- This topic is empty.
- Posts
David – I started a new thread “John 1:1” in Scripture section for those not wanting to discuss the NWT. Hope this helps.
*Everyone else……if you can transfer some of your posts over to the new thread, that would be helpful?*
Quote The only thing that I can do is appologize to you if I posted something here that you don't feel belongs. I thought it all related. In other threads that others start, it some how always ends with discussing the “Trinity”.
94, I don't really care that much. It's just that the conversation literally went for 10 pages without anyone attacking the NWT. And that is what this thread is supposed to be about.Also, I see t8 probably changed the title of this thread a little, making it more clear. Thanks, I guess.
I found the following quite interesting:
It's taken from the botten half of this page, and it's easier to read there:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/babylon1.htm“Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1–Who's telling the truth?
“There are some who would like us to believe that the rendering of John 1:1 offered in the NWT is a “mistranslation”, an “alteration” of the verse. Such claims are not only completely unjustified, but easily proven false. Indeed, some trinitarian scholars who have argued quite ardently in favor of the traditional rendering of John 1:1, have themselves admitted that “the Word as a god” is grammatically possible. Others have more honestly admitted that “a god” is grammatically probable (Jason BeDuhn of Northern Arizona University for example). Still others, such as Harris, have admitted that the traditional rendering needs to be re-examined.
Yes, even Harris, one of the trinities most outspoken proponents, admits that the traditional rendering (“the Word was God”) is problematic even to trinitarian theology. Notice his words:
“…it is clear that in the translation “the Word was God” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father…Moreover “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the trinity. Therefore few will doubt that this time-honored translation needs careful exegesis, since it places a distinctive sense upon a common English word. The rendering cannot stand without explanation.”
Actually, the traditional rendering is not just problematic to trinitarian
theology, but it is illogical, and it defies the truth of what John was trying
to get across about the “Word”. Let us briefly explore some of the
comments that have been made regarding John 1:1, and we'll see that the
NWT has offered a legitimate translation. Moreover, we will see that all
arguments against the rendering “the Word was a god” are based purely
upon theology, not grammar or linguistics.Harris:
“from the point of view of grammar alone, [theos en ho logos] could be
rendered “the Word was a god–Jesus As God,1992, pp.60. (Again, Harris
rejects this translation on grounds other than grammar.)Let me repeat, Harris rejects the rendering “the Word was a god”, not on
the grounds of Greek grammar or syntax, but according to HIS theology. I
think Mr. Harris has it backwards: He is not basing his theology on what is
said by John in this verse, he is using his theology as a principle in deciding what he will allow John to mean.C.H. Dodd:
“If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation
of [theos en ho logos] would be,”The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted”(Mr. Dodd rejects the NWT translation, not on grammatical grounds, but on theological grounds.)
Robert Young:
“lit. 'and a God (i.e. a Divine being) was the Word”Notice that Robert Young, who wrote “Young's Concise Commentary”,
admits that the most normal, “literal” way to translate John 1:1c is to call
the Word “a God”, not “God”. It should be remembered regarding the NWT
that it is a “literal” translation. So the NWT, which is a “literal” translation,
renders John 1:1c exactly as Robert Young admits it would be rendered if
it were to be rendered “literally”. Surely this shows that those who have
charged the WTS with being “deceptive” regarding their rendering of John
1:1c, are themselves the ones who are being “deceptive”. They have
allowed their theological commitments to becloud their scholarshipJames Parkinson has written:
“It is difficult to find objectivity in the translation of John 1:1. If Colwell's rule is correct (that the definite predicate nominative does not take the article) then “the Word was God” would be allowable. This translation is rejected on two sides. Because the indefinite predicate nominative would also not take the definite article, “the Word was a god” should be no less
allowable. Still others think the Greek theos here implies a quality and translate it as “the Word was divine.” Rejecting all three, the New English
Bible says, “What God was, the Word was.” The ancient reading of John
1:18 mentioned above will impact the translation of verse 1. C. H. Dodd,
driving force of the NEB, acknowledges of the Word was a god–“As a
word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”He rejects it, saying, “The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole” (as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!)
