I have a question here. Why is it that in these modern times, several African countries like Nigeria have seen massive conversions from Christianity to Islam? This is not the same as in Sudan where ethnic cleansing is being done.

I dont think they were coerced, there obviously is something very attractive about Islam. Perhaps, the key to stopping the advance of this cult is to find this out.
This is happening in a lot of the Asian ccuntries too. Prisons in the US have seen an alarming conversion rate.

Posted by: Mohd Is Satan at March 23, 2006 11:29 AM

Mohd Is Satan:

Although I am not conversant in Nigerian internal matters and am free only to offer conjecture, offer it I will.

It appears to me that Islam relieves the adherent of most of the burden of personal responsibility. The regulation of life is nearly complete. Moreover, the failures in one's life can be accounted for by a simple paradigm shift. Have a problem with anger? Well, no need to control that anger, simply direct it towards the enemies of Islam. Have a problem with covetousness? Likewise, don't control the covetousness, direct it towards the infidels. They have no rights. Have a problem with controlling your sex drive? Well, as a new Moslem you're entitled to four women as wives and as many as you please as slaves, particularly infidel women. Help yourself. And don't worry about being honest and forthright with non-Moslems.

If my hypothesis is right, then I would guess that Islam attracts many hardcore criminal types, individuals of low moral caliber as well as the weak-minded. These individuals are looking for a way to re-arrange their view of the world and their place in it without allowing for a true change in their inner heart and mind.

Posted by: Chatillon at March 23, 2006 12:11 PM

Well, a nod to that old Algerian Berber named Augustine (Well, he probably had a fair amount of Latin blood, too), on whose shoulders stand both Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.

Then again, I have to admit I'm probably worse than the Muslims: the guy I see as the ideal man (God Incarnate as well) lived well over 19 centuries ago; and his witnesses also left us with an infallible, unchanegeable book (in addition to the one they inherited from Judaism).

And, yes, I would love to see the world convert to my views, too.

Posted by: Kepha at March 23, 2006 12:22 PM

Why is it that in these modern times, several African countries like Nigeria have seen massive conversions from Christianity to Islam

Where are you getting your figures from for those 'massive' conversions? Most likely, directly or indirectly, from mahometan propaganda.

I posted this link earlier, but its so heartening, its worth another look.

Posted by: thomas ato at March 23, 2006 12:26 PM

Well, Kepha, there is no major Christian denomination that I know of that regards the Bible as "infallible". They may think it is an "inspired" document, but they do acknowledge it as being written by ordinary fallible human beings.

As a general observation -

I think many people nowadays probably associate Christianity with Europe and really do not know that it was once widespread in the Middle East and North Africa. It was a case of its being pushed out its homelands - I wonder if anyone stopped teenagers in the street in Paris or Berlin or New York or Sydney and asked them whether they'd know that.

It's good you mentioned Saint Augustine, famous for his meditations on the nature of time as well as for his theology, and for good or ill never out of the mind of Christendom or the West: there's even a fragment from Augustine's Confessions in The Wasteland.

The playwright Terence was a Berber, too - here's his most famous quotation in several languages:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~josvg/cits/terence/index.html

And Apuleius from Madaurus (now Mdaourouch) deserves a mention, too, for his comic masterpiece The Golden Ass.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 23, 2006 1:08 PM

Mohd:

This is a good survey of that situation in Nigeria.

THE SPREAD OF ISLAM IN NIGERIA
A HISTORICAL SURVEY by Joseph Kenny, O.P.
Paper given at Conference on Sharî`a in Nigeria
Spiritan Institute of Theology, Enugu
22-24 March 2001

http://www.diafrica.org/nigeriaop/kenny/Sist.htm

Posted by: elcordobes at March 23, 2006 1:14 PM

I found a quote from a mid-19th century Catholic prelate to the effect that slaves from Darfur --specifically Darfur-- were being imported into the Ottoman Empire at that time, and sold openly in slave markets. Then I looked at Bernard Lewis' Race and Slavery in the Middle East [title?] and found several other references to the export of slaves from Darfur --specifically-- to the Muslim Middle East. Here's the link:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/slaves-from-darfur-around-1850-nothing.html

Posted by: Eliyahu at March 23, 2006 1:32 PM

Muslim leaders should be lining up to apologise to all non-Christians for their treatment of non-Muslims!

