- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 12 2007,15:16) Quote (martian @ May 12 2007,11:38) As has been stated before, by what authority do you or anyone else make the term “word” equal Jesus when over 300 other times in scripture the word means statement/speach/plan. You are reading your doctrine into the term instead of using proper principles of line upon line precept upon precept. You are not letting scripture interpret scripture but instead letting your doctrinal ideas interpret scripture.
By what authority do you narrow the term logos to exclusively mean “statement/speech/plan”, when the NT writer’s used the word more broadly than that.In Revelation 19:13, for example, it's used in reference to the person of Yeshua:
“He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word [Gr. logos] of God.”
His name is called The logos of God…..does a statement/speech/plan have a name?, or wear a robe for that matter?
Logos is used similarly in 1 John 1:1
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word [Gr. logos] of Life”
The Logos can be “looked at” and “touched”. Can a statement/speech/plan be seen or touched?
In Hebrews 4:12-13 logos has a personal application as well:
”For the word [Gr. logos] of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”
The logos is said to “judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart”. It is also written that the logos has “eyes” and “there is no creature hidden from His sight”. Tell me martian, can a “statement/speech/plan” properly be ascribed any of these things?
As I see it there are several problems with an adjectival rendering of “theos” in John 1:1. For starters the Greek word for “with” (pros) in the second clause is used in the accusative, and when used this way properly means “to, towards” (i.e. face to face in relationship). When John wrote “the Word was with God” his grammar denotes an intimate communion between the logos and theos. So, logically, this phrase cannot be referring to ‘something said’, or a ‘plan’ coming from God. You cannot have “pros” with an abstract concept. Moreover, the verb “was” (Gr: ēn) in John 1:1a and 1:1b is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put – whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence (i.e. without a beginning). So the notion that the logos is a statement/speach/plan looks shaky on this count as well. Plans are conceived, statements/speeches are uttered, they have beginnings/origins martian. In the third clause of John 1:1 it is written of the logos that He “was God”. There are two grammatical features of interest here. The first is the imperfect verb “ēn” is again used by John, signifying the logos was always “theos”. The other is, of course, the very word “theos” itself. In what sense could an abstract concept be considered “theos”? It seems strange to attribute this noun to an intangible, don't you think? What was John's conveyance here? Tell me if you know martian. Lastly, another problem for the unitarian interpretation is verse 4 of John 1, which in speaking of the logos reads:
”In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.”
I gather there is some disputation over the meaning of the word “zoe” in this verse. Some avow that it means the Word had life, i.e., was “alive”, most affirm that it the Greek word refers to eternal life and in the context of John 1:4 means “eternal life was intrinsically His to give”. Whatever the correct construal, it raises the question for you martian; “how could a adjectival concept, an expression of God, have any kind of life ”in Him”?
Quote And do not pull the old dodge of bringing up that a statement cannot be god. If you understood the simpleast of Hebrew concepts, you would know they speak in aligorical terms. From the standpoint of the Hebrews any revealing of God could be refered to as God. For example Moses calls the burning bush God. In fact God speaks from the bush and says he is God. Does this mean that God is literally a burning bush? There is much moe clear evidence that God is a burning bush then that the term “word” in John 1 literally means Jesus.
No. In Exodus 3:4 we read:”…God called to him from the midst of the bush…”
There is no confusing the bush for YHWH. He called to Moses from the “midst” of it. YHWH can dwell within a bush martian. He can dwell within people as well, and yet they do not become “God”. Reason it through.
The other problem with your assertion that John 1:1 is allegorical and should not be taken literally is that John's prologue is manifestly written in the form of a historical narrative. John is recounting the events leading up to and proceding the Word becoming flesh (v 14). “All things” really were “made” in the beginning (v3, cf Gen. 1). John the Baptist really existed and was sent as a forerunner for Yeshua (vs 6-7) etc etc. These are historical facts martian. So, is only the first verse in the prologue allegorical and the rest literal? I think it’s exceptionally unlikely. Especially considering the first three words (in English) of John 1:1 mirror the beginning of Genesis Chapter 1, which according to Yeshua (Matthew 19:3–6, 24:37–39; Mark 10:2–9, Luke 17:26–27) is also written as a historical narrative.
Quote Your interpretation of John 1 is a dishonest fabrication used to support a doctrine that has no support in scripture.
Cult buster's interpretation is conventional. It's well supported by the grammar and context of the passage. Your's, on the other hand, appears to have some obvious faults. But I'll reserve judgement until you have given your explanation for the points raised in this post.
Is 1:18Excellent points. I couldnt have said it any better.
martian. I hope this helps!
Quote You weren't asking how someone who isn't God could be God himself.
You were asking how someone who isn't God could be like God.
David, what's the difference?Quote It in no way makes Jesus 'completely' different from God. It means his existence is of a different length. That's all it necessitates. Anything else is your own added thoughts.
