- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Well, so they are all wrong except the Coptic! Which means that we should trash all the present translations and take up the “NWT”.
Go see the fallacies thread WJ. Or just read some of my posts.
And of course, the NWT isn't the only one to translate it this way. That is also wrong.Quote No its dishonest of you to bring up the Coptic version and promote it as being “Unambiguous” while trying to convince us it has nothing to do with your devotion to the NWT or Watchtower. Are you suggesting the coptic version is less ambiguous than latin, Greek, aramaic, etc when it comes to John 1:1? Because you'd be wrong, once again.
I've decided you're wrong on this point because you worship Jesus. Hence, you're also wrong about John 1:1. Does that make sense? It's what you're doing. Go study logic or fallacies in thinking. Focus on “majority is right” fallacy. There's actually several that you should consider, but to me, if you can't get that one, there's little hope you'll understand the others.Does anyone actually want to discuss the coptic, or are we to continue on with sidetracking and the smokescreens?
The languages of that time that manuscripts were translated into didn’t have the indefinite article, except for Coptic.
The translator's of the Sahidic Coptic 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.
“When looking at the Coptic, 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.”
Jesus and his apostles didn’t vote, go to war, engage in politics, celebrate birthdays, have a clergy class, etc, etc etc. But, as foretold by them, false teachers came along. Things became more and more twisted. Suddenly, Politicians were involved in sorting out religion. Suddenly, “Christians” weren’t so hated, but rather, became a part of the world that used to hate them. Wanting to unite the empire, “Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) Through a series of councils, the trinity doctrine was fought over and refined.
The Nicene Creed was put down in 325 (in Greek) and added to in 381. Later, it was translated into Latin.
–Koine (common) Greek was spoken “300 B.C.- 300 A.D.”
–Medieval Greek– 320 and on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_GreekThe Greek language changed:
“As most of the changes between modern and ancient Greek were introduced via Koine, Koine is largely intelligible to speakers of the modern language.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_GreekOh, if only we had some way of knowing how John 1:1 was actually to be understood back then?
Hey, wait a second. Unlike Greek, Latin, aramaic, etc, wasn’t John 1:1 also translated into the more precise Coptic language, at a time when Koine Greek was still spoken and understood?Yup.
Well, how did they translate it?
“A GOD.”
“The Coptic translators evidently did their work while Koine Greek was still a living language (unlike scholars today), and Greek had been a part of Egypt since the days of Alexander the Great, for some 500 years. Thus, it is most likely that the Coptic translators understood Koine Greek very well, and would translate it precisely.”
http://en.allexperts.com/q….tic.htmThe Nicene Creed was developed or formulated into the fourth century (325.)
The coptic translation was made before the 3d century ended (200-300) or, even earlier as Horner suggests, around 188. The coptic church gives the date of 200. But we do know it was before the end of the third century.Obviously, there were many manuscripts before the coptic ones. But how specific were they? Were any of them in a language that actually had an indefinite article? The coptic did.
And how did this more specific translation translate John 1:1c?
‘a god.”
*****
Thus far, false reasoning, smokescreens, red hearings, appeal to tradition, appeal to majority, etc are all that can be given in reply. Oh, and links to websites that also do these things. (I’ve checked.)
And if WJ would actually read these posts, maybe starting on page 1, he’d know that the Coptic version doesn’t actually completely support the NWT. All it does is show that the “Word was God” version doesn’t match the Coptic. While it literally says “a god” according to coptic, it could also mean “divine.”
But “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.”
http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com/While I've commented on the date of the Coptic before, here's an interesting point I found in:
“Top Seven Reasons why the Coptic John 1:1c should be translated “a god””
“5. Timeline
While we cannot know with specificity the theological presuppositions of the Coptic translators, or even if those presuppositions guided their translation of John 1:1c, it should be noted that their translation was most likely made before Trinitarianism became the established church dogma. The translators would have had no need to translate John 1:1c according to any Trinitarian formula that equated Jesus Christ with God Almighty.”
http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com/2007/03/tuesday-top-seven.htmlAll the translations that came after, had to be a certain way. Or, “off with your head.” (People did stuff like that back then.) But before that, they were allowed to actually translate it freely.
David,
Thank you for providing good sound information to people like me who are too lazy to
find it on our own.Tim
Hi David
Quote (david @ Oct. 22 2008,17:59) Are you suggesting the coptic version is less ambiguous than latin, Greek, aramaic, etc when it comes to John
How can anything be “less ambiguous”? It is either ambiguous or it is unambiguous.Quote (david @ Oct. 22 2008,17:59)
I've decided you're wrong on this point because you worship Jesus.
