- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,21:40)
Dr. Jason BeDuhn (of Northern Arizona University) in regard to the Kingdom Interlinear's appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not “God” but “a god” said: “In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject.”[/color]Hmmmmm…………….chalk one up for the “non-Greek speaking” NWT translators.
Yea right!!!!
One non Biblical Hebrew and Greek Scholar patting another on the back.
Here is the extent of Dr. Jason BeDuhn credentials…
Debuhn holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. Source
I am sure we want to put our trust in their ability to translate Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,21:40) Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
Hi MikeWell at least now you have a “Greek” scholar who just so happens to be a “Trinitarian”. I wonder why?
The thing is Dr Harris, goes on to reject this translation (the Word was a god) on the grounds of what he percieves is the theology of John, that is, John's monotheistic beliefs. Source
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,21:40) C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
Once again we have a Trinitarian who is a Protestant Theologian without any Biblical Hebrew or Greek credentials that we can tell.But notice his inference is…”IF a translation were a matter of substituting words..”, which they are not.
Come on Mike, you can do better than this…
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,21:40) Let's add in David's point of the Coptic version: Actual usage of the Sahidic Coptic noun “noute” in the Coptic New Testament strongly suggests that it is a count noun that, when bound with the Coptic indefinite article, should be translated into English as “a god.” For example, Coptic scholar George Horner's English translation of the Coptic at Acts 28:6 (Bohairic) has “a god.” Coptic scholar Bentley Layton gives “a god” for the literal interlinear translation of “u.noute”.
MikeSorry, already been debunked long before you came here.
David and the JWs claim that the Coptic version is right is merely conjecture which is ambiguous and based on pure bias.
Here is just a peice of information on the Coptic…
“So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have written “a god.” He was not equating the Word with the proper name God, but he could have understood John to be using theos in a qualitative sense, as many Greek scholars have argued. Dr. Layton says it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication in the immediate context to help us?
I believe there is significant evidence in favor of a qualitative reading. In the Sahidic version of John 1:18b, the anarthrous theos in the Greek is translated with the definite article. Horner's translation reads as follows:
“God, the only Son.”4
It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a translator would understand John to have designated the Word “a god” in John 1:1 and “the God” in John 1:18. Instead, his use of the definite article in verse 18 would make more sense if he understood John to be ascribing the qualities of Deity to the Word in John 1:1.” Source!
The Coptic is merely a last ditch effort on the JWs part to find some justification for their mis-translation of John 1:1c into a Polytheistic scripture.
WJ
Hi All
Here is some real “Scholarly” commentary by some real Biblical Hebrew and Greek Scholars on John 1:1…
Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
The NET (25 Biblical Hebrew and Greek Scholars)And…
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.
A.T. Robertson (World Renowned Greek Grammarian)Here is an excellent debate on the subject with excellent information on John 1:1c… John 1:1 Debate
Enjoy!
WJ
Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 16 2011,06:22)
I got this discussion somewhere else. I agree with it. I agree that when one translates the bible, intracate renderings would be influenced by pre-concieved notions.
Hi Mark,Thanks for your response. What you quoted is from Wikipedia. It is the same source I quoted from in my last post. And you are absolutely right that renderings are influenced by pre-conceived notions. From the same Wikipedia source:
The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, “and the Word was the God.” The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, “and the word was a God.” – David A. Reed
Arius did not believe Jesus to be God Himself, but the Son of God, just as the scriptures teach over and over. So naturally, understanding that the Greek words could say “the word was god”, or “the word was the god” or “the word was a god”, Arius chose the “a god” rendering.
Mark, I want to get into a serious discussion about which rendering is the correct one that fits in best with all the other scriptures. But I won't do that until the “Jesus is God” people are willing to debate this on a level playing field. For example, I don't know anyone who believes the translation should be “the word was THE god”, but I'm willing to acknowledge Colwell's Rule and accept that it COULD actually be translated that way.
I would spend thousands of hours and words fighting against that translation…………but only AFTER I was honest and admitted that translation WAS GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.
It seems that Keith and Jack and Dennison and you want to get the the “thousands of hours and words” before honestly admitting the “a god” translation IS GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.
In fact, the have dug their heels in and REFUSE to admit what they KNOW to be true…………and that says a lot about them. I have told them repeatedly that I'm not even arguing yet that it SHOULD BE translated that way. I'm only want to set the debate on an HONEST foundation from the start. THEN we can all go to town with our arguments for which way it SHOULD BE translated.