Why is it not happening?

If the reverse was true then the world would know as Muslims call foul play!

Posted by: Gerry at March 23, 2006 2:05 PM

Yikes.

I reread my earlier post in this thread and realize that it speaks to Moslem recruitment in prison fairly well, but nothing at all regarding Nigeria. My apologies.

Other posters have correctly questioned the assertion as to whether the conversions to Islam from Christianity are happening at all. It was not my intention to impugn the general moral standards of non-Moslem Nigerians.

I retain my qualms concerning the moral compass used by Moslems and converts to Islam, however.

Posted by: Chatillon at March 23, 2006 2:33 PM

I would like to add something regarding Yojimbo's thought that no major Christian denominations regard the Bible as infallible.

I have spoken to quite a few Jehovah’s witnesses over the last few years and I can categorically state that they do believe just that. What they believe is fallible is someone’s perception of what truth the bible holds.

What’s interesting to note about this group is that, contrary to other groups, their congregations and conversions have been on a steady increase over the past few decades.

Why is this?

Well maybe it’s a refusal to let modern day dogma cloud the truths told in the bible. Equally maybe it’s the way they encourage their followers to question their own beliefs and, where there is conflict, use the bible to ascertain the correct course to follow. Or maybe it might be because they never tell you ‘God works in mysterious ways’, instead giving you reasons why things happen.

But before I stray off topic to severely I’d like to agree with Chatillon in what he/she said in their first post. Islam does offer a lot to a lazy person looking for salvation without much sacrifice. The more I find out about Islam the more I worry about the way things are heading. But at the same time I feel more enlightened and as such am armed to fight the threat.

Posted by: Xeno at March 23, 2006 6:54 PM

Kepha, Yojimbo, and Xeno,

Actually both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches consider the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. However, infallibility is defined as a perfect guide to faith and morals. It has never been considered to be a text on science, technology or even history.

For this reason Catholics and Orthodox don't worry too much about the age of the earth or whether Balaam's donkey could actually talk. What we do worry about is what we can learn from these texts.

And yes, Jesus Christ is the perfect man and also perfect God. So we do try to pattern our lives after his and consider his death and resurrection the means of the world's salvation. But, unlike Muhhammed, Jesus did not ordain or establish an earthly political system or command us to conquer the world through Jihad. Yes we desire that all come to Him but we're not going to execute those who don't. God is the only righteous judge, not us.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 23, 2006 7:33 PM

Now back on topic. There is a Berber independence movement for Kabilya (my spelling may be off) that rejects the Arab imperial conquest of the Berbers.

Incidently, "that athiest Muammar Qaddafi" (Bin Laden's description) may be a Berber although some think his mother was Eritrean. Nevertheless, he could redefine himself as a voice for the oppressed Berbers and gain a lot of support across the Sahara.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 23, 2006 7:40 PM

Provoslavni

The Catholic church actually has a sin called Bibliolatry. The excessive worship of the Bible (infallible literalism for instance) is heretical. The Bible exists within the living Church as an infallible 'source' of life not as a tyrannical code of Pharisaic legalisms - (the spirit vs. the letter etc.). The Quran is not a living book among a living people. It is dead book among a dead people.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 23, 2006 7:52 PM

Guys,
Thanks for your response to my question. I read the content given through links too. Very informative and well, you provided some good reassuring news. However, I shall not be complacent but work towards exposing the cult's true nature.