David, it sounds as though you think the difference between God and the angels (in whose ranks you put Jesus) is only a matter of degree, not of kind. Is this true? Do you believe God is essentially different from all creation?Quote It says he's the firstborn of creation and the beginning of God's creation.
Prototokes and arche mean first in rank and cause. If it were really so clear, why doesn't the Bible just say that Jesus was created?Quote The beginning of what? It has to be the beginning of something. For God had no beginning. It's speaking of the beginning of something specific, the beginning of creation.
Now you're adding your own words. Are you saying there was another beginning before this?Quote Yes, the Word was in the beginning with his Father. And it says everything was made through him, but it is with the obvius exception of himself.
Adding your own words again. Why is this an obvious exception? John doesn't seem to think so. He says “all things” and “nothing.”Quote Quote
Isaiah 43:10 says, “Before Me there was no god formed, and there will be none after Me,” so how is it that this god was formed?Look at the context. It's speaking of the idol gods of the nations.
Again, your words. Why don't we stop playing this “your words” game and just agree to criticize the validity of each other's inferences, ok? Back to the passage, Isaiah 43 doesn't say God is talking about a certain class of gods that's bad, the ones it's not ok to follow, as opposed to those good gods, the ones the people should follow. Rather, the entire Old Testament is trying to tell people to follow YHWH and no other gods at all! Why is this so hard to comprehend? After all of YHWH's wrath and jealousy at the people for following other gods, you're telling me He had John come along and say, “Well, actually, in the beginning there was this other god who was with YHWH, and everything was made through this other god, and in this god is the life of men, and this god is the true light, and we've seen the glory of this god!” Read Deuteronomy 13 to find out what YHWH commands for someone who says that.Tim
Thanks WJ. Yes I hope our posts help martian as well. After all the unitarian Jesus is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from the Jesus the Muslims believe in – a highly exalted man.
Quote Again, your words. Why don't we stop playing this “your words” game and just agree to criticize the validity of each other's inferences, ok? Back to the passage, Isaiah 43 doesn't say God is talking about a certain class of gods that's bad, the ones it's not ok to follow, as opposed to those good gods, the ones the people should follow. Rather, the entire Old Testament is trying to tell people to follow YHWH and no other gods at all! Why is this so hard to comprehend? After all of YHWH's wrath and jealousy at the people for following other gods, you're telling me He had John come along and say, “Well, actually, in the beginning there was this other god who was with YHWH, and everything was made through this other god, and in this god is the life of men, and this god is the true light, and we've seen the glory of this god!” Read Deuteronomy 13 to find out what YHWH commands for someone who says that. Tim
Very true. The Hebrew scriptures without exception says there is “No God” beside him. And what was called god was no god at all.
John a strict Monotheistic Jew would have never even considered such a blasphemous act in his writtings to place a small god next to the Father, unless he believed that Yeshua was YHWH who was peirced and that he considered Yeshua his Lord and God like Thomas who he recorded without correction or rebuke.
John also goes into detail about “Another Comforter”, who the Father and the Son would send.
John 1:1 is there because he knew that Jesus was God in the flesh.
Quote David, can I have your definition for “divine” please? And can you also tell me if you believe there is than one divine being? I'm trying to get a handle on your view here. Thanks. –Is 1:18
godlike or heavenly.
Quote And can you also tell me if you believe there is [more] than one divine being? Question: Is a being that has “divine nature” a divine being?
[/QUOTE]And I suppose “Jehovah” is the correct pronunciation of Gods Name?
David, can anyone know with certainty how to pronounce “YHWH”.
So the JWS version of the Tetragrammaton is the only correct one?
You criticize the NIV and the KJV for not using “Jehovah”, why didn’t the unknown translators of the NWT hold closer to the name and translate it Yahweh or Yehowah?
Your argument about the name of God is a straw.
Quote –W J First, my argument wasn't really about the name of God. It was about a larger issue, the name of God being one example. Let me simplify for you:
The NIV should have done things a certain way, as the sectretary said
(with respet to God's name.) They chose not to because they wanted to be popular and a lot of money was involved.You yourself are creating a straw argument here. It's rather sad. The NIV didn't have an issue with how to pronounce God's name. The issue was:
1. Do the right thing, the thing they “should have.”
2. Go with poplularity so people would accept it and read it.So, my point is made, which you refuse to respond to or acknowledge.
“Credible” translations of yours, despite having tons of “scholars” can be motived by wrong factors. I have proven this. Your straw man argument about the pronunciation of God's name is rather sad.But while on the subject, I noticed you mentioned:
“Yehowah” as a possible translation.It's very close to “Jehovah” (3 syslables). It's really the same word. You know, there are a lot of places where “J” is pronounced as “y.” Anyway, it's interesting that more and more people are seeing that this is correct.
