- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 05 2008,12:09) Hi David Quote (david @ Nov. 04 2008,13:44)
Add to this the apostate political deeply a part of the world establishement that ruled for so long, and that crushed people that went against it, how was anyone to argue? Sure, there are many English translation of Bibles written by trinitarians a thousand years later, who translate John 1:1 as “God.” But repeating a mistake does not make it proper.
This is usually the response of someone who has no grounds for an argument, when they resort to the deeds of Godless men who claimed to follow the truth, as if somehow this has bearing on the written truth or the Greek or Hebrew text.WJ
Which part of my statement was wrong?WJ, you imply that I have no grounds for an argument. But my argument is unshakeable. I have never said that this proves that “a god” is the correct translation. It simply does prove that the “word is God” rendering isn't as certain as many believe.
My whole point of discussing this, is because no one does discuss it, and as your NY times article stated, it is a “very interesting document” that is, the coptic codex.
Oh, and you ignored the part that was in bold, the actual facts. Let me repeat them:
The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
The languages that John 1:1 were translated and copied into had no indefinite article (Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, etc) Around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article.
But 1300 years before, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
Quote No David. The Greek language is not ambiguous; it is the interpretation of it. Haven’t you figured that out yet? Which is more ambiguous?
1. Either “the Rock” or “a rock”
2. The Rock
3. a RockClearly, #1 is the most ambigous. In Greek, many times we come across words that don't have the indefinite article (a) and yet, they require that indefinite article.
But, The coptic has both the definite and indefinite article. Bot #2 and #3 are way more exact than #1. I know you realize this.Sure, you can say that #1 is not ambiguous, or that Greek is not ambiguous. You may be right.
All I'm saying is that Coptic is far far far less ambiguous, that both #2, and #3 are less ambiguous than #1, which could mean more than one thing. I know you get this. You have to.Quote Do you think the Apostle John was being ambiguous when he used the same word “theos” in John 1:1b as in John 1:1c? You still haven’t addressed this point.
No, he wasn't being ambiguous at all. People who spoke and understood koine greek and actually used that language translated it “a god” into Coptic. He had to mean “a god” otherwise, Jesus would be “the God” that he was with, God almighty, something not taught in scripture. So, no, it's not ambiguous.
BUT, the coptic is far less ambiguous, obviously. Good thing we know they understood koine Greek.Quote The “TRANSLATORS” of the Coptic version translated John 1:1c as “a god”, this fact is unambiguous. The TRANSLATORS of most English bibles translated John 1:1c as “the word was God”, this fact is unambiguous.
You are trying to make a case that somehow because the Coptic translators could speak koine Greek that they were to be trusted more than others in their interpretation of John 1:1 even though their own people reject that translation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the coptic langauge become a dead langauge around 1500? The coptic church still uses it in worship, I think sort of like the Catholic church used Latin up until a while ago.
“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,M1
So, the coptic people reject the 'a god' translation, as their bible says 'a god' not because this isn't what it literally says, for it unquestionably is what it literally says, but they reject it in favor of tradition, and what became popular.Quote Again David, you still do not get it. Biblical Monotheism demands that John 1:1c not to be interpreted as “a god” for that would be a violation of the Hebrew text… FIRST, GRAMMAR DOES NOT DEMAND IT. WE KNOW THIS. Many acknowledge this, but reject it on their theology, or as you say “Biblical Monotheism.” But, my Biblical monotheism does not demand that John 1:1c be translated “God.” In fact, the context of that very verse demands that it be “a god.” While agree that Jesus is called “mighty God” in the Bible, the Bible as a whole makes plain that he is not the Almighty God of the Bible. So, the Bible demands that it be translated as “a god” as the coptic translators recognized.
Fine, let's go through your list, but we've done this before and this is the wrong thread:
Quote Isa 44:24
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; *that stretcheth forth the heavens alone*; that spreadeth abroad the earth *by myself*;
Jehovah is the creator, responsbile for all things. He alone is the creator. It was his holy spirit at work. But when he said: “Let US make man in our image” he was talking to someone, the “a god” of John 1:1c. All the spirit creatures are called gods (mighty ones.) Obviously, Jesus can be called “god” as well. This scripture above of course doesn't prove what you're claiming.Quote Isa 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: *I am the LORD; and there is none else*.
If you're referring to the “I am the Lord; and there is none else” we find similar phrases in many places in the Hebrew. Obviously, when he created the earth, there were others–spirit creation–“gods.” But, compared to Jehovah, the Almighty, everyone else is as if nothing, we are as specks of dust, or film on a surface. We are as if nothing, because Jehovah is so much above us. The Bible does say that the
Speaking of “founding the earth” the Bible says that “all the sons of God began shouting in applause.”
