have a means of supporting yourself, do you really need to spend time, money, and effort on further education just to realize personal aspirations or those of your parents or other relatives? …

Higher education: Jesus warned against ‘seeking your own glory.’ (John 7:18) Whatever you decide as to how much secular education you will obtain, have you ‘made sure of the more important things’?—Phil. 1:9,10.

Grzegorz, the computer programmer, made some changes in his life. He said: “Taking seriously the advice of the elders, I simplified my life. [b]I realized that I did not need to further my secular education. That would only rob me of time and energy.” [/b]Grzegorz got more involved in congregation activities. In time, he graduated from what is now called the Bible School for Single Brothers. Yes, he ‘bought out the time’ to further his divine education. "

Do any of the quotes from their publications sound like the Governing Body is in support of their members acquiring University Education?

Chai!!

Those guys are very crafty! See how they subtly discouraged their slaves from pursuing higher education. Wicked men!!

AbuTwins:
This is simple physics experiment in the transmission of light! You guys and absurd relativism! So the colored glass scatteres the white light transmitting some and absorbing others.

The eyes just interpret the wavelength transmitted.

So what have you said that's different from what I said in layman's language?

Your carnal eyes see coloured light in its transmitted colours. But the white light is still white light. The carnal man sees the colours but the spiritual man sees the white light.

The Bible is not the word of God! It is just letters and documents written to people or some people! You said it yourself, it was never meant to be a collated religious book!
Now you are capping!

It was not meant to be called a religious book. The writers were not writing for religious purposes. Hence they had no ulterior motive than to sincerely communicate truth to their readers. God then used the sincerity to bless the World. The letters are not the Word of God but the message the letters pass across is the Word of God. The Bible is nothing but a story book if you have no revelation. And you can't have revelation without being born of the Spirit.

If you have not had the experience of being born of the spirit, you'll be foolish to deny the existence of this experience.

Why accuse me of what I didn't say before!

When did I accuse you of what you didn't say? I said, and I repeat: if Mathew and Luke copied from Mark, show us evidence that Mathew and Luke each had copies of Mark's book.

[quite]Okay then! We hope Antichristian will come back and prove you as the liar![/quote]You just have to switch over to your Antichristian moniker to make this happen.

The Bible contains errors! And whatever is error filled can only be demonic as God is not the author of confusion and falsehood! Faith in error! Error-filled Message!

That applies to the Quran. It's a completely demonic book written by a blood sucking prophet who revels in sexual fantasies. The book has a combination of errors and lies. There's no single truth in it!

Whatever has errors is not demonic. Human being can make errors without being demonic. A child does not have to be demonic to say 5 plus 3 equals 10. That doesn't make him demonic. But if he deliberately lies to his fellow that 5 plus 3 equals 10, then demons could be involved. Nobody demonizes anyone who makes errors in sincerity. Someone who deliberately misleads others, and after forcing everyone on the pain of death to accept him as prophet (Mohammed enforced his false prophethood by his sword); on his sickbed, he begins to cry that he's just a warner, he doesn't even know what would be done to.him. Why force people to follow a path whose end you do not know? That's a demonic prophet who gave his fellow bloodsuckers the demonic Quran.

oteneaaron:
Bro, as far as you're a baptized, active and fanatic JW, lies and manipulations would be your forte.

It's all part of their bi-weekly indoctrination meetings and I say this from experience.

When you swallow their doctrine hook line and sinker, that means you accept the teachings of the Governing Body even when it makes no reasonable sense.

That is why the Governing Body is vehemently against going to the University or even doing independent research because without CRITICAL THINKING, you would continue to swallow their LIES and MANIPULATIONS which they term - "Spiritual Food at the Proper Time"

Hmm. No university education? Na wá o. What doctrine did they peddle against university education too?