“The Translator's New Testament says:
“There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In
the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that it's omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine.'”Dr Jason BeDuhn has said:
“In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct
according to the best scholarship done on this subject. He [a NWT critic]
goes on to insist that the NWT is inconsistent because other uses of
THEOS without the article in John 1 are not translated the same way (a
charge repeated by Countess, as mentioned in the Stafford book, from the same ignorance.) He fails to note that not only that the constructs are different, but that these other uses are not nominative (THEOS) but
genitive (THEOU); the latter form is governed by totally different rules. The genitive form of the noun does not require the article to be definite,
whereas the nominative form normally does. It's that simple.”Another example which speaks volumes regarding the oppressive, biased
theological forces at work when it comes to the translation of biblical
texts, in this case John 1:1c, involves Julius Mantey. Mantey is very
outspoken in his criticism of the NWT, and he even wrote a letter to the
WTS charging them with what he felt was an abuse of his grammar.
However, after examining the facts, it is observed that any “abuse” was
done by Julius Mantey.Mantey has lived to regret including a reference in his grammar which
certainly DOES show that “the Word was a god” is a grammatically
possible rendering, whether Mantey would like to admit it or not!Consider what is found on page 148 of his “Manual Grammar of the
Greek New Testament”:“(3) With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence. The article sometimes
distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence.
Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, (and the place was a market [my browser
does not allow for Greek characters]), we have a parallel case to what we
have at John 1:1, (and the word was deity). The article points out the
subject in these examples.
Neither was the place the only market, nor
was the word all of God,..”.Notice how Mantey verifies that the article-noun-verb-noun construction found at Anabasis 1:4:6 is a parallel to the article-noun-verb-noun construction found at John 1:1. Do you notice something peculiar? Yes, that's right, the article is included in Anabasis 1:4:6 and excluded in John 1:1c. What is Mantey's reason for this disparity between two texts he affirms are parallel? HIS THEOLOGY! The ONLY reason he can provide for rendering John 1:1c as he does is that the Word was not “all of God.” That is NOT a grammatical argument; it is a THEOLOGICAL ONE! For Mantey to charge the WTS with offering a rendering that is “neither scholarly nor reasonable” regarding John 1:1 is not a little dishonest. Mantey himself established the reasonableness of the article by verifying that John 1:1c and Anabasis 1:4:6 are parallels. If Mantey regrets having provided this parallel now, that's his problem, not the WTSs.
Mantey's charge that the WTS “misquoted” him is completely unfounded, because in order for the WTS to have “misquoted” Mantey, they would have had to have asserted that Mantey agreed with the NWT's rendering.
There's a big difference between quoting an author according to what his words were intended to mean and quoting an author according to what meaning his words allow. Mantey's parallel between John 1:1c and Anabasis 1:4:6 proves that “a god” is grammatically allowable, whether Mantey intended that understanding or not.What should be clear by now to anyone who is reasonable, is that trinitarian translators, most of them at least, approach John 1:1 backwards: they do not base their doctrine upon what is said in this scripture, but they use their doctrine as a principle in translating it. The circumlocution (or as I humorously call it “triangulocution”) I've encountered which attempts to justify reading three-in-one into John 1:1 is nothing short of mental gymnastics, and in my opinion, bespeaks desperation on the part of such translators. At the very least it shows that
they have done exactly what they have charged the Watchtower Society with doing, namely, using theology to interpret this verse.As for me, I prefer a theology that is strait forward and does not depend upon post-Biblical, pagan interpretations to define God. Moreover, when the Bible is considered in toto, a clear subordination of Christ to Jehovah is most evident. The problem I see with trinitarianism is that you have to resort to such mental gymnastics to support your doctrine. Then, when all of your 'triangulocution' is done, all you're left with is 'a mystery' anyway. How much more satisfying and reasonable to simply take the apostles and Jesus at their words, which are very direct and very strait forward in stating that Jehovah is “Jesus' God and Father.” Isa 11:1; Micah 5:1-4; Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph 1:3; Eph 1:17; 1 Peter 1:3; Rev. 1:6; Rev 3:2; Rev 3:12; Heb.1:7-9; Heb. 2:7,8; 1 Corn. 15: 24-28; etc. etc. etc…… “
Robert Young:
“lit. 'and a God (i.e. a Divine being) was the Word”Notice that Robert Young, who wrote “Young's Concise Commentary”,
admits that the most normal, “literal” way to translate John 1:1c is to call
the Word “a God”, not “God”. It should be remembered regarding the NWT
that it is a “literal” translation. So the NWT, which is a “literal” translation,
renders John 1:1c exactly as Robert Young admits it would be rendered if
it were to be rendered “literally”. Surely this shows that those who have
charged the WTS with being “deceptive” regarding their rendering of John
1:1c, are themselves the ones who are being “deceptive”. They have
allowed their theological commitments to becloud their scholarship.http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/babylon1.htm
It is strangely interesting to me why anyone would adhere to the ever popular belief, albeit erroneous, that all Christians or denominations are acceptable to God. Jesus made the exact opposite point in Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of the Heavens…Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?” Please notice carefully Jesus' response: “I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.” (NASB)
It seems pretty obvious that not everyone professing to be Christian will be acceptable to Jesus Christ. Who will then? Jesus says in vs 21 “He who does the will of my Father will enter.” Therefore, unity in Biblical doctrine for Christians is a must.
