What About John 1:1 in the NWT?

[david]

“Coptic was the language spoken by Christians in Egypt in the Sahidic dialect, until replaced by the Fayyumic and the Bohairic dialects in Coptic church liturgy in the 11th century C.E.

Coptic itself was the last stage of the Egyptian language spoken since the time of the Pharaohs. Under the influence of the widespread use of koine Greek, the Coptic language came to be written, not in hieroglyphs or the cursive Egyptian script called Demotic, but in Greek letters supplemented by seven characters derived from hieroglyphs. Coptic is a Hamito-Semitic language, meaning that it shares elements of both Hamitic (north African) languages and Semitic languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic.

Much was made of it in the scholarly world when an apocryphal gospel written in Coptic, titled the “Gospel of Thomas,” was discovered in Egypt near Nag Hammadi in December 1945. Yet, after an initial welcome, the scholarly world has been strangely silent about an earlier and more significant find the Sahidic Coptic translation of the canonical Gospel of John, which may date from about the late 2nd century C.E. This manuscript was introduced to the English-speaking world in 1911 through the work of [Reverend] George William Horner. Today, it is difficult even to find copies of Horner's translation of the Coptic canonical Gospel of John. It has been largely relegated to dusty library shelves, whereas copies of the “Gospel of Thomas” (in English with Coptic text) line the lighted shelves of popular bookstores.

In the book, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1987), Kurt and Barbara Aland, editors of critical Greek New Testament texts, state:

“The Coptic New Testament is among the primary resources for the history of the New Testament text. Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater importance to know precisely how the text developed in Egypt.”

The Sahidic Coptic text of the Gospel of John has been found to be in the Alexandrian text tradition of the well-regarded Codex Vaticanus (B) (Vatican 1209), one of the best of the early extant Greek New Testament manuscripts. Coptic John also shows affinities to the Greek Papyrus Bodmer XIV (p75) of the late 2nd/3rd century.3 Concerning the Alexandrian text tradition, Dr. Bruce Metzger states that it “is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original.”4

Therefore, it is all the more strange that insights of the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1 are largely ignored by popular Bible translators. Might that be because the Sahidic Coptic Gospel of John translates John 1:1c in a way that is unpopular in Christendom? The Sahidic text renders John 1:1c as auw neunoute pe pshaje, clearly meaning literally “and was a god the Word.”**% Unlike koine Greek, Sahidic Coptic has both the definite article, p, and the indefinite article, u. The Coptic text of John 1:1b identifies the first mention of noute as pnoute, “the god,” i.e., God. This corresponds to the koine Greek text, wherein theos, “god,” has the definite article ho- at John 1:1b, i.e., “the Word was with [the] God.”

The koine Greek text indicates the indefiniteness of the word theos in its second mention (John 1:1c), “god,” by omitting the definite article before it, because koine Greek had no indefinite article. But Coptic does have an indefinite article, and the text employs the indefinite article at John 1:1c. This makes it clear that in reading the original Greek text, the ancient Coptic translators understood it to say specifically that “the Word was a god.”

The early Coptic Christians had a good understanding of both Greek and their own language, and their translation of John's koine Greek here is very precise and accurate. Because they actually employed the indefinite article before the word “god,” noute, the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c is more precise than the translation found in the Latin Vulgate, since Latin has neither a definite nor an indefinite article. Ancient Coptic translations made after the Sahidic, in the Bohairic dialect, also employ the indefinite article before the Coptic word for “god.”

The Coptic word neunoute (ne-u-noute) is made up of three parts: ne, a verbal prefix denoting imperfect (past) tense, i.e., “was [being],”; u, the Coptic indefinite article, denoting “a,”; and noute, the Coptic word for “god.” Grammarians state that the word noute, “god,” takes the definite article when it refers to the One God, whereas without the definite article it refers to other gods. But in Coptic John 1:1c the word noute is not simply anarthrous, lacking any article at all. Here the indefinite article is specifically employed. Thus, whereas some scholars impute ambiguity to the Greek of John 1:1c, this early Coptic translation can be rendered accurately as “the Word was a god.” This is the careful way those 2nd century Coptic translators understood it. The Coptic expression for “was a god,” ne-u-noute pe, is the same Coptic construction as found at John 18:40, where it says of Barabbas that he ne-u-soone pe, “was a robber,” accurately rendering the Greek original, en de ho barabbas lestes, wherein the word for “robber” lestes, is anarthrous: “a robber.” No English version renders this, “Barabbas was Robber.” Likewise, John 1:1c should not be rendered to say, “the Word was God,” whether the text is Greek or Coptic, but “the Word was a god.” In Horner's 1911 English translation from the Coptic, he gives this translation: “In the beginning was being the word, and the word was being with God, and a God was the word.”