Posted by: Mohd Is Satan at March 23, 2006 8:32 PM

poetcomic1,
Exactly! Isn't that what I wrote? The bible is infallible as a guide to faith and morals. Not to science, history, etc. We learn our faith from it, we don't take parables like Genesis 1-3 or Baalam's donkey as literal history.

Unfortunately, the Muslims don't have such nuances with their scripture since they think it was God dictating it word for word by the Angel to the prophet Mo. Isn't it curious that God told Muslims to have only foyur wives but Mo could have as many as he wanted? As the SNL Church Lady used to say "How Convenient!"

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 24, 2006 12:45 AM

Provoslavny: that is a wonderful thought about Gheddafi - considering that in matters of self-reinvention he makes Madonna look like a stick-in-the-mud - but somehow I don't think so. His most recent moves have been to unleash the Islamic Brotherhood, which he had suppressed for decades, against Italian targets, and restate his ancient and grotesque claim for "reparations" for the colonial period. (To realize how absurd that is, you ought to be aware that the Italian expense account in its Lybian colony and later region was always negative; Italy always spent more in Lybia than she got from it, and the country, which had no roads or railways before the Italians came, inherited from them an infrastructure worthy of a Western nation. Even Rommel and his German officers were impressed by the "civilizing work" of the Italians in Lybia.)

Posted by: Paolo at March 24, 2006 4:50 AM

Xeno: before you got the Jehova's Witnesses to talk to you, which they are only too happy to do, you ought to have found out something about them. And if you had, you would have found out that they have rewritten the same document they regard as "infallible", to the point where the JW version is unacceptable to any properly Christian denomination. Oh, and they do not accept that Christ was God, which means they are not Christian either. In terms of internal honesty and adherence to fact, they are not very different from Muslims.

Posted by: Paolo at March 24, 2006 4:56 AM

As Qaddafy and his real or imagined Berber ancestry have been raised in the thread above, the following past posting is re-presented as a public service:

"Truth from Tripolitania!

This just in. Muammar Khadafy, the man whose Homeric epithet is "mercurial," and who not infrequently, in his interviews, will offer up truth and fantasy in equal parts, has told a hom e truth abroad. Or rather, two. In the first place, he said that there is "not room for two viable states" between the Jordan and the Mediterranean (we'll ignore his "Israstine" solution, which is simply a prescription for the final subjugation of the Jews to the overbreeding and overbearing "Palestinian" Arabs).

But it is his second truth, accidentally spilled, that needs to be focused on: that the admission of Turkey to the E.U. is devoutly wished for even by the Arabs who hate the Turks, because they regard it, rightly, as a major step in the islamization of Europe, or put another way, the takeover, by adherents of the belief-system of Islam, of the land mass which gave rise to, and possesses still all the cultural treasures of, Western civilization.

Qaddafy is "mercurial" just as much as Odysseus is "wily" or Athena "grey-eyed" or the dawn "rosy-fingered." Now he is the great leader of the Arabs of the Maghreb, a new Abd el-Kader. And now he is the Great Libyan Leader of His Grateful Libyan People, with his Little Green Book, and his unorthodox view of Islam, and all the rest of the trappings of perfection and greatness, primitive third-world style. Now he is the clever weapons man, outsmarting the West, putting his chemical weapons plant deep underground, and covering up his frantic but futile nuclear project with that supposed Great Man-Made River Project. And now he is the leader of the Arabs, the only honest man among them, and the bane -- and even the would-be assassinator of -- the corrupt members of the House of Al-Saud. And now he is no longer the Great Leader of the Arabs (wasn't that Saddam Hussein's role, and before him, that of Nasser? Who is the latest Great Leader? Hard to keep up with them, they rise and fall so fast), because he, Muammar Khaddafy, is fed up with the people he calls "the Arabs," and has become -- an African, the Great Leader of Africa (including the Africa that provided such a nice steady supply of black slaves for Muslim Arabs, and still does, and who except an occasional reporter for Corriere della Sera is going to report on the persecution and murder of black immigrants in Libya, or even remember when, during the anti-African riots a decade ago, the hanging of a black Chadian diplomat on the street in Tripoli? I mean, who can remember that sort of thing?). Libya is in Africa, Khaddafy runs Libya, so of course Khaddafy now has a message, and a meaning, for all of Africa.,

Great Leader of Libya, Great Leader of the Arabs, Great Leader of the Africans (take your pick). But then why, when we look at him, does only Ozymandias come to mind?