Anyway, I'd love to talk about that, the fact that you mentioned that specific name.
But right now, I'd like to ask. You state:
why didn’t the unknown translators of the NWT hold closer to the name and translate it Yahweh or Yehowah?
Quote
So, would a translation like ASV be not credible or the New English Bible or the KJV etc, if they don't “hold closer to the name and translate it Yahweh or Yehowah” as you say.
Or is it only with regard to the NWT that your are biased?God has many names. So the JWS claim that Gods name is “Jehovah “ is wrong.
Quote
Well, no. He has many titles, but only one personal name. You might be trying to say that there are many possible pronunciations of this one personal name.I am not a great fan of the NIV.
However, your argument that because they didn’t use Jehovah in the translation is the reason they didn’t translate John 1:1 in another way is bogus.
Quote If you are not a fan of it, you might want to take it out of your list.
My argument isn't that because they didn't use Jehovha….
My argument is that it is extraordinarily clear that the amount of scholars a translation has doesn't mean it is except from wrong motives. Money, in this case. They chose to go with what was popular. It is no longer a crazy thought to believe that just maybe, their rendering of John 1:1 had something to do with what the majority did, or what the readers would either accept or reject based on popularity. So my argument was extremely valid, and I have proven exactly what I wantedt to.
Your “the many scholars in a translation makes it above question” philosophy is simply wrong, and proven so.The WBTS makes a reasonable case for using the sacred name in the Old Testament and criticizing those who do not. *However, in the WBTS's translation of the New Testament, which is called The Christian Greek Scriptures, there is an even more grievous and presumptuous error. The NWT inexplicably translates the common Greek words for Lord (kurios) and God (Theos) as “Jehovah” 237 times in the New Testament.* This unwarranted substitutionary use of the Old Testament name of God is made, however, only when kurios is used in the context of a clear reference to God in a generic sense, or when used in a passage that is a quote from the Old Testament. *However, not once do they translate kurios as “Jehovah” in the nearly 400 times in the New Testament when it is applied as a title to Jesus Christ. There is simply no legitimate textual or linguistic basis for making that distinction. The word kurios should always be accurately translated, according to context, as “Lord” or “Master”, and the word Theos as God, but neither ever translated as “Jehovah”.*
[red]Do you see any dishonesty here David?[/red]So, you don't want to discuss your “many scholars are right” ideas anymore. I understand.
Ok, let's do some learning.
“Scholarship typically has believed that the New Testament was originally written in koine or common Greek because the oldest known New Testament manuscripts are all written in Greek. Yet, there are many scholars who are now refuting this idea (see Documents of the Primitive Church, Dr. Charles Torrey; The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Dr. Albert Schweitzer; Complete Jewish Bible, David Stern; Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96, Dr. George Howard).
It is documented from the well-known Hebrew historian Josephus that the Greek language was largely foreign to the Hebrew people in and around Galilee where Yahshua spent His life and ministered. This first-century priest said of himself, “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness” (Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter XI).
Josephus was one of the most educated Hebrews of his time, yet he was mostly unfamiliar with the Greek language. Now if a learned man like Josephus hardly knew the Greek language, how could the uneducated apostles know the Greek tongue, and even know it well enough to write fluently on many difficult subjects?
Anyway, I don't really want to get into this “the NT was originally written in Hebrew idea.” It has it's own thread.
This website states:
the NWT Translation Committee came to the decision that the 'New Testament' has been tampered with and from early on in the 2nd century. One such 'tampering' was to remove the Divine Name just as was certainly done to later copies(after the 1st century C.E.)of the LXX(Septuagint)translation of the Hebrew Scriptures('Old Testament')which translation did originally contain that name in Hebrew characters and, which, the 'New Testament' authors used when quoting from the 'Old Testament'. Hence, the NWT Translation Committee decided to incorporate the Name “Jehovah” where they believe the original 'New Testament' writers used it. This stance by the NWT Translation Committee is by no means unique. Many 19th century N.T. translations produced by Christendom's missionaries also used a proper name for God as has numerous Hebrew translations of the New Testament. We also recommnend our readers to obtain the article “The Tetragram And The New Testament.” in the Journal of Biblical Literature 96/1(1977) 63-83 by George How
ard, of the University of Georgia. He argues very strongly for a theory that the original New Testament did contain the Divine Name and in Hebrew characters, YHWH.
Obviously, the Greek texts(e.g., the Westcott and Hort Greek text)upon which the New World Translation is based upon has been considered texts that reflect a later 'New Testament' corpus where 'tampering' with the original autographs had taken place(as Howard argues). One should be grateful for the stance the NWT Translation Committee has taken because it is the only major Bible translation of the 20th century to have done so and hence more than any other translation has brought this issue out into the 'open' and, hence, engendered much learned discussion of this matter and so some re-learning has taken place which re-learning has helped remove certain 'established' beliefs that were not based upon certain facts(e.g. Of the LXX mss that are extant all those of the B.C.E era and into the 1st century contain the Name. This is the translation the authors of the New Testament knew and used in their quotations. Hence, the old arguement that the NT authors followed the practice of the LXX translators of using substitutes for the Name no longer holds.)