It may be noted that the earliest Coptic translation was likely made before Trinitarianism gained a foothold in the churches of the 4th century. That may be one reason why the Coptic translators saw no need to violate the sense of John's Greek by translating it “the Word was God.” In a way, then, the ancient Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c was the New World Translation of that day, faithfully and accurately rendering the Greek text.

That very point may give some indication as to why the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c is largely kept under wraps in academic religious circles today. Most new English translations continue to translate this verse to say “the Word was God.” But the Coptic text provides clear evidence — from very ancient times — that the New World Translation is correct in rendering John 1:1c as “the Word was a god.””
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl…..1c.htm

**The translation of the Sahidic Coptic version of John 1:1c into English can be diagrammed as:
auw neunoute pe psaje
auw ne-u-noute pe pshaje

auw = “and”
ne = verbal prefix denoting past tense, i.e., “was (being)”
u = Coptic indefinite article, “a”
noute = “god”
pe = Coptic particle meaning “is” or “this one is”
p = Coptic definite article, “the”
shaje = “word”

Literally the Coptic says, “and – was being- a god – is- the -Word.” Or more smoothly in literal English, “and the Word was a god.”

%The text of the Coptic Bohairic version also has the indefinite article before the word for “god,” at John 1:1c, i.e., “a god”:

Sahidic: neunoute
Bohairic: ne ounout

[david]

Murray J. Harris:
“According, 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.

(If it was just grammer, it could certainly be translated this way. Many scholars have pointed out that it is “grammatically possible” and reject it on other grounds, THEIR theology or THEIR interpretation of what THEY believe John believed.)

C.H.Dodd has also written:
“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, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language,[theos en ho logos]might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement, in that sense[“signifying one of a class of beings regarded as divine”-Dodd, ibed)…..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.”-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.

(Although stating that this is a “possible translation,” Dodd rejects this translation but on grounds other than grammar–namely, that it goes against what the majority believe, “Christian thought as a WHOLE.” This doesn't make a good argument considering all the “weeds” that have infiltrated Christian thought as a whole and that “few” are actually on the right path while the majority are on that wide road to destruction.)

James 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 Johanine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole” (as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!) Paralleling with John 4:24 (“God is [a] spirit”), Dodd rejects also the AV rendering of John 1:1 in favor of that of the NEB. As for the original text of John 1:18, he dismisses it as “grammatically exceptional, if not eccentric.(Actually the Greek from here is not identical to that of John 4:24, but to that of I Timothy 6:10).”
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/john1files.htm

[david]

“So, while Dodd (and Harris, Vine, and a number of others) say that “a god” in not UNGRAMMATICAL, they nevertheless argue that the proper translation is “The Logos was [in essence] God.””
–Taken from a website arguing against JW's.

The point I am trying to make, is that even those who argue strongly against the NWT do so on GROUNDS OTHER THAN GRAMMER.

It is “grammatically possible” as Dodd, Harris, Vine, “and a number of others” must admit.

So why is it rejected so strongly? It doesn't agree with their version of theology, their precious trinity teaching. So they accept the translation that fits their theology. If it were merely on the subject of grammer, this would be a much different story. But religious beliefs and theology color what everyone (including the scholars) want to be true, and believe.

[david]

Quote

Hi David, I'm going to reserve comment on the grammar and context of John 1:1-4 passage at this stage, as I'll probably be using as a proof text in the debate. Feel free to offer your opinions then….

I'm quite curious to know what Is 1:18 is going to say on John 1:1

–The “grammer” could go either way and CERTAINLY DOES NOT NECESSITATE IT BEING TRANSLATED “THE WORD WAS GOD.”

–The “context” is that the Word was “WITH” God and hence, not the the same “God” that was being spoken of, unless you already happen to believe in a trinity and then logic or normal grammer doesn't really matter.
John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.”
John 1:14 clearly says: “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.”
JOHN 1:34
“And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.””
(What did John the Baptist bear witness to regarding Jesus?)
JOHN 1:49
“Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”” (How did Nathanael identify Jesus?)
JOHN 11:27
“She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.”” (What did Martha believe about Jesus?)
JOHN 20:31
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (Why did John write what he did? What did he want us to believe?)
JOHN 1:34
“I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.” (Did John bear witness that Jesus was God Almighty, or God’s Son?)
1 JOHN 4:15
“Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .” (According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess?)
1 JOHN 5:5
“Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?” (According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God?)
(It seems that John bore witness that Jesus was the “Son of” God, that he wrote what he did so that we would believe that Jesus was the “Son of” God, telling us to have faith that Jesus is the “Son of” God, and to confess that Jesus is the “Son of” God.)

In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy)
Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God.

I'm not certain how the context of the actual verse or the context of everything John said (which was for the reason that we “may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God”) helps your case.