By the way, I am new to this forum and am impressed with many of the topics dicussed. I will post when possible. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and have been for 17 years. Lutheran for many years before that. I am looking forward to many dicussions. Unfortunately, I work third shift and may not be able to respond right away, so please be patient with me. Thanks.
In Christ.
BibliophilePhilippians 1:18
“But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”
Hi Bib,
Welcome to HeavenNet! One thing that I have learned while here, is that many have truth in their beliefs. These beliefs may not align themselves with your religion of choice, but they do align themselves (in various ways) with scripture (depending on your presup of those scriptures). Does this mean that anything goes? Or that all people will be saved and KNOW CHRIST? No. It just means that those who are here, I believe, are earnestly seeking the truth…… Otherwise, we would be out shopping, playing poker, whatever floats your boat. Instead, we are here – searching the scriptures out.
The reason I bring this to mind – that we are all searching scriptures out – is to encourage everyone not to be so inclusive. For example, I know that the JW's believe that unless you are a JW, you are not saved. I know this because the JW's came to my door back in 2003 and told me that the Trinity wasn't true – God bless the JW's! If it wasn't for them, I may have never known who God and his Son really are. However, they also believe that I am lost because I have not converted to their religion. This saddens my heart tremendously.
I do believe there will be a one-world religion someday……scary……but today we live in the wonderful administration of grace. God is calling who he will. I don't believe he is calling us into the JW's ONLY, or into the Baptist church ONLY, for instance. This is my opinion, of course.
God bless you, Bib, as you share the truth you know. I'm glad that you are here.
MandyQuote (Bibliophile @ July 17 2007,04:24) It is strangely interesting to me why anyone would adhere to the ever popular belief, albeit erroneous, that all Christians or denominations are acceptable to God. Jesus made the exact opposite point in Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of the Heavens…Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?” Please notice carefully Jesus' response: “I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.” (NASB) It seems pretty obvious that not everyone professing to be Christian will be acceptable to Jesus Christ. Who will then? Jesus says in vs 21 “He who does the will of my Father will enter.” Therefore, unity in Biblical doctrine for Christians is a must.
By the way, I am new to this forum and am impressed with many of the topics dicussed. I will post when possible. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and have been for 17 years. Lutheran for many years before that. I am looking forward to many dicussions. Unfortunately, I work third shift and may not be able to respond right away, so please be patient with me. Thanks.
In Christ.
Bibliophile
Hey Bib, depending where you live the third shift may be “Prime Time”.
Hi Mandy,
Excellent reply. Thank-you and all for welcoming me. Perhaps I came off a little strong. Please believe me that it was not meant to force anyone to JW's. I was truly sharing what I have come to learn through scripture.
It saddens me that you came away with the impression that JW's believe that only they will be 'saved' as it were. The truth is that there exsist JW's that will not inherit God's Kingdom for whatever reason. I count each day as a blessing that I have come to know who the only true God is and his Son as you had mentioned. I also never forget Jesus' words that “He that endures will be saved.”