(Job 38:4,7) So there were others there. You know, this verse doesn't actually say that when Jehovah created the earth, there was no one else. It just adds on that he is Jehovah, and there is no one else.Quote Isa 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and *there is none else*; I am God, and *there is none like me*,
Agreed. So?Quote Hsa 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: *for there is no saviour beside me*.
As I've quoted before:
Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord.” (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied
to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.Quote Exod 23:13
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
Go read the context and stop trying to deceive people.….Now that that's done, shall I quote the several thousand times Jehovah is called “God” and compare that to the zero times the holy spirit is or the 3 times Jesus is called “God” or “a god.” It would prove about as much as you just did. I'll go over the hundreds of proof texts I have and you go over yours. But that's not what this thread is about. If you wish to continue that discussion, let's resume it in one of the trinity threads.
Quote The Coptic believers must have realized this. Or is it possible that the Coptic translators were also biased and possibly unbelievers?
Yes, they saw those texts above. Take your “savior” quote. The thing is, they also saw Jude 25 which clarifies and describes. But, more importantly, they spoke koine Greek while it was still a spoken language.Quote But as usual, while you accuse Trinitarians of ignoring facts it is you who ignores these facts and it is you who refuses to address certain points that I have made like….
Like Jude 25? No, you ignore such things.Quote
Can you show me an example in scripture where the Greek word “theos” is interpreted as “divine” or “godlike”?
I'm not exactly sure why you keep asking me this. I personally prefer the literal “a god” translation. It is only those who wish to discredit the NWT who say that the “a god” could be understood to be “divine.”Quote So please spare me from your patronizing and apologetic answers and quit avoiding these facts. Please give me and the readers some facts supporting your use of the word “theos” as being applied to any other being with divine qualities but the Father and Yeshua. MY use of the word “theos” as applied to “other beings with divine qualities”?
I never said that the Greek “theos” was applied to any divine beings other than the Father or Jesus. Did I? Where?
But the Hebrew equivalent is. You seem to be trying to argue against something I have never said.
Or do you think that “theos” is different from Elohim? Is the God mentioned in the Hebrew different than the “God” mentioned in the Greek? I don't think so.Quote If you can’t do this, which I am quote sure you can’t, then your argument carries no weight
WJ, you seem to be having a very different discussion than the one I am. Here is what I am saying:The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
The languages that John 1:1 were translated and copied into had no indefinite article (Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, etc) Around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article.
But 1300 years before, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
Quote who violate the Hebrew text by their misinterpretation of John 1:1c.
Another quick correction: They apparently violate your understanding of what the Hebrew scriptures say–and, it's an understanding that many base partially on John 1:1. Oh, another circle.Quote And your point is what? That they were totally and absolutely, 100%, right in their translation by adding an “a” in the translation of the text. Was this maybe because of their bias?
Again, no, I have never said that. Look, you're a trinitarian. You have bias. You would say I have bias. But I'm not so sure they had bias.
You brought up the Coptic church–mentioning that they do not favor the “a god” translation. True. They prefer tradition. BUT, DESPITE THEM BEING BIASED TOWARDS FOLLOWING THE CROWD, THE COPTIC TRANSLATION STILL HAS “A GOD” IN IT. How interesting.Quote And of course your purpose of this is to defend the lonely NWT and their miss translation of John 1:1 by men who were not Hebrew or Greek scholars at all.
If this were the case, why are you the only one bringing it up, repeatedly? Second, it's not so lonely. True, out of the major modern translations, it's the only one to translate it that way. But many have done so before, starting with the Coptic.“The [Coptic] codex is the oldest known copy of any translation of any considerable portion of the Greek Bible. Indeed, it is probably as early as any copy now in existence of any substantial part of the Bible.”–New York Times, April 16, 1912.
You continue to allege that the NWT is wrong based on the idea that it is one of very few that translate it that way. That is a fallacy in thinking, of course.
You like to imply that there are thousands of manuscripts that favor the “Word was God” translation.
NOT TRUE.
Total New Testament manuscripts =
5,300 Greek MMS,
10,000 Latin Vulgates,
9,300 others in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Ethiopic,
= 24,000 copies.
Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230.Look at the languages. Take a hard look. How many of them have the indefinite article? So in the Latin, for example the “God” could mean “God” or “a god.” But I notice Coptic in there. It does have both the indefinite and definite articles.
Also, the number of MMS before 600 is small. The further back you go, the more important they become. You can have 10,000 Latin manuscripts (no indefinite article in that language) copied f
rom one another all saying the same thing, but how important is that when we're trying to figure out if John 1:1c should be “god” or “a god.” Not very. That language has no indefinite article, like Greek, Like syriac, like aramaic, etc.Quote Real translations translated by real scholars who understood Hebrew Monotheism, there is “Only One True God”. It is you David that is wrong and has no case.
Right, and LITERALLY A THOUSAND TIMES we're told that Jehovah is this “true God.” A THOUSAND TIMES with the utmost clarity. And thousands of more times, with less clarity. (I checked each one.)
