Coptic versions of the bible

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 15 2009,13:08)

Hi WJ,
Why do you not choose Jesus and his Spirit in the Word?

I take that to mean that if I accept the scriptures that I am not accepting the “Word” is that right?

It is the Trinitarians that accept the simple reading of the verse.

December 15, 2009 at 9:23 pm#164517

Participant

Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2009,15:37)

Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 15 2009,09:16)

David said:

Quote

FROM JEHOVAH'S STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO GOD, NO MIGHTY ONE. OBVIOUSLY.

David,
You're losing your scholarly edge and speaking like the rest of them here. Jehovah's standpoint is to be ours also.

thinker

Thinker, what do you think?–

If Jehovah told Jesus what to do, is it your standpoint that you should tell Jesus what to do?
My point, to be clear is, while we are to IMITATE Jehovah, we are NOT JEHOVAH.

He STANDS in a different point/position, relative to us. Hence, he does have a different stand point.

Being that he is the Almighty, there are none above him, none he looks up to. Do you think you share this with him? No, thinker, you aren't God. So, you have a different position than he does.

I think I now understand the problem. When you say “Jehovah's standpoint is to be ours” I you are using the word “standpoint” to mean “opinion” or “attitude.” But it also means “perspective.” Maybe what I was trying to say, from his position, or from his point of perspective.

Understand that from his point of view, Jesus is his Son. From our point of view, Jesus is not our son. We have different perspective on position than he does.

Huh?

Sheer rationalism! No gods in the sense of deities exist except in the imaginations of men. You are definitely a polytheist!

thinker

December 15, 2009 at 9:43 pm#164526

Participant

Hi WJ,
There are NO scripture that TEACH trinity.
Cobbling together your hopeful inferences does not make truth.

December 15, 2009 at 10:05 pm#164534

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 16 2009,08:43)

Hi WJ,
There are NO scripture that TEACH trinity.
Cobbling together your hopeful inferences does not make truth.

Not inference Nick but proposition.

thinker

December 15, 2009 at 10:09 pm#164538

Participant

Hi TT,
So baseless speculations?
We are to pull down speculations

December 16, 2009 at 5:02 am#164635

Participant

Quote

The Coptic is all you have David, and the lonely NWT.

All I have for what? Are you suggesting that the Coptic (the earliest Bible translation into a language that even had the possibility of translating it with “a,” and did so) and the NWT are the only translations that don't translate this “God”?

Because you know that's a lie. There's like 20 Bible's that translate it in various ways other than God. Yet, you keep repeating that, hoping you'll convince yourself and others, I suppose.

Quote

We know the NWT is corrupt for there are many disengenuos examples of mistranslation by the so-called scholars who were not Hebrew or Greek scholars at all.

You can say that, but on this point of John 1:1, it is grammatically as correct as any other translation, as you know. As you know, it can be translated either way, but it all depends on who Jesus is.

If Jesus is God almighty and a trinity, then of course, we can break normality and translate this as “God.” But in any other case, where we have two beings, and one is “with” the other, it is obvious that they are not the same being.
So, if you have a trinitarian bias, you'll translate it God.
If you have a nontrinitarian bias, you'll translate it “a god” or one of the less correct and various way other translators do so.

Quote

So who is to say the Coptic version which is rejected by most legitimate Greek scholars is not a corrupt translation also.

You are trying to prove something that is ambiguous as being unambiguous.

No, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply and very beautifully disproving something you've said, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

You have claimed that the NWT is the only translation to translate John 1:1 as “a god.”
But the embarrassing truth is:

1800 years ago, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language (unlike Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, and most every language that existed for a millenium). 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.”

The VERY EARLIEST TRANSLATION OF THE JOHN 1:1 where the translators came up against the choice of “God” or “a god” chose ……………….THAT'S RIGHT………”a god.”

And as much as you hate that fact, HERE'S THE REAL KICKER:

They understood koine Greek better than anyone today, as it was still a spoken language back then.
Not just that, but they actually used the Greek alphabet and a few other letters in their own language.

So, no, I'm not proving anything, only DISPROVING that the NWT is the “only” Bible to do this.

The first translations of John that were given a choice, did it as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dave

December 16, 2009 at 5:07 am#164637

Participant

Quote

The very fact that the scriptures say “There is no God but one” falls down in favour of the Trinitarian view of John 1:1c because John was not a polytheist for he did not have to use the word theos in the verse did he?