This then, that is, the “incorporating” the Divine Name into the 'New Testament”' portion of the New World Translation then is not a case of “translating” the words KURIOS(lord or master)or QEOS(God or god) as if the NWT Translation Committee gave “Jehovah” as a meaning for those words. They did not as the above hopefully explains.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….ons.htmProfessor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, U.S.A., made this comment: “When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations.” (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, page 14)
I doubt greatly that when the NT writers quoted from the Hebrew scriptures,they altered the quotes to say “Lord” or “God.”
These are the sorts of things that “credible” scolarly Translations do, not what the actual Bible writers would have done. Jesus made his Father's name known. He made it known to his disciples. He prayed that his fathers name be sanctified. It is highly doubtful that the name that appears some 7000 times in the Hebrew scriptures, MORE TIMES THAN ALL THE TITLES OF GOD (“GOD” “lORD” “ALMIGHTY” “CREATORE” “FATHER” ETC) COMBINED!!!In later copies of the Septuagint, God’s name was removed and words like “God” (The·os′) and “Lord” (Ky′ri·os) were substituted. We know that this happened because we have early fragments of the Septuagint where God’s name was included and later copies of those same parts of the Septuagint where God’s name has been removed.
The same thing occurred in the “New Testament,” or Christian Greek Scriptures. Professor George Howard goes on to say: “When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint. . . . Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars.”
Quote But do you think that the NWT can compare in translation to the over 600 real scholars that agreed on the text Jn 1:1 and its interpretation? Did they all agree? What proof do you have of this? Maybe 301 agreed and they won the vote, with only 299 saying they were completely wrong.
You seem to think you know who the translators of the NWT are.
But I'm guessing you have pretty much no clue who 600 translators were that you keep pointing to. Do you?
I wonder what qualifications the Bible writers had? Were they not considered men “unlettered and ordinary” by the puffed up religious leaders of their day? (Acts 4:13)
I believe it was the fact that they had God's spirit that helped them to write down God's thoughts, his Word.It didn't matter that there were 600 scribes and pharisees who said they were unlettered and ordinary. DID IT? Not in the slightest. I think you are someone who looks at the outward appearance of man. With God, all things are possible.
Quote If you are so sold on the NWT David, why dont you use the translation here most of the time?
Pretty sure I do. I throw in other translations randomly because otherwise, people such as yourself make outrageous claims.Quote After all, isnt this the main reason your translation says “The Word was A god”, and you are so adamant in defending the NWT?
Sorry, wrong again. If you want to create another straw man argument, please do it in another thread. Can we please just discuss John 1:1Quote Also, I expect at this point you will slam this thread with a barrage of JWs propaganda. This is usually your tactic about now. In what sense is it “JW propaganda” when it is not JW's that I am quoting?
It is true that when someone puts down the same list of 20 quotes from “scholars” who for various reasons (mostly theology, not language) don't agree with the NWT, I will respond in kind. I do this, because even though these are fallacious appeals to authority, I imagine they must be viewed as proof of something, given that people like CB uses them so much.Quote You weren't asking how someone who isn't God could be God himself.
You were asking how someone who isn't God could be like God.–me
Quote David, what's the difference? –Tim
I am like my father but not my father. We may have the same nature, but that doesn't mean I am my father or we are the same person.
Quote David, it sounds as though you think the difference between God and the angels (in whose ranks you put Jesus) is only a matter of degree, not of kind. Is this true? Do you believe God is essentially different from all creation?
The “matter of degree” of which you speak is no small matter. Jehovah is Almighty and the king of eternity. My point was that they have the same divine nature. They are spirits. the “person” of Jehovah is a spirit being. The rest are spirit creatures. That obviously puts him on a different level. The essential qualities or characteristics (nature) of God in a most basic sense is that he is a spirit. The nature those who have a divine nature, is that they are spirits, but spirit creatures.
Of course, we know nothing of the mechanics or “biology” to use a crude word, of God. That's ridiculous. All we know is what the Bible says. And it says he's “a spirit.”
A spirit has the characteristics (or nature) of spirits. Make sense?
Of course, that's not to say that they are equal in power or anything like that.Quote Prototokes and arche mean first in rank and cause. If it were really so clear, why doesn't the Bible just say that Jesus was created?
Being the firstborn of creation and the beginning of the creation of God would seem to very clearly indicate this.Quote Now you're adding your own words. Are you saying there was another beginning before this?
In the beginning, God created….
