Bullying Should Be Count As More Serious With Quicker Action Taken

[Harbal]

It's obsessed with everyone. It's a delicate petal. It thinks it's fine to abuse people constantly - they and their tag-team partner, and when it gets a bit back, it harbours it like there's no tomorrow, then takes it out of context to spread poison with so it can excuse himself for its iniquities.

I have found great pleasure putting it on ignore. That way I can watch it accumulate its loathing of me, and state inaccuracies, while I don't need to see its circular reasoning.

Stop snivelling like a little girl who's had her pony tail pulled. If you want to express your annoying opinions online, you need to learn how to stand up for yourself.

 

[Kev45]

It's obsessed with everyone. It's a delicate petal. It thinks it's fine to abuse people constantly - they and their tag-team partner, and when it gets a bit back, it harbours it like there's no tomorrow, then takes it out of context to spread poison with so it can excuse himself for its iniquities.

I have found great pleasure putting it on ignore. That way I can watch it accumulate its loathing of me, and state inaccuracies, while I don't need to see its circular reasoning.

I guess that it is still upset about this.

This one is funny. Yes, that is indeed what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Because that's what the Bible teaches. When you argue Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings, you're arguing the Bible's teachings. You're a funny guy. Not very bright, but yeah, quite funny."

The same "Bible teachings" that your "faith" published in the 1960s, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, right?

In 1961 to be precise, only 63 years ago, yes?

An alleged translation of the original Holy Scriptures, right?

That's what you are referring to here, and NOT in fact the "Bible", right?

Just a few examples in the following, but there are many, many more.

A translation which systematically (deliberately) omitted more than 30 full verses and or part verses because that information clashed with existing Jehovah Witness doctrine, right?

That claims Christ died on a stake because Jehovah Witness leaders no longer believed that he was crucified on a cross.

A doctrine which denies hell exists, and so the translators did not include any biblical references to nor even translations of hell in general.

The translating committee, five men, who were completely anonymous and therefore not open to any public scrutiny by biblical scholars (not you, real ones) to check their academic background/qualifications and or their suitability to translate original Holy Scripture.

Did any of the five men even understand Aramaic, Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek, do you know?

EDITED: This is another important point. The "committee" only checked the work of the actual translators who did the bulk of the work and who translated Holy Scriptures into English (also anonymous). We still don't even know if the "committee" spoke/understood original Holy Scriptures languages.

In a passage in Colossians 1:16, their translation inserted the word “other” although "other" isn't in the original Greek text. This is important to point out because Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity. This translation (edit) gives the false impression that Christ is a creation, mirroring Jehovah Witness doctrine, and, when the original text said no such thing. Jehovah Witnesses believe there is only one "God" (with a capital g) and that Christ was NOT physically resurrected.

Etc.

Slyly removing or adding a word here and there to deceitfully manipulate the context/meaning of a passage or even an entire verse, right?

Because Jehovah Witnesses believe that doctrine dictates Holy Scripture, it is therefore acceptable for them to revise and edit Holy Scripture to suit their stance. Rather than the opposite, that in fact Holy Scripture dictates doctrine, or should, right?

The well regarded English academic H.H. Rowley, an Old Testament scholar, described the translation as "an insult to the word of God" and "a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated".

Professor Charles Feinberg, a dean at Talbot School of Theology, and a world renowned biblical expert specializing in Jewish history and the Old Testament said "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

The respected Professor James A. Beverley, a Research Professor at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto, specializing in American religion and who advices his government about religious groups, accuses Jehovah Witnesses of "false prophesy" and described the faith as "fitting the model of a cult".

Professor Bruce Metzger, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, another biblical scholar, a Bible translator and textual critic, alongside serving on various religious boards, described the translation as "frightful".

Far too many views from 'experts' to list here.

Other well respected biblical scholars argue the Jehovah Witness faith is not even a religion, because it denies "essential doctrines".

100s of published and well regarded academic papers and theological/biblical works between them.

It's a tough decision, but who to trust here, the actual experts or a bunch of anonymous cowboys?

"Bible teachings".

Oh, dearie me.

You're a funny guy. Not very bright, but yeah, quite funny."

Psst btw, I am guessing that it is not "quite" so "funny" today, is it, laughing boy?

 

[Altair]

It's obsessed with everyone. It's a delicate petal. It thinks it's fine to abuse people constantly - they and their tag-team partner, and when it gets a bit back, it harbours it like there's no tomorrow, then takes it out of context to spread poison with so it can excuse himself for its iniquities.

I have found great pleasure putting it on ignore. That way I can watch it accumulate its loathing of me, and state inaccuracies, while I don't need to see its circular reasoning.

YOU....Still haven't answered MY question about Adam and Eve. !

 

[Happy_Scott]

This raises a few questions mate.
1) If you were in a seat of authority in a place, and this kind of thing happened, what would you do?

- Threat of execution or exile.

2) How would you minimise it without having to ban everyone?

- Threat of execution or exile.

3) How will you advise those who are *reactive* (like me) to not get so inflamed when the vermin are present?

-Threat of execution or exile.

4) What can you do about it from your current situation?

-Threat of execution or exile.

5) How can you make a chat experience where this doesn't happen? and

-Threat of execution or exile.

6) Is there some part that you can do to prevent it happening to some degree as much as your own reaction goes?

-- Threat of execution or exile.