Except, we know that many are called “gods” in the Bible, and I'm not talking about the false gods that were worshiped by pagans. So, the “there is no God but one” of course means, Jehovah is the Almighty God, above all, the true God, the mighty one, compared to all others.
Other's are called gods, as you know. As we've discussed before, Jehovah made Moses a god to Pharoah. Jehovah didn't turn Moses into a false god.

“god” is a relative word and means “mighty one.”

December 16, 2009 at 5:08 am#164638

Participant

Can we please stick to the actual subject, of which no one here really wants to discuss?

December 16, 2009 at 11:25 am#164690

Constitutionalist

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,09:20)

Quote (banana @ Dec. 15 2009,03:53)

david

For what it's worth, you're doing a great job.
I am no Greek or anything scholar, but understanding the bible as I do, you are correct.

Georg

Hi George

David makes himself and the NWT as the final authority no matter what the many other real Greek and Hebrew scholars say.

AT Roberston says concerning John 1:1…

In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1 . But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse Genesis 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Genesis 8:58 “before Abraham came (genesqai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence). The Word (o logo). Logo is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logo is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatiko logo for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23 . Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logo, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logo is applied to Christ only in John 1:1 John 1:14 ; Revelation 19:13 ; 1 John 1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Hebrews 4:12 . But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul ( 2 Corinthians 8:9 ; Philippians 2:6 ; Colossians 1:17 ) and in Hebrews 1:2 and in John 17:5 . This term suits John's purpose better than sopia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, verse John 14 ) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. With God (pro ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pro with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of pro: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton ecomen pro ton patera). See proswpon pro proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12 ), a triple use of pro. There is a papyrus example of pro in this sense to gnwston th pro allhlou sunhqeia, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pro here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. And the Word was God (kai qeo hn o logo). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeo hn o logo. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logo and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logo) and the predicate without it (qeo) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeo can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 o qeo agaph estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logo sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality

Roberston is a world renowned Greek scholar and is in agreement with 100s of other real Greek scholars on the translation of the verse.

I choose them over the illegitimate translators of the NWT and the forgotten Coptic version and watchtowers opinion.

No Greek Scholar is unbiased?

December 16, 2009 at 8:33 pm#164734

Participant

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 16 2009,06:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,09:20)

Quote (banana @ Dec. 15 2009,03:53)

david

For what it's worth, you're doing a great job.
I am no Greek or anything scholar, but understanding the bible as I do, you are correct.

Georg

Hi George

David makes himself and the NWT as the final authority no matter what the many other real Greek and Hebrew scholars say.

AT Roberston says concerning John 1:1…

Roberston is a world renowned Greek scholar and is in agreement with 100s of other real Greek scholars on the translation of the verse.

I choose them over the illegitimate translators of the NWT and the forgotten Coptic version and watchtowers opinion.

No Greek Scholar is unbiased?

Con

Unless you can prove they are then your point is invalid, especially seeing that no “Single Scholar” translated the major translations on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org.

What you guys fail to see is that most Greek and Hebrew scholars are Trinitarians because they know how to translate the scriptures and see the truth in the text.

The Translations is not a result of their Trintarianism, instead their Trintarianism is a result of the Translation.

Tell me why is there no major Translation of the Bible other than a few scattered and the NWT that has “Unitarian” or Arian Bias?

Could it be that it would be totally disregarded by the experts who would expose their corruptions much like the Coptic and the NWT today?

Why do most Unitarians and Arians use a major translation rather than one of the obscure versions?

Could it be that they would also be exposed for their grammatical errors?

December 16, 2009 at 9:21 pm#164749

Participant

Hi WJ,
The wide way is much more popular.

December 16, 2009 at 11:12 pm#164758

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 16 2009,16:21)

Hi WJ,
The wide way is much more popular.

Your statement is relative.

Being a Christian is not very popular at all!

And being a Trinitarian, a follower of Jesus who is the Way, is even less popular!

December 17, 2009 at 12:52 am#164778

Participant

Quote

What you guys fail to see is that most Greek and Hebrew scholars are Trinitarians because they know how to translate the scriptures and see the truth in the text.

Is that how it works WJ?

Or, rather, wouldn't most translators be indoctrinated with trinitarianism from a very early age, so they see it in the text?
They grow up a Catholic, they're going to see the trinity everywhere.