Aemmyjah:
The Bible makes references to people, books, statements records stories that you cannot find elsewhere.
According to the account of Abiathar could mean Jesus was quoting something that Abiathar must have said that happened to David. Remember that he was the only surviving eyewitness when David came to ask for bread. So he may have reported it and we have it in our Bibles today. So it's not unreasonable to allude to the account of Abiathar cos the story of that event may have originally been from him which was passed on and penned down by someone else.

If you want to believe that Mark 2:26 was an error, it's your own problem

To me, the Bible is accurate and truth without any error cos Jehovah, the God of truth is the Author of the Bible

Your previous post was in the line of The Story of Abiathar the Priest. Now it has changed to "The Story told By Abiathar the Priest." This second explanation looks more tenable than the first. It was Abiathar who most likely gave the eyewitness account of what Saul did to the priests of Nob.

I'm always open to new insights as long as they're based on honesty. I'm always ready to replace my former ideologies with new ones. I don't dwell on lies and falsehoods like you do. If I find truth and honesty in this version of Abiathar the priest that you're talking about, I'll gladly embrace it.

Now, back to the verse in question. Let's use AI translators to translate it to English. This is because the sequence of all the words in that verse in relation to the word you brought up to mean 'account' does not follow a logical sequence. Look at it very well and see where the wire appears.

Mark 2:23-28 (Greek Bible)

"23 Καὶ ἐγένετο παραπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ ἤρξαντο οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας.
24 Καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ, Ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου τὸ ἄθεμιτον ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν.
25 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυεὶδ ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχεν καὶ ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ;
26 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν;
27 Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον·
28 ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου.


Here is the translation of Mark 2:23-28 from Greek to English by AI:

"23 And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way, picking the heads of grain.
24 The Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those who were with him?
26 How he entered the house of God, in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat, and also gave some to those who were with him?”
27 Then He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

There's the clause "in the days of". This clause does not appear in the same place where you inserted that "On the account of."

oteneaaron:
Thank you for exposing his LIES.

This is a perfect example to show that Jehovah's Witnesses in reality, worship the Governing Body - because this is exactly how the GB lies and manipulate words just to rienforce a doctrine.

This also proves time and time again that they are FALSE PROPHETS.

NONE of their prophecies have ever came to pass.

The world didn't end in 1914

The world didn't end in 1925

The world definitely didn't end in 1975!

Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD [b]does not take place or come true [/b]that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

You're right. Maxindhouse also does that very well. Aemmyjah does it with a lot of subtilty. If you're not grounded in the Word, you would not notice it. It's their logo in that cult. I don't know much about Cornelboy.

Aemmyjah:
According to the NKJV, NIV, Amplified , American standard and others, is there anything like the account or passage of of the thornbush? Some use story, some use account, some use passage or record. It could be written or like a story. You can believe a story or testimony of an event on account of your daughter. Abiathar was a loyal companion of David almost his life and may have given eyewitness account of David

Is there anything like account of the thornbush?

Yes, the story of the burning bush fits in well. There's such an account. A unique and entirely isolated experience shared by Moses.

But there's no such thing as "The account of Abiathar the priest." When you look into the storyline of David, you'll discover that both Abiathar and Zadok were mostly mentioned together, even up till the time when Solomon removed him from the priesthood. If the passage had read 'In the account of Zadok and Abiathar the priests', then, we might still consider it more slightly but even that does not look fitting enough.

We need to locate a unique storyline or flow of events where Abiathar featured most prominently to be able to have such a statement as "The account of Abiathar the priest."

The burning bush story was a standalone story that rightly fits the sentence "The account of the burning bush."

Aemmyjah:
ἐπὶ (epi)
Preposition
Strong's 1909: On, to, against, on the basis of, at, etc

But there's nothing called 'The Account of Abiathar the Priest". What we have is the account of David. There's no particular story line or sequence that was dedicated to Abiathar the priest. How does the word "In the Account of Abiathar the priest" fit in?

achorladey:
Hanged . Na name calling remain

FxMasterz you see am

I see am o. Instead of being repentant and having sober reflection, he chooses to be angry.

achorladey:
WEREY peddling brains sneak lies and manipulations into it like he usually peddle fraud using his mumu and no get sense peddling brains



When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the Lord’s anointed stands here before the Lord.