And with Jesus, who is second only to Jehovah, we would expect him to be called God (mighty one) as much at least, as the angels, or the human judges who were called gods. As it happens, he is three times called “god.” And, some would argue that there are about 5 other times that he is called “god” as well. But those are extremely unclear.
And, we have the holy spirit, never called “god.”
How clear is that?
david.
Quote Again David, you still do not get it. Biblical Monotheism demands that John 1:1c not to be interpreted as “a god” for that would be a violation of the Hebrew text… Quote The Coptic believers must have realized this. Or is it possible that the Coptic translators were also biased and possibly unbelievers? Or, perhaps they simply read the book of John in Greek.
What clues would they have found about Jesus identity?
(What did John the Baptist bear witness to regarding Jesus?)
JOHN 1:34
“And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.””
So they may have reasoned that Jesus is the “son of” God.(In John, how did Nathanael identify Jesus?)
JOHN 1:49
“Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.””
So they may have reasoned that Jesus is the “son of” God.(What does John tell us that Martha believed about Jesus?)
JOHN 11:27
“She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.”
So they may have understood this to mean that Jesus is the “son of” God.(They could have asked themselves: Why did John write what he did? What did he want us to believe?)
JOHN 20:31
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.”
So they may have taken this to mean Jesus is the “son of” God.(They may have asked themselves: Did John bear witness that Jesus was God Almighty, or God’s Son?)
JOHN 1:34
“I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.”
I'm noticing a trend. Jesus seems to be related to “God” somehow. It seems he is the “Son of” God.(According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess?)
1 JOHN 4:15
“Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .”(According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God?)
1 JOHN 5:5
“Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?”
It's hard to understand why the Coptic translators would have believed Jesus wasn't God himself, but rather, someone who was “with” God. (John 1:1)It seems that John bore witness that Jesus was the “Son of” God, that he wrote what he did so that we would believe that Jesus was the “Son of” God, telling us to have faith that Jesus is the “Son of” God, and to confess that Jesus is the “Son of” God.
Perhaps the Coptic translators, looking at the context of the book they were translating, saw that Jesus obviously was the….”Son of” God.Hi David
Quote (david @ Nov. 05 2008,14:22)
Which part of my statement was wrong?WJ, you imply that I have no grounds for an argument. But my argument is unshakeable. I have never said that this proves that “a god” is the correct translation. It simply does prove that the “word is God” rendering isn't as certain as many believe.
My whole point of discussing this, is because no one does discuss it, and as your NY times article stated, it is a “very interesting document” that is, the coptic codex.
Wow, your argument is “unshakeable”?
That’s a pretty bold statement to make especially when you are basing your argument on an “ambiguous” translation of the Greek text.EARTH TO DAVID!!! Only God is “unshakeable”…
Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. Heb 12:26
Quote (david @ Nov. 05 2008,14:22)
Oh, and you ignored the part that was in bold, the actual facts. Let me repeat them:The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
No I haven’t ignored anything David. Apparently you do not understand these words…“THE TRANSLATOR MUST PUT THE “A” OR “AN” IN WHERE IT IS NEEDED.”
Who decides who adds the “a” or “an” David? The translators decide. Most English translators do not add the “a” in John 1:1 where as the Coptic translators do. But, again David it says “WHERE IT IS NEEDED”. Does this mean when “theos” was referring to Jesus there has to be an “a” or “an” added? Where is the linguistic rule for that? I am not sure what you are trying to prove here, because the Coptic translation changes nothing except maybe in your mind it adds some validity to the NWT.
Quote (david @ Nov. 05 2008,14:22)
The languages that John 1:1 were translated and copied into had no indefinite article (Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, etc) Around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article.But 1300 years before, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
[/b]
You have made this point many times, but you choose to ignore that the English language also has the indefinite article and 100s of scholars who could speak Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic translated John 1:1 without the indefinite article “a” or “an” and with valid reasons like Jesus is also called God with the definite article.So tell me David, what is the difference between these two statements…
Jesus is “a” god.
Or Jesus is “The God”.
If there is a difference, then why would you ignore the latter and accept the former especially when scripturally the latter is unambiguous?
WJ
Quote Wow, your argument is “unshakeable”? That’s a pretty bold statement to make especially when you are basing your argument on an “ambiguous” translation of the Greek text.EARTH TO DAVID!!! Only God is “unshakeable”…
My argument is simply that the “word is God” translation isn't as unshakeable as many believe. And this is the case.
So it's hard to argue against. But, go ahead and try if you like.
But, don't attempt to put words in my mouth and then argue against them.Quote “THE TRANSLATOR MUST PUT THE “A” OR “AN” IN WHERE IT IS NEEDED.” Who decides who adds the “a” or “an” David? The translators decide. Most English translators do not add the “a” in John 1:1 where as the Coptic translators do.
