- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 18 2008,02:10) Hi All. Here is some links about the Coptic version.
David's attempt to claim the NWT and a few other translations of John 1:1c as “the Word was “a” God”.
is a violation of the scripures and the Monotheistic faith of John and the Apostles who followed Yahshua and were eyewitnesses of him and claimed that he was and is God.
WJ
Oh, no
I think I am going to stick to writing down my Songs, want to join me, Mandy
Irene
P.S. I googled Coptic. I am going to stick with English and my K.J. version of the Bible.Quote This is a distortion of the truth. The whole point of John 1:1c not having the definite article is to show that “The Word” is not the Father, yet at the same time showing the nature or quality of “The Word” is God. The “nature or quality of the Word” “is God.”?
I didn't know God was a quality or nature. This is the trouble with being wrong. It causes confusion.
Perhaps you meant “godlike” or divine. That's more of a quality or nature.“God” is not a nature.
Quote No Trinitarian claims Yahshua is the Father. However you contradict yourself and try to make the word “theos” exclusive to the Father
I sure don't remember doing this. Isn't this what you do?Quote As much as you would like it to be, there is no indefinite article “a” in the verse in over 5000 manuscripts. OH, WHICH ONES WJ, THE GREEK ONES, THE ARAIMAIC ONES, MAYBE THE LATIN ONES….oh, that's right….
NONE OF THESE LANGAUGES HAVE THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE….
HENCE, THE VERY VERY VERY VERY INTERESTING COPTIC VERSION, ONE THAT IS MORE SPECIFIC…
That's why we're having this discussion, or actually, why i'm trying to have this discussion and you are avoiding it.
Yes, I know you showed me some link to a website. By the way, is that your website?Quote David's attempt to claim the NWT and a few other translations of John 1:1c as “the Word was “a” God”. is a violation of the scripures and the Monotheistic faith of John and the Apostles who followed Yahshua and were eyewitnesses of him and claimed that he was and is God.
Where? Please, let's avoid the circular reasoning and actually discuss the coptic.
You're essentially saying here: “the Word was “a” God” is a violation of the scripures.”
Well that's what we're trying to determine aren't we?
To the people that came later, and twisted the scriptures, as fortold, through centuries of councels and politics, yes, it would be a violation of their interpretation of scripture.
But, before that, a MUCH MORE PRECISE language THAT ACTUALLY HAS AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE was translated by Christians who actually still lived in a time when koine Greek was spoken and guess how they understood and tranlsated this scripture?
“a god.”
Quote I am German and I do have a German Bible. Quote I simple let the Holy Spirit straighten me out, if I am wrong. And when you ask God to show you, He will and He has.
It has taken some time in some subjects and I have to wait on God.Translated from German:
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany(1975):
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.”Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin (1978):
“and godlike kind was the Logos.”Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany (1979)
“and a god was the Logos”Other readings, by German translators, follow.
By Böhmer:
“It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.”By Stage:
“The Word was itself of divine being.”By Menge:
“And God (= of divine being) the Word was.”By Ludwig Thimme: (Das Neue Testament)
“And God of a sort the Word was.”As one website that argues against the NWT says, “These German scholars are trying to emphasize the separate existence of the Logos as a personal entity.”
(Schulz) und ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort.
(Schneider) Und Gottlicher Art war der Logos.
(Becker) Und ein Gott war der Logos.Mr. Cecchini’s translation of the last clause of John 1:1 is as follows:
(Schulz) “… and one [a] God (or type of God) was the Word.”
(Schneider) “And a form of divinity was the Logos.”
(Becker) “… and one [a] God was [the] Logos.”Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 18 2008,02:10) Hi All. Here is some links about the Coptic version.
David's attempt to claim the NWT and a few other translations of John 1:1c as “the Word was “a” God”.
is a violation of the scripures and the Monotheistic faith of John and the Apostles who followed Yahshua and were eyewitnesses of him and claimed that he was and is God.
WJ
Going to the second sentence of the first link, it's interesting what it says:“Early Coptic translations reflect a heavy use of Greek loan-words, but often with variations in spelling especially with regard to vowels.”
