- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 28 2011,02:21) Hey Charles, What did you think when you found out the dude that YOUR source quoted about John 1:1 is one of the many Trinitarian scholars who acknowledge THREE possible translations of 1:1c?
Here is his quote:
“If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god“. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.“ C. H. DoddQuote What did you think when you found out the dude that YOUR source quoted about John 1:1 is one of the many Trinitarian scholars who acknowledge THREE possible translations of 1:1c? Mike,
what would be your comments regarding Dodd's comments in full??
Here are Dodd's comments in full:
“If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole” (The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977).
Dodd doesn't say “a god” is an “acceptable” translation. He says it can't be faulted as a “literal” translation, but there's a big difference. Notice how Dodd qualifies the quote I provided: “If translation…” His point is that translation is not merely a wooden substitution of one English word for one Greek word. If it were, “a god” could not be “faulted.” However, “only grammatical considerations” do not a proper translation make!
Dodd cites several examples where theos has the meaning of the “essence” of God (p. 104). He then concludes that the NEB translation “What God was the Word also was” is “an attempt” to get at the idea that John was expressing – namely, that in every sense that the Father is God, the Logos is also God (p. 104).
In this view, Dodd is in agreement with the overwhelming number of commentators and grammarians who've written on this subject.
If the WT and Witness apologists use Dodd to defend the NWT translation in the face of accusations that it is ungrammatical, I cannot find fault with such a citation. However, that's not what this Jehovah's Witness was saying. He was advocating the NWT as a translation supported by scholars like Dodd. His selective quotation gives the impression that Dodd believes such a translation
Charles
Mike,
First, you never answered my question from a while ago-Why should I pay attention to your answers or words if they are not you? Whose thoughts and opinions are they?
Second, You are saying my source is blatantly inaccurate. You quote a scripture that is not even close to the same context. You then post alot of translations about the scripture , and say “Why do the OTHER TRANSLATORS render “ego eimi” as “I HAVE BEEN” in 14:9, but REFUSE to use that same common sense and that same integration of the words into the context in 8:58?”,
BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE CONTEXT, AND THEY WEREN'T BIASED LIKE YOU AND THE JW'S.
Translation is difficult, Mikeboll, and when someone is biased, they render intracate phrases to fit THIER understanding.
Tell me, why would God let his word be sent to the world wrong for all those centurys? NO! It was right, and Jesus was Savior, God, And King. THEN, just like it said in scripture of the last days, Men would pervert the words of truth to fit thier understanding. They tell people ther is no hell, Jesus is not god and do not worship him, and say we will live on this world as it is and hold hands and sing kumbya forever. And you spend thousands of post defending them and pretend to be an average Joe just debating others for accuracy. I don't believe you. I don't pay attention to you anyway, because like you said, your words are not you.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 01 2012,11:17) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 31 2011,12:59) THEREFORE: BEHOLD I AND THE CHILDREN JESUS MAN GOD HAS GIVEN ME!
Sorry Charlie,It is Jesus doing the speaking, and he is saying, “Here I (Jesus) am, and the children (of God, as we all are) God has given me (out of the world).”
It is a quote of Isaiah 8:18, and is supported by this scripture:
John 17:6
[ Jesus Prays for His Disciples ] “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.No twisting necessary, Charles.
Quote Sorry Charlie, It is Jesus doing the speaking, and he is saying, “Here I (Jesus) am, and the children (of God, as we all are) God has given me (out of the world).”
Mike,
I expected so from you lets leave it at that for now!!
Now to whom is the reference in:
11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
So it is clear here that Jesus sanstified us through His death in order to be called brothers to Him,since Jesus has the same body as ours except sin.
Do you agree???
Quote (mikeangel @ Jan. 01 2012,15:27) First, you never answered my question from a while ago-Why should I pay attention to your answers or words if they are not you? Whose thoughts and opinions are they?
They are MY thoughts, Mark.Can't you see through your blinders that your word “whose” and my word “MY” reflect ownership? You are asking who my thoughts BELONG TO. And I'm telling you that MY thoughts BELONG TO me. Mark, things that BELONG TO us are not us – but instead things that BELONG TO us.
Quote (mikeangel @ Jan. 01 2012,15:27) Second, You are saying my source is blatantly inaccurate.