Yes, because the translators “decide” as you say, not to. The English speaking translators who don't live 1700 years after koine Greek was spoken as a language decide.
Similarly, those that lived back then and spoke koine Greek and used their alphabet did use the “a.”
Quote But, again David it says “WHERE IT IS NEEDED”. Does this mean when “theos” was referring to Jesus there has to be an “a” or “an” added? Where is the linguistic rule for that?
I don't believe I ever said there was one, did I? (Again, please don't go creating things that you can tear down, that I never said.)Quote I am not sure what you are trying to prove here, because the Coptic translation changes nothing except maybe in your mind it adds some validity to the NWT.
Well, if you don't know what I'm trying to prove or demonstrate, then I wonder how you could question my argument being “unshakable.”Quote You have made this point many times, but you choose to ignore that the English language also has the indefinite article and 100s of scholars who could speak Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic translated John 1:1 without the indefinite article “a” or “an” and with valid reasons like Jesus is also called God with the definite article. You do know languages change, don't you? People don't speak koine (common) greek today do they?
After koine greek came medieval greek, and after that, another class of greek.People today can argue it both ways, because it is the ““ambiguous” translation of the Greek text” as you say.
Similary, back then, in the aramaic, latin, etc, when looking at these, it is ambiguous.If only we had some insight into how people who spoke the langauge back then understood it. Oh, wait, we do–the coptic translation.
Quote So tell me David, what is the difference between these two statements… Jesus is “a” god.
Or Jesus is “The God”.
If there is a difference, then why would you ignore the latter and accept the former especially when scripturally the latter is unambiguous?
Just because Satan is “the god” of this world, does not make him God Almighty.
Of course Jesus is called “Mighty God” elsewhere, (Isaiah) but in John 1:1, because of the context, and him being “with” “the God” in every instance except when we believe in the trinity, we would have to translate it “a god” for John 1:1c.Quote If there is a difference, then why would you ignore the latter and accept the former especially when scripturally the latter is unambiguous?
Because I know what the word “god” means….Hi David
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 12 2008,19:14) Wow, your argument is “unshakeable”? That’s a pretty bold statement to make especially when you are basing your argument on an “ambiguous” translation of the Greek text.EARTH TO DAVID!!! Only God is “unshakeable”…
Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,14:44)
My argument is simply that the “word is God” translation isn't as unshakeable as many believe. And this is the case.
So it's hard to argue against. But, go ahead and try if you like.
But, don't attempt to put words in my mouth and then argue against them.Again, how can an ambiguous argument be unshakeable? These are your words…
Quote (david @ Nov. 05 2008,14:22) But my argument is unshakeable. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 12 2008,19:14) “THE TRANSLATOR MUST PUT THE “A” OR “AN” IN WHERE IT IS NEEDED.” Who decides who adds the “a” or “an” David? The translators decide. Most English translators do not add the “a” in John 1:1 where as the Coptic translators do.
Quote (david @ Nov. 05 2008,14:22) Yes, because the translators “decide” as you say, not to. The English speaking translators who don't live 1700 years after koine Greek was spoken as a language decide. Similarly, those that lived back then and spoke koine Greek and used their alphabet did use the “a.”
And your bias believes that they got it right. Yet we read concerning the Coptic…“We find that the translators of the coptic version not only occasionally made mistakes, but that they also missed the point in several passages.”
“The mistakes in spelling both Greek and Coptic words are numerous, and there are many blunders in writing, which could only be made by a very careless copyist.”
“The omissions, repetitions, and mistakes proves that the codex does not contain independent translations from the Greek but text copied from some existing archetype.“
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 12 2008,19:14) But, again David it says “WHERE IT IS NEEDED”. Does this mean when “theos” was referring to Jesus there has to be an “a” or “an” added? Where is the linguistic rule for that? Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,14:44)
I don't believe I ever said there was one, did I? (Again, please don't go creating things that you can tear down, that I never said.)
Good! So the Coptic’s like the English translators had no reason to ad an “a” in John 1:1 except for their bias!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 12 2008,19:14) I am not sure what you are trying to prove here, because the Coptic translation changes nothing except maybe in your mind it adds some validity to the NWT. Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,14:44) Well, if you don't know what I'm trying to prove or demonstrate, then I wonder how you could question my argument being “unshakable.”
You don’t get it do you David? Your argument is questionable, that’s why it isn't unshakeable.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 12 2008,19:14) You have made this point many times, but you choose to ignore that the English language also has the indefinite article and 100s of scholars who could speak Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic translated John 1:1 without the indefinite article “a” or “an” and with valid reasons like Jesus is also called God with the definite article. Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,14:44)
You do know languages change, don't you? People don't speak koine (common) greek today do they?
After koine greek came medieval greek, and after that, another class of greek.