He thought thought thought not prophesied Liar and manipulator doing what this main thread was all about

cc: Emusan, Courz, Oteneaaron, FxMasterz

This typically what Courz was addressing all this while. They will cook a doctrine, then doctor the Bible by manipulating the words to fit that doctrine



Lies and manipulations from your werey peddling brains. He didn't gave a false prophecy but thought



His thought was corrected not the prophecy that the next king will be from the house of Jesse Na fraud peddling full that your werey peddling brains .



Janosky aka JaNosense remove fraud from your werey peddling brains and stop peddling wailings and no get sense on nairaland

You did well to shame the devil called janosky.

Aemmyjah:
😂
See as you de reason
Which word in Greek do you know?
Are you aware that each translated word has a synonym?

So, which word in that verse has the synonym "account" that warranted the insertion into the verse?

Aemmyjah:
Mark 2 NWT
But he said to them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and the men with him were hungry? 26 How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he also gave some to the men who were with him?

Pidgin
For the story about A·bi′a·thar wey be chief priest, una no read about how David enter the house of God and chop the bread wey them put as offering to God, something wey nobody get the right to chop except the priests, and e still give some to the men wey dey with-am?”

Interlinear
πως
How
1525
εισήλθεν
he entered
1519
εις
into
3588
τον
the
3624
οίκον
house
3588
του

2316
θεού
of God
1909
επί
unto
*
Αβιάθαρ
Abiathar
3588
του
the
749
αρχιερέως
chief priest,
2532
και
and
3588
τους
the
740
άρτους
bread loaves
3588
της
of the
4286
προθέσεως
place setting
2068
έφαγεν
he ate,
3739
ους
which
3756-1832
ουκ έξεστι
is not allowed
2068
φαγείν
to eat,
1508
ει μη
unless
3588
τοις
to the
2409
ιερεύσι
priests;
2532
και
and
1325
έδωκε
he gave
2532
και
even
3588
τοις
to the ones
4862
συν
[2with
1473
αυτώ
3him
1510.6
ούσι
1being

Commentary
At Mark 2:26 most translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread “when Abiathar was high priest.” Since Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event took place, such translation would result in a historical error. It is noteworthy that a number of early manuscripts omit the above phrase, and it is not found in the corresponding passages at Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4. However, a similar Greek structure occurs at Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37, and here many translations use the phrase “in the passage about.” (RS; AT; JB) So, it appears that Mark 2:26 properly allows for the translation given in the New World Translation, which reads: “How he entered into the house of God, in the account about Abiathar the chief priest.” Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David’s entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel’s high priest in David’s reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record. The Greek word επί means upon or unto which could have an underlying meaning depending on the context (italics mine)
©jw.org


Emusan and FxMasterz
Janosky
Maxindhouse
Mightysparrow
Kobojunkie
Abutwins

The word "account" does not appear in any of the Greek texts for the verse to have read "in the account of Abiathar the priest." Where did you bring that word from?

AbuTwins:
Where did i mention Qur'an in the thread?

That too could be composed of several errors!

Let me open your understanding. If the rays of the Sun passes through coloured glass, the light you'll see would be in the colour of the glass isn't it? For example, to fill your room with blue light, you only need to cover the white light with blue glass. Agreed?

Now, does the colour of the glass in any way change the colour of the light? No? The light is still white but your eyes see blue by your human perception.

That's how the Word of God is. Humans are coloured glasses through whom the light passes. But while those with physical eyes see mistakes, those with spiritual eyes can see the white light still. The Bible was not written for Carnal men but for men of the spirit. It's the children's food. That's why you need first to be born of the spirit before you can partake of its riches.

I actually said Matthew and Luke copied Mark and added some other extra documents!

Yes you said it. If they copied from Mark, give me evidence that they both had at least a copy each of Mark's book.

