- This topic is empty.
- Posts
David,
I got this from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#The_nature_of_Christ
Is this an accurate statement of your beliefs?
“Jesus is God's first creation. Jesus was used by God to create every other creation.[12] Jesus was also known as the Archangel Michael in his pre-human existence; his birth on earth was accomplished when he willingly allowed himself to be transferred, by God, from heaven to the womb of the Virgin Mary.[13] While on earth, Jesus was executed for mankind's sins upon a single beamed torture stake. The cross is rejected as a symbol for Christ's death, and instead seen as a later pagan addition.[14] After his death Jesus appeared to his disciples and convinced them of his resurrection, and then ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of Jehovah. Jesus acts as the mediator of the “new covenant” for those going to heaven (the 144,000).[15] Mary was not perpetually virgin, but rather bore more children after Jesus.”
Quote 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. You simply often or at the most, rarely, have any clue or idea of what you speak.
WHY IS THAT?
Doesn't it annoy you, and those around you?
Ever hear of the King James Version? I know you have.
Our “weird doctrines” as you call them, well, we used primarily the KJV for about 50 years.
Then, we realized that the KJV had taken God's name out, removed God's very name some 7000 times, leaving it only about 4 times!
This was a mistake on a scale too large to quantify.Anyway, if you knew anything, you would know that we will use whatever Bible you have, to speak to you about the good news of the kingdom, which we alone have been preaching in all the inhabited earth. (Mat 24:14)
On the subject of “weird doctrines,” I thank you for the compliment!
Some of the Jews asked whether the activity of Jesus Christ represented “a new teaching.” (Mark 1:27) Later, some Greeks thought the apostle Paul was introducing a “new teaching.” (Acts 17:19, 20) It was new to the ears of those who were hearing it, but the important thing was that it was the truth, in full harmony with God’s Word.I am quite certain you would have claimed that the early Christians had “weird doctrines.” And indeed, to most people, they did. The important thing, is that they followed God's word.
Anyway, you are completely wrong on the quote above. Simply wrong. Once again.
And then, there's this:
Quote David. If you are really interested in the Greek, then why are Jehovah's Witnesses in contradiction with their own 1969 Greek interlinear? I wonder how much of that you read.
It states: since different translations do have different renderings….Yes, different translations have different renderings. And just as this website lists several translations that follow tradition and render it incorrectly, so too, many others, as this website points out, have different renderings.
If you'd like to discuss the “I am” and what this website says, I'd be happy to in the appropriate forum.
CB, on your next post, you quote something that begins like this:
Quote 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. Most everything said here is wrong. I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of it.
Sorry.
Quote I am saying that “NONE” of the credible translations translate John 1:1 differently. WJ, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF THE CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND ONE OF THE NON-CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS.
THANKYOU.
Quote How can someone who isn't God be like God? As much of your Christology as you can would be greatly appreciated. –Page 13, Tim2
How can someone who isn't God be like God?
1. Humans aren't “God Almighy.”
2. God Almighty is divine.
3. Certain humans will be given “divine nature.”Hence, someone who isn't God can still be like God and even have the very nature of God.
This could be applied to Jesus as well. Jesus can be like God and have a divine nature and yet, not be God.The English word “divine” means: “having godlike nature.”
Certainly Jehovah God almighty has a godlike nature. If he doesn't, who does?
The FACT that the Bible very clearly very plainly says that some will be given “divine nature” indicates that some will be like God in that they will have spirit bodies. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the [heavenly] kingdom.” So, these ones will be given divine nature, or spirit bodies.I guess i should mention that this post is in response to Tims post a page back that says:
Quote 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. wIKIPedia says under “John 1:1”
“The most common rendering in English is:
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
This rendering is preferred among popular English translations today. However, this is not unversal in usage among scholarly translations. Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render it:
“…and the Word was divine.”
Other variations also exist. Todays English Version reads:”…and he was the same as God.”
The Revised English Bible reads:”…and what God was, the Word was.”
A FEW TRANSLATIONS have rendered the verse “…and the word was a god”[4][5]”
(CAPS addded for empphassiss.)So you may stop falsely and wrongly using the word 'alone' or the words “stand alone” with reference to the NWT.
Thankyou.