And I have decided you are wrong on this point because first of all you believe Yahshua is “Michael the ArchAngel” incarnate and second because the NWT had no scholars, that is “ZERO” with any Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Coptic language skills or ability to translate.And the few translations you mention that have translated John 1:1c as “a god” are nothing translations.
Quote (david @ Oct. 22 2008,17:59)
Hence, you're also wrong about John 1:1. Does that make sense? It's what you're doing. Go study logic or fallacies in thinking. Focus on “majority is right” fallacy.
No the fallacy is you denying that while John 1:1c may not have the indefinite article in the Greek but does in the Coptic does not negate the fact that there are scriptures that in the Greek have the definite article which does call Yahshua “The God”.And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God“. John 20:28
From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ“, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1
while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of 'our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” will be revealed. Titus 2:13
John 1:1 should be interpreted in light of the Gospel of John (John 20:28) and other scriptures that refer to Yahshua with the definite article and other Greek rules of grammar.
From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1 NET
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
This rule is also found in the following scripture…
as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13Paul confirms who it is that will appear in this verse…
Now Enoch, the seventh in descent beginning with Adam, even prophesied of them, saying, “Look! The Lord is coming with thousands and thousands of his holy ones, Jude 1:14But who knows David, maybe you can dig up some ambiguous info on the Granville Sharp rule to try and discredit it, which of course will be futile like all the other attempts of the Arians to disprove Yahshua as God. Therein lies the fallacous attempts of the unbelievers for centuries.
And the beat goes on.
WJ
Quote How can anything be “less ambiguous”? It is either ambiguous or it is unambiguous.
WJ, I knew something sounded wrong with that sentence. You're absolutely correct. Let me re-phrase. You said: “its dishonest of you to bring up the Coptic version and promote it as being “Unambiguous” while trying to convince us it has nothing to do with your devotion to the NWT or Watchtower.”So to re-phrase:
There is no question that the Coptic version is comparitively unambiguous on John 1:1c when compared to languages that have no indefinite article. (It's not perfectly clear, however, because it seems it could also be understood to mean “divine.” What is clear, is that it could not just be translated “God.”Quote And I have decided you are wrong on this point because first of all you believe Yahshua is “Michael the ArchAngel” incarnate and second because the NWT had no scholars, that is “ZERO” with any Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Coptic language skills or ability to translate.
You're not actually serious are you? You actually have no idea what a fallacy in thinking is do you? Ever hear of a red hearing? Do you even know what this thread is about? There is a thread on John 1:1/NWT. Go find it if you have nothing to add about this actual subject.Quote And the few translations you mention that have translated John 1:1c as “a god” are nothing translations.
If you include the NWt in this, you're of course wrong….again. If only because of the numbers, it is considered “a major modern translation.” I'm sorry, I won't mention Bible translations again. This thread is about the coptic translating John 1:1c as “a god.”Quote No the fallacy is you denying that while John 1:1c may not have the indefinite article in the Greek but does in the Coptic does not negate the fact that there are scriptures that in the Greek have the definite article which does call Yahshua “The God”. I DIDN'T DENY NOR MAKE ANY CLAIM OF THAT SORT TO ANY DEGREE ANYWHERE, EVER ! ! ! EVER!
I see you have resorted to making things up to prove me wrong. So, where is my fallacy again? WHERE? Your many fallacious remarks remain. Mine, you made up. Pathetic. Sorry, but it is.
And you're still trying to argue in a circle here. You're saying God is a trinity, so John 1:1 should be translated this way. Yes, we can go over our hundreds of trinity, non-trinity proof texts, as we've done for years. But, right now, WJ, we, or at least, I, am discussing the coptic, something new, which is actually something very very old.Quote And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God”. John 20:28 From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1
while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of 'our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” will be revealed. Titus 2:13
John 1:1 should be interpreted in light of the Gospel of John (John 20:28) and other scriptures that refer to Yahshua with the definite article and other Greek rules of grammar.
I commented on these three verses in the trinity thread about a day ago. But now, here, we're looking at something else. Do you really not get that?
Quote But who knows David, maybe you can dig up some ambiguous info on the Granville Sharp rule to try and discredit it, On Sharp's rule, see a more appropriate place:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y149570We are discussing John 1:1c here. Not just John 1:1c. More specifically, the coptic version. I don't think you even mentioned the word “coptic” in your last post. Why is that? What are you afraid of? The truth?
