Noahs Ark

[rusra02]

Two things: Descent with modification + natural selection. I could go on and on. Sorry, that plow doesn't scour, as Abe Lincoln used to say.

Why not? So basically what you're saying is that science doesn't work?[/quote]
That's not science. That's baseless speculation.

 

[rusra02]

Sad thing is..it's not even a good translation let alone the correct translation......They were just making stuff up...

The above snide comments betray the bias of those commenting. For those interested in the truth, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States,in 2003 published a 200-page study of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.” What is his assessment?

BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation.” While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version “emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." (emphasis added) The other translations compared include The Amplified New Testament, The Living Bible, The New American Bible With Revised New Testament, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible—New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.
But nice diversion away from the real issue. That God created the heavens and the earth, and all life therein, using his dynamic power. The available evidence (sans speculative fantasies) supports what the Bible says. Including the fact of a global deluge.​

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The above snide comments betray the bias of those commenting.

I stand by my comment. I'm not concerned if you don't like it. I make the charge that the NWT of that verse is totally inaccurate. I have looked at that verse in many other bibles at my fingertips as well as the proper definitions and NWT ruined that verse. It is fitting where it is...contained in (that version) of the bible and predominately used in JW households. You do realize there's a reason why theologians don't use that version....right?

For those interested in the truth, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States,in 2003 published a 200-page study of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.” What is his assessment?

Jason BeDuhn
First let's be clear. It is (HIS) assessment. As smart and as well educated as he is (see above link) you see a lot of his own bias in his works. When he's noted for his linguistic skills and not his comparative religion skills get back to me.

But really, I don't need to take his word for it. I'll go to the source.

Read the Bible online: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
Acts 20:28
Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

Compare the above to;

Act 20:28 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - UK - BibleGateway.com
New International Version
Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Act 20:28 - Passage Lookup - Darby Translation - BibleGateway.com
Darby Translation
Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own.

There are a hand full that render "son" on the end where most translations rendering from the Greek do not have "son" at the end.

But nice diversion away from the real issue. That God created the heavens and the earth, and all life therein, using his dynamic power. The available evidence (sans speculative fantasies) supports what the Bible says. Including the fact of a global deluge.​

Well, I just dealt with this inaccurate pseudo-translation hatchet job you're asserting. On the other hand there is NO geological evidence for a WWF in the time frame given by you, URAVIP2ME or the bible....but nice try......

 

[footprints]

Again....I knew and know EXACTLY what I mean when I say it. If that wasn't what I meant to say...well, I would have said it.:sarcastic

One day you might get, you may know what you meant to say, I also know what I think. Your statement completely unreasonable, for clearly there are people who oppose your accumulated evidence which suits you.

The evidence given was accumulated by various fields of science. It's not like they're working some grand conspiracy. The fact that it's irrefutable should let you know that and alternative idea may be weak. Case in point is the Noah Deluge (As the bible says and creationist preach) has shown to be false by scientific search and discovery. It's not that it suits me...I challenge any creationist to examine the geological data to show that I'm wrong for accepting said evidence against the flood. It's not like this some new discovery. Most of this data has been around for a very very long time and new data is added as we learn more about the planet. None of if suggest a WWF in the given time frame.

Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, I am not interested in any of them.

The fact that you consider this evidence irrefutable doesn't mean anything to anybody who doesn't share your view.

I think what you mean to say is, the data you accept doesn't suggest a literal world wide flood. The data people accept who oppose the data you put up, suggest a literal world wide flood and the evidence they will point to "God," has been around a lot longer than any evidence you could point to.

It's not human perception in this case. At least not from where I stand. Their bible says Everyone and everything exited the ark on Mt. Ararat. If the animals were making some long trek to their respective locations then it's new information we haven't heard because as it stands NO creationist can account for this discrepancy.

What evidence do you have which says the alleged flood isn't a perceptional view?

So tell me, the Mt. Ararat as depicted in the Bible where is it? It is common traite among base root cultures to give mountains et al common names whenever they moved.