But remember that Khaddafy does, occasionally, drop into the truth. And among the nonsense and silliness of his words to that Italian interviewer (Khaddafy would, on the whole, rather be in Philadelphia -- I mean, Perugia -- instead of in Tripoli or anywhere where there ae Muslims and Arabs. In fact, not only Perugia, but even the smallest Italian hill town contains more culture, more humane behavior, more places of interest, more humor, more wit, than all of Libya or indded, than all of the Maghreb. And that is because of what a certain belief-system does to people.

Turkey's future entry into the E.U. (which will NOT happen) is, Khaddafy points out, seen as a stalking-horse, or Trojan horse, or horse of a different color (green), and that entry isearnestly desired by other Muslims, even by Arabs who do not like the Turks. For those Arabs, and other Muslims, see Turksih entry into the E.U. as both a way to facilitate the illegal entry of other Muslims through Turkey (which of course it would be), but more importantly as a way to push the E.U. completely into the arms of Islam. For as 70 or by then, 80 million Turks join the E.U., Turkey will be the most populous country in the E.U., and five or ten million of those Turks, in a country with huge unemployment, the highest in that E.U., will fan out across Europe, for work or for study, they will build mosques. They will build madrasas. They will become more, not less, fervent in their Islam -- just as the Turks in Germany have. For in their physical baggage will be, not the works of Ataturk, but the Qur'an. And as they meet, as inevitably they must, as all people do, with difficulties, as they feel, as all immigrtants must, a certain homesickness and longing, they will turn for comfort to Islam, to its teachings, to its constant message that You, Believers, Are the Best, and You, Believers, Deserve to Dominate and Not to Be Dominated. What a wonderful message, how soothing, how uplifting, and what a comfort in days of despair or loneliness or any kind of personal or professional desarroi or disappointment.

And those Turks will not help to "unite" Europe, but rather, will keep the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, who deserve a chance to improve their own lot after four decades of rule by ideological puppets and agents of the Soviet Union. For instead of hiring Bulgarians and Hungarians and Rumanians, some of whom might wish to start as workers in France or Italy, both to be trained, or to acquire know--how that can be used at home, or simply to earn money som of which would undoubtedly be remitted home, all of that work will be taken -- in this new market that is built not with any regard for Europe as a civilization, as a matter of culture, of thought, of art and science, but purely as a place where homo economicus rules. What is the E.U. but the most extreme example of a Midwestern Chamber of Commerce, where business and boosterism for business are everything, and nothing else matters.

And as those Turks take the low-paying jobs (but what is the real price of those workers, what is the price that is not internalized or shown in their wages?), and the long-suffering peoples of Easstern and Central Europe cannot find work in the west, even though it is they who would without difficulty integrate, for in their mental baggage they bring no belief-system, as the Turks do, and will even more to the Lands of the Infidels, a belief-system that that only lead, inevitably, to a way of life for the the indigenous Infidels that is much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous, and which will lead -- has already led -- to some Infidels simply packing up for the U.S., Canada, Australia. All of which, of course, are also, simultaneously, under assault from Islam without and within.