[Tim2]

David,

Thanks for those references. It's good to see that scholars are putting everything into this. I don't know Greek so I can't comment on that.

I'd like to step back though, David, and ask what exactly you think it means for Jesus to be “a god.” Was he created? When? Is He like God? In what way? In what way not? How can someone who isn't God be like God? As much of your Christology as you can would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Tim

[david]

I guess this may as well be included here, since it's about colwell's book.

Again, it is Colwell's rule that is what is primarily used by scholars to argue against the NWT.

So watch this:

What is the Best New Testament: Colwell's Apparatus

Colwell's apparatus was taken from his book, “What Is The Best New Testament” University of Chicage Press, 1951.
Colwell's Rule of Bible Translations
Versions in bold italics [actually, I put 4 stars in from on them to save time] are those Colwell had printed, the others are added by me using the same criteria.
Translation Agrees with the Critical Text/Agrees with the later Textus Receptus/Other
New World Translation 64 0 0
21st Century NT* 64 0 0
****Goodspeed* 64 0 0
Rotherham 62 2 0
Byington/BLE 61 3 0
New Revised Standard 60 3 1
****20th Century NT
Lattimore 59 5 0
New American Standard 59 5 0
****Westminster 58 6 0
****American Standard Ver. 58 6 0
****Revised Version 1885 57 7 0
Beck's An American Trans 56 8 0
New Jerusalem Bible 56 8 0
****Revised Standard Version 56 8 0
New American Bible 56 7 1
****Moffatt 56 7 1
King James Version 0 64 0

*The 21st Century NT has 64 points due to its being a dual Literal/Free Translation. Where one side (usually the Free side) had the weaker reading, it was usually corrected by the truer reading on the literal side. At the same time, each side held alone would have done remarkably well, especially the literal side. I think it is encumbent on any Free/Dynamic Equivalent/Paraphrased Bible to include a literal text, if nothing else, than for ease of mind and conscience.

*Colwell chose Goodspeed version as his top New Testament, but I disagree. While taking him at his word for the most part, I cannot agree when it comes to the reading at John 1:18. Colwell's true reading of this verse has “the only begotten God,” a faithful rendering of MONOGENHS QEOS. Goodspeed actually has “divine Only Son,” a weaker reading as it seeks to combine the reading of both the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Westcott and Hort (WH) text. I left it at the top out of respect for Colwell, but it really deserves a reading of 63, placing the New World Translation as the best stand alone version of the New Testament in English.

Below are the 64 scriptures that Colwell uses to determine accuracy in a New Testament. The message being:
*Is your Bible faithful to the best manuscripts available? If not, then why not? What is the motivation behind choosing a weaker reading?*
Why is the TR (Textus Receptus/Received Text) weaker. According to Colwell,

“No scholar today employs this text for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtably the most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today…The King James stands at the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (Mk 16:9-20; Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8).” pp. 99, 100
The list of 64: TR = Textus Receptus; WH = Westcott and Hort Text
1:15 TR This was he of whom I spake
WH For it was he who said it

1:18 TR the only begotten Son
WH the only begotten God

1:27 TR He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me
WH He is to come after me

1:28 TR Bethabara
WH Bethany

1:39 TR Come and see
WH Come and you will see

1:49 TR Nathanael answered and saith unto him
WH Nathanael answered

1:51 TR Hereafter ye shall see heaven
WH you will see heaven

3:15 TR That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life
WH That whoever believes in him may have eternal life

3:25 TR between John's disciples and the Jews
WH between John's disciples and a Jew

4:15 TR come hither to draw
WH come all this way to draw

4:35-36 TR they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth
WH they are white for harvesting. The reaper is already

4:42 TR is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world
WH is indeed the Saviour of the world

4:43 TR departed thence, and went into Galilee
WH went on to Galilee

5:2 TR Bethasda
WH Bethzatha

5:3 TR a great multitude
WH a multitude

5:3-4 TR waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a
certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first
after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever
disease he had.
WH omitted

5:12 TR Take up thy bed, and walk?
WH pick it up and walk?

5:16 TR persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because
WH persecute Jesus because

5:30 TR of the Father which hath sent me
WH him who hath sent me

6:11 TR he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were
set down
WH he distributed to them that were set down

6:17 TR Jesus was not come to them
WH Jesus had not yet come to them

6:22 TR none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were
entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat
WH no other boat there except one and that Jesus had not gone into the boat
with his disciples

6:39 TR of the Father who has sent me
WH of him who has sent me

6:40 TR of him who has sent me
WH of may Father

6:47 TR He that believeth on me hath everlasting life
WH He that believeth hath everlasting life

6:51 TR and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for
the life of the world
WH and the bread that I will give is my flesh, on behalf of the life of the
world.