But what I accept is irrefutable. I mean...If they could it would have been done by now.

What you accept is irrefutable to you.

Accounting for a mass exodus of animals, insects, etc. from Mt. Ararat can't be done.

Give me a detailed list of what is alledged to have been on the ark? Then we will see if it can be done or not.

Yep.. We call that being dishonest. It's unfortunate.

It is unfortunate when it is done by anyone, not just the religious.

Well, I'm not sure he's arguing (for) a WWF but I do agree that the story, compared to how the genealogy unfolds, was to be a literal telling as to what happened. I'm not making the case for a WWF but those that do make the case are in an awkward position considering what we know of the natural world. And I agree that all the sciences, especially the ones I've mentioned, totally refute the claim of a literal WWF.

There are many other fields of science which suggested evidence says there is a high probablity of a perception based flood, there is further suggested evidence from other fields of science that there is high probability of this being a story pertaining to morality.

We have discussed this already.

Yes we do. And it has been shown to be a fictitious story. This fence straddling of yours is a waste of time.

Please show me this evidence which says conclusively that a flood of any sort, is completely fictitious.

I don't straddle fences, I align with evidence.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

One day you might get, you may know what you meant to say, I also know what I think.

I know what I said and I know what I mean. You constantly want to tell people (what they meant to say is.....). If we make a statement then it's obvious we meant exactly that...unless we change it or re-post with a correction.

Your statement completely unreasonable, for clearly there are people who oppose your accumulated evidence which suits you.

It's not unreasonable in a debate forum to ask for evidence to support the assertion of a WWF when it's clear the people making a case for it states it as though it is fact. What is unreasonable is for them to make the claim and not backup what they claim with evidence. I'm fine if they disagree with me but some never show any reason for the disagreement. We don't get evidence to substantiate the claim made, instead we get more religious dogma. Using religious text to validate the claim contained in the religious text is called circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not evidence.

Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, I am not interested in any of them.

I never made one....

The fact that you consider this evidence irrefutable doesn't mean anything to anybody who doesn't share your view.

It hasn't been refuted.....so I must conclude it is irrefutable by creationist. Hear the silence? You can almost hear a pin drop.....

I think what you mean to say is, the data you accept doesn't suggest a literal world wide flood.

.......

The data people accept who oppose the data you put up, suggest a literal world wide flood and the evidence they will point to "God," has been around a lot longer than any evidence you could point to.

Considering there was no WWF what's the point? "God" is not the evidence. It's an idea that helps others explain what they don't understand about the natural world. Local flood (god did it), flat earth (god did it), life (god did it), drought (god is punishing us), crops won't grow (god is punishing us)...etc...etc...etc...

What evidence do you have which says the alleged flood isn't a perceptional view?

Who says I'm arguing "against" a perception? Considering there is irrefutable geological evidence contradicting a WWF in the time frame given..it is very much the collected perception (belief) of creationist that a WWF event actually happened...regardless of the evidence. In some cases we call this (delusional)....

So tell me, the Mt. Ararat as depicted in the Bible where is it?

Get yourself an atlas or find it at wikipedia.

What you accept is irrefutable to you.

Seems to be irrefutable to creationist as well as yourself.....

Give me a detailed list of what is alledged to have been on the ark? Then we will see if it can be done or not.

It's not my job to do so. I'm not the one making a case for the WWF. I think it's all made up. Start at Genesis 6 and go from there.

There are many other fields of science which suggested evidence says there is a high probablity of a perception based flood, there is further suggested evidence from other fields of science that there is high probability of this being a story pertaining to morality.

Maybe the field of psychology but none of the disciplines I've mentioned earlier. The ones I've mentioned earlier totally refute the notion of a WWF event in he time line given.

Please show me this evidence which says conclusively that a flood of any sort, is completely fictitious.

I don't have to because I didn't, and don't make the claim there were never floods......just not a WWF event in the time line given to us by the creationist here. We most certainly have evidence of local flooding, cites being buried by sand, cities buried in volcano ash, cities destroyed by earthquakes but what we don't see is evidence for a global flood event as described in the bible.

