own" part have you? According to the Vatican itself, in the introduction to the Emphatic Diaglott, the 'standard' King James has thousands of errors and was intentionally biased. The New World Translation was taken from the oldest translations available at the time and has far fewer errors. You'd know this if you were interested in actually getting your info 'from the horse's mouth' instead of an "expose" website where the data can be changed and manipulated to suit the author's current prejudices. That is why we prefer to use print; far more difficult to change or deny something once it's out.
The website you mentioned has information that is rather suspect because a: they do not list the actual issues, let alone the articles, in question, and b: they're neither up to date, nor do they mention the pre 1940 articles on blood. Their information is incomplete and unsubstantiated. As far as what is "acceptable" it is not arbitrary I will return later with the actual requirements later.
I have found that when an entire website is dedicated to debunking a particular point of view, system of beliefs or group of people, the object of their attack usually has more than a little credibility and that the author of said site has a dubious motive or is looking for a justification of prejudices. I have seen more lies and falsehoods spew from "exposing the truth about..." sites that from anywhere else.
I asked that this not be turned into a debate. He does not need sympathy and I was only trying to stand testament to the fact that a young man, a friend of mine, died for what he believed. But by perpetuating an attack on my people you forced me to reply.
Please let this end here. This is not the place for this. |