6:58 TR not as your fathers did eat manna
WH not as your fathers ate and died

6:63 TR the words which I speak
WH the words which I have spoken

6:69 TR thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God
WH you are the Holy One of God

7:20 TR the crowd answered and said
WH the crowd answered

7:26 TR Do the rulers know truly that this is truly the Christ?
WH Do the rulers know that this is the Christ?

7:39 TR for not yet was the Holy Spirit
WH for not yet was the Spirit

7:40 TR many of the crowd
WH some of the crowd

7:53-8:11 TR Pericope Adulterae
WH omits (or in appendix)

8:59 TR and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so
passed by.
WH and went out of the temple

9:4 TR it is necessary for me to work
WH it is necessary for us to work

9:11 TR to the pool of Siloam
WH to Siloam

10:4 TR whenever he puts out his own sheep
WH whenever he puts out all his own

10:26 TR because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you
WH because ye are not of my sheep

10:29 TR he who gives to me is greater than all
WH that which he gives me is greater than all

11:30 TR but he was in the place
WH but he was still in the place

11:41 TR Then they took away the stone from the place where the corpse was
lying
WH Then they took away the stone

12:4 TR Judas Iscariot, Simon's son
Judas Iscariot

12:22 TR and again Andrew and Philip
WH Andrew and Philip went

12:41 TR These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory
WH These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory

12:47 TR my words, and believe not
WH my words, and does not keep them

13:18 TR the one who eats bread with me
WH the one who eats my bread

14:4 TR you know where I am going and you know the way
WH you know where I am going

14:28 TR because I said I am going
because I am going

16:4 TR whenever the time comes
WH whenever their time comes

16:16 TR and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father
WH and ye shall see me

16:27 TR I came out from God
WH I came out from the Father

17:11 TR keep those whom you gave me in your name
WH keep them in your name which you gave me

17:21 TR let them be one in u
s
WH let them be “in us”

18:20 TR where the Jews always meet together
WH where all the Jews meet together

18:40 TR and they all cried out again
WH and they cried out again

19:3 TR and they said
WH and they marched up to him saying

19:29 TR and they filled a sponge with the wine
WH a sponge soaked with wine

19:39 TR a mixture of myrrh and aloes
WH a roll of myrrh and aloes

20:16 TR she said to him Rabbouni
WH she said to him in Hebrew Rabbouni

20:29 TR Is it because you have seen me, Thomas, that you believe
WH Is it because you have seen me that you believe

21:3 TR they went out and embarked in the boat immediately
WH they went out and embarked in the boat

21:15 TR Simon son of Jonah
WH Simon son of John

Colwell's apparatus was taken from the Book, “What is the Best New Testament” by E.C. Colwell, University of Chicage Press.

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread…..1323129
from: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.h

[david]

Quote

Was he created?

The Bible says he's the “firstborn of creation.” You can take that to mean the “prime one in creation” or the “best” or whatever, but that's not what it means. I don't want to discuss this here. There are pages and pages and pages of it in the trinity thread and the other 17 trinity threads.
This thread is about the NWT and how it translates John 1:1. Many in the past years have attacked it and simply said: “NWT's John 1:1” as though that somehow discredited everything I've said or JW's say. It bothers me.

[david]

Quote

How can someone who isn't God be like God?

We are told that those who become heirs of the kingdom would be partakers in “divine nature.”

I believe the angels have divine nature, as do Christ and of course, Jehovah.

They are all spirit creatures. We obviously aren't. They are alike in that sense. And, interestingly the angels, Jesus and of course Jehovah all have “God” applied to them.

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.”

Does having this divine nature make them “Jehovah God”, or part of a trinity?

Please answer.

[Tim2]

Hi David,

Quote

Does having this divine nature make them “Jehovah God”, or part of a trinity?

No. The word looks like theias. I don't know if it's ever applied to Jesus. But in any event, that's not why I believe He is God. I believe He is God because He is called Theos in John 1:1. I don't know what it means for believers to share in the theias nature, but I would understand it in terms of us being born of God (1 John 5:1), being filled with all the fullness of God (Ephesians 4:19), and receiving a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44). These things are said of Jesus, and while the first two do suggest to me that He is God because they are spoken of Him without reference to time, they are not the reason I believe He is God. I believe He is God because of John 1:1 and everything I posted in the Trinity Verses forum.

Now, sticking to John 1:1, I would really like to know what you think it means for Jesus to be “a god.” Is this god created? Out of what? What power does he have? Why is this god listed before YHWH in John 1:1? How is it that he was in the beginning? Basically I just want to know what it means that Jesus is a god.