That’s a good point David. So I suppose the Coptic language 1700 years ago is the only language that has not changed or evolved? So now you have a translation of a translation of a translation. Why not go straight to the Greek with the Greek and Aramaic knowledge that we have. Oh, that’s right we did, that’s why we have all the English translations today from the Greek text.Here is some info on the Evolution of ancient Greek…
“Evolution from ancient Greek
The study of all sources from the six centuries which are symbolically covered by Koine reveals linguistic changes from ancient Greek on phonology, morphology, syntax, vocabulary and other elements of the spoken language. Most new forms start off as rare and gradually become more frequent until they are established. From the linguistic changes which took place in Koine, Greek gained such a resemblance to its medieval and modern successors that almost all characteristics of modern Greek can be traced in the surviving texts of Koine.[1] As most of the changes between modern and ancient Greek were introduced via Koine, Koine is largely intelligible to speakers of the modern language.”Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,14:44) People today can arg
ue it both ways, because it is the ““ambiguous” translation of the Greek text” as you say.
Similary, back then, in the aramaic, latin, etc, when looking at these, it is ambiguous.If only we had some insight into how people who spoke the langauge back then understood it. Oh, wait, we do–the coptic translation.
See above David, the Greek is more reliable!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 12 2008,19:14) So tell me David, what is the difference between these two statements… Jesus is “a” god.
Or Jesus is “The God”.
If there is a difference, then why would you ignore the latter and accept the former especially when scripturally the latter is unambiguous?
Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,14:44)
Just because Satan is “the god” of this world, does not make him God Almighty.
Of course Jesus is called “Mighty God” elsewhere, (Isaiah) but in John 1:1, because of the context, and him being “with” “the God” in every instance except when we believe in the trinity, we would have to translate it “a god” for John 1:1c.
That’s because in every instance the definition of “theos” in John 1:1c would be purely Polytheistic or Henotheistic unless you are a Trinitarian!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 12 2008,19:14) If there is a difference, then why would you ignore the latter and accept the former especially when scripturally the latter is unambiguous? Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,14:44) Because I know what the word “god” means….
You know what your definition of the word “theos” is which comes from Watchtower which teaches “theos” is simply “mighty one”.That is not the definition of “theos”.
Check this post out I made in the John 1:1 thread for the scriptural definition of “theos”.
WJ
Quote Again, how can an ambiguous argument be unshakeable? These are your words… Because, as I've explained, my argument is not that this text must be translated “a god” but rather that it is not certain at all that it must be translated “God” as you believe. You would argue that it is not ambiguous. I am simply arguing that it is, although I favor the “a god” translation. Since it can be argued both ways, it in itself is ambiguous, and hence, my argument that it is ambiguous is true.
And, the coptic definitely adds weight to the fact that perhaps “the word was God” isn't the correct translation.
And once again, in koine Greek, for us today, who don't speak the dead language, it is ambiguous–could be translated “a god” or “god.” But, luckily we have some insight into how the text was understood back then, by people who used a more specific language.
Quote And your bias believes that they got it right. Yet we read concerning the Coptic… “We find that the translators of the coptic version not only occasionally made mistakes, but that they also missed the point in several passages.”
“The mistakes in spelling both Greek and Coptic words are numerous, and there are many blunders in writing, which could only be made by a very careless copyist.”
“The omissions, repetitions, and mistakes proves that the codex does not contain independent translations from the Greek but text copied from some existing archetype.”
Source.
I've already commented on this very old analysis of the coptic, which appears to be biased itself. The translators of the Coptic “missed the point in several passages” or the ones who studied it didn't find that their beliefs matched the translation?
As for the spelling mistakes, it is true that there were many ways to write several words at that time. (Please go back and see my post on this.)Quote Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 12 2008,19:14)
But, again David it says “WHERE IT IS NEEDED”. Does this mean when “theos” was referring to Jesus there has to be an “a” or “an” added? Where is the linguistic rule for that?Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,14:44)
I don't believe I ever said there was one, did I? (Again, please don't go creating things that you can tear down, that I never said.)
Good! So the Coptic’s like the English translators had no reason to ad an “a” in John 1:1 except for their bias!
I didn't say that. Obviously, the context demands it.
Imagine this sentence in Greek, without any indefinite articles of course: “George was with The king George was king.”Does this mean “THE king” was with himself, or does it mean “THE king” was with “a” different king.
In normal use in all languages throughout all time, when we come up against sentences like this, it is completely obvious that the context demands that an “a” be inserted UNLESS we're dealing with some weird highly unique situation in which for instance, George traveled back in time and was with himself, or in the event that God is a trinity.
BUT, OF COURSE, THE SCRIPTURE IN ITSELF, IF THEOLOGY IS LEFT OUT, MUST BE TRANSLATED “A GOD.”