I don't straddle fences, I align with evidence.

No you don't. The evidence is posted throughout this thread by you.....

 

[BHSU_Student]

The bible people seem to forget that for 120 years Noah was trying to convert the millions of people on earth to believe in GOD and join him in the Ark. What would have happen if 50,000 people did repent and wanted to join Noah. Where would Noah have put them all? A bigger ark?? When you carry the story out to a proper conclusion it falls apart.

If they repented, then the flood wouldn't have occured.

 

[Autodidact]

Why not? So basically what you're saying is that science doesn't work?

That's not science. That's baseless speculation.

That's funny. Because all the scientists say it's science. Meanwhile you, who have not even a rudimentary understanding of it, and have no clue what the overwhelming evidence in its favor is, do not. Whom shall we believe?

 

[Autodidact]

The above snide comments betray the bias of those commenting. For those interested in the truth, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States,in 2003 published a 200-page study of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.” What is his assessment?

BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation.” While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version “emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." (emphasis added) The other translations compared include The Amplified New Testament, The Living Bible, The New American Bible With Revised New Testament, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible—New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.
But nice diversion away from the real issue. That God created the heavens and the earth, and all life therein, using his dynamic power. The available evidence (sans speculative fantasies) supports what the Bible says. Including the fact of a global deluge.​

So if I follow you, all of Biology is wrong. All of Geology is wrong. Also all of archeology. And Anthropology. And Astronomy and Paleontology and Cosmology and Linguistics and most of Physics. So what you're saying is--science doesn't work.

 

[rusra02]

I stand by my comment. I'm not concerned if you don't like it. I make the charge that the NWT of that verse is totally inaccurate. I have looked at that verse in many other bibles at my fingertips as well as the proper definitions and NWT ruined that verse. It is fitting where it is...contained in (that version) of the bible and predominately used in JW households. You do realize there's a reason why theologians don't use that version....right?


Read the Bible online: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
Acts 20:28
Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

Compare the above to;

Act 20:28 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - UK - BibleGateway.com
New International Version
Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Act 20:28 - Passage*Lookup - Darby Translation - BibleGateway.com
Darby Translation
Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own.

There are a hand full that render "son" on the end where most translations rendering from the Greek do not have "son" at the end.

My, we are going far afield here. Here is the discussion of Acts 20:28 in the NWT reference Bible:
"The Greek words του̃ ἰδίου (tou i·di′ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ι̉́διος [i′di·os] something should be said about the use of ὁ ι̉́διος [ho i′di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’”
The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding “Son” in brackets after ἰδίου to read: “with the blood of his own [Son].”

Which rendering agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? (See also Revelation 1:4-6.) As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out.

To those interested in the truth, the admonition at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 is important:
Instead of believing all the posts without question, such as the one by Dirty Pigeon,
"Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." Decide for yourself if the NWT rendering of Acts 20:28 is accurate.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My, we are going far afield here. Here is the discussion of Acts 20:28 in the NWT reference Bible:
"The Greek words του̃ ἰδίου (tou i·di′ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.”

The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.”

I agree to an extent...but not with "the blood of his own son"

That does not work there.

A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ.

This is completely false. There's no need to insert text where there is none.

The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding “Son” in brackets after ἰδίου to read: “with the blood of his own [Son].”

Yes, "THEY" added it. It's not in the manuscripts that way. There is no linguistic reason for doing such a thing unless you have ulterior motives.

Who are they and what are their qualifications for translating text? From what I've read...the "scholars" of the NWT are anonymous. Other than the "scholars" of the NWT, I don't think I've heard of any modern day bible scholars, linguist or theologians who wish to remain anonymous. To me that speaks volumes about their true credentials or possible lack of.


Regardless. The text "[Son]" does not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts I've seen. To suggest that it is valid to put it there in the rendering is dishonest and dangerous to anyone reading your version. Again, there's a reason why this bible is not widely use. The change up at the end of the verse and the addition of text that aren't in the manuscripts gives the casual reader a different interpretation than how the script is originally laid out. If their goal is to translate in such a way to make connections to other verses of the NT then it shows a certain level of bias on their part.