Mark, I've posted quotes from three scholars that say it can be “a god”. Keith tells us that two of those three are Trinitarians, and that one of them is an actual Greek scholar. So I'll ask you again what I've been asking these other guys:
Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate 1:1c as “the Word was a god”?
I don't care right now if you AGREE with that translation……….I just want you to honestly admit that it IS GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. Will you do this?
Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 16 2011,06:22)
John was a strict Jew, a monotheist. Does the Jehovah's Witness really think that John would be saying that there was another God besides Jehovah, even if it were Jesus?
Mark, you apparently have much to learn about the words “elohim” and “theos”. But that discussion is for AFTER we all admit the truth to my question above and start this debate from a level playing field.Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 16 2011,06:22)
Why would you suggest someone contact them when you know that they will tell them that unless they join them, they will be lost?
There are many JW threads on this site. If and when I want to discuss them at length, I will post on one of those threads. But just to answer this one question: David has repeatedly answered to this lie many times on this site. The JW's do not as an “official policy” claim to be the ONLY ones who will be saved. And no JW I've talked to has EVER implied this to me. They don't know who will be saved anymore than you or I do. They know that to be saved, they are to believe in God, in the name of His Son, follow their commands, and to preach the good news of God's coming Kingdom. They do all of this daily, and so are hopeful they will be saved. But I've never heard one claiming to know that others outside their organization WON'T be saved.Mark, this thread is about John 1:1. Let's keep it about that, okay?
I anxiously await your honest answer to the question I bolded.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 16 2011,10:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,21:40) Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
Hi MikeWell at least now you have a “Greek” scholar who just so happens to be a “Trinitarian”. I wonder why?
The thing is Dr Harris, goes on to reject this translation (the Word was a god) on the grounds of what he percieves is the theology of John, that is, John's monotheistic beliefs. Source
WJ
Very good Keith,Thank you for the info on this scholar. So now I have listed the words of a Trinitarian who also happens to be a Greek scholar. And his words say the “a god” translation IS GRAMMITCALLY POSSIBLE.
I'm have not yet even begun to argue whether or not it SHOULD BE “a god” or not, so Dr. Harris' rejection can be brought up later if you like. Right now, I'm only interested in one thing………….an HONEST answer from you and Jack. I will accept your previous “NO” as an answer stemming from ignorance of the writings of Greek scholars such as Dr. Harris.
But now that you've read his very plain words saying the “a god” translation IS GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE……………..
Keith and Jack, is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to render John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”? YES or NO?
I've read the info you posted today. The first two thirds of it is straight from the Wikipedia source I posted from yesterday. And once again you've listed Colwell's Rule along with what I posted yesterday about his rule ALLOWING FOR the definite article, but NOT DEMANDING it. Besides, no trinitarian is even arguing for “THE God” in 1:1c. Even they argue for “essence of God”, not “THE God”.
Read the whole article, Keith. The writer agrees right down the line with what t8's been trying to teach you about “qualitative”. (Well, all except for the part where he says Jesus is later taught to be THE God in scripture. t8 doesn't agree with that part, because it's not true.
)At any rate, not one part of it, or the Robertson you quoted ever says the “a god” translation is a GRAMMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. And that's all I'm after right now, an HONEST acknowledgement from you that it is not IMPOSSIBLE. Are you honest enough to change your first answer in light of this scholarly trinitarian information?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 16 2011,10:26) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,21:40) C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
Once again we have a Trinitarian who is a Protestant Theologian without any Biblical Hebrew or Greek credentials that we can tell.But notice his inference is…”IF a translation were a matter of substituting words..”, which they are not.
Come on Mike, you can do better than this…
WJ
In 1915 he returned to Mansfield as Yates Lecturer, and later Professor, in New Testament Greek and Exegesis,However, Dodd will be remembered mainly for his outstanding contribution to the project which produced the modern translation of the Bible into English, The New English Bible, which sought to convey the expressions of the Bible in a modern idiom by departing from the tendency of earlier translations to translate the scriptures word-for-word. He was appointed General Director of this project in 1947 and saw the task through from its inception to its completion when the complete translation was published in 1970.