Unless you're suggesting that translators are mostly athiests, which is of course untrue.

Quote

Could it be that it would be totally disregarded by the experts who would expose their corruptions much like the Coptic and the NWT today?

WJ, yes, it would be disregarded, and NOT BOUGHTEN!!!!!

People love to be told what they already believe. They buy what they believe. Unfortunately, when it comes to most Bible's, they involve money and business, and popularity. Perhaps you should consider Bible translations that aren't afraid to go against tradition and search out the truth despite popularity.

Which is more important…truth, or popularity?

December 17, 2009 at 1:14 am#164781

Participant

Hi WJ,
Are you kidding?

This site is unusual as it is not full of strident trinity believers.
You know it is incorrect and that is why you remain here.

December 17, 2009 at 7:53 pm#164897

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,12:12)

The Coptic is all you have David, and the lonely NWT.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:02)

No I am saying that all you have is an “earlier” translation that had the possibility of translating it with an “a” and that your assumption that they translated it without bias is self defeating since you say that over 600 Greek scholars that translated the major versions today in English that is a language having the possibility of translating with an “a” and yet did not do so, were biased.

Your whole point of this thread is circular!

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:02)

Because you know that's a lie. There's like 20 Bible's that translate it in various ways other than God. Yet, you keep repeating that, hoping you'll convince yourself and others, I suppose.

No lie since this thread is not about your exaggerated claim of 20 other translations that are never used and hardly heard of. I keep repeating it because that is what you and WT are talking about, the Coptic and the NWT.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,12:12)

We know the NWT is corrupt for there are many disingenuous examples of mistranslation by the so-called scholars who were not Hebrew or Greek scholars at all.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:02)

No it is not grammatically as correct David, first and foremost because John was not a Polytheist and secondly because there is other times the word “Theos” is ascribed to Jesus with the definite article. Since we also know that John is not promoting Sabellianism in the context, then we know why he didn’t use the definite article in John 1:1c.

But none of this in and of itself proves the Trinity, and neither does it disprove the Trinity. The Trinitarian view is found in the whole council of God.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:02)

Not so, mainly because of context and most of all because John was a monotheist and could have chosen another Greek word other than ‘Theos” to describe the “Word”. But he didn’t do it did he?

Thanks though for admitting you have a bias in translating the scriptures.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,12:12)

So who is to say the Coptic version which is rejected by most legitimate Greek scholars is not a corrupt translation also

You are trying to prove something that is ambiguous as being unambiguous.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:02)

No, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply and very beautifully disproving something you've said, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

You have claimed that the NWT is the only translation to translate John 1:1 as “a god.”

Where David? I said what I said because that is what you are defending in this thread. You are not even mentioning others until recently.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:02)

But the embarrassing truth is:

The VERY EARLIEST TRANSLATION OF THE JOHN 1:1 where the translators came up against the choice of “God” or “a god” chose ……………….THAT'S RIGHT………”a god.”

What is embarrassing is you are trying to prove that the Coptic translation has it right when you yourself have said it could go either way.

And also what is embarrassing is you are saying Jesus is “a god” but not calling him your “god”. If Jesus is “a god” to you and you serve him as your “Only Lord and Master”, Jude 1:4, and he is not “The True God”, then you commit Idolatry.

The Coptic’s do not even believe in the Coptic translation of John 1:1 you speak of, because they also are not Polytheist.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:02)

And as much as you hate that fact, HERE'S THE REAL KICKER:

And your point is? Is that all the proof you have? Where is the proof that “they spoke” koine Greek better than others? How do you or anyone else 1800 years later know this?

You still didn't answer the question, is there anywhere else in the Coptic translation where they referred to Jesus as “a god”?

Or did they use the definite article in those places where the definite article was used in referring to Jesus as being “The True God”.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:02)

So, no, I'm not proving anything, only DISPROVING that the NWT is the “only” Bible to do this.

Great, so now you can place the NWT along with the few obscure translations that translated John 1:1 in a polytheistic way.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:02)

The first translations of John that were given a choice, did it as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dave

Isn’t it the “first translation” singular and not plural David?

December 17, 2009 at 8:01 pm#164901

Participant

WorshippiingJesus said to David:

Quote

No it is not grammatically as correct David, first and foremost because John was not a Polytheist….