You can create your thread on that! That is beyond the scope of this thread!

Not necessary. TenQ and Advocatejare have created threads about it already. I only need to go push them up.

Antichristian's material no reach textual criticism of the Bible! I do once in a while copy his materials though.

Keep deceiving yourself, you liar! You're the same as Antichristian.

If the letters are error filled, the Spirit would be demonic!

The letters are not the source of the Spirit. They're just vehicles for the message. The message, when mixed with faith produces revelation. Then, revelation releases the Spirit.

AbuTwins:
I no follow! No be Qur'an post be this na!

⁷Let's finish this one first before you divert to the Qur'an. Growing up i always hear the Bible is the unmistaken word of God through the spirit! The Holy Bible! So the Bible is letters and documents written by humans who are prone to mistakes?

It's still in line. You created this thread to disparage the Bible and promote your unholy Quran.

The unmistaken Word of God is not the letters but the message of love and salvation that the letters carry.

Everyone was using the documents and information available to him. When Matthew and Luke were written, Mark was around!

Can you give evidence that Mathew and Luke had a copy each?

But Mark was written earlier than Matthew! So it is Matthew who would copy from Mark! Abeg drop that Matthew was among the 12. Do you thing it was the real Matthew the disciple of Jesus that wrote Matthew?

Matthew 9:9 Matthew was writing and mentioning his name like this:
As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax booth. “Follow Me,” He told him, and Matthew got up and followed Him.

He met Jesus in Matthew 9:9 above, where did he get the materials to write Matthew 1-9:8 from when he never knew Jesus?

Of course Mathew is the real disciple of Jesus. The style he chooses to write does not disqualify him in any way. John also wrote the same way.

Even your spirit is as false as what Mark wrote!

Since you don't know what the definition of the term 'false' is. Define 'false', and you'll find that Islam fits in directly by deliberately attempting to sell falsehood as truth. Mohammed saw no angel. The Quran itself is a proof he didn't see any angel. He probably saw a demon. The lies in there are too much.

Mark made a mistake by calling Ahimelech Abiathar. That's human error. A pastor preaching on the pulpit could make the same error if he lacks adequate knowledge but that does not mean God won't use that pastor to bless people. God will still use him to bless people except he deliberately misleads people. That's falsehood. Deliberate misinformation.

Have you heard about Mark 16:9-20 (Longer Ending of Mark) that is disputed and expunged from some translations of the Bible?

Make i create a thread on that later!

You'll tire yourself out and abandon your Abutwins moniker the same way you abandoned your Antichristian moniker. So, create it.

We're not concerned about the letters that kill. We're only concerned about the Spirit that gives Iife.

AbuTwins:
You started on a wrong foot. But it is proven that Matthew and Luke used Mark and other documents to generate their respective Gospels. Luke admitted in Luke 1-1:4 he was writing to Theophilus (as you claimed) and he was writing from some hearsays purportedly from those he thought were eyewitnesses which he didn't mention!

And your assertion that if they would even edit they'll insert the right name, Ahimelech, that's if they have the right manuscript to copy from!

Your last statement shows hypocrisy!
If that is what you do then there should be no criticism of any scripture at all!
Your spirit is born from the letters!
So if the letters contains mistakes then the spirit is a mistaken one too!

What does your scripture claim? It claims to have been purportedly dictated directly from God. It should be criticized. If it fails, then the claim is invalid.

The Bible is letters and documents written by humans. It doesn't have to be 100% correct. Humans are not perfect. That's why your criticisms are useless. But then, on matters of Revelation, the Bible supercedes your so called dictated Quran which errs both scientifically and spiritually. The errors are shameful. Revelations are not human. They're directly released by God.

No matter what those scholars say, they were not there. They can only draw inferences at best. Luke told us how he found information. We trust what he said more than what any scholar thinks. Mathew and Luke don't have to copy anything from anywhere to correct the Abiathar error of Mark if they saw it. They just needed to be familiar with the story.