Thanks,
Tim

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (david @ May 08 2007,09:09)

Quote Hi David, I'm going to reserve comment on the grammar and context of John 1:1-4 passage at this stage, as I'll probably be using as a proof text in the debate. Feel free to offer your opinions then…. I'm quite curious to know what Is 1:18 is going to say on John 1:1 –The “grammer” could go either way and CERTAINLY DOES NOT NECESSITATE IT BEING TRANSLATED “THE WORD WAS GOD.”   –The “context” is that the Word was “WITH” God and hence, not the the same “God” that was being spoken of, unless you already happen to believe in a trinity and then logic or normal grammer doesn't really matter. John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” John 1:14 clearly says: “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” JOHN 1:34 “And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.”” (What did John the Baptist bear witness to regarding Jesus?)   JOHN 1:49 “Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”” (How did Nathanael identify Jesus?) JOHN 11:27 “She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.”” (What did Martha believe about Jesus?) JOHN 20:31 “But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.”  (Why did John write what he did?  What did he want us to believe?) JOHN 1:34 “I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.” (Did John bear witness that Jesus was God Almighty, or God’s Son?) 1 JOHN 4:15 “Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .” (According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess?) 1 JOHN 5:5 “Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?” (According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God?) (It seems that John bore witness that Jesus was the “Son of” God, that he wrote what he did so that we would believe that Jesus was the “Son of” God, telling us to have faith that Jesus is the “Son of” God, and to confess that Jesus is the “Son of” God.) In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy) Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God. I'm not certain how the context of the actual verse or the context of everything John said (which was for the reason that we “may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God”) helps your case.

David

HEHE.

Does it matter what Is 1:18 says about John 1:1.

You dont believe over 500 Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic scholars that have translated John 1:1 exactly the same.

I hope he can influence you with the truth.

But I think you will probably hold on to the NWT.

I would think David you would at least believe the eyewitness account of John and Thomas.

[david]

Quote

Does it matter what Is 1:18 says about John 1:1. You dont believe over 500 Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic scholars that have translated John 1:1 exactly the same.

WJ, Is 1:18 quotes those scholars you speak of, and he believes what they believe. I agree with you. It doesn't matter what he says. The scholars he quotes are human and mostly, following tradition and going with what they want to be true.

Many scholars put that spurious verse in 1 John about “these three being one” even though there isn't the slightest reason for it to be there, other than someone snuck it in and the rest of the scholars didn't bother to check it!

Hello!

Yes, scholars are human. They have agendas.

Ever hear of evolution. I can only guess you completely believe it, based on the way you reason.

If your sole arguments is that the majority are right, I feel very sad for you.
The majority (even the ones who think they are Christians) are wrong. (Mat 7:13,14)

Quote

I would think David you would at least believe the eyewitness account of John and Thomas.

Yes, I know what Thomas said. But do you know what John said in Greek?

“It's interesting to see that many of the scriptural “evidences” said to be in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, are…sometimes even outright forgery. These can often be exposed by even a cursory glance at an English/Greek interlinear Bible or a Greek concordance.”-The Trinity-A Doctrine Overdue for Extinction; Part 2 “Imperfections in the King James Version” by Ted Whitten

“In the first two centuries nearly all the various readings of the New Testament came into existence, the majority of them by deliberate alteration of the text…in the interests of (the trinity) dogma…”
-the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; The Bible in the Church

Have you ever considered that these scholars are human and have to eat?

The NIV. Do you know it?

With regard to leaving God's name out of scripture some 7000 times, EDWIN H. PALMER, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:

“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it?that is how many have bought it to date?and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”

2.25 MILLION DOLLARS.

$2,500,000.

Profit.

What happens if a Bible is “unpopular”?

Well, people don't use it. They don't buy it. It dies. The ones who make it don't recieve the fame they are looking for.

Even though the NWT is extremely unpopular, it is regarded as a major translation.
THE HARPER COLLINS BIBLE DICTIONARY calls it one of the “major translations of the Bible into English,” along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and the New English Bible. p. 292

The NWT hasn't gone for popularity. It hasn't simply copied tradition or the KJV, like countless others. It doesn't paraphrase or make things sound pleasant to your ears.

I mean, can you believe what he said about the NIV?

It needed to be popular!

Can you imagine?

Isn't that insane?

Doesn't it bother you?

So when a translator comes to John 1:1, he has some things to consider.
Does he or the people backing him (the money) care how popular this translation will be?

JW's of course do not care about popularity or about what people think. Hence, a truthful translation.