He was quite an accomplished scholar Keith. You make his statement sound “dirty”, as if translations aren't a matter of substituting English words for Greek words. But don't forget he also said, “As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
So now I have two Trinitarians who are both experts in Greek saying “a god” is grammatically possible. When will YOU say it?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 16 2011,09:44) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,21:40)
Dr. Jason BeDuhn (of Northern Arizona University) in regard to the Kingdom Interlinear's appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not “God” but “a god” said: “In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject.”[/color]Hmmmmm…………….chalk one up for the “non-Greek speaking” NWT translators.
Yea right!!!!One non Biblical Hebrew and Greek Scholar patting another on the back.
Here is the extent of Dr. Jason BeDuhn credentials…
Debuhn holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. Source
I am sure we want to put our trust in their ability to translate Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
WJ
Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is an historian of religion and culture, currently Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University.Debuhn holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington.
His second book,Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, has generated considerable controversy for highlighting cases of theological bias in the translation process, by which, he argues, contemporary Christian views are anachronistically introduced into the Bibles most modern English-speaking Christians rely on.
Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament
Jason BeDuhn's book compares nine translations (from the King James Version to several 20th century translations, including the New World Translation), not with each other, but with the original Greek of the New Testament.“…..I am in a better position than ever to comment on the accuracy of the NWT because for the last year and a half I have been working on a book comparing the NWT, KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, AB, TEV, and LB. The book is called “Bible Wars: Accuracy and Bias in Modern English Translations of the New Testament,” and I hope to have it in a publisher's hands by summer and out by the end of the year.
I want to make it clear that I am NOT biased in favor of the NWT. I AM biased in favor of the original Greek, and so in favor of translations that provide the modern English-speaking audience with as much access to the meaning of the original Greek as possible, without obscuring the meaning of the original by unwarranted interpretation of what the biblical text MAY mean.
My research has turned up real howlers in ALL of the translations listed above, the NWT included. But statistically the NWT ranks near the top of the comparison in its accuracy. The NAB also scores rather well. While the “Living Bible” and the TEV (“Good News”) Bible rank near the bottom, not because they are paraphrases, but because they introduce different meanings to the text they are supposed to be making clear to the general reader.
I have no personal stake in which Bible emerges as most accurate. My only stake is in informing the public about how theological bias has colored the translations they are using, and in providing them with tools to help them understand what the text behind the translations actually means. This is my job as a biblical scholar…..”Professor Jason BeDuhn
Northern Arizona University
4/26/2000He's OBVIOUSLY a Greek scholar, no?
That makes three for three, Keith. Will you be four for four?
mike
In searching for this answer, I find over and over and over, by experts, this type of statement:
In English we also have an indefinite article, “a” (or “an” before words beginning with vowels.) In Greek there is no indefinite article. …
So, if their is no “a”, it is not grammatically possible, because in greek it does not exist. Peace-Mark
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 16 2011,19:36)
Thank you for the info on this scholar. So now I have listed the words of a Trinitarian who also happens to be a Greek scholar. And his words say the “a god” translation IS GRAMMITCALLY POSSIBLE.
MikeThis is “one opinion” and the fact that Dr Harris, goes on to reject this translation (the Word was a god) on the grounds of what he percieves is the theology of John, that is, John's monotheistic beliefs is proof that contextually he couldn't translate it that way.
So once again how does this “one” opinion pile against the thousands that took part in translating John 1:1 without the indefinite article.
It seems that if it was possible to do that without violating the overall theme of the Bible which is a book about Monotheism, then they would have translated it as “a god” but they didn't did they?
Once again you are trying to build a straw man that will only leave you in the lonely JW camp without any proof that Jesus is not God because if it is possible to be translated “the Word was God” then you cannot possibly prove it isn't.
You have already admitted failure in your attempt to prove John 1:1 should be translated “the Word was a god” since you admit the translations could be correct.
WJ
Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 17 2011,06:56) In searching for this answer, I find over and over and over, by experts, this type of statement: In English we also have an indefinite article, “a” (or “an” before words beginning with vowels.) In Greek there is no indefinite article. …
So, if their is no “a”, it is not grammatically possible, because in greek it does not exist. Peace-Mark
MarkThat is a good point.
WJ
Mike asked:
Quote 1. Based on the words of the scholars quoted above, is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article into John 1:1c? YES or NO?
NO!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,03:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,21:40) Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
Hi MikeWell at least now you have a “Greek” scholar who just so happens to be a “Trinitarian”. I wonder why?