Jesus didn't mention the name of the priest. That's obvious. If He did, Mathew would record it. Mathew was one of the 12. Mark would rather copy from Mathew, not Mathew from Mark. That's simple logic regardless of any nonsense any scholar is saying.

The Bible is a book written by imperfect men. All God needed was the sincerity of those men. God can use your honesty to bless the world. But even if your correctness was a lie that became correct by happenstance, God can't use it.

Christianity thrives on honesty and integrity. A pastor who goes on the pulpit to lie or exaggerate anything is already doomed. We don't abhor lies. All liars are false prophets. This is not like Islam where Taqquiya glorified Allah.

My spirit is not born from the letters. Stop being ignorant. Revelation is foundation for the release of the Spirit through faith.

Aemmyjah:
If Mark made errors according to you. The Bible is already inaccurate

Even the Bible says "We know in part."

Sincerity and Honesty is the Hallmark of the Bible. Not correctness.

The Bible was written by humans who are prone to mistakes. They were inspired by God but God was not the One moving their fingers.

Aemmyjah:
You're completely wrong... 2 over 10


Next, Emusan. Come here my boy and answer OP

Wrong according to the standard of your false prophets and occult organization?

achorladey:
They will run away from the question. MaxInDHouse the one regulating Galatians 5:22,23 no where to be found

And after running away, they won't still consider the falsehood they're holding in their hands.

achorladey:
That name calling is their good to go card when they get exposed.

It happens like that when light shines into darkness.

AbuTwins:
See coping and capping!

At least he had the guts to agree Mark lied about Jesus!
Unlike Kobojunkie who would argue from now till eternity on falsehood!

But the Book of Mark came earlier than Matthew and Luke.
I would say they both had time to edit that part out!
John came last and his book is the most "Jesus Goding"!

Point of correction:

Mark was sincerely wrong. He didn't lie. He wrote what he knew.
Mathew and Luke didn't have to edit anything. They probably didn't know about Mark's works. Mark wrote to a specific group of people to which Mathew and Luke didn't belong. Luke wrote a letter to his friend whom he called Theophilus. None of them were writing for the purpose of inclusion in any religious book. They were just letters and addresses. There's no reason for any editing. If they'll even edit, they'll instead insert the right name - Ahimelech. Your assertion is wrong.

We don't deal with letters while studying the Bible, Abu. The letters kill, the Spirit gives life.

Letters are for historians and critics like you. We, the children born of the Spirit, feed on the Bible as spiritual food. It's good nourishment to our soul.

Aemmyjah:
FxMasterz

Answer this OP and get a 🏆 or remain a blind, ignorant fellow forever

You don't have the answers shey? Or your cult has dubiously inserted Ahimelech into the verse as they always do?

The Answer
Mark was a young man, son to the sister of Barnabas. He wasn't there when Jesus made that speech. He was not part of the 12, neither was he part of the 120 nor the 500. He would go for a very small boy in the days of Jesus.

When Mark wrote the Book of Mark, he was reporting what he has heard from the disciples of Jesus and those who knew Him. Not what Jesus said directly to his ears. The error was Mark's error. Not Jesus'.

Mark was sincerely reporting a speech he heard that Jesus gave. The speech is corroborated by Mathew and Luke. This proves that indeed, Jesus gave the speech. However, both Mathew and Luke didn't mention the name of the priest or high priest involved in the story. Jesus probably didn't mention the name of the high priest.

Mark, in his zeal to provide fuller details to his reader, errornously mentioned Abiathar instead of Ahimelech. We can excuse Mark's error because Mark was not a Bible scholar in his days. The scrolls were not readily made available to everyone at the time. A few copies of the Scriptures existed for use solely in the temple and the pharisaical schools. Mark's opportunity to verify the information before inserting that detail was limited. Also, he thought he was right, hence he wanted his reader to know the exact priest involved in the story. He wrote it in all sincerity. That's the Hallmark of the Bible. Sincere rendition of accounts to the best of the writer's knowledge.