On the lack of the divine name in most translations:

“…the most common “error” made by most translators in the last 3500 years…is their elimination of heaven's revealed Name of the Most High, Yahweh(Jehovah)” — quoted from – A. B. Traina; in the Preface of the Holy Name Bible

“…the distinctive Hebrew name for God- usually transliterated Jehovah, is in this translation represented by “LORD.”- Today's English Version

“…the suppression of The Name (Jehovah) has entailed upon the reader, and especially upon the hearer, irreparable loss… its suppression was a MISTAKE…” –Rotherham, 1, Ch. IV, 22-29

“The substitution of the word “Lord” is most unhappy; for…it in NO WAY represents the meaning of the sacred name (Jehovah)…” – The 1872 edition of Smith's Bible Dictionary

“In the first two centuries nearly all the various readings of the New Testament came into existence, the majority of them by deliberate alteration of the text…in the interests of (the trinity) dogma…” -the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; The Bible in the Church

“The removal of the Tetragrammaton (Jehovah) from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. As time went on…it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton (Jehovah) contributed significantly to the later…Trinity ” – George Howard, Bible Scholar ; The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), pg 15

“It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be “updated” by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son.”
– When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein, p.74

J.D. PHILLIPS:
(J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the
original tongues). “Last week I purchased a copy of your New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an owner. You have done a marvelous work…I was happy, indeed, to see the name Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!”

ALLEN WIKGREN:
(Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text).
“Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such
as…the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament(1950).” (The
Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)

BENJAMIN KEDAR:
(Benjamin Kedar is a professor at Hebrew University in Israel).
“In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew…Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in
interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”

BENJAMIN KEDAR:
“Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in articles that deal with purely philological questions . . . in the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew as well as of an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target language.”

S. MACLEAN GILMORE:
“In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by a committee…that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.” (The Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26)

C. HOUTMAN:
Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias “the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.” (Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280)

WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR:
(William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister
schooled in the original tongues). “Just when the infidel universities of this land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up…surges..”Jehovah's Witnesses”. …And with considerable scholarship they get out their own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two or three hundred times…It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many times”(The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)

C. HOUTMAN:
Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias “the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280

CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER:
“the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures…the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts…with scholarly ability and acumen.” (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239)

EDGAR J. GOODSPEED:
(Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of “The Bible an American Translation”). “I am…much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.” (Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8, 1950; See also Watchtower September 1, 1952 page 541, where Goodspeed is quoted as stating that the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was “an interesting and scholarly work” )

ROBERT M. MCCOY:
“The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.” (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)

STEVEN T. BYINGTON:
(Steven T. Byington translated the version known as “The Bible in Living English”). “If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines.” (Christian Century, “Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page 1296)

JASON BEDUHN:
(Jason Beduhn teaches at the University of Indiana). “I have just recently completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, …This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students…Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today.”

THE HARPER COLLINS BIBLE DICTIONARY calls it one of the “major translations of the Bible into English,” along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and the New English Bible. p. 292

ALEXANDER THOMPSON:
“The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.” (The Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52)

EDGAR FOSTER:
(Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)
“Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons,
commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it's accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test now for me…The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation _par excellence_. But I feel just as confortable with an RSV or an NASB. Mostly I prefer my UBS Greek text.”

THOMAS N. WINTER:
(Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of Nebraska).
“I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary test. After learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn koine from this source alone. …the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. …In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order.” (The Classical Journal, “The Kingdom Interlinear”, April-May 1974, pages 375, 376) See Also: “Bible Translation how to choose between them” by Alan S. Duthie,(Alan S. Dunthie is a professor at the University of Legon), Page103. Comments by Dr. Rijkel ten Kate

F.F. BRUCE:
“The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950), followed by the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1953 and following years), is a publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., and some of its distinctive renderings reflect the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses (e.g., “the Word was a god” in John 1:1). Sometimes it renders the text with an un-English literalness (e.g., “Let continue yours what is yours” in Gen. 33:9); at other times we find such colloquial phraseology as “Excuse me, Jehovah” (Ex. 4:10) and “the Nile river will fairly stink” (Ex. 7:18). Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good; thus “a jealous God” is “a God exacting exclusive devotion”, and the Hebrew phrase which the AV variously renders as “on this side Jordan” according to the context appears as “in the region of Jordan” (The English Bible 184).
Edgar's Reply: Bruce's review is not a diatribe against the NWT and his remarks seem to center mostly around the renditions of the NWT as opposed to criticisms of the theological positions of Jehovah's Witnesses. Conversely, it is evident from some of his remarks that Bruce has a problem with certain renderings of the NWT for theological reasons (e.g., John 1:1. But see Greg Stafford “Jehovah's Witnesses Defended”). That being said, Bruce calls attention to the lit
eralness of the NWT, which has been effectively treated by Rolf Furuli in his book “The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation.” Furuli shows the appropriateness of literalness in some contexts and translations. Nevertheless, Bruce also recognizes the skillful work expressed in the NWT. Overall, I think Bruce is as neutral as he can be in his comments on the NWT. Overall they present a somewhat favorable view of this influential work published by the WTBTS.
Edgar Foster
Classics Major
Lenoir-Rhyne College

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread…..1323129

[david]

Quote

Hi David, Quote Does having this divine nature make them “Jehovah God”, or part of a trinity? No. The word looks like theias. I don't know if it's ever applied to Jesus.

tim, So you believe Jesus is “God” but not “divine”?
Is this what you're stating?