This is what your source said:
The NWT translates the Greek words “ego eimi” as “I am” every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as “I have been”.But the NWT translates “ego eimi” as “I have been” ALSO in John 14:9. Your source is inaccurate.
Quote (mikeangel @ Jan. 01 2012,15:27) Translation is difficult, Mikeboll, and when someone is biased, they render intracate phrases to fit THIER understanding.
How true, Mark. And this is what Professor BeDuhn says about the translations he examined:
It can be said that the NWT emerges as the most accurate of the [nine] translations compared. The translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produce by single individuals.Concerning the other 8 translations, he says: To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their ‘truth’ enough. To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly that say conforms to expectations of accepted forms of modern Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, faith.
Quote (mikeangel @ Jan. 01 2012,15:27) I don't pay attention to you anyway, because like you said, your words are not you.
Well Mark, it always comes down to this eventually. You'll notice that Charles just took the same stand against me a few pages ago, when he couldn't refute the words of the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars who said there were three legitimate ways to translate John 1:1c, and Charles' preferred way is the ONLY one they eliminated because of context.It seems that Trinitarians and non-preexisters all have this in common. Whenever I really buckle down and force them to see the truth of any particular issue, it becomes MY fault that the truth doesn't align with their “truth”. All of a sudden, there is a problem with ME for showing them the truth, instead of there being a problem with their own flawed, unscriptural doctrines.
Mark, the truth is out there for all. You can either embrace it, no matter how bad it hurts; or you can run away from it, hold hands with your fellow believers, and sing Kum bay ya. The choice is yours.
Mark, did Jesus ever say “I am I AM” anywhere in scripture? YES or NO? (Jehovah said that phrase each and every time He ever claimed to BE Jehovah.)
Quote (carmel @ Jan. 01 2012,14:26) If the WT and Witness apologists use Dodd to defend the NWT translation in the face of accusations that it is ungrammatical, I cannot find fault with such a citation.
Enough said!
“A god” IS grammatically acceptable, and is attested to by the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NETNotes, C. H. Dodd, Greek Professor Jason Be Duhn, and Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris, who wrote:
“Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.I'll add to that this list of 70 different translations that don't say “and the Word was God”.
Charles, I spent MONTHS trying to get HN member Worshipping Jesus to acknowledge the THREE possibilities of 1:1c. He got to the point where the proof was right there in his face, and simply refused to accept that truth – just like you have now done.
And I know why, too. You guys are afraid that once you acknowledge all three………..
1. God
2. a god
3. divine………it will be an easy task to eliminate the ONLY one that doesn't fit in with 1:1b: “the word was WITH God”.
And that's really what it comes down to. We already know that Jesus is divine, so #3 would work fine. And we already know from at least three scriptures that Jesus is a god, so #2 would work fine. But unfortunately for you guys, we also know that our ONE God Almighty could not possibly be WITH our ONE God Almighty, thus eliminating #1 from the possibilities.
And you guys don't WANT your choice to be eliminated, so you choose to ignore the facts and pretend that “the Word was God” is the ONLY possible translation. That way, if there is only ONE, yours won't have the chance of being eliminated due to context.
Sorry Charlie, the truth is right there for all of us to see. You can either jump on the lifeboat of truth, or prepare yourself to go down with the ship. The info I showed you is now all over the internet. We are no longer at the mercy of what the Trinitarian “experts” tell us, because we have easy access to the TRUTH of the matter.
Quote (carmel @ Jan. 02 2012,07:57) Now to whom is the reference in: 11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
So it is clear here that Jesus sanstified us through His death in order to be called brothers to Him,
Yes Charles,
10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.God is the One who brought many sons to glory. Jesus is the one who was MADE perfect through suffering. Jesus is the one who makes men holy. And some of us will become brothers to Jesus even as we become sons to Jesus' God and our God.
Quote (jammin @ Jan. 02 2012,19:26) mikeangel, mike is having a hard time answering your questions. hehehehe
jammin,You must be reading this thread with the same eyeglasses you use to read the scriptures – because you are coming to flawed conclusions here too.
mike,
you need an eyeglasses and not me. that NWT is a biased translation mike. hahahaha
the JW use NWT to support their doctrine.
ok let us examine that NWT.in john 1:1 it says in NWT a god.
can you give me other translations that says a god in john 1:1? Quote (mikeangel @ Jan. 02 2012,03:17) Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 01 2012,02:22) Quote (mikeangel @ Jan. 01 2012,05:06) The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as “… and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was a god”. How can the Word (Jesus) be “a god” if God says in Deut 32:39, “See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me …”?