I had said that it was the beginning of creation. I don't think it's adding my own words. God had no beginning. Creation did have a beginning.Quote Adding your own words again. Why is this an obvious exception? John doesn't seem to think so. He says “all things” and “nothing.” (1 Corinthians 15:27) “For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.”
Before this particular scripture, many other scriptures said that God subjected “all things” under Jesus feet. One could falsely reason that all things included God. Yet, note what 1 Cor says. When it says “all things” it is “evident” or “obvious” as I said, that there is one “exception.” Some things are evident, obvious.
Quote Isaiah 43:10 says, “Before Me there was no god formed, and there will be none after Me,” so how is it that this god was formed? Look at the context. It's speaking of the idol gods of the nations.
You respond: “Again, your words.”
No, my words were “Look at the context.” The context is the words of the surrounding verses. Please check them.David
You say…
Quote First, my argument wasn't really about the name of God. It was about a larger issue, the name of God being one example. Let me simplify for you:
The NIV should have done things a certain way, as the sectretary said
(with respet to God's name.) They chose not to because they wanted to be popular and a lot of money was involved.But you bringing up the name of God and accusing the NIV for not using the name “Jehovah” is a straw, and disingenuous, when the NWT who makes claim to “Jehovah” as being “the correct” pronunciation of the name, failed to translate using the possible alternatives which were closer to the original.
And also you are using the NIV to cast a shadow on all the other translations and their motives for translating John 1:1 the same.
Leave the NIV out David, and you still have over 500 scholars that disagree with the NWTs rendering of John 1:1.
You asked me to give you a list of credible translations, and 1 non credible translation and I did, now the burden of proof is on you to show me why they are not credible, which you showed me the NIV had wrong motives for translating the name of YHWH, which you seem to think that because of that the NIV must have misinterpreted John 1:1, so throw out the baby with the bath water. But personally I don’t believe that you can prove this so.
Anyway, that still dosnt answer for the 500+ scholars responsible for all the other translations rendering John 1:1 the same.
Here is the list again, and I am still working on it.
John 1:1
Credible
KJV (47 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NKJV (130 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NLT (100 Scholars)
In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.NIV (100 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was GodESV (100 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NASB (54 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.RSV[/B} (32 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.ASV (30 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.YLT
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;Darbys
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Websters
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.HNV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Non Credible
NWT
Now until you can prove that they all conspired to translate John 1:1 the same, or that their motives and intent were dishonest then I will go with the majority and surely not the NWT.
David you say…
Quote You yourself are creating a straw argument here. It's rather sad. The NIV didn't have an issue with how to pronounce God's name. The issue was:
1. Do the right thing, the thing they “should have.”
2. Go with poplularity so people would accept it and read it.So, my point is made, which you refuse to respond to or acknowledge.
“Credible” translations of yours, despite having tons of “scholars” can be motived by wrong factors. I have proven this. Your straw man argument about the pronunciation of God's name is rather sad.No. Your point is not being made. The only point you were trying to make is the NIV didn’t translate YHWH to “Jehovah” which your organization claims to be “The Name of God”, but you refuse to explain why the NWTs version of the Tetragrammaton was used instead of the alternatives.
The NIV simply did with “YHWH” what all the other translators did *including the NWT*.
David you made this argument about the name to cast shadow on the translations that disagree with the NWT, somehow you think that has a bearing on the translation of John 1:1.
Prove it.
David you say…
Quote So, would a translation like ASV be not credible or the New English Bible or the KJV etc, if they don't “hold closer to the name and translate it Yahweh or Yehowah” as you say.
Or is it only with regard to the NWT that your are biased?No. The argument about the name is yours. I am not saying that any translation because they have a different version of the Tetragamation means they are not credible. Know one can be 100% sure what the true pronunciation is.
Again I am saying that your argument against the NIV is invalid since all the translators did the same thing *including the NWT*.
If you want to continue on the name thing using that as an argument against John 1:1. I will be happy to go to another thread and do so.
You say…
Quote
Well, no. He has many titles, but only one personal name. You might be trying to say that there are many possible pronunciations of this one personal name.No. He has many names, not just titles. You want to call “Jehovah” his personal name, I have no problem with that.
But when you or your organization says that because we call him “Lord” or “Yaweh” or “I AM”, we are not using his personal name therefore we are wrong. Or when you or your organization insist that “Jehovah” is his proper name, that is wrong, because you or no one else knows the proper pronunciation.
You say…
Quote If you are not a fan of it, you might want to take it out of your list.
My argument isn't that because they didn't use Jehovha….
My argument is that it is extraordinarily clear that the amount of scholars a translation has doesn't mean it is except from wrong motives. Money, in this case. They chose to go with what was popular. It is no longer a crazy thought to believe that just maybe, their rendering of John 1:1 had something to do with what the majority did, or what the readers would either accept or reject based on popularity. So my argument was extremely valid, and I have proven exactly what I wantedt to.