NICK,
t8,
I don't start a lot of threads, but when I do, they always seem to go off course, despite my repeated attempts to actually discuss the topic. Could you explain what the topic of this thread is to WJ. Thankyou, in advance.david
Quote David,
Thank you for providing good sound information to people like me who are too lazy to
find it on our own.Tim
No problem Tim.
If you want to actually do a lot of work and study, this link would be helpful:
http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.comThe following link, is something we call: “Top Seven Reasons why the Coptic John 1:1c should be translated “a god””
http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com/2007/03/tuesday-top-seven.htmlThis is a short and easy understanding of why this is important and the last paragraph suggests why it seems to be kept under wraps.
http://sahidiccoptic.bravehost.com/solomon.html#topJohn 1:1-18 Coptic interlinear with English translation
http://jehovah.to/exe….ish.pdfFor grammatical issues involved, see this Blog:
http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.comPerhaps a good place to start:
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/It's clear that “The early Coptic Christians had a good understanding of both Greek and their own language,” in fact, they used many Greek words in their langauge, a language which used the Greek alphabet. (Egyptian with the greek alphabet and seven extra letters, I think)
Koine Greek was actually still spoken when they translated it. By the time of the Nicene Creed, (325/381) they had entered the Medieval Greek period, rather than koine Greek. So, again, the point: “The early Coptic Christians had a good understanding of both Greek and their own language.”And, having this understanding of Greek, it's “clear that in reading the original Greek text, the ancient Coptic translators understood it to say specifically that “the Word was a god.””
http://sahidiccoptic.bravehost.com/solomon.html#topIt's also clear that because of the early time, and unlike everything that came later, “The translators would have had no need to translate John 1:1c according to any Trinitarian formula,” a formula that had to be followed later, if one was not to be labeled a heretic. (Back then, scary stuff happened to heretics.)
http://vigilo-et-spero.blogspot.com/2007/03/tuesday-top-seven.htmlLance Jenott's (Princeton U.) 2003 translation of John 1:1-14
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml
1:1 ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.
After more and more research, I should stop saying that this coptic was translated in the third century (between 200 and 300 C.E.)
More and more references say that this was “in the late 2nd century or early 3rd century of the Common Era.”
Perhaps a closer date would be between 188 (Horner's suggestion) and the early 3d century.
“The earliest translations [of the New Testament text] were the Latin, Syriac and Coptic versions (though not necessarily in that order), and they retain the greatest importance….The ancient versions are significant in the search for the most likely original Greek text, especially the three earliest ones, Coptic, Syriac and Latin.” –Stanley E. Porter, ed., Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, pp. 67, 68
Thus, ” the Coptic translation is an important witness to how the biblical Greek text was understood and interpreted by early Christians. ”
http://members.aol.com/__121b_WYasvgbNIFAF7G6zRA4Ohiz57qoemTjN
Someone asked this question, which I think is clever.
Is the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1 the last nail in the coffin of the Trinity . . .?
. . . Or is it the first nail in the coffin, considering its early date?Just for my own reference.
http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/read.php?t=2794Also,
“When I asked Dr. Ariel Shisha-Halevy, renowned Coptic scholar at Hebrew University in Israel, what a literal, non-theological rendering of Coptic John 1:1c would be, the candid reply was that theolological issues in this verse could not be avoided. “The Word was a god” was confirmed as the literal Coptic reading, with the other possibility being “The Word was godly/divine,” according to Shisha-Halevy.”
http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/coptic-scholars-and-john-11/Also, the MANUSCRIPTS:
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm/Bodmer%20Papyri%20(ABD).pdfTrinitarians have become more aware that the ancient Coptic New Testament renders John 1:1c literally as “the Word was a god [or, a divine being].”For nearly a century they have merely ignored it. Look into any New Testament critical text, such as the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (NA27), and you will see that the ancient Coptic text readings are given for many other New Testament verses.
But not for John 1:1. Coptic John 1:1 does not neatly fit either the older definite reading favored by some Trinitarians (”the Word was God”)
Though it is possible to paraphrase Coptic John 1:1 to say, “the Word was divine,” the most natural and literal reading of it is “the Word was a god [or, a divine being].”So, a number of Blogs have popped up by Trinitarian apologists, blogs that do a thinly-veiled job of confusing the truth of matters. Caught in the bind of not knowing Coptic themselves, some apologists have sought the advice of selected scholars, but have then largely ignored what those scholars actually said, apart from what, at first glance, appeared to bolster their Trinitarian presuppositions.
http://cfmin.wordpress.com/category/john-11/This actually does seem to be the case. There are no actual arguments against the very significant coptic translation.