Quote

How is it that he was in the beginning? Basically I just want to know what it means that Jesus is a god.

We have spent quite some time going over what the word “god” means.
In the Greek scriptures, when they quote from a verse that has “Elohim” it's translated as “theos.” So, I have to think that the two words have the same meaning. We have discussed at lenght what “Elohim” means.

–The Bible doesn't say “what” Jesus is created “out of” anymore than it says what the angels are created out of. It simply says he's the “firstborn of creation” and the “beginning of the creation by God.”
–What power does he have? He's been “given” all authority and power. But of course, he's subject to his Father.
–Why is he listed before YHWH in John 1:1? Really? Because that's the one that is being discussed. You know, I could find several scriptures that have “Peter” listed before Jesus or “John” before Jesus or….
–How is it that he was in the beginning? Since Jehovah has always existed, the question is, the beginning of what? The beginning of creation or the beginning of the world's creation. Give a verse, and I'll answer.
–I think that as Jehovah's only begotten son, Jesus has great great power and is second only to Jehovah in all the universe. If lowly ones, humans can be called gods, obviously it's a term that can be applied to Jesus.

[david]

“We are told that those who become heirs of the kingdom would be partakers in “divine nature.”

I believe the angels have divine nature, as do Christ and of course, Jehovah.

They are all spirit creatures. We obviously aren't. They are alike in that sense. And, interestingly the angels, Jesus and of course Jehovah all have “God” applied to them.

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.”

Does having this divine nature make them “Jehovah God”, or part of a trinity?”

What does it mean to be given or to have divine nature?

[david]

Is 1:18:

Question:

Is John 1:1 going to be your next debate post?

If so, I'll have to do some actual research.

david.

[Is 1:18]

Don't know yet. Maybe? First I have to wait for t8 to submit his next proof text, so I can respond to that. Who knows how long that might take.

[Cult Buster]

Quote

i'm not really interested in what theologians think of the NWT.  I'm more interested in what Greek grammar suggest should be the proper translation.  Of course, theology does come into it.  (Take it out and it's obvious that the NWT is correct.)  You need your theology (the trinity belief) to support your translations.  If not for this theology, there would be NO QUESTION. So I can understand you're pointing out that no one agrees with the theology of the NWT.  But it's the Greek that I'm interested in.

David. If you are really interested in the Greek, then why are Jehovah's Witnesses in contradiction with their own 1969 Greek interlinear?

http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm

The sad fact is that the New World Translation is a Jehovah's Witnesses translation, because without it they cannot support their wierd doctrines.

[Cult Buster]

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY   http://www.carm.org
HOME PAGE    

——————————————————————————–

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god.” The New World Translation

    This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man.  Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature.  The New World Translation has added the word “a” to the verse so it says, “…and the Word was a god.”  The correct translation for this verse is “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”  This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc.
    The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons.  First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism.  To say that Jesus is “a god” is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.).  Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a “lesser” kind of God.  He is the “mighty God” as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”  Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God.
    The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20.  In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for “mighty” (gibbor) is used.

Isaiah 10:20-21, “Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel.  21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.”
Jer. 32:18, “who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God.  the LORD of hosts is His name.”
    We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid.  Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God.  
    Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture?  The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence.  Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be “as God” like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is “a god” that was “with God” in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god?
    But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god.  But, Moses was not called a god.  Rather, he would be “as God.”  

“Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16).
“Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'” (Exodus 7:1).
    Why was Moses going to “as God” to Pharaoh?  Because Moses was given the authority and power to display powerful miracles that decimated much of Egypt.  Was Moses really a god?  Being “as God” in regards to power given to perform miracles over Egypt is not the same thing as being called “a god” that was in the beginning with God, (John 1:1).
    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? Being raised a good Jew, the apostle John would never believe that there was more than one God in existence. Yet, he compared the word with God, said the word was God, and that the word became flesh (John 1:1,14).
    John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus:  “In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.”  Notice that it says “God was the word.”     This is the actual word for word translation.  It is not saying that “a god was the word.”  That wouldn't make sense.  Let me break it down into three statements.

“In beginning was the word…”
(en    arche      en  ho  logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
“and the word was with the God…”
 (kai  ho  logos  en  pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
“and God was the word.” — Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”
(kai theos en   ho  logos)

This same Word was God.
   
Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is “…and the Word was God,” not “and God was the word.”  This is because if there is only one definite article (“ho”=”the”) in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative (“subject”) form (“theos” and “logos”), then the noun with the definite article (“ho”=”the”) is the subject.  In this case “ho logos” means that “the word” is the subject of the clause.  Therefore, “…the Word was God” is the correct translation, not “God was the Word.”1  But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is “a god,” or the “mighty god” as was addressed above.
    Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1?  It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3.  How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel.  Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called “a god,” besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?  