Your “the many scholars in a translation makes it above question” philosophy is simply wrong, and proven so.So what money was a factor. I am starting to believe this was a good descision.
Whats wrong with them using the Lords money wisely seeing that more would read the translation and get the word.
And since no one knows the “correct’ pronunciation of the name of God. Whats wrong with their descision to go with the others.
What was the JWs motive for not using “Yahweh”? And how about the WBTS rendering of the words “Theos” and “Kurios”?
. *However, in the WBTS's translation of the New Testament, which is called The Christian Greek Scriptures, there is an even more grievous and presumptuous error. The NWT inexplicably translates the common Greek words for Lord (kurios) and God (Theos) as “Jehovah” 237 times in the New Testament.* This unwarranted substitutionary use of the Old Testament name of God is made, however, only when kurios is used in the context of a clear reference to God in a generic sense, or when used in a passage that is a quote from the Old Testament. *However, not once do they translate kurios as “Jehovah” in the nearly 400 times in the New Testament when it is applied as a title to Jesus Christ. There is simply no legitimate textual or linguistic basis for making that distinction. The word kurios should always be accurately translated, according to context, as “Lord” or “Master”, and the word Theos as God, but neither ever translated as “Jehovah”.*
[red]Do you see any dishonesty here David?[/red]
*The reason for the NWT committee's placement of this name of God in the New Testament is obvious to anyone who understands Jehovah's Witnesses theology. *
*The WBTS, since its inception over a century ago, has totally rejected the key doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the full deity of Jesus Christ.*
*As a result, in its literature, and especially in its translation of the Bible, the WBTS has sought to obscure the clear New Testament teachings of those truths. This deliberate concealment is obvious when one makes a simple comparison of the NWT to the word-for-word translation of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text in the WBTS' own book The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.*
*The use of Jehovah to translate kurios (Lord) or Theos (God) 237 times in generic reference to God, but never as a title of Jesus, is clearly done to reinforce the distinction between God and Jesus in the minds of uninformed Jehovah's Witnesses*.
The truth is that the New Testament writers, following Jewish tradition in the Greek Septuagint's translation of the Old Testament, understood the term kurios (Lord), in most cases, to be a reference to deity in the fullest sense. Thus, when New Testament writers call Jesus “Lord,” they are identifying Him with the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh or Jehovah).
The WBTS' denial of Jesus' deity is evidenced in numerous biased and inaccurate renderings of key passages by the NWT translators. Consider the following examples:
• John 1:1
The NWT renders this verse: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Nearly every other standard English translation agrees with that of the NASB: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Conclusion
The WBTS maintains that its English translation of the Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, is the best version ever produced. The evidence does not bear that conclusion. Actually, the facts show that the NWT ranks as one of the most unscholarly and biased Bible versions ever produced.
Unfortunately, millions of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide are required to consult the NWT exclusively. Thus, only the doctrinal biases and distortions of the WBTS are absorbed by faithful Jehovah's Witnesses.
Works Cited
All Scripture is inspired of God and Beneficial. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1963, 1983.
Franz, Raymond. Crisis of Conscience. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984.
Reasoning from the Scriptures. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1985.
http://www.4truth.net/site….=982777So again you continue to use the NIV to cast a shadow on the translation of Jn 1:1 when you have no proof or evidence that the majority conspired to mistranslate Jn 1:1.
You say…
Quote
Anyway, I don't really want to get into this “the NT was originally written in Hebrew idea.” It has it's own thread.David, just admit that what this is about is you believe that your organization and your bible the NWT is the only true church and the only valid interpretation of the scriptures.
You continue to cast doubt on the majority of the Translations and the schol
ars with no proof that they conspired to misinterpret Jn 1:1.I still go with the majority, and not with the minority of which the NWT is.
David,
Sorry about the first point, I misread what you wrote (about being God or like God).
I don't think your comparison of of 1 Corinthians 15 to John 1 and Colossians 1 proves that Jesus is created. Using strict parallelism, which there's no reason to do because they aren't parallel, they're talking about two different things, all it would show is that Jesus did not create Himself, which no one is arguing. (Especially us, because Jesus wasn't created!)
I tried to discuss the greek for beginning and firstborn, but apparently you think English is better?
But the main thing you said that concerns me is your apparent admission that the difference between God and the angels is a matter of degree, albeit a very large degree. You're saying God is essentially the same class of being as the angels. That's unacceptable, even if you say God has 100 billion trillion units of power, and all the angels combined have 0.00000001 units of power. I think the Bible is clear that God is Almighty, infinite, and not just a super powerful angel. This really is the root of your problems, the same as the Mormons, you view God as the same as created beings. I think I'll start a post on dualism and monism. But anyway, I'd encourage you to reconsider whether God is completely different than the angels and all creation, that He is something entirely other.