Belive me when I say I joined this forum ONLY to share what my personal study of God's word the Bible has revealed through the years. Do I believe JW's have truth? Yes, otherwise I would belong to another faith, maybe. Please keep in mind though that every JW's is fallible. God's word is not. As far as I have been able to tell, JW's as a whole are the only ones's striving to stick to the Bible as best as possible. I hope this helps clear matters up!
In Christ,
BibliophileQuote (Nick Hassan @ July 17 2007,14:40) Hi Bib,
Is the JW denomination acceptable to God?
Hi Nick,I will admit I had to think about this question.
Unfortunately, the world has had to classify Christians as denominations simply because there are so many different ones. (20,000?) I am sure you would agree this wasn't the case in the first century. You were either a Christian belonging to “the Way,” or belonging to the world.
Jesus said at John 4:24 “to worship God in spirit and Truth.” I personally believe one is either a sevant of Jehovah and follower of Christ as King designate, or you are not. Please don't think I would be judging anyone, for I don't. It is Jehovah who draws us through his Son.
Since I believe in Jehovah and Christ there would have to be some form of worship which is acceptable to him today. Jesus started the Christian church/congrgation in the first century and I believe since he is the head of the congregation he would make sure his followers were organized. Revelation shows that Jesus carefully watched what was going on in the first century congregations. (Chapter 3) 1:10 says John came to be in the Lord's day and so I have no other scriptural reason to believe it would be any different today.
I hope this answers your question. I have a feeling you will be asking more!?
In Christ
Hi Bib,
To become a member of the JW organisation did you have to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus and did you receive the Holy Spirit?
Or did you have to agree to a lot of doctrines first?Are you striving to be among the 144.000 who are said to “go to heaven” or happy to be among the rest on earth?
Must you believe that Michael is Jesus or do you have a choice?
Do you believe all men are saved at death or not?Is salvation by door knocking or following the commands of the watchtower?
How free are you to search for yourself?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 17 2007,16:54) Hi Bib,
To become a member of the JW organisation did you have to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus and did you receive the Holy Spirit?***Yes. To be a follower of Christ according to scripture one must repent (turn around) as well as be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy spirit. (Matthew 28:19) Of course this I did in prayer to Jehovah through Jesus first.
Or did you have to agree to a lot of doctrines first?
***Yes/no Once I believed from scripture what I was being taught was correct, then I dedicated myself in prayer. Baptism came later only because in general these take place twice a year.
Are you striving to be among the 144.000 who are said to “go to heaven” or happy to be among the rest on earth?
***Great question! I am not a part of those who have a heavenly hope. Even as a Lutheran I never believed i was going to heaven. My hope is to remain on the earth. (Ps. 37:11; Matt. 5:5)
Must you believe that Michael is Jesus or do you have a choice?
***Jesus being Michael is not explicitly taught in scripture. What i mean is there is no scripture which says: “Jesus is Michael the archangel.” However, I do believe it is strongly implied. (1Thess. 4:16) I am not dogmatic about it but it is what I believe. If scripture is implicit in this I don't believe we have a choice.
Do you believe all men are saved at death or not?
***No. Jesus said: “there would be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (John 5:28, 29) All await a resurrection by Jesus, heavenly or not.
Is salvation by door knocking or following the commands of the watchtower?
***Neither. Salvation is through one man only, Jesus Christ. No one can earn salvation. It is by grace (undeserved Kindness) as a free gift from God. However, James 2:14-26 clearly says we must have works, deeds that accompany our professed faith.
How free are you to search for yourself?
***I have searched for years and have found JW's to be as close to Christ's commands as imperfect men are able. As long as Biblical doctrines are taught I will remain a part of JW's organization. No matter what, I will always be one of JW's whether the organization falters or not.
In Christ
I hope this works.Quote No matter what, I will always be one of JW's whether the organization falters or not.
That's scarey.Hi BF,
I think it's scarey to pledge undying allegience to an organisation “whether it falters or not”. What if their doctrines became progressively satanic in nature, would you still stand with them?Is 1:18,
I better correct myself on this one. Sorry about that!! What I meant was I would remain Jehovah's servant through Jesus even if the organization departed from the Bible. In other words, If the organization left the doctrines of the Bible, I would remain with the Bible, which is infallible, not the organization.
Does this clear things up I hope?
In Christ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