It continues:
“There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular. [6] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that “…a god” is the proper rendering.[7] Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation …a god. [8] [9][10] While other scholars believe it is possible or even preferrable.[11][12][13]“The footnotes are these:
# ^ Dr. Jason BeDuhn (of the Northern Arizona University)in regard to the Kingdom Interlinear's appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not “God” but “a god” said: “In fact the KIT[Appendix 2A, p.1139]explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject..”
# ^ Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone,[QEOS HN hO LOGOS]could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p.60.
# ^ C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”Also, interestingly it says:
“GrammarA major point of contention within the grammatical debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule, which states:
“In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.”
At issue is whether Cowell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured.[14]”
Quote (david @ May 10 2007,18:54) wIKIPedia says under “John 1:1” “The most common rendering in English is:
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
This rendering is preferred among popular English translations today. However, this is not unversal in usage among scholarly translations. Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render it:
“…and the Word was divine.”
Other variations also exist. Todays English Version reads:”…and he was the same as God.”
The Revised English Bible reads:”…and what God was, the Word was.”
A FEW TRANSLATIONS have rendered the verse “…and the word was a god”[4][5]”
(CAPS addded for empphassiss.)So you may stop falsely and wrongly using the word 'alone' or the words “stand alone” with reference to the NWT.
Thankyou.
It continues:
“There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular. [6] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that “…a god” is the proper rendering.[7] Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation …a god. [8] [9][10] While other scholars believe it is possible or even preferrable.[11][12][13]“The footnotes are these:
# ^ Dr. Jason BeDuhn (of the Northern Arizona University)in regard to the Kingdom Interlinear's appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not “God” but “a god” said: “In fact the KIT[Appendix 2A, p.1139]explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject..”
# ^ Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone,[QEOS HN hO LOGOS]could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p.60.
# ^ C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”Also, interestingly it says:
“GrammarA major point of contention within the grammatical debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule, which states:
“In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.”
At issue is whether Cowell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured.[14]”
DavidYou say…
Quote
So you may stop falsely and wrongly using the word 'alone' or the words “stand alone” with reference to the NWT.
Ok the NWT stands alone with all the other non credible translations!
Quote
Ok the NWT stands alone with all the other non credible translations!Wow. So as I said or asked before:
Quote WJ, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF THE CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND ONE OF THE NON-CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS. THANKYOU.
You seem to have down which are the “credible” translations. I was wondering if you have a list.
Or is your sole basis for this the following:Credible translation: Renders John 1:1: The word was God.
Non-credible translation: Renders John 1:1 any other way.Is this what YOU are basing this on?
A list would be nice.
WJ, history shows that when it comes to serving God the majority have regularly been wrong.
The majority died in the flood of Noah’s day.
The majority were wrong in their united efforts to build the tower of Babel.
The same was true when destruction came on Sodom and Jerusalem, on the latter city both in the seventh century B.C.E. and again in the first century C.E.
As Jesus said, the broad, easy road taken by the majority leads to destruction. —Matt. 7:13, 14.
I am of course not saying that the majority is wrong simply because it is the majority. I am saying YOU are wrong in asserting that the majority is right because it is the majority. It is false reasoning.
Quote (david @ May 11 2007,10:05) WJ, history shows that when it comes to serving God the majority have regularly been wrong. The majority died in the flood of Noah’s day.
The majority were wrong in their united efforts to build the tower of Babel.
The same was true when destruction came on Sodom and Jerusalem, on the latter city both in the seventh century B.C.E. and again in the first century C.E.
As Jesus said, the broad, easy road taken by the majority leads to destruction. —Matt. 7:13, 14.
I am of course not saying that the majority is wrong simply because it is the majority. I am saying YOU are wrong in asserting that the majority is right because it is the majority. It is false reasoning.
DavidThe majority believe blue is blue because someone named the color blue.
Some things are undisputed and some things are not. I am not claiming that the majority is always right.
I am claiming that over 600 Greek Hebrew and Aramaic scholars put their life and some even shed their blood to bring us the scriptures that we have in the major translations.
Besides a few antagonist or scattered scholars here and there casting a shadow on the translation of Jn 1:1.
I believe the majority in this case holds true the text, especially since they all translate