Perhaps the last act of Khaddafy might be, as suggested afew days ago, to get dreams of grandeur that paint him as the great "Berber leader" of North Africa, so that he might use Libyan money to re-berberize those who over the centuries have come tobelieve that they are Arabs when in fact they are Arabic-speaking Berbers. If "the Arabs" can be reduced to their essential presence in the peninsula, that can only help in the containment of Islam. Khaddafy's rhetoric over the years suggests he has a problem with the whole idea of "the Arabs." They, in turn, have anathematized him. Imagine all those "Arab" Algerians or "Arab" Moroccans realizing, perhaps through the irrefutable work on Berber and Arab DNA in North Africa (see the work of G. Semana and other French investigators in Rennes on the genetics of the Berbers and Arabs in Tunisia)-- that they are "proud Berbers," and starting to speak Tamazight, and meeting with their friends and reading Kateb Yacine denouncing Arab imperialism, and all the rest. There could even be secret Berber meetings, in Paris, Marseille, and Algeria itself, in the Kabylia.

And this campaign for Berberia would provide Khaddafy's son, by the way, with a much-desired opportunity to get involved with Italian cinema as he already has with Italian soccer teams. He could produce a movie all about the re-awakening of Berber consciousness in North Africa, financed by Libya. Shot -- well, in Morocco, or if things get too hot, in Arizona.

Now, as I see it, the main problem we have is what to call that movie about the Great Berber Uprising that will follow upon the Great Awakening of Berber Consciousness, financed in part by the Great Self-Appointed Leader of the Berbers, Muammar Khaddafy?

So here's my suggestion, especially fitting because Khaddafy fils is no doubt a big Fellini fan.

What about: Notti di Kabylia?

Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2004 11:52 AM

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2006 10:10 AM

Paolo,
You're correct about Qaddafy's recent unvaoury acts but if as BinLaden accuses "that athiest Qaddafy" believes in nothing except himself, then he might be convinced to re-package himself as the liberator of the Berbers from Arab Islamic tyranny. I think Hughs analysis is correct.

By the way, do we need to find any consistency on how to transliterate his name? I've even used two different spellings in the same paragraph but that's probably because I read sources from so many different countries. I guess it doesn't really matter since we all know who we're talking about. I wonder if someone could contact a Libyan embassy to see if Qaffafi/Khadaffy has a personal preference??? :)

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 24, 2006 3:31 PM

Paolo,
Your observations about Italy's record in Libya is probably true. I have many Eritrean friends and every single one of them is pro-Italian to the core. The see the Italian era as a goden age. The see the brief period of British rule 1941-1953 as a tyranny matched only by the Hell on Earth under the communist Dergue.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 24, 2006 3:44 PM

Sorry to go a bit off topic here but this is a response to a previous post directed towards me.

Paolo,

I did indeed find out quite a lot about the Witnesses and their organisation.

The book you say they ‘rewrote’ is now classed as a ‘translation’ by academics and not a ‘version’ (dictionary definition would be good to use here) like the common everyday bible you would find in most ‘proper’ (define that please) Christian denominations. The problem with versions is that they are just that, someone’s version, King James in this instance. The Witnesses didn’t just rearrange the book to suit their beliefs. Rather ‘ordinary’ Christians, in the latter part of the 19th century, arranged to get it professionally translated, by academics not themselves, and the resulting differences in belief are due to this fact.

You are correct that they do not recognise the trinity doctrine, and I understand why, as the bible makes no reference to a 3 in 1 God. Just one quick example.

If Jesus was God then why, when nearing his death whilst up on the torture stake, did he cry out. ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Matthew 27:46

He surely wasn’t talking to himself was he?

Perhaps you could view these texts too and see what you think:
De 6:4, Mal 2:10, Mr 10:18, Ro 3:29-30, Re 3:14, Col 1:15, Isa 44:6, 1Co 11:3, Joh 20:17, Re 1:6. There are so many more if you are interested.

Incidentally have you ever read the official trinity doctrine?