The Bible Copiers and Translators were also sincere. They put it there just as exactly as Mark wrote it, even though they knew that Mark was wrong. No attempt by anyone to correct Mark's mistakes. Why? Because that would be falsehood. Presenting what Mark didn't say as what Mark said is falsehood. Presenting what Mark said exactly as he had said it in spite of the aspersions it may cast on the Bible is a high level of integrity. That's what God blesses. He blesses Integrity and Sincerity especially when it is done in spite of the damage it could cause to oneself. That's in the same league as "He that voweth to his own hurt and fulfilleth it." Psalm 15:4. This is the sincerity and integrity lacking in Islam and in the JW cult which we condemn.

Rather than disparaging the Bible, this scripture in Mark further gives credence to the fact that the Writers, Copiers and Translators of the Bible did all they could in all sincerity. The Bible is credible. It can be trusted because everyone wrote exactly what happened to the best of his knowledge.

Now, the crux is that Jesus really gave that speech. Mark's errors notwithstanding, the message is true - THE SON OF MAN IS LORD OF THE SABBATH. That's the focus of the verse. Not Ahimelech or Abiathar.

Aemmyjah:
I'll wait but first compare with other translations
You cannot mention any accurate Bible but you want to compare different Bibles that point hand to another as having mistakes to attack another Bible that did not follow the trend
Na wa o

What are you afraid of? Wait for the thread to come out first.

achorladey:
MaxInDHouse what do you have to say about the stupid apostate peddling brains you have as a brother. The same person you asked someone to abandon is now fit for response.


Integrity zero. Where you greet person for your land [b]saying till tomorrow morning you don't go back to greet them saying how is the house this evening[/b]




Since Templee333 knows it's better to be a sinner than an hypocrite who goes about manipulating the Bible to suit his religious lies and manipulations and turn the other eyes and say others are bad, liars and false while you are better performing performance group

Cc FxMasterz, Courz

No be so?

Even Jesus justified the self confessed sinner more than the self righteous Pharisee.

achorladey:
A Balanced View of Jesus’ Role
Like those in Christendom, the early Bible Students mistakenly allowed their love for Jesus to overshadow their relationship with Jehovah. Beginning in 1919, however, they came to see that Jehovah and their relationship with him should be the focus of their worship. We can be thankful that we understand that our affection for Jesus is key to having a relationship with Jehovah. We must attach neither too much nor too little importance to our love for Jesus.​—John 16:27.

cc Emusan, FxMasterz

MaxInDHouse the madness and insanities peddling was asking Courz to quote Galatians 5: 22,23

Because I cannot believe they have so lost touch with the basic foundation of Christianity, which is love, so as to think that it should be regulated, limited, restricted in any way. The Bible tells us quite the opposite:

“On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22, 23)

What does it mean to say that against such things there is no law? It means there are no restrictions, no limits, no rules governing these things.



They are setting laws on love for Jesus or how to love Jesus

The bolded statement is a further confirmation that the JW cult is truly satanic.


Aemmyjah, Cornelboy, Janosky, Maxindhouse, Michael547, your organization said we should regulate our love for Jesus.

Should we, or should we not? Do you think we should regulate our love for Jesus? Is it true that our love for Jesus can be too much?

Aemmyjah:
😂
See this mugu
I use 3 different Bibles in my ministry and they are all in my jw library app
Our publications also reference from other Bibles


Now, if you cannot show us one accurate interlinear translation, how does using multiple translations make them accurate? You be mumu 😂

Don't worry, very soon, a new thread with only Greek and Hebrew Interlinear to compare your NWT and other translations would soon be here. Just wait for it.

Janosky:

FX Masterz,Are those 2 pages fueling your delusions the final judgement of the presiding judge?

Type the FULL, ENTIRE COURT PROCEEDINGS here make all man go read the FULL proceedings (you know your FALSE claims were not proven in that court)
OR
Glue yourselves to your copy and paste manipulations fueling your delusions.