Tim
Hello David, do you know that the nwt translation is written by freemasons catholic jesuits and evil people.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%2….m
There are some honest men and women within the Jehovahs Witnesses congregation. But they have been brainwashed by their church. They really need to leave their church and get themselves an honest bible. Any christian bible except the new world translation. The correct translation for Jn 1:1 is
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (ASV)Quote Leave the NIV out David, and you still have over 500 scholars that disagree with the NWTs rendering of John 1:1. WJ, so Just like that, you've discarded 100 scholars? Your number has dropped from 600 credible scholars to 500.
Quote You asked me to give you a list of credible translations, and 1 non credible translation and I did
I think I asked you for all the non credible translations. Do you assert that the NWT is the only one? Because if you're basing this on John 1:1, you could include several more. It almost seems as though you are biased in it, in not mentioning the many others that don't translate it “the Word was God.”Quote which you showed me the NIV had wrong motives for translating the name of YHWH, which you seem to think that because of that the NIV must have misinterpreted John 1:1, so throw out the baby with the bath water. Nooooooooo.. I've explained this a few times now. I don't seem to think that the NIV “must have mistranslated John 1:1” just because they clearly had unpure motives and were influenced by less then perfect reasons, namely money.
My assertion, once again, is simply that you keep stating: “Listen, there's so many scholars. They are above question.”That is ridiculous, my friend. Let's actually look at things a little closer.
Before you relied soly on how many scholars there were. The NIV had a 100 so it was credible. Now that you know it made some of it's decisions based on popularity and the need for money, you drop it out of your list.Today it's the NIV. Who knows what you'll discover tomorow. My point is that it's foolish to blindly follow the majority or stick to large numbers to be correct when we know, from the Bible itself that majorities are often wrong, that Satan is ruling this world and has great influence, that wicked men have always tried to pervert the truth to suit their needs. You ignore all these things and focus on large numbers.
Question: I think I asked it before, but would you consider any translation “non-credible” if it translates one word differently from all other or most other translations?
Quote No. Your point is not being made. The only point you were trying to make is the NIV didn’t translate YHWH to “Jehovah” which your organization claims to be “The Name of God”, but you refuse to explain why the NWTs version of the Tetragrammaton was used instead of the alternatives.
You say that I refurse to “explain why the NWTs version of the Tetragrammaton was used instead of the alternatives.” I would love to do that and probably already have done that in another thread. As I said, I foudn it most interesting that you mentioned Yehowah. But all this is your straw argument. FOCUS!(Please stop mentioning side points and diverting the conversation)
My point again, is this:
The NIV clearly did some things based on the wrong reasons. Their motivations weren't entirely pure.
This PROVES that your 'the translations that have the most scholars can be trusted without question' idea isn't that well founded.
Done.
One more time: I was simply pointing out that Bible translation committees can have not the purest of motives when it comes to choosing something that is popular or something that is right.Quote Again I am saying that your argument against the NIV is invalid since all the translators did the same thing *including the NWT*.
Wrong! No money was on the line and we DIDN'T GO WITH THE POPULAR CHOICE. You're trying to argue something I'm not arguing. I'm simply saying that YOU, wJ, YOU, can't do what you're doing and that is to say: “The more scholars, the more perfect the translation.” Your attack of the NWT here is confusing and unwarrented. FOCUS. No more of these straw man arguments please. Just accept that my point, above, is true. I've repeated it several times now. Please don't reframe it and say I am saying something I'm not. We are discussing John 1:1, remember?If you want to discuss the use of “Jehovah” in our Bible, I'd love to. it seems you no longer want to discuss this topic anyway. Please find a better thread, if you've given up on John 1:1.
Quote I still go with the majority, and not with the minority of which the NWT is.
You follow the crowd WJ. I will miss you.david.
Quote Hello David, do you know that the nwt translation is written by freemasons catholic jesuits and evil people. I'm not going to even respond to this drivel. I've spent a lot of time researching this freemason garbage. It is ridiculous. Yes, if you spend 5 mintues on garbage sites, you can find people saying these things. If you spend a little longer, you'll find out it's trash. I've already discussed this on here. I no longer have any tolerance for this. If you bring this up again, I will show it and you for what you are. '
I'm sorry.
david.
Quote I tried to discuss the greek for beginning and firstborn, but apparently you think English is better? –Tim
Sorry, tim, I must have missed it. Part of it is that I've discussed these two scriptures on here about 43 times. I'm certain they're in many many threads. I was hoping this thread would be on John 1:1. I know that these two scriptures are somewhat related. It's just that I get frustrated when it feels like some are trying to hijack the conversation and take it far off course. I know you weren't trying to do this.