Paolo said…(regarding JW’s)

‘In terms of internal honesty and adherence to fact, they are not very different from Muslims’

That is a very ignorant thing to say about something you seem (you may prove me wrong on this count) to have only a slight understanding of. After reading your other posts I was surprised you ended on such a note. My email is stelladrinker@msn.com . I would welcome a chance to converse with you, politely, about these differences as getting another view on something can lead to enlightenment.

Incidentally, for the record, I am not a Jehovah’s Witness.

Posted by: Xeno at March 24, 2006 8:33 PM

I did not realize that Xeno actually was a Jehova's Witness. I wish s/he had not misrepresented his/her position as that of an outside observer, because his/her answer makes it obvious that s/he bought into the whole Jehova's Witness doctrine. A number of evident misstatements (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity is stated explicitly at the end of the Gospel of Matthew and implicitly in several places in the Epistles of Paul, and Jesus repeatedly identified himself with God) show that he has never read the Bible except in a J'sW light, in which case it is perfectly useless to argue with him here - it is the wrong place for a start, and only a long explanation of actual fact would serve to even sow doubt in his established belief system. Well, sir, you look at Jesus your way, and I will look at Him His way. And let us stop right here, because the only point of this blog is to fight political Islam, and the misconceptions or otherwise about the Arians of our days are not very important in this context.

Posted by: Paolo at March 26, 2006 6:08 AM

Provoslavni, I always use the Italian transliteration from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet, unless of course there is an established local system - e.g. the Chinese pinyn or the older Wade-Giles systems for Chinese. I have seen Gheddafi/Qadhafy's name spelled at least four different ways, so clearly there is no established form.

The results of Italian colonialism were variable. Somalia does not have much to thank us for. On the other hand I heard the same story from Greeks from the Dodecanesos, which was an Italian colony before 1945: while they would not willingly bad-mouth the Greek ethnos, Italian administration was regarded as better. The thing is that Italian colonies were to a large extent a piece of prestige spending, trying to show that Italy was a world power comparable to the British and French empires, and therefore there was a tendency to polish them until they shone. That is not to say that there were no crimes - the notorious suppression of the Senussi revolt in Cyrenaica is reputed to have cost 30,000 lives, which was a large number in pre-war Lybia - but the country was always out to prove a point, rather more than to take advantage of whatever natural resources there were. (I always thought that it is one of the jokes of history that Lybian oil was only discovered once the country had been removed from Italy. If only we had known...!)

Posted by: Paolo at March 26, 2006 6:15 AM

Paolo,

You are right that this isn't the place to be talking off topic. I initially added to this thread because of Yojimbo's thought that no denomination takes the bible literally.
But you are wrong with regards to my being a JW. I have no faith as such and don't regard myself as Christian. But I do believe your attack on the JWs required some response as it was unfounded and not in keeping with this thread.

I have knowledge of the Bible and it is with that knowledge I present an argument along with chapter references for you to check out my theories. It would have been nice to have seen some references from you, not just 'it is in there', so I can continue my research. Incidentally the JW are the only ones who, so far, have been willing to put up with my constant questioning.

You said 'In terms of internal honesty and adherence to fact....' Adherence to a perception of 'fact' whilst not really looking and studying is the problem with Islam. They do not encourage, or indeed allow, free thought and questioning on the Qu'ran. Are you following the same road? I don't think Jesus would have walked away from someone because they dared mention he might be wrong.

I did leave my email address, not to continue an argument but to understand your perception of the bible.

Posted by: Xeno at March 27, 2006 5:17 AM

Xeno: just forget it. For God's sake, the J'sWs have rewritten every passage in the Bible that contradicts their beliefs. They admit it. The passages in question are singled out in their edition by brackets. The fact that you seem wholly unaware of this fact - which every Christian who ever studied them knows - let alone your crazy claim that J'sW Bibles can be used by scholars, makes you either a J'sW or someone who knows nothing whatsoever except what they told him/her. And I am sorry, I just do not have the time or patience to put straight everyone I meet who has funny ideas about the Bible.