John 20:28 – “Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'”

    In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, “ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou,” “The Lord of me, and the God of me.”  If Jesus was not God, but “a” god, then shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas?  Shouldn't Jesus have said, “No Thomas, I am not the God.  I am a god.”?  But Jesus did not.  To do so would have been ludicrous.  Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance, that he swore.  This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7.  This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain.
    In conclusion, John 1:1 is best translated without the “a” inserted into the text.  “The Word was God” is the best translation.  This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being “a god.”  We do not have Thomas the disciples swearing and using God's name in vain.  And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a “mighty god” and yet not the God — even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 21:18; Isaiah 10:20).
   

____
1.  Chapman, B. (1994).  Greek New Testament Insert. (2nd ed., revised.).  Quakertown, PA:  Stylus Publishing.   Also,  Louw, J. P. (1989; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic edition of the 2nd ed.) (Page 592). New York: United Bible societies.

——————————————————————————–

Return to t
he Jehovah's Witness Page

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY
Home | Contact | Newsletter | Publications | Donations | Copying and Linking
© Matthew J. Slick, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003

Joh 9:41  Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

The NIV.  Do you know it? With regard to leaving God's name out of scripture some 7000 times, EDWIN H. PALMER, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:

David

Yoiu miss my point.

I didnt say that any translation is to claim perfection, especially the NIV.

I am saying that “NONE” of the credible translations translate John 1:1 differently.

And especially dont translate it like the NWT.

There are some things that are irrefutable, and John 1:1 is one of them, inspite of the unbelieving critics.

David you always talk about law and courts and jurys and judges.

The evidence is strongly stacked against the NWT. But I see you will believe it inspite of the evidence.

Wasnt it you David that said case is over concerning John 17:3?

Case is over David. The Jury is out.

John 1:1 says…

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the *Word was God*.

It screams loud and clear in the ears of the unbelievers.

[Tim2]

Quote (david @ May 08 2007,19:16)

Quote Hi David, Quote Does having this divine nature make them “Jehovah God”, or part of a trinity? No.  The word looks like theias.  I don't know if it's ever applied to Jesus. tim, So you believe Jesus is “God” but not “divine”?   Is this what you're stating? Quote How is it that he was in the beginning?  Basically I just want to know what it means that Jesus is a god. We have spent quite some time going over what the word “god” means.   In the Greek scriptures, when they quote from a verse that has “Elohim” it's translated as “theos.”  So, I have to think that the two words have the same meaning.  We have discussed at lenght what “Elohim” means. –The Bible doesn't say “what” Jesus is created “out of” anymore than it says what the angels are created out of.  It simply says he's the “firstborn of creation” and the “beginning of the creation by God.” –What power does he have?  He's been “given” all authority and power.  But of course, he's subject to his Father. –Why is he listed before YHWH in John 1:1?  Really?  Because that's the one that is being discussed.  You know, I could find several scriptures that have “Peter” listed before Jesus or “John” before Jesus or…. –How is it that he was in the beginning?  Since Jehovah has always existed, the question is, the beginning of what?  The beginning of creation or the beginning of the world's creation.  Give a verse, and I'll answer. –I think that as Jehovah's only begotten son, Jesus has great great power and is second only to Jehovah in all the universe.  If lowly ones, humans can be called gods, obviously it's a term that can be applied to Jesus.

David, is that your complete Christology? Do you have a full statement of what Jesus is that you can share, because I really have no idea what you believe He is.

I never said Jesus is God but not divine. I said I don't know if the word theias is ever applied to Him. Ordinarily, I would say in English that Jesus is divine, but I don't know what exactly theias means or if it's even applied to Jesus. If it is, then I'll go along with it. I don't see how it effects Him being Theos one way or another.

I have to object to your assertion that Theos and Elohim are equivalent words. My understanding of Elohim, based off of this website, http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/othergodsf.html is that El or Elohim came from a semitic word meaning “power,” but that it was adapted to denote gods, such as the pagan El of Canaan, and in this context, YHWH revealed Himself to be the true POWER, unlike any other, such that El or Elohim came to be the proper name for Him, as in Genesis 1:1, although traces of its old meaning of power continued to be used with respect to humans; and in its sense of gods, with reference to the gods of the nations.

Theos, on the other hand, I've never heard anyone say that it's an old greek word for power, but always referred to gods or the God. Thus, Elohim is not always translated as theoi in the New Testament, such as in Hebrews 1:6, because they're not equivalent words, and the angels are not theoi at all.

Tim

[Tim2]

David,

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses have a website stating what they believe Jesus is? I can't find a statement of faith on the watchtower website.

Tim

[Author]

Posts