Quote That’s a good point David. So I suppose the Coptic language 1700 years ago is the only language that has not changed or evolved? So now you have a translation of a translation of a translation. Why not go straight to the Greek with the Greek and Aramaic knowledge that we have. Oh, that’s right we did, that’s why we have all the English translations today from the Greek text. No, it did evolve. Your point? Do we care what it's involved into? No. Focus WJ. We're trying to figure out what John 1:1 meant back then, when it was written. Back then, shortly after it was written, it was translated into a language that actually has the indefinite article; a language that actually used the Greek alphabet and quite a bit Greek words. And concerning John 1:1c, they translated it “a god.”
[/QUOTE]See above David, the Greek is more reliable!
Realiable. Ok. But precise? No. Obviously not.
Considering all the comments that John 1:1 gets in other threads, there's not very many people commenting on this.
Very few people comment because if they allowed themselves to think about this very long,
they might change their mind about something in scriptures. That would mean that they were wrong in their
original thinking. If they were wrong about one thing, could they also be wrong about something else?That entire prospect frightens most Christians away from even considering another point of view.
Tim
Quote (david @ Nov. 20 2008,16:29) Considering all the comments that John 1:1 gets in other threads, there's not very many people commenting on this. Hi David
Quote “A Contemporary English Translation of Coptic John 1:1-18
A Contemporary English Translation of Coptic John 1:1-18
©Copyright 20061. In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being. 2. This one existed in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into existence through him; without him nothing that exists came to be. What came to be 4. through him is life, the life that is the light of mankind. 5. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overtake it.”
What is to comment on?
A translation of a translation that is full of errors and misquotes!
The definition of the word “Theos” is not “divine”!
Quote Magazine article about Coptic John 1:1
The November 1, 2008 issue of The Watchtower magazine, currently printing 37.1 million copies per issue in 169 different languages, has a significant article that mentions the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1.The title of the article is: Was the Word “God” or “a god”?
SAHIDIC COPTIC JOHN 1:1
Hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje
Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
Auw neunoute pe pshajeA literal translation of the Sahidic Coptic:
In the beginning existed the word
And the word existed in the presence of the god
And a god was the wordUnlike the contemporaneous versions in Syriac and Latin, the Sahidic Coptic language has both the definite and indefinite grammatical articles in its syntactical system. The Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article in identifying the God that the Word was with, and they used the Coptic indefinite article in identifying the divinity of the Word. This is a feature in both the Sahidic and the Bohairic Coptic versions.
Scripture declares there is only “One True God” and that all others are false, manmade and not gods at all.
The NWT translated as “a god” meaning Jesus is “a god” is in violation of the Hebrew text.
The writer John was not a Polytheist, but a strict Monotheistic Jew who new the Septuagent and the meaning of the word “theos”.
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that “there is no God but one”. For even if there are “so called gods”, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords.. 1 Cor 8:4, 5
See now that I, even I, am he, and “there is no god with me”: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. Deut 32:39
And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold,”now I know that there is no God in all the earth”, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. 2 Kings 5:15
And he said, LORD God of Israel, “there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath”, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart: 1 Kings 8:23
And said, O LORD God of Israel, “there is no God like thee in the heaven”, nor in the earth; which keepest covenant, and shewest mercy unto thy servants, that walk before thee with all their hearts: 2 Chron 6:14
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God”. Isa 44:6
The scriptures themselves bear out that there is “Only One True God” and Jesus is one with the Father and the Spirit as that God.
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET
No one except Jesus has seen the Father. That is because he is himself God!
All attempts to change the litteral Greek text of John 1:1c “And God was the Word” have been futile and simply dust in the wind.Also see…Here
WJ
Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 20 2008,22:33) Very few people comment because if they allowed themselves to think about this very long,
they might change their mind about something in scriptures. That would mean that they were wrong in their
original thinking. If they were wrong about one thing, could they also be wrong about something else?That entire prospect frightens most Christians away from even considering another point of view.
Tim
Hi TimTrue!
Question is “if they are frightened are they Christians at all”?
WJ
Hi all
Here is some information about the JWs and thier seeking out apologist on the Coptic without doing thier own research.
I found this as I was searching myself.
Thanks, slimboyfat! You get a gold star!
It looks very much like the Society took the apologists' word for it, without doing any original research of their own. Their use of Thomas G. Lambdin's grammar is wholly misleading because Coptic usage of the indefinite article differs from English usage precisely in a way that affects interpretation of John 1:1. If you look at Lambdin original statement, he is clear that the usage is not the same but that abstract nouns and nouns of substance may have indefinite articles where they would not occur in English:And later on p. 59, Lambdin shows that unlike English, the indefinite article is required with predicate adjectives:
This latter grammatical rule affects the way the usage of the indefinite article in John 1:1 is interpreted because in Coptic, predicate nouns can be used in a qualitative sense — just as in the Greek. Had the Society examined the recent Coptic grammar by Bentley Layton (Coptic in 20 Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic [Leuven: Peeters, 2007]), or even Layton's older Coptic grammar, they would have known that noute “god” is one of the nouns that could be used qualitatively to mean “divine”, which would have an indefinite article in predicate position:
The Watchtower article is thus wrong about Coptic grammar and does not acknowledge that the Coptic rendering in John 1:1 is actually ambiguous between an indefinite “The Word was a god” and a qualitative “The Word was divine”. Both options would require the indefinite article in Coptic and thus the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic text does not by itself favor an English rendering with an indefinite article versus one with a qualitative expression. The value of the Coptic version is rather in confirming the linguistic findings of Harner and subsequent writers that the theos in John 1:1 is not to be understood as definite (although cf. John 1:18 where the Coptic uses a definite expression p-noute “God” to refer to Jesus, a fact not mentioned in the Watchtower article).I couldnt get all of the post, but the link should help.