MarkEx 4:16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.
was Moses GOD
???if not ,then Jesus was like Moses if you understand
Pierre
Pierre,Was Jesus born of a Virgin? Was Moses' name suppose to make every being in the Universe kneel down to his name? Surely, you know the differance between Jesus and Moses' roles and rank. “like God” or “as God” are not “you will be God to him”. Peace
Markwhere does it says that Christ is God the father
Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
A similar ascription is more common in the Johannine writings, and for the most part incontestable. Jn. 1:1 says of the Pre-existent: kai theos en ho logos…The lack of the article, which is grammatically necessary in 1:1, is striking here, and reminds us of Philonic usage. The Logos who became flesh and revealed the invisible God was a divine being, God by nature. The man born blind has some sense of this when, after his healing, he falls down in believing adoration before Christ, who addresses him with the divine “I” (Jn. 9:38f). The final veil is removed, however, when the Risen Lord discloses Himself to Thomas and the astonished disciple exclaims: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou (Jn. 20:28). In Jn. 1:1 we have Christology: He is God in Himself. Here we have the revelation of Christ: He is God for believers. (17)
To summarize: The phrase kai theos en ho logos is most literally translated as “and the Word was God.” (Robertson, Bruce). The reason that theos is anarthrous is both that it is the predicate nominative (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) and that it is demanded by the fact that if it had the article, it would be then interchangeable with logos, which is contextually impossible. (Robertson, Dana and Mantey, Bruce, Nicoll) Colwell's rule also comes into play at this point. We have seen that the majority of scholarship sees the theos as indicating the nature of the Word, that He is God as to His nature. The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”
Hence, John 1:1 teaches that the Word is eternal (the imperfect form of eimi, en), that He has always been in communion with God (pros ton theon), and hence is an individual and recognizable as such, and that, as to His essential nature, He is God. Anything less departs from the teaching of John, and is not Biblical.
Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, commented on this verse:
The Word was God. Here the word “God” is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes. Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter, the teacher, is Very God. (8)
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 09 2011,11:15) Charles: Who is omnipotent (all powerful)? 1 Chronicles 29:11 Philippians 3:20-21 1 Chronicles 29:11
Yours, O Jehovah, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O Jehovah, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all.This scripture clearly claims that Jehovah, the Father of Jesus, is “head over all”. This scripture is matched in the NT by 1 Corinthians 11:3, which tells us that God is head, even over Christ.
Philippians 3
20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.Well, this scripture truly says that Jesus is enabled to bring everything under his control by “the power”. First, we have to figure out whose power this really is.
Exodus 4:21
Jehovah said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.Here we see that Moses has power to perform wonders and miracles. But is it really Moses' power?
Micah 5:4
He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God.This scripture is definitely about Jesus, according to Matthew 2:4-6. And this scripture tells us by whose power Jesus will act. Like Moses, Jesus' power comes FROM his God.
But the bottom line is this: Yes, Jesus has been GIVEN much power and authority by the One he calls “my God”. Does the fact that God has GIVEN power TO Jesus mean that Jesus IS the God who gave him the power in the first place?
mike
MIKE B.Is jesus guilty for not naming his father Jehovah,but instead it is always ''My father,my father.
Jesus taught us to pray''Our father who art in heaven;'' was he wrong? Should it be this way: your way: our Jehovah which art in heaven.When he was crying on the cross, ''My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me'' Was he wrong?
should we change that to ''Jehovah,Jehovah why have you forsaken me.''In rev.3:12. Jesus mention 4x my God; was he wrong?
Should we change that to My Jehovah,My Jehovah,My Jehovah, My Jehovah.It sounds as if you are introducing a brand,like the Jehovah witnesses brand is the name Jehovah; to promote the society of the kingdom hall.Because that is the purpose; not God; but the Bible tract society. They are selling a doctrine, using Gods name. God is not slow to act: O ye careless daughters, your day will come speedily; You will be visited.
greetings.
wakeup.