That's right! Back then, in the Coptic language, they not only understood koine Greek, but they still used many of their words in their own language! I'd like to thank Eppy for pointing that out.
It seems they'd know how to translate from greek into Coptic, then, doesn't it?Next sentence:
Quote
As B. Metzger observes, “Compared with Greek [Coptic] is much more wooden and lacking in suppleness and variety of expression” (1977: 107).It might be more wooden, but concerning John 1:1, it is without question, more precise.
And, that being the case, isn't it nice that those who translated this actually knew the Greek and still used many of the words in their own language. (See post above.)
Next sentence in the link:
Quote Also… “If an early translator (third Century or earlier) understood John to have written “and the Word was a god,” this would appear to be evidence in favor of the NWT's rendering. And that is exactly what they literally wrote. You can look at coptic and say that this may mean “a god” or “divine” but you cannot say that it means “God.” You just can't.
It seems a lot of people who argue against the NWT, and look at the coptic say: Well, it could also mean “divine” according to the coptic, so they're wrong. Well, no, “divine” and “a god” are much closer than “God.”
Quote The Coptic pattern does NOT
predicate equivalence with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article.This was an interesting sentence. “God is always without exception supplied with the def. article.”
Yet, what do we see in John 1:1c. Not a definite article, but rather, the indefinite article.
WJ, (Regarding your NWT link) I see you're not really paying attention to what this thread is about. There's probably a couple threads already on attempting to discredit the NWT.
The question of this thread is: How should John 1:1 be translated, specifically in view of the very early and more precise Coptic translation?
If The coptic translation is taken into account, then the NWT is to be given credit in this area.
You attempt to go about it backwards and somehow prove that the coptic version is wrong because the NWT is one of many Bibles that translates it that way.
Isn't that somewhat …. wrong, in your approach?
Hi David,
I read through this entire thread and find it very interesting. The coptic translation for John 1:18 doesn't appear to be so sure as it combines the different variations.
Good work,
LUHi Lightenup.
Regarding JOHN 1:18
I find the 11th or so paragraph of this article very interesting:
http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/coptic.pdf
The whole article is interesting, actually.
Thanks David,
It is interesting that in John 1:18, the definite article is used. Maybe because the Son is THE only begotten God. Not THE God but the only begotten God. IMO they compromised on this verse by combining both ideas of ho monogenes theos and ho monogenes huios although, I believe that He is both.
LUQuote (david @ Oct. 18 2008,15:12) Quote I am German and I do have a German Bible. Quote I simple let the Holy Spirit straighten me out, if I am wrong. And when you ask God to show you, He will and He has.
It has taken some time in some subjects and I have to wait on God.Translated from German:
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany(1975):
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.”Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin (1978):
“and godlike kind was the Logos.”Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany (1979)
“and a god was the Logos”Other readings, by German translators, follow.
By Böhmer:
“It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.”By Stage:
“The Word was itself of divine being.”By Menge:
“And God (= of divine being) the Word was.”By Ludwig Thimme: (Das Neue Testament)
“And God of a sort the Word was.”As one website that argues against the NWT says, “These German scholars are trying to emphasize the separate existence of the Logos as a personal entity.”
(Schulz) und ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort.
(Schneider) Und Gottlicher Art war der Logos.
(Becker) Und ein Gott war der Logos.Mr. Cecchini’s translation of the last clause of John 1:1 is as follows:
(Schulz) “… and one [a] God (or type of God) was the Word.”
(Schneider) “And a form of divinity was the Logos.”
(Becker) “… and one [a] God was [the] Logos.”
Half German and half English. I will get my German Bible out later today, it is to early right now 3:00 A.M. will see how John 1:1 is stating.
IreneQuote (david @ Oct. 18 2008,15:33) WJ, (Regarding your NWT link) I see you're not really paying attention to what this thread is about. There's probably a couple threads already on attempting to discredit the NWT. No, what this thread is about is your trying to grasp for straws to prove that your NWT correctly interprets John 1:1c as “a god”.
