- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I post this not to prove the NWT, but to look at the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1. Does the following page make sense. I don't know anything about the Sahidic Coptic translation.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081013161836AASBOMF
The Sahidic Coptic was translated in the 3rd century, about a hundred years before the Trinity became official church doctrine. The Sahidic Coptic calls the Word in John 1:1 “a god,” not “god” or “the god.”
First or last nail?
The word is referred to as “the god” in second century manuscripts? I don't think so. Definitely not in Coptic, since the Sahidic Coptic was the earliest translation into Coptic. Certainly not in the Greek, or we'd see the variants in Nestle-Aland.
5 years agoI've read what Wallace has said on John 1:1. Yes, he is well respected amongst the Trinitarians. From a non-trinitarian perspective, he doesn't really make a strong case. And some of things he says, especially involving the New World Translation, is quite simply inaccurate.
Remember, Athanasius was from Alexandria also, not just Arius. In the fourth century, the church was split about 50/50 concerning the trinity/non-trinity.
But remember, the Sahidic Coptic translation was made the century before the so-called Arian controversy.
Going by memory (it's been a few years) he said that the NWT's John 1:1c was only an indefinite reading. Then he goes on to state, as Bar Enosh points out below, that the correct meaning is qualitative in meaning. Well, the NWT's rendering can be considered qualitative in nature.
If you have the NWT w/ References edition, you will find that the NWT translators offer, not just one, but three renderings for John 1:1c. All of which can be qualitative.
1. And the Word was a god.
2. And the Word was god-like.
3. And the Word was divine.All three are qualitative in meaning. The Appendix on John 1:1 in the NWT also says that John 1:1c is qualitative.
Another point:
In English, “and the Word was a god” can be considered qualitative. It can also be indefinite. But the phrase “and the Word was God” is not qualitative. It is only definite.Many Greek scholars admit that John 1:1c is qualitative in the Greek, yet insist on a strictly definite English translation.
The NWT is more honest by offering three renderings, all of which are qualitative.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081013161836AASBOMF
T8,
If a language was spoken the Christians speaking that particular language would have desired versions in it as soon as they could get them. I would not be surprised if these versions occurs soon after the original was written.
Hi Everyone,
All this wrangling is based on the presumption that
Jesus (according to the traditions of men) is “The Word”.
When one realizes that The Word is really the HolySpirit, then these
wranglings to make everything else adjust to that presupposition fade away.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgBut Ed J, the sword of the spirit is the Word of God, whereas you preach that the Spirit is the Word of God.
So if the Spirit is the Word of God, then what is the sword of the Spirit?
Please answer.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2013,20:30) But Ed J, the sword of the spirit is the Word of God, whereas you preach that the Spirit is the Word of God. So if the Spirit is the Word of God, then what is the sword of the Spirit?
Please answer.
Hi T8,The sword of the spirit is the Power
of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
As in the pen is mightier than the sword.
The Spirit gives power to speak “The Word”.It seems you have trouble accepting that “The Word” was GOD.
“For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” (Matt 10:20)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 15 2013,16:05) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2013,20:30) But Ed J, the sword of the spirit is the Word of God, whereas you preach that the Spirit is the Word of God. So if the Spirit is the Word of God, then what is the sword of the Spirit?
Please answer.
Hi T8,The sword of the spirit is the Power
of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
As in the pen is mightier than the sword.
The Spirit gives power to speak “The Word”.It seems you have trouble accepting that “The Word” was GOD.
“For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” (Matt 10:20)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjI totally disagree with you ,
first you have to understand the basic of the truth of God ,
1) God is almighty and he does what pleasing him ;this is a fact not a may be ,so in consideration of that fact ;we have to understand that what God says HE CAN DELIVER RIGHT ,YES ;SO NOW THE KNOWLEDGE (SPIRIT) OF KNOWING THIS HIS THE POWER THAT MAKE THOSE WHO REALLY BELIEVE MOVING TOWARDS HIM AND AWAY FROM THE WORLD ,THIS IS WHAT ALSO MEANS “THE FEAR OF GOD ” IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM .
2) IN jOHN 1;1 THIS “THE WORD OF GOD ” CAN NOT BE GOD'S OWN WORDS ,
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Jn 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.IF YOU STATE THAT LITERALLY IT MEAN GOD'S OWN WORDS ,WHY IS THEIR NO PLURAL “S “
AND WHY DOES IT SAY THAT “THE WORD WAS WITH GOD ” WHEN JOHN AS WRITTEN THOSE TEXT DO YOU NOW BELIEVE HE WAS REFERRING TO GOD'S OWN WORDS
IF SO HE KNEW GOD HAD SPOKEN MORE THAN ONE WORD SO HE COULD MADE IT PLURAL DON'T YOU THINK I THINK SO NOW IT SAYS ” AND THE WORD WAS GOD” NOW WHY WOULD ANYONE CONCLUDE THAT YOU ARE YOUR OWN WORD (NOT WORDS) HOW COULD ANYONE HONESTLY THINK THIS ,WITHOUT TWISTING OTHER SCRIPTURES
IMPOSSIBLE , HOW COULD SOMETHING BE WITH ,AND ALSO BE IT ?NOW IN VERSE 2 JOHN CONFIRMS WHAT HE HAD STATED IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE “HE (THE WORD) WAS WAS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING ” SO TWICE HE SAYS IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS THE MESSAGE THAT AS TO BE UNDERSTOOD .
VERSE 3 MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT “THE WORD ” WAS USED AND NOTHING ELSE WAS ,BUT ALL WENT THROUGH THE “WORD” JOHN DOES NOT SAY THAT “AND GOD SAID ” LIKE IN GENESIS ,
NOW IN VERSE 4 , IT SAYS “IN HIM WAS LIVE ” THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE HIS THE ONE THAT THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS WHERE CREATED ,IF HE (THE WORD) WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED THAT LIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE HOW THEN COULD ANYTHING COME THROUGH THAT WOULD BE WITH LIVE
IN THE LAST PART JOHN SHOWS THE CONNECTION OF WHOM HE WAS TALKING ABOUT ” AND THAT (THE WORD) LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN”
NOW PAY ATTENTION JOHN SAYS ; THAT THE LIFE THAT THE “WORD ” HAD WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN ”JN 8:12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “ I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the . Light of life”
JN 9:5 “While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.”Jn 1:9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
Jn 1:11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
IN VERSE 11 John talks about “HE (THE WORD) CAME TO THAT WHICH WAS HIS OWN ” NOT AS LIKE TALKING IN A POSSESSION WAY BUT MORE IN ” BE PART OF ” THIS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE ALL THING WERE CREATED THROUGH HIM (THE WORD)
Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
AND YES “THE WORD BECAME FLESH ” AS NO OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST ,THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD ;SINS HE BECAME FLESH HE WAS NOT FLESH PRIOR TO BECOME FLESH ,BUT IT IS HIS OWN FATHER THAT HAS SEND HIM TO US TO BE GIVEN US LIGHT AND LIFE
Thanks for posting that, t8. I'm sure much of it sounds familiar by now.
The thing to really remember is that the Coptic language, like English, uses an indefinite article. It is the first language into which the NT was translated that does so.
And that means that the first chance anyone ever got at translating John 1:1c as “a god”……….. THEY DID IT!
That is important to remember.
(I do wonder why you had to add a “disclaimer” to make sure no one thought you were trying to “prove the NWT”.
I don't agree with every interpretation of scripture that the JWs have, but the NWT is a fine and accurate translation of the scriptures. If you want to challenge the JWs on some of their beliefs, then do that. But why would you fault the NWT? Do you fault the KJV, NASB, NRSV, or the NIV based solely on the fact that Trinitarians and Catholics use them?)
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 15 2013,04:05) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2013,20:30)
So if the Spirit is the Word of God, then what is the sword of the Spirit?
Hi T8,The sword of the spirit is the Power
of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
So is the “power OF the spirit” the word of God? Or is the “spirit itself” the word of God?Which one?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2013,02:43) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 15 2013,04:05) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2013,20:30)
So if the Spirit is the Word of God, then what is the sword of the Spirit?
Hi T8,The sword of the spirit is the Power
of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
So is the “power OF the spirit” the word of God? Or is the “spirit itself” the word of God?Which one?