Hi Wake-up,
Why do you accept the Englishized name Jesus and,
at the same time, reject the Englishized name JEHOVAH?
Does this not show inconsistency and prejudice on your part?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgOr perhaps Wakeup just doesn't like to think of God having a name at all. He/She needs to read Exodus 3, where Jehovah not only told us His name through Moses, but also said that this is the name He is to be remembered by from generation to generation.
Wakeup, did you get a chance to check out that link I left in the other thread?
Do you suppose the King James people are trying to help out the JWs with name recognition?
Quote (jammin @ Jan. 02 2012,20:18) in john 1:1 it says in NWT a god.
can you give me other translations that says a god in john 1:1?
This page lists quite a few of them. It also lists many “the Word was divine”, and similar translations. 70 of them in all.Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 02 2012,21:06) Quote (mikeangel @ Jan. 02 2012,03:17) “like God” or “as God” are not “you will be God to him”.
Actually Mark,The Hebrew text says “you will be God to him”. It is English translators who change the text to “like God” and “as God”.
Quote (jammin @ Jan. 02 2012,21:07) The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”
That is a wonderful bit of info, jammin! Thanks.So now we've eliminated two of the three possible translations of 1:1c. The three possible translations are:
1. God
2. a god
3. divine/god-likeOption #1 is eliminated by the words “the Word was WITH God” in part b. And even the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NETNotes acknowledge this: The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)
And now you've just eliminated option #3 with your informative post explaining that John would have used the adjectival theios if he wanted to convey “god-like”.
jammin, that only leaves one option: “a god”.
Wow! First the Hebrews 1:1 thing, and now this! You are the best anti-Trinitarian weapon we have on HN!
GOD is divine. no argue with the divine word. but with your a god translation, many scholars do not agree to that. and what you have given to me mike says the WORD HAD THE SAME NATURE AS GOD
(16) Philip Harner, “The Word had the same nature as God”therefore you must accept that christ is equal with GOD. but according to you, you are not accepting that christ is equal with GOD.
what paul said in phil 2:6 is clearly supported by the greek scholars.you are now making contradiction with your doctrine mike. christ and GOD the father is equal in nature
what about the a god translation??
here is what other scholar says,
the following from F. F. Bruce sums up the truth pretty well:It is nowhere more sadly true than in the acquisition of Greek that “a little learning is a dangerous thing”. The uses of the Greek article, the functions of Greek prepositions, and the fine distinctions between Greek tenses are confidently expounded in public at times by men who find considerable difficulty in using these parts of speech accurately in their native tongue. (18)
A footnote appears after the comment on the article, and it says:
Those people who emphasize that the true rendering of the last clause of John 1:1 is “the word was a god”, prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.
as a matter of fact, most of the greek scholars would agree that the right translation is GOD not a god.
that a god translation would contradict what thomas said to JESUS. thomas said, MY LORD AND MY GOD! he did not say a god! thomas said GOD!
paul said christ was equal with GOD! he had the same nature of GOD! man has no nature of GOD! christ was GOD who took the form of a man (phil 2:6)Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 03 2012,09:32) It sounds as if you are introducing a brand,like the Jehovah witnesses brand is the name Jehovah; to promote the society of the kingdom hall.Because that is the purpose; not God; but the Bible tract society. They are selling a doctrine, using Gods name.
Wakeup,Were you aware that in the oldest LXX fragments found to date, the Hebrew name YHWH is inserted into the Greek text wherever “YHWH” was in the Hebrew text? So when Jesus read from Isaiah in the synagogue, Jesus could very well have read “YHWH” and SAID “YHWH”. After all, Jesus did say he made his God's name known, right?
Are you aware that the oldest mss of the NT we have found to date are from the 3rd century A.D.? That's over 200 years in which scribes could have changed where Jesus said “Jehovah” to make it seem as if he said “God”.
Are you aware that “Jehovah” was the most prominent English transliteration of “YHWH” long before there was such a thing as JW organization?
And finally, have you checked out my link yet? I've listed it again on this site, a few posts above this one. After you check it out, let me know if you think the King James people are trying to foster name recognition for the JWs, okay?
Knowing is half the battle, Wakeup.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