None of the translators of the NWT were Greek or Aramaic or Coptic scholars or scholars at all for that matter.
This thread about the Coptic version will not change what has been found in the thousands of manuscripts which BTW many were around long before the Coptic and many were early Christians that translated them also.
WJ
Quote (david @ Oct. 18 2008,14:55) OH, WHICH ONES WJ, THE GREEK ONES, THE ARAIMAIC ONES, MAYBE THE LATIN ONES….oh, that's right…. NONE OF THESE LANGAUGES HAVE THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE….
HENCE, THE VERY VERY VERY VERY INTERESTING COPTIC VERSION, ONE THAT IS MORE SPECIFIC…
So we are to trash thousands of manuscripts written over hundreds of years without ambiguity on John 1:1 for you precious NWT or the Coptic version.
Quote No, what this thread is about is your trying to grasp for straws to prove that your NWT correctly interprets John 1:1c as “a god”. Actually, it isn't WJ. There is already a thread on the NWT and John 1:1.
This is such a large topic, it deserves it's own thread–especially since it's something very few people are aware of.
Quote None of the translators of the NWT were Greek or Aramaic or Coptic scholars or scholars at all for that matter.
Hello! What does this have to do with this thread? Again, for the second time, you're going about this backwards.
You apparently believe that because you have no respect for the NWT, that somehow this has a bearing on how John 1:1 was translated 1700 years ago into Coptic. You believe that if you can slander the NWt enough, people will ignore the Coptic?That's dishonest WJ. And fallacious thinking.
Quote This thread about the Coptic version will not change what has been found in the thousands of manuscripts which BTW many were around long before the Coptic and many were early Christians that translated them also. THIS IS MY WHOLE POINT!
I don't think you're getting it. Yes, there were manuscripts translated before the coptic. But what were they translated into? LANGUAGE THAT HAVE NO INDEFINITE ARTICLE? And, hence, are open to debate? Right.
So, that's precisely why this particular language is so amazingly interesting and worth considering. Because unlike the others, it had a definite article. It lets us know what they were actually thinking back then, and how they understood it, much more precisely than considering how it was translated into other languages without the indefinite article.
Also, if you're simply going to go with the fallacious “majority must be right” thinking, sure, then just believe in the trinity, because that's what most people believe in. You can stop thinking or worrying about it now.
But if you're concerned with accuracy, or what is actually true, a study of the Coptic is worth some time.Quote So we are to trash thousands of manuscripts written over hundreds of years without ambiguity on John 1:1 for you precious NWT or the Coptic version. WHICH MANUSCRIPTS ARE YOU REFERRING TO THAT HAVE NO AMBIGUITY? The only ones that come to mind, regarding John 1:1 are the Sahidic Coptic manuscripts. Thanks for playing though.
http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com/
The translator's of the Sahidic Version knew Koine better than anyone today can claim to; they grew up immersed in it because it was an important international language in their day. How did they understand the Greek, as reflected in their translation?
1:1a Hn tehoueite nefshoop nci pshaje
1:1b Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
1:1c Auw neunoute pe pshajeIn the third clause we have neunoute, which means “a god”. There can be no question about whether this word is definite or not; it is clear, it has the indefinite article ou. This is something that the Greek language does not have. Greek has the definite article and employs zero article. In Greek when there is zero article (anathrous) a noun may be definite or indefinite. In Greek QEOS has no article so there is a question about whether it is definite or indefinite. The same question can not be asked about the Coptic. Coptic employs the definite, indefinite and zero articles and the translator's chose the indefinite article ou.
A literal translation would therefore be “and a god was the Word” or “and the Word was a divine being”
Does such a translation convey the sense of the Coptic indefinite article?
In Coptic the indefinite article is sometimes used with abstract nouns and mass nouns so it does not precisely correspond to the English indefinite article.
So the Coptic oumoou (a water) = “some water” and oume (a truth) = (a particular) “truth” where as in contrast tme (the truth) = “truth” (in general).The word noute here is neither an abstract noun or a mass noun, it is count noun.