I mean, none of this has anything to do with The supposed flood but it shows that even your version of the bible has some serious translation issues concerning these stories....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

1,650 replies...has anything been accomplished?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

1,650 replies...has anything been accomplished?

Nope...just a bunch of talk.....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Nope...just a bunch of talk.....

Doubtful disputation?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Doubtful disputation?

Yea, sometimes you just have to call a draw.

The thread will die down then wouldn't you know it...some newcomer will stair things all up again....

 

[AxisMundi]

The above snide comments betray the bias of those commenting. For those interested in the truth, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States,in 2003 published a 200-page study of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.” What is his assessment?

BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation.” While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version “emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." (emphasis added) The other translations compared include The Amplified New Testament, The Living Bible, The New American Bible With Revised New Testament, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible—New International Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.
But nice diversion away from the real issue. That God created the heavens and the earth, and all life therein, using his dynamic power. The available evidence (sans speculative fantasies) supports what the Bible says. Including the fact of a global deluge.​

While the professor appears to be duly accredited, that doesn't make him correct.

The newer versions of the bible are translations of translations of translations, each updated to include modern (for the time of the update) terminology.

"Dynamic power" is so ridiculously far from anything accurate, I have to question the professor's credibility on just that.

And if those are his comments about some absolute proof of a world-wide deluge, his credibility evaporates completely.

And if they are your comments, feel free to provide proof. Hint: your bible isn't proof, not by a long shot.

 

[rusra02]

That's funny. Because all the scientists say it's science. Meanwhile you, who have not even a rudimentary understanding of it, and have no clue what the overwhelming evidence in its favor is, do not. Whom shall we believe?

Surely you don't mean to say ALL scientists say it's science. Many scientists say the TOE is not science.

 

[rusra02]

I agree to an extent...but not with "the blood of his own son"

That does not work there.



This is completely false. There's no need to insert text where there is none.



Yes, "THEY" added it. It's not in the manuscripts that way. There is no linguistic reason for doing such a thing unless you have ulterior motives.

Who are they and what are their qualifications for translating text? From what I've read...the "scholars" of the NWT are anonymous. Other than the "scholars" of the NWT, I don't think I've heard of any modern day bible scholars, linguist or theologians who wish to remain anonymous. To me that speaks volumes about their true credentials or possible lack of.


Regardless. The text "[Son]" does not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts I've seen. To suggest that it is valid to put it there in the rendering is dishonest and dangerous to anyone reading your version. Again, there's a reason why this bible is not widely use. The change up at the end of the verse and the addition of text that aren't in the manuscripts gives the casual reader a different interpretation than how the script is originally laid out. If their goal is to translate in such a way to make connections to other verses of the NT then it shows a certain level of bias on their part.

I mean, none of this has anything to do with The supposed flood but it shows that even your version of the bible has some serious translation issues concerning these stories....

There are Bible scholars who disagree with you, and there are other Bible translations that render the verse similar to the NWT.

1903 “with the blood of His own Son” The Holy Bible in Modern English, by
F. Fenton, London.​

1966 “through the death of his own Son” Today’s English Version, American Bible
Society, New York.​

. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ι̉́διος [i′di·os] something should be said about the use of ὁ ι̉́διος [ho i′di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’”
Thus it is not without cause the verse is rendered in the NWT.

Also, putting the word 'scholars' in quotations and your questioning the qualifications of the translators of the NWT reminds one of the Pharisee's response to Christ.
The NWT translators chose to remain unknown so the NWT can be judged on its merits, not the "credentials" of it's translators. As mentioned, the NWT has been adjudged (at least by some scholars) the most accurate translation of the holy scriptures.

 

[challupa]

There are Bible scholars who disagree with you, and there are other Bible translations that render the verse similar to the NWT.