Enjoy!
WJ
Quote a translation that is full of errors and misquotes! Such as…..?
Quote The definition of the word “Theos” is not “divine”! Agreed. It should definitely be translated “a god.” I agree. But many trinitarians will do anything to not see it translated literally as “a god” as it appears in the Coptic.
Quote Scripture declares there is only “One True God” and that all others are false, manmade and not gods at all. The NWT translated as “a god” meaning Jesus is “a god” is in violation of the Hebrew text.
Listen, I've shown you hebrew texts that you ignore, that speak of angels and human judges as gods. So it is not a violation of the text.
Quote See now that I, even I, am he, and “there is no god with me”: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. Deut 32:39 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold,”now I know that there is no God in all the earth”, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. 2 Kings 5:15
And he said, LORD God of Israel, “there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath”, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart: 1 Kings 8:23
And said, O LORD God of Israel, “there is no God like thee in the heaven”, nor in the earth; which keepest covenant, and shewest mercy unto thy servants, that walk before thee with all their hearts: 2 Chron 6:14
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God”. Isa 44:6
FROM JEHOVAH'S STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO GOD, NO MIGHTY ONE. OBVIOUSLY.
Jesus has a God, the Father. But the Father never speaks of Jesus as his God. He never speaks of anyone as his God, for he is Almighty. He doesn't have one who is more mighty that he looks to, does he?
Quote All attempts to change the litteral Greek text of John 1:1c “And God was the Word” have been futile and simply dust in the wind.
And, yet, the wrong translation of “the word was God” has lasted for centuries. So much for dust in the wind.Quote I found this as I was searching myself. Thanks, slimboyfat! You get a gold star!
It looks very much like the Society took the apologists' word for it, without doing any original research of their own. Their use of Thomas G. Lambdin's grammar is wholly misleading because Coptic usage of the indefinite article differs from English usage precisely in a way that affects interpretation of John 1:1. If you look at Lambdin original statement, he is clear that the usage is not the same but that abstract nouns and nouns of substance may have indefinite articles where they would not occur in English:And later on p. 59, Lambdin shows that unlike English, the indefinite article is required with predicate adjectives:
This latter grammatical rule affects the way the usage of the indefinite article in John 1:1 is interpreted because in Coptic, predicate nouns can be used in a qualitative sense — just as in the Greek. Had the Society examined the recent Coptic grammar by Bentley Layton (Coptic in 20 Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic [Leuven: Peeters, 2007]), or even Layton's older Coptic grammar, they would have known that noute “god” is one of the nouns that could be used qualitatively to mean “divine”, which would have an indefinite article in predicate position:
The Watchtower article is thus wrong about Coptic grammar and does not acknowledge that the Coptic rendering in John 1:1 is actually ambiguous between an indefinite “The Word was a god” and a qualitative “The Word was divine”. Both options would require the indefinite article in Coptic and thus the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic text does not by itself favor an English rendering with an indefinite article versus one with a qualitative expression. The value of the Coptic version is rather in confirming the linguistic findings of Harner and subsequent writers that the theos in John 1:1 is not to be understood as definite (although cf. John 1:18 where the Coptic uses a definite expression p-noute “God” to refer to Jesus, a fact not mentioned in the Watchtower article).
source
I couldnt get all of the post, but the link should help.
WJ you say you found this while searching yourself. You should have just read the first page of this thread. (I'm surprised you haven't gotten through the first page yet.) On the first page of this thread, I already provided this link and quoted much from it. It is quite interesting if you read it all.
But you should know that you're quoting someone who thinks the “a god” could be translated “divine.” Because of her comments partially, is the reason I started mentioning that it could be translated “divine.”
And note her words:
“The value of the Coptic version is rather in confirming the linguistic findings of Harner and subsequent writers that the theos in John 1:1 is not to be understood as definite”The value of the Coptic is in that it tells us it shouldn't be translated “the word was God” but rather it should be translated according to her “a god” or “divine.” Her issue is that the Watchtower does not include the 'it could be translated 'divine'' statement.