Hi Mike, Both!the word of God is powerful (see Heb 4:12)
the words are spirit (see John 6:63)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 15 2013,21:05) It seems you have trouble accepting that “The Word” was GOD.
Yes I have trouble believing that John 1:1c says the Word was THE God.Even many Trinitarian scholars admit that it can only be rendered qualitatively.
But I guess if the Word can be THE God, the Judas can be THE Devil who is Satan.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,11:15) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 15 2013,21:05) It seems you have trouble accepting that “The Word” was GOD.
Yes I have trouble believing that John 1:1c says the Word was THE God.Even many Trinitarian scholars admit that it can only be rendered qualitatively.
But I guess if the Word can be THE God, the Judas can be THE Devil who is Satan.
Hi T8,One has nothing to do with the other. Jesus was speaking
to satan who was influencing Peter from the inside; he was
NOT calling Peter 'a satan' as you seem to be presupposing.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,11:15) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 15 2013,21:05) It seems you have trouble accepting that “The Word” was GOD.
An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest.
An honest but mistaken man can continue to be honest and
continue to be mistaken even after being shown the truth!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2013,15:17) Hi T8, One has nothing to do with the other. Jesus was speaking
to satan who was influencing Peter from the inside; he was
NOT calling Peter 'a satan' as you seem to be presupposing.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J. You do not understand.I am talking about the time Jesus said, “one of you is devil” referring to Judas Iscariot.
There is no definite article with devil. Yet most have the common sense to not make it definite as many do with the Word being God. Why? Because people have invested much in the Jesus is God and part of a Trinity theology. Whereas, there is no doctrine that says that Judas was the Devil.
Clearly this is how bias works.
BTW ED J, you are the only person in the world at least that I know of that agrees with you.
What does that imply?
That you are the only person in the world who is right or that you are deluded?
It doesn't really matter whether or not it is 'a theos' or 'theos' or 'the theos' in John 1:1. Jesus is called the theos multiple times, even our theos. When will He be yours?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,13:22) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2013,15:17) Hi T8, One has nothing to do with the other. Jesus was speaking
to satan who was influencing Peter from the inside; he was
NOT calling Peter 'a satan' as you seem to be presupposing.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J. You do not understand.I am talking about the time Jesus said, “one of you is devil” referring to Judas Iscariot.
There is no definite article with devil. Yet most have the common sense to not make it definite as many do with the Word being God. Why? Because people have invested much in the Jesus is God and part of a Trinity theology. Whereas, there is no doctrine that says that Judas was the Devil.
Clearly this is how bias works.
Hi T8,No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' – Take a look at what the Greek ACTUAL SAYS:απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους ουκ εγω υμας τους δωδεκα εξελεξαμην “και εξ υμων εις διαβολος εστιν”
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil'one of you is devil' -NO- “one of you to present devil
“Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat
of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalms 41:9)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,13:24)
BTW ED J, you are the only person in the world at least that I know of that agrees with you.
Hi T8,What exactly are you saying here? “You agree with yourself Ed J” ?
What does that imply? …That you are the only person in the world who talks like that
…or at least the only person in the world that I know of who talks like that.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2013,19:32) Hi T8, No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' – Take a look at what the Greek ACTUAL SAYS:απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους ουκ εγω υμας τους δωδεκα εξελεξαμην “και εξ υμων εις διαβολος εστιν”
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil'one of you is devil' -NO- “one of you to present devil
“Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat
of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalms 41:9)
Then that means according to your view that the AKJV is wrong, and therefore not perfect as you say elsewhere.You are going to have to concede at least one of these points.
Did the AKJV translated this wrong and Ed J right.
Or does the verse really say “one of you is (a) devil” and Ed J's version of this verse is wrong.Which is it?
John 6:70 (AKJV)
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”John 6:70 (EJV = Ed J Version)
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devilQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2013,19:33) Hi T8, What exactly are you saying here? “You agree with yourself Ed J” ?
What does that imply? …That you are the only person in the world who talks like that
…or at least the only person in the world that I know of who talks like that.
You need help Ed J.You are not the only person on Earth who is correct. You are wrong on many things. If you want to improve, then you first need to acknowledge that. Just as an alcoholic first has to admit he is an alcoholic if he wants help.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