1903 “with the blood of His own Son” The Holy Bible in Modern English, by
F. Fenton, London.
1966 “through the death of his own Son” Today’s English Version, American Bible
Society, New York.​

. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ι̉́διος [i′di·os] something should be said about the use of ὁ ι̉́διος [ho i′di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’”
Thus it is not without cause the verse is rendered in the NWT.

Also, putting the word 'scholars' in quotations and your questioning the qualifications of the translators of the NWT reminds one of the Pharisee's response to Christ.
The NWT translators chose to remain unknown so the NWT can be judged on its merits, not the "credentials" of it's translators. As mentioned, the NWT has been adjudged (at least by some scholars) the most accurate translation of the holy scriptures.

There are bible scholars that will disagree with anything. Pick your flavor, you can find one that agrees with your views.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There are Bible scholars who disagree with you, and there are other Bible translations that render the verse similar to the NWT.

Yea, this means absolutely nothing considering I posted a few bibles that DO agree with me. The majority of scholars agree while some don't...so what....

The main point is there is NO manuscript support to render the word [Son] at the end of that verse because some scholar believes it's OK to place it there so the general rule is not to render the verse that way. Thats the reason why more reliable translations don't.

Here's a decent critique;
For an Answer: Chrsitian Apologetics - Acts 20:28

These scholars and linguistic professionals, although critiquing John 1:1, had this to say about the renderings. The information was taken from Blue Letter Bible - Home Page. I like the site because they offer some useful tools.

NOTE: My focus is not to start a whole new debate on John but to show that support for the NWT is not how you make it out to be.

Blue Letter Bible - Study Tools

DR. J.R. MANTEY (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159, of the Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation". "Obsolete and incorrect". "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god."​

DR. BRUCE M. METZGER of Princeton University (Professor New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation...", "erroneous...", "pernicious..." "reprehensible...". "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."​

DR. SAMUEL J. MIKOLASKI of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"​

DR. PAUL L. KAUFFMAN of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses [translators] evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."​

DR. CHARLES L. FEINBERG of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."​

DR. JAMES L. BOYER of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek scholar who would agree to the interpretation of this [John 1:1] verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses... I have never encountered one of them [Society member] who had any knowledge of the Greek language."​

DR. WALTER MARTIN (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation 'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary, and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language, many of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."​

DR. WILLIAN BARCLAY of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: 'the Word was a god.' a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."​

DR. F.F. BRUCE of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'and the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction... 'a god' would be totally indefensible."​

(The late Dr. Barclay and Dr. Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Each have New Testament translations in print.)​

DR. ERNEST C. COLWELL of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb... this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas: 'My Lord and my God.'--John 20:28."​

DR. PHILIP B. HARNER of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form the John actually uses, the word THEOS is placed at the beginning for emphasis [thus ruling out the 'a god' translation]."​

DR. J. JOHNSON of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct... I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."​

DR. EUGENE A. NIDA, head of Translation Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Responsible for the Good News Bible -- the committee worked under him.)​

DR. B.F. WESTCOTT (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the English part -- is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in John 4:24. It is necessarily without the article... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by [this] form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God', and so included in the unity of the Godhead."​

DR. J.J. GRIESBACH (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the English part -- is used in the Society's publication The Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."​

Also, putting the word 'scholars' in quotations and your questioning the qualifications of the translators of the NWT reminds one of the Pharisee's response to Christ.
The NWT translators chose to remain unknown so the NWT can be judged on its merits, not the "credentials" of it's translators. As mentioned, the NWT has been adjudged (at least by some scholars) the most accurate translation of the holy scriptures.

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with asking for the scholarly credentials of those in a position and responsibility of translating these scriptures. You they don't want to be known and and the JW can't or won't produce them then there's no point in trusting their supposed ability to render accurately. As you can see from the above some find it in error. In fact any other bible you can find out who had a hand at the renderings.

 

[AxisMundi]

Surely you don't mean to say ALL scientists say it's science. Many scientists say the TOE is not science.

Hardly "many", and the further along to today that one progresses, the number gets smaller until one pretty much only has YECer pseudoscientists making the claim.