None of the WAILING WAILERS get liver to show sources of the entire Court proceedings.

My dear, if you're not a fraud and a liar, post the full court proceedings, we'll like to check something. All these your demonic name callings wouldn't make us forget that you and your organization are frauds.

Aemmyjah:
Is the Bible accurate or not
Which translation is not claiming accuracy?
Why is every Bible translation today being revised
Where have our organization forced us to only study the NWT? You're a malicious liar
Till date, even in our publications, we still reference to the wordings of other translations including the KJV
If there's anyone that forcing people to accept their own Bible, it's the KJV cos they have the KJV MOVEMENT

Go to Wikipedia and check the List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations
Compare to OP
then apologize to us later

Only a fool will believe everything na
Go and do that assignment
Or should I drop links for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament#List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament?wprov=sfla1

You were trying to invalidate us, now that you've seen how foolish you've become. You now say another lie that they force the NWT on us. Why not cite where we said that. I use 3 different Bibles in my ministry. Stupid liar

You're not a JW anymore? This is the second time I'm reading the bolded from you. You now want to subtly deny your JW organization? Which one is your ministry again?

Okay, we're not talking about your ministry. Who cares about what you use there? We're talking about JW organization that forces only one error-packed NWT book on its adherents. The JW organization that deliberately manipulated scriptures in order to fit their false doctrines into the Bible.

Courz, Emusan, Achorladey, Mightysparrow, come and see him subtly denying his cult.

Aemmyjah:
Here is a list of some common English Bible translations:

1. King James Version (KJV) - 1611
2. American Standard Version (ASV) - 1901
3. Revised Standard Version (RSV) - 1952
4. New American Standard Bible (NASB) - 1963
5. New International Version (NIV) - 1978
6. New King James Version (NKJV) - 1982
7. English Standard Version (ESV) - 2001
8. Christian Standard Bible (CSB) - 2017 (formerly Holman Christian Standard Bible, HCSB)
9. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) - 1989
10. The Message (MSG) - 1993 (a paraphrased version)
11. Amplified Bible (AMP) - 1965
12. New Living Translation (NLT) - 1996
13. Contemporary English Version (CEV) - 1995
14. The Clear Word Bible (TCWB) - 1994
15. God's Word (GW) - 1995
16. International Standard Version (ISV) - 1998
17. New American Bible (NAB) - 1970
18. Revised English Bible (REB) - 1989
19. The Voice (VOICE) - 2012
20. Young's Literal Translation (YLT) - 1862


Which one(s) is accurate
A. One of some. Then mention
B. Some of them. Then mention
C. All of them. Do their translators agree that the KJV which is one of the oldest and most popular is accused of having errors. Where are the errors and what has been done to the errors in their own translation


If the correct ones are not listed above. Kindly mention or remain ignorant

Hypocrite, are you also a dullard like janosky?

No one is claiming complete accuracy. The fault of your organization is them claiming accuracy and forcing their manipulated and deliberately falsified Bible on their followers!

Aemmyjah:
Liar
A big fat lie
The OP was trying to shame us but your folly has been revealed like sunshine and you're talking nonsense. OP was Trying to discredit the NWT not says that it was most accurate
Have you ever seen anyone or did the OP tell you that these interlinear translations acknowledge that KJV has errors but they still did not do anything
Does that make any sense?
We have never ever stopped anyone from using other translations. We have a lot of them even in our library
Personally, in my ministry, I encourage my students to read from their own Bible and we have used and printed other translations over the years.

You're not translators but you want to judge another translation shey?



Cos you have seen that it your own own interlinear translations that have fault by failing to remove errors cos of fear of public uproar, you now say it is human to make errors. This is just your level of intelligence and it's shameful on a old man like you

Now mention one translation that say it's not error free

Does your organization force your translation on its adherents? Yes or no.? Do you use other versions in your cult? Yes or no? Does your organization claim to be the most accurate? Yes or no?

