Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by notofworks

But it's a pattern reverend!!! Surely you see that! Mark 16 holds KEY information that supports your doctrine, therefore, you validate it. However, verses that DO NOT back you up and your sectarian theology are suddenly branded "Mistranslated." It's just plain goofy! It's the age-old exegetical error of developing a theology and THEN finding verses to match rather than taking the bible and THEN developing a theology.

Ultimately, I don't really care if you say "persons" or manifestations. Big whoop. But it becomes a big deal when you boys start throwing your "heresy" darts at those you don't agree with.

And Mark 16....there are many so-called "Great exegetes" who will equally invalidate 8-20. For the record, I believe the verses should be there. I'm man enough to accept ALL the verses of the bible just as they stand without developing a massive conspiracy theory against those devil trinitarians. Ya'll should try it sometime. You might like it!

Yes, I said text critics like Dan Wallace rejected the long ending. You are "man enough"? Are you serious??

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Hey Baron, they're gonna write a new bible. That should take care of those stupid trinitarians, huh? If they don't like the "Cult" word now, just imagine how much they're gonna hear it when the "Oneness World Translation" hits the shelves at General Conference!!!

The credentials of the NWT translators hasn't been shown. They have it hush hush. THey also demonstrate ignorance of the text of Scripture (John 1:1, Phil 2, etc). You are comparing an apple and an orange. Oneness scholars have just as much right as a Trinitarian to translate. Your bigotry here is obvious. I am not saying we read nothing else but it should be done. It is a responsible thing to do IMHO.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Notice, I did not say we could right now. I say it is something I want personally and I feel will one day happen. I am not sure how many we could as well. We have some in both Hebrew (J. Brickle) and Greek (T. French) but it would require many since it would be an extensive undertaking. I can demonstrate bias but I am not about to on this thread. Already got my neck on the block. Obviously, since Metzger and Comfort have then it will rather easy for me to show you. You can email me: james4christ@gmail.com and I will get something to you later.

It seems to be a big waste of time to me when we already have valid translations.

I will send you an email so you can demonstrate the bias.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

The credentials of the NWT translators hasn't been shown. They have it hush hush. THey also demonstrate ignorance of the text of Scripture (John 1:1, Phil 2, etc). You are comparing an apple and an orange. Oneness scholars have just as much right as a Trinitarian to translate. Your bigotry here is obvious. I am not saying we read nothing else but it should be done. It is a responsible thing to do IMHO.

While they may have as much right they are decades away from having enough credible translators to even make a passable attempt at it.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It seems to be a big waste of time to me when we already have valid translations.

I will send you an email so you can demonstrate the bias.

I think saving truth can be known in our translations. I just also think that I can demonstrate Trinitarian bias in the translation process of certain texts, as I mentioned. I also think Oneness scholars have the right and should proceed in that direction.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

While they may have as much right they are decades away from having enough credible translators to even make a passable attempt at it.

Only time will tell.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

I think saving truth can be known in our translations. I just also think that I can demonstrate Trinitarian bias in the translation process of certain texts, as I mentioned. I also think Oneness scholars have the right and should proceed in that direction.

Wouldn't a Bible with some commentary make more sense? Just do like the NIV translators and say * the real translation of this verse is...*

Give me an example of a verse that has been mistranslated. Just give me a modern translation and then your translation of the verse and why hundreds of other translators are wrong.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Hey Baron, they're gonna write a new bible. That should take care of those stupid trinitarians, huh? If they don't like the "Cult" word now, just imagine how much they're gonna hear it when the "Oneness World Translation" hits the shelves at General Conference!!!

I don't want to sound negative or like this is a put down but I would be afraid of a "oneness translation" of the Bible. Is our theology so faulty that it cannot be found in translations/versions of the Bible that are accepted by the church world in general? Are we like the JW's who have to have their own translation based on their biases and doctrines? or like the Mormons who have additional scriptures? or like Christian Science which has their Science and Health with key to the scriptures? How would the church world look on us if we came out with our own translation? Wouldn't they think we were adding to or taking from the Word?

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Wouldn't a Bible with some commentary make more sense? Just do like the NIV translators and say * the real translation of this verse is...*

Give me an example of a verse that has been mistranslated. Just give me a modern translation and then your translation of the verse and why hundreds of other translators are wrong.

I have already mentioned three. I am no translator but I can read English quite well. Trinitarian bias is apparent in such passages 1 John 5:7, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Revelations 1:4. As I suggested earlier this Trinitarian bias is suggested by Trinitarians themselves. See Metzger in Textual Commentary and Comfort in his Textual Commentary.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Yes, I said text critics like Dan Wallace rejected the long ending. You are "man enough"? Are you serious??

Very serious. I can deal with what's there. Can you?