Exactly! Wikipedia which David invoked on the Preexistence thread says that the NWT is “incoherently polytheistic.” I think it's funny that David would invoke Wikipedia for support when it says that their translation is “incoherent” in its theology of God.

thinker

December 17, 2009 at 8:07 pm#164905

Participant

WorshippingJesus said to David:

Quote

And also what is emabarrassing is you saying Jesus is “a god” but not calling him your “god”. If Jesus is “a god” to you and you serve him as your “Only Lord and Master”, Jude 1:4, and he is not “The True God”, then you commit Idolatry.

This may be why Wikipedia says that the NWT is “incoherently polytheistic.” If Jesus is “a god” then He must be a true god. And if He is a true god then the Father is not the “only true God.”

Wikipedia has it right. The NWT is “incoherently polytheistic.”

thinker

December 18, 2009 at 7:26 pm#165209

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,12:12)

The very fact that the scriptures say “There is no God but one” falls down in favor of the Trinitarian view of John 1:1c because John was not a polytheist for he did not have to use the word theos in the verse did he?

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:07)

Yes David you have more than once acknowledged your polytheism which is in violation of the scriptures.

10 “YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. “Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10

That is your own translation the NWT, claiming that “there was no god formed and after him there continues to be none”! Yet the same translation says that there is “a god” with the Father in John 1:1.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,00:07)

Other's are called gods, as you know. As we've discussed before, Jehovah made Moses a god to Pharoah. Jehovah didn't turn Moses into a false god.

“god” is a relative word and means “mighty one.”

Yes for your theology their has to be more than one god or you deny the scriptures. Funny thing is you deny the scriptures anyway.

If Moses was a “god” then that would be contradicting YHWHs own words. To Pharoah he was “a god” because Pharoah was a Polytheist and believed in many gods, which were not gods at all, were they?

But Moses was not “a god” to YHWH or his children, for the scriptures clearly say “there is no god but one”.

And as it has been pointed out the NWT violates the text and gives more credence to Moses as God to Pharoah than to Jesus whom they claim is “a god”.

“Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have “made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet”. Exod 7:1 NWT

Notice how the NWT uses “God” with a capital “G” whereas when we read John 1:1 the so-called translators used a lower case “g” for the Word that was God in John 1:1c.

In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was “a god. John 1:1 NWT

Yet David wants to accuse the translators of the major translations of our day of being biased.

December 18, 2009 at 7:52 pm#165216

Participant

Hi David

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2009,15:33)

What you guys fail to see is that most Greek and Hebrew scholars are Trinitarians because they know how to translate the scriptures and see the truth in the text.

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,19:52)

Is that how it works WJ?

Or, rather, wouldn't most translators be indoctrinated with trinitarianism from a very early age, so they see it in the text?
They grow up a Catholic, they're going to see the trinity everywhere.

Unless you're suggesting that translators are mostly athiests, which is of course untrue.

I think you just described the translators of the NWT.

Come on David, get real. You are promoting some sort of conspiracy here among over 600 Hebrew and Greek scholars to deny grammatical rules of translation. Most of them were not “Catholics”, BTW, but were protestant!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2009,15:33)

Could it be that it would be totally disregarded by the experts who would expose their corruptions much like the Coptic and the NWT today?

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,19:52)

WJ, yes, it would be disregarded, and NOT BOUGHTEN!!!!!

Is that a new word?

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,19:52)

People love to be told what they already believe. They buy what they believe.

Sounds like you are describing the JWs again. Then why does almost every “Arian” or “Unitarian” use one or more of the Major translations on BGW and BLB rather than the NWT which really is Biased toward their belief! HMMM?

Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2009,19:52)

Unfortunately, when it comes to most Bible's, they involve money and business, and popularity.

You assume that everyone using the popular versions is not seeking the truth. Why do you think they are not using the NWT?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2009,15:33)

Perhaps you should consider Bible translations that aren't afraid to go against tradition and search out the truth despite popularity.

Which is more important…truth, or popularity?

Well there you go again, assuming that the translators went by tradition and not by the Greek and the grammatical rules of translation. It’s the NWT translators that went by their traditions!

Because they couldn't have gone by grammatical rules of translation seeing that none of them were Hebrew or Greek scholars!!!

I am asking the same question about you, why do you hold on to the traditions of WT?

January 30, 2010 at 7:13 am#174481