Contrary to what some Trinitarian apologists imply, there is nothing incomprehensible or mysterious about the Coptic indefinite article.
“The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” –Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5Again, for those that haven't been paying attention, here it is simply:
Apart from theology, and on the basis of grammar alone, the ancient Coptic translators of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE obviously understood the Greek construction of John 1:1c to be indefinite, and translated accordingly in the Coptic. If they had understood it to be definite (”the Word was God”), they had no indication of such a meaning in the Greek text, which does not have the Greek definite article here. If they understood it to be “qualitative,” (”the Word was deity or divine”) they could have translated it by means of Coptic adjectival prefixes. They did not, but utilized the Coptic indefinite article instead: ou noute: “a god.”
http://cfmin.wordpress.com/category/john-11/Someone in a blog somewhere said that the Coptic church doesn't believe it should be translated “a god.”
“The Coptic Bohairic version also has the indefinite article, written in full form, ou before the word for “god,” at John 1:1c, ie., “a god.” This is basically the Bible in use by the modern Coptic church, reading in Coptic: ouoh ne ounoute pe Picaji, literally, “and was a god the Word.” However, certain English translations of the Coptic Bible ignore this fact. The modern Coptic church, following Orthodox tradition since the 4th century C.E., rather than its Bible, ignores this reading to teach Trinitarianism.” (Divine Truth or Human Tradition, Patrick Navas, page 314.)
http://books.google.ca/books?i….PPP2,M1This is unbelievable to me. Even the Coptic church doesn't necessarily translate John 1:1c as “a god.” (Coptic stopped being spoken as a language around 1500, but it is still used in their services, I think.) So, like everyone else, they're following tradition. Despite what they know the coptic manuscripts say, and the coptic Bible should say, when translating it into English, they go with what's popular, with tradition!
If this is what they do, how easy it must be for everyone else to ignore reality and just go with the crowd.The 3d century (200's) is the latest date for the Sahidic Coptic translation. But I wish we could narrow the timeframe down.
“The Bible book Acts of the Apostles lists Egyptian Jews and proselytes as being present at Pentecost, when 3,000 became Christian believers.(Acts 2:5-11) The eloquent Christian speaker Apollos was an Alexandrian and his travels may have taken him back to Egypt.(Acts 18:24-28; Titus 3:13)
Coptic translator George Horner notes:“Clement of Alexandria, born about 150 [CE], speaks of the Christians spreading all over the land….The internal character of the Sahidic [version] supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century.”
Horner favors a date closer to 188 CE as the inception of the Sahidic Coptic version.
Horner, Volume 2, pp. 398-9″
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/T7GC1QH9J4LGF0DMPThis person states the matter and why this is so significant, very clearly:
“the Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1c:“the Word was a god.”
Is “the Word was a god” the only English translation of this verse that is possible within the parameters of the Coptic indefinite article? It should be stressed that this is the literal translation. However, this semantic domain may allow, in context, English translations such as “the Word was divine” or a divine being, or “the Word was godlike.” But a translation such as the traditional “the Word was God” would
require the Coptic definite article, thus falling outside of the non-specific semantic domain signaled by the Coptic indefinite article. 12
It is sometimes charged, incorrectly, that the translation of John 1:1c as “the Word was a god” is an incorrect, sectarian translation found primarily in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Yet, in rendering John 1:1c from Greek into their own native language, the Coptic scribes came to the same understanding of that Greek text some 1,700 years ago.
Translating John 1:`1c literally to say “the Word was a god” is, therefore, not any innovation. Rather, it appears to be an ancient way of understanding the meaning of this text, before the ascension and formal installation of philosophical Trinitarianism.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/T7GC1QH9J4LGF0DMPFor people who like to read:
http://books.google.ca/books?i….A311,M1
I find page 312 very interesting. As it turns out, those who argue against the coptic saying “a god” have nothing to stand on. This discussion seems to be over.
Now to figure out why this information was so easily swept under the rug.WJ's links, for my own records.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=1090Quote (david @ Oct. 24 2008,14:45) For people who like to read: http://books.google.ca/books?i….A311,M1
I find page 312 very interesting. As it turns out, those who argue against the coptic saying “a god” have nothing to stand on. This discussion seems to be over.
Now to figure out why this information was so easily swept under the rug.
Greetings David……The reason this infomation was swept under the rug is….”The Bible is the inspired word of God” having said that the spirit that was leading not only the writers but the editors as well deemed it to be not in keeping with truth as set forth in scripture….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