And as I said on that first page, regarding her comments which you have highlighted:
We definitely have someone here who argues against the Watchtower and what it said, but notice what she acknowledges–it has to be translated either “a god” OR “divine” but not “God.” This apparently is what we learn from the coptic translation, a language that is far less ambiguous than Greek or Latin.I forgot about this topic.
The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article (“a”). So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (“a” or “an”) (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (And every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
The languages that John 1:1 were translated and copied into (Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, etc) had no indefinite article. Around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article.
But 1300 years before, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
You are missing the point, WorshippingJesus, about the word 'god'. Wasn't it Jesus himself who quoted the scriptures and said the following?
Johannes 10:34-36
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?Quote Scripture declares there is only “One True God” and that all others are false, manmade and not gods at all. The NWT translated as “a god” meaning Jesus is “a god” is in violation of the Hebrew text.
Do you still consider what you said to be true?Hi
Quote (igorwulff @ Oct. 12 2009,06:30)
You are missing the point, WorshippingJesus, about the word 'god'. Wasn't it Jesus himself who quoted the scriptures and said the following?Johannes 10:34-36
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
I think you are missing the point my friend. Jesus quoting the Psalmist was a derogatory statement meant to rebuke the Jews for being hypocrites about what was written in “Their Law”.Do you think Jesus is saying that the wicked kings and judges in Ps 82 are gods?
Is Jesus a Polytheist or Henotheist? Didn’t the Psalmist say that they would die like men?
Read Psalms 82 and show me where YHWH is calling them gods. It is the Psalmist that said they were children of the most high but now they had become wicked rulers. Remember the word “god” ('elohiym) is also translated Judges, or rulers.
Here is the problem with those who are saying Jesus is calling men gods, rather than just quoting the Psalmist.
1. Jesus is not a Polytheist or Henotheist
2. Jesus believed in “Only One True God and no other”
3. There is no OT or NT example of YHWH or the prophets or Jesus or the Apostles ever ascribing the word “'elohiym” or “Theos” to any being with divine qualities.
4. There are no examples of a Hebrew or follower of YHWH or Jesus calling any being their God other than the Father and Jesus.
5. To acknowledge there were other gods (except what is false and made by man) is in violation of the scriptures.
6. Jesus would have been breaking the following scriptures if he was acknowledging there were other gods.
Hsa 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and “THOU SHALT KNOW **NO GOD BUT ME** FOR THERE IS NO SAVIOUR BESIDE ME.”Exod 23:13
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and “MAKE NO MENTION OF THE NAME OF OTHER GODS, NEITHER LET IT BE HEARD OUT OF THY MOUTH”.Isa 45:21
Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and “THERE IS NO GOD ELSE BESIDE ME; A JUST GOD AND A SAVIOUR; THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME.”Isa 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.Quote (igorwulff @ Oct. 12 2009,06:30)
Quote Scripture declares there is only “One True God” and that all others are false, manmade and not gods at all. The NWT translated as “a god” meaning Jesus is “a god” is in violation of the Hebrew text.
Do you still consider what you said to be true?
Absolutely, the NWT is in violation of the text and completely disregards every other major translation that was translated by over 600 Hebrew and Greek scholars. You do realize that there was not a single Hebrew or Greek scholar on the NWT committee that translated the NWT, don’t you?Are you prepared to call other men gods? Will you join the ranks of the Polytheist and Henotheist who say that there is more than “One God”?
Paul said…
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE”. For even if “there are so-called gods”, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 1 Cor 8:4, 5
Yet this same Paul writes…
“ while we wait for the blessed hope–“THE GLORIOUS APPEARING OF OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST”,.” Titus 2:13
Put that together with the GSR and John 1:1 1:18, 20:28, Acts 20:28, Isa 9:6, Heb 1:10, 1 John 5:20, Phil 2:6, 7, Mathew 28:19, and you will understand the Trinitarian view!
Do you still acknowedge there are any gods other than one?
Then what do you do with the scritpures where the followers of Christ and even the Father calls Jesus God and no other?
I guess its time to get out the whiteout, eh?
This is a challenge for you…
Can you give me one OT or NT example of YHWH or the prophets or Jesus or the Apostles ever ascribing the word “'elohiym” or “Theos” to any being with divine qualities other than Jesus?
Blessings WJ
Quote (david @ Nov. 20 2008,20:47) FROM JEHOVAH'S STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO GOD, NO MIGHTY ONE. OBVIOUSLY.
But Jehovah’s standpoint is the standpoint that he would have every Monotheistic believer to have also.Isa 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and *there is none else*; I am God, and *there is none like me*,Hsa 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou “SHALT KNOW NO GOD BUT ME“: *for there is no saviour beside me*.Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME”. Isa 43:10
“Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and “DO NOT MENTION THE NAME OF OTHER GODS, NOR LET THEM BE HEARD FROM YOUR MOUTH. Exod 23:13
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE“. For even if there “ARE SO CALLED GODS”, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 1 Cor 8:4, 5
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