Dr Leyton in his Coptic Grammar, writes concerning the use of the indefinite article with the word noute:
“The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article in English: “is divine”) or an entity (“is a god”); the reader decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT predicate equivalence with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd.”
So Dr Leyton says that the syntactic pattern that includes an indefinite noun can convey the sense of:
1) quality “is divine”
2) entity “is a god”
The reader decides.He does not say that a noun can technically become an adjective when it has ou, but rather it can convey the sense of an adjective. The Coptic language elsewhere uses the prefix n with noute to technically make it an adjective, “divine”. (Smith says for one use of n- “forms adjectives”, see also Crum 231 a)
The English indefinite article conveys a similar sense to the Coptic as used here. It can simply categorize or it can convey various degrees of quality, so that in some cases an indefinite noun may approximate an adjective.
For exampe “you are a sinner” conveys quality and may be alternatively put “you are sinful”When a subject is identified as a member of a class, to some degree the characteristics of the class are in view, and this remains true across languages.
ounoute is technically an indefinite noun, and the full sense of it is conveyed by means of the English indefinite article “the Word was a god”. Still a translator may perceive that contextual emphasis is more on quality than entity, and choose to use an adjective “and the Word was divine” to convey the sense.
This translation is offered by Manal Gabr, in his thesis Philological studies of the Coptic versions of the Gospel of John. It is the convention of this thesis to offer the English rendering of the New King James Version when comparing passages in Coptic and Greek, but for the author to offer his own translation when he feels that the NKJV does not accurately reflect the Coptic. So the grammarian does not consider the NKJV's 'the Word was God' to accurately reflect the Coptic.
A third option, is to convey quality and entity with equal force
“and the Word was a divine being”
What is certain, and some might find it disturbing, is that the translation that has stood for centuries as the traditional English rendering, namely “the Word was God” can not be got from the Sahidic text. It just can not stretch to it.
It has been the tradition to include the capital letter with “God” at 1:1c. In English, capital letters are only used with proper nouns, such nouns are specific and can not be contrasted in number. As proper names in English are specific, “God” in the traditional translation reads as definite.QEOS and noute are both count nouns, they should only be given an initial capital letter if they are contextually used as proper nouns. When in English one reads “the Word was with God and the Word was God”, “God” in both cases must have the same referent. This is also the case if the Greek QEOS of 1:1c is considered definite like the QEOS in the previous clause. If “God” in 1:1b is the Father, then the traditional translation teaches that the Word is the Father. Such a teaching is called embryonic Sabellionism. Many Trinitarians now recognize this as an implication of viewing QEOS in 1:1 c as definite.
The truth is that QEOS in 1:1c is not definite as the Sahidic Version explicitly testifies.
The verse should be literally translated “and the Word was a divine being” or “and the Word was a god*”.
I'd like to address this statement once again, which was made by WJ:
This thread about the Coptic version will not change what has been found in the thousands of manuscripts which BTW many were around long before the Coptic and many were early Christians that translated them also.
Yes, it was Christians that translated the manuscripts back then, from Greek into Aramaic, Latin, Coptic etc.
And yes, there were definitely translations of manuscripts made from Greek into other languages before Coptic.
BUT, LIKE GREEK, DON'T THESE OTHER LANGUAGES ALSO NOT HAVE THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE “A”?
Well, that is, ALL EXCEPT FOR COPTIC!Which is why people that are concerned with the truth (and not tradition) are so interested in the coptic translation. Sure, they're not the earliest, although they are very early. THEY'RE SIMPLY THE MOST PRECISE, when it comes to John 1:1 for example.
Quote (david @ Oct. 21 2008,08:29) Which is why people that are concerned with the truth (and not tradition) are so interested in the coptic translation. Sure, they're not the earliest, although they are very early. THEY'RE SIMPLY THE MOST PRECISE, when it comes to John 1:1 for example.
Well, so they are all wrong except the Coptic!Which means that we should trash all the present translations and take up the “NWT”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