Aemmyjah:
Have you first used it to eliminate or see the error in the King James and other translations
Will you use other translation that follow the KJV in it's errors to judge the NWT
See as u just de zuzu like small pikin

Now, list the several Bible accurate translation you use aa standard

Will you stop this boring nonesense about KJV? Did KJV force themselves on you or ask you to get their version as the only accurate version? What's happening with your head? You've been so messed up!

We are readers and students of the Bible. We're not translators. Ours is to get the best out of every version.

It is human to have errors. But to force your errors on others and still claim to be error free is satanic! If your organization is not guilty of this sin, they would not be called out even though they have errors.

Answer the questions I asked. Stop dribbling.

Aemmyjah:
J
If KJV is not your standard then I guess your standard is accurate. Kindly mention na... Only a foolish person will use the same language to judge a translation. If I translate something from Efik to English and other people seem to be different. Should you use the other English translation or from the original language?
That's what my brother Janosky is trying to do but your envy has made your head hot

That's how foolish your organization is to have used English versions as the basis for your translations.

Answer my questions or you want me to ask you again?

We use interlinear translations okay? We don't depend on any one version. Get that into you.

Aemmyjah:
😂
I laugh at you
That statement is about some previous misunderstanding on dates
Not on the Bible translation

Now my question
1. Did the KJV say that their own translation has any error as you said? If yes, show it. If no, you're an ignorant liar

2. If other Bible translations said that their translation came up cos the KJV which was the most popular has errors, is it proper for their own version to have the same errors or they should remove it?

3. If a translator notices that certain words or verses were not in reliable original manuscripts but are in nearly 100% of all the modern Bibles. Should he allow those verses to be in the translation, or he should put them in italics (like some translations too) or he should remove them?

4. Is it proper to use the KJV which other translation says has errors as well as these same translations to judge what is written in the NWT? If not, how do you decide which is accurate

5. Without using Google,What are the general 3 criteria in Bible translation

6. Mention the most accurate translation or the most nearly accurate translation




Olodo
You say we're falsehood. Mention the group that has the truth, you can't mention
You say our Bible is incorrect, mention the correct one, you can't mention

Envy will keep you

I asked you questions which you ignored. Answer my questions and stop playing hide and seek!

Your questions are useless because we already told you KJV is not our standard. We use several versions of scriptures together in Bible study to eliminate potential translation errors. We look up strong's concordance and interlinear bible to confirm correct translations. None of the various versions claim to be the most accurate!

Your Bible fails in all of the above and still goes ahead to force itself on its adherents. Answer my questions!

Aemmyjah:
The KJV did not mention that their translation has errors. It is other translation that said the KJV has errors but they did not remove all of them.
If KJV has to be accurate and respect God's words, they have to remove the errors. Could this be the reason why the OP who himself has been a malicious liar towards Jehovah's Witnesses think that we manipulated the Bible. Thank God we don't and we did not allow the fear of what people will say to stop us. You're not reasonable to use erroneous translation to judge our Bible.
You say KJV has errors and the admitted it (which they didn't but you don't know what you say with your nonsense) so which ones are the errors if I may ask
Mention any translator that say their own translation has errors.
We're the only translation that has profound respect for the Bible and return the Divine name in every place it was found cos we won't replace it with mere titles so the reader can know God's name. The only translation with the most widely translated Bible. The only translation where anyone today can get the the Bible in his own language for free. In Madagascar, if you want to buy KJV, you have to sacrifice your salary for that month. Whereas we give it free. Envy will not kill you

My dear, we used original Greek interlinear translations to judge your Bible and found it to be a fabrication of falsehood.

Again, do you justify your erroneous translations because KJV also has errors?

Did your organization not confess to be an organizer forcing its errors on people? What are you defending?

Did the KJV ever force itself on anyone. Is the use of KJV not by choice? Did they ever claim to be the most accurate Bible translation? Is that not what your satanic organization claims? Do they not force their errors on you? Don't you go about defending your errors? Did the KJV ever deny or defended themselves to be without errors?