Quote You're saying God is essentially the same class of being as the angels. That's unacceptable, even if you say God has 100 billion trillion units of power, and all the angels combined have 0.00000001 units of power. I think the Bible is clear that God is Almighty, infinite, and not just a super powerful angel. I'm sorry. I don't think he's a super powerful angel [“messenger”]
I think he's Almighty God.But I think the angels are spirits.
And I think God is “a spirit.”And I think we are not.
I therefore think they have the same nature (ie: being spirit creatures.)
We don't have that nature, that divine nature. We are flesh.I'm in no way saying they're equal. I'm saying they're made of the same stuff, the same nature, or whatever. We are flesh. They have a different nature–spirit bodies.
You have to uderstand I write a lot of my posts at 2 in the morning. Right now, it's 1:52 a.m.
Imagine how clear I'd be thinking if it were day time?Quote that He is something entirely other. –Tim
Yes, perhaps he is something entirely other.
But he is a spirit. They are spirits. So they have something in common we do not, and it is their divine nature. Their ….lack of flesh. They are spirits. We aren't.
God is the creator.
The angels are the created.
That makes them markedly different.But, I can see you if I wanted. I can see my dog. I can't see the angels or God.
That makes them similar in one way and I call that way, their nature, their divine nature.Jehovah is Divine (godlike):
JOSHUA 22:22
““Divine One, God, Jehovah, Divine One, God, Jehovah, he is knowing, and Israel, he too will know. If it is in rebellion and if it is in unfaithfulness against Jehovah, do not save us this day.”
PSALM 50:1
“The Divine One, God, Jehovah, has himself spoken, And he proceeds to call the earth, From the rising of the sun until its setting.”
ACTS 17:29
““Seeing, therefore, that we are the progeny of God, we ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man.”
(Many translators here use terms such as “the Godhead,” “the Deity,” or “the divinity” (KJ, AS, Dy, ED, JB, RS), while E. J. Goodspeed’s translation says “the divine nature.” According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the expression to theíon “is derived from the adjective theíos, meaning ‘pertaining to God,’ ‘divine.’” (Edited by G. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 913) Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon gives as the meaning “the Divinity.” (Revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, pp. 787, 788) So the phrase to theíon can be understood to refer to a person or to a quality. Obviously, then, the context must guide the translator in his choice of words. Here at Acts 17:29, the context clearly shows that the person of God is being described, and so the expression is appropriately rendered “Divine Being” in the New World Translation.—Compare NIV.)JESUS IS DIVINE (GODLIKE) COLOSSIANS 2:9
OTHERS ARE PROMISES “DIVINE NATURE.”
2 PETER 1:4
“Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (Compare Phil 3:21; 1 Cor 15:49)
1 JOHN 3:2
“Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.”Therefore, having divine nature or being divine does not mean you are God Almighty himself. (This is the point for later)
Philip B. Harner (whom Is 1:18 quoted in the trinity thread a long time ago) said: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same NATURE as God.” This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.)
(This is the exact quote Is 1:18 gave. I don't think he understands my position. Either that, or he was helping me.)
In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner ALSO said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1,
“with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.”
This is what I assert. That as Is 1:18's “scholar” points out, John 1:1 indicates that the logos has the NATURE of “the God” [ho theos] mentioned in the verse. Not that he IS the same one he is “with.”John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
H.E. Dana and Julius Mantey, (someone the anti-JW people quote often) in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, write, “… without the article theos signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is in view” (p. 140)
In Greek, there is the person or the class (or category).
He is saying that theos without the article signifies that the “theos” in question is signifying divine “essense”, a class or category, not the person.Fritz Rienecker, in his A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, writes similarly, “theos, God. The word is without the article and in the predicate emphasizing quality, ‘the Word had the same nature as God’”(p.217).
The Bible—An American Translation (1935), J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed.
“the Word was divine”
(The translation by Hugh J. Schonfield is the same.)?
A New Translation of the Bible (1934), James Moffatt:
“the Logos was divine”The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text (1808), published in London:
“the word was a god.”Todays English Version:
“and he was the same as God.”The New English Bible (The Revised English Bible):
“and what God was, the Word was.”The Emphatic Diaglott (1864; as printed in 1942), Benjamin Wilson’s Interlinear reading:
“and a god was the Word.”La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel (1928):
“and the Word was a divine being.”The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed, by James L. Tomanek. (1958):
“and the Word was a God.”Reflecting an understanding of Jn 1:1 with the New World Translations' :
“and the Word was a god,” we also have:
The New Testament in Greek and English(A. Kneeland, 1822.)
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament(H. Heinfetter, 1863)
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R. Young, 1885)
The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G. W. Horner, 1911)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)John 1:1,2—In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
Jesus, the son of God (YHVH), is the reason for everything coming into being. He is the reason God created all things. In a manner of speaking, Jesus was in the loins of his father in the beginning. In that sense he was the Word and the Word was God. Because he was not yet born He existed in God’s word. John 1:14—And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