The thing is Dr Harris, goes on to reject this translation (the Word was a god) on the grounds of what he percieves is the theology of John, that is, John's monotheistic beliefs. Source
WJ
So Mike is quoting sources out of context again eh? This is very unscholarly and when Mike does this he brings suspicion upon himself.TO ALL,
The translation of the second 'theos' as 'a god' is NOT a possibility. I am convinced that the second “theos” is DEFINITE and not qualitaitive. The Logos is “the God” in His IDENTITY in the sense that Eve is “the Adam” in her IDENTITY.
Quote If both nominatives are articular, or if one is articular and the other is a proper name or a pronoun, then both are definite, and are interchangeable. Consider: Mt. 16:16: σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός. It makes no difference whether σὺ (you) or ὁ χριστός (the Christ) is treated as the subject. The sentence is equally true either way.
http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson14.htmThe ONLY other possibility is that the second 'theos' is qualitative which means that the Logos is the same UNCREATED essence as His own Father.
Quote An Orthodox Bible Commentary notes: “This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: 'God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father.'”[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1This is why t8 can't win the debates with WJ for when t8 says that Jesus is God qualitatively he is saying that Jesus is the same UNCREATED essence as His Father.
“Who being the RADIANCE of His glory and the EXACT representation of His ESSENCE (homoousion).”
TO ALL,
Mike is pushing his foolish point that it is possible to translate John 1:1c “and the Word was a god” because there is no definite article before the noun “God.”
This is foolish and novice for that argument is cancelled out by John 8:54:
“It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.”
There is a definite article before the noun “Father” but not before the noun “God.” So by Mike's own law of possibilities John 8:54 may be translated thus:
“It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is a god of you.”
Mike's freak Greek in John 1:1c is CANCELLED OUT when applied to John 8:54.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,15:23) TO ALL, Mike is pushing his foolish point that it is possible to translate John 1:1c “and the Word was a god” because there is no definite article before the noun “God.”
This is foolish and novice for that argument is cancelled out by John 8:54:
“It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.”
There is a definite article before the noun “Father” but not before the noun “God.” So by Mike's own law of possibilities John 8:54 may be translated thus:
“It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is a god of you.”
Mike's freak Greek in John 1:1c is CANCELLED OUT when applied to John 8:54.
KJ
JackI Agree! Mike has also “admitted” that it is “possible” that it could be translated “the Word was God”.
So his argument is already lost because his premise is to disprove that Jesus is God using scriptures.
The evidence for the arthrous rendering of John 1:1c is overwhelmingly in favor of the Deity of Jesus and in its context it is conclusive.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,07:55) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,15:23) TO ALL, Mike is pushing his foolish point that it is possible to translate John 1:1c “and the Word was a god” because there is no definite article before the noun “God.”
This is foolish and novice for that argument is cancelled out by John 8:54:
“It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.”
There is a definite article before the noun “Father” but not before the noun “God.” So by Mike's own law of possibilities John 8:54 may be translated thus:
“It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is a god of you.”
Mike's freak Greek in John 1:1c is CANCELLED OUT when applied to John 8:54.
KJ
JackI Agree! Mike has also “admitted” that it is “possible” that it could be translated “the Word was God”.
So his argument is already lost because his premise is to disprove that Jesus is God using scriptures.
The evidence for the arthrous rendering of John 1:1c is overwhelmingly in favor of the Deity of Jesus and in its context it is conclusive.
WJ
Keith,The only other 'possibility' I could entertain is the interpretation that the second 'theos' is qualitative. This is true to the scripture because it means that the Word is the same UNCREATED essence as the God. But I am convinced that the second 'theos' is DEFINITE.
Christ is “the God” in the sense that Eve is “the Adam” though she was distinct from the male.
“The Adam” in Genesis 1:27 + the male + the female
“The God” in John 1:1 = the Father + the Son
Quote Mike has also “admitted” that it is “possible” that it could be translated “the Word was God”.
So Mike tried to bully us into conceding the grammatical possibility that it may be translated 'a god' but instead he concedes to us.
Quote The evidence for the arthrous rendering of John 1:1c is overwhelmingly in favor of the Deity of Jesus and in its context it is conclusive.
Amen brother! I love verse 16 which says that we have received grace from HIS (the Word's) fulness. Praise to our Savior Jesus Christ!BTW, We have to make a trip to get our daughter from school for Spring break. Later bro!
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