Posted by: Paolo at March 28, 2006 4:26 AM

Oh dear, I really seem to have touched a nerve with you haven't I.

Quote Paolo:

'For God's sake, the J'sWs have rewritten every passage in the Bible that contradicts their beliefs. They admit it. The passages in question are singled out in their edition by brackets.'

Absolute rubbish. Where are you getting this drivel?

Quote Paolo:

'let alone your crazy claim that J'sW Bibles can be used by scholars'

I think what I actually said was:

Quote Xeno:

'The book you say they ‘rewrote’ is now classed as a ‘translation’ by academics and not a ‘version’.

Their Bible is classed as a translation. That's official, like it or not. Your Bible is most likely a version. It should tell you in the first few pages if this is the case. Have a look.

And I am not surprised you haven't got the time to discuss peoples 'funny' ideas. If you did find the time you may have to start wrestling with your conscience.

Anyway as I stated before, when I initially mentioned the Witnesses it was to answer someone’s observation about whether people take the bible literally. I don't know why you chose to attack the Witnesses because of my mentioning and I am sure it's a personal thing for you. But perhaps you could show a little more respect for other people’s beliefs in future. Even if you do think they are daft.

Posted by: Xeno at March 28, 2006 1:03 PM

Xeno: I can't imagine where you got your bullshit, if not from a particularly seditious J'sW. I have seen the pseudo-Bibles with the brackets myself. When I was half the age I am now, I argued with a J'sW friend for months. As for "version" vs. "translation", I am a translator myself, and I know what a translation is. I know that adding in bits or rewriting bits to prove a point is not "translation". Where the Hell, even in the current climate of relativism and surrender of thought, did you find an "academic" so contemptous of the most basic points of truth and honesty as to blur the difference? Incidentally, I have enough Ancient Greek to be able to read a lot of the New Testament for myself and check the versions.

You are obviously totally ignorant of what the J'sW are. They started as a lay bible study group in 1870s New York City, not translating anything, but using the old KJV version. When they reached their Arian conclusions, they took on themselves to rewrite that Bible. It is only after the fact, after the transformation of the study group into a church, after the claim of prophetic authority by the leaders, after the prediction that the world was to end in 1914, then 1918, that any of them even began to study Hebraic, Aramaic and Greek. There is nothing scholarly about their attitude, and everything of a provincial self-taught clique which took on itself to measure the universe with its own home-made compasses. Even their teaching has nothing new about it: as "Arianism", it was one of the first heresies to be condemned by the Church, and remains, incidentally, one of the main features of classical Islam.

Posted by: Paolo at March 28, 2006 6:04 PM

Paolo

Thank you for your response. It is a shame I had to wind you up so just to get a decent response.

I am not, as you put it, ignorant of what J'sW are about and everything you wrote in the second paragraph agrees with what I know. Up to the point you say there is nothing scholarly about their attitude. You might not agree with their attitude but that doesn't make them any the less scholarly for it.

This link is for people who stumble across these posts and want to know about "Arianism".

http://www.biblestudents.org/absco/booklets/trinity/

Now I can’t argue as to what you saw in this pseudo-Bible of yours but I can tell you the copy I own has no such brackets in. It’s not my only copy, I own various versions as well, as I do like to refer to various copies to get an overall idea of what is different.

Also, unfortunately, I am not a translator so have to rely on reading works second hand. I did not find an "academic", as I have already said, people in charge of these things are happy to refer to the J’sWs Bible as a translation. You may disagree but I can only go by what is stated in the front of the Bible itself, whoever’s copy I may be looking at. If they are trying to pass off their copy as a translation, when it isn't, don't you think the powers that be in the church would have done something about it by now?

Or perhaps I misunderstand just exactly what you can or cannot get away with these days as regards to misleading advertisement. In which case put me right.

Posted by: Xeno at March 29, 2006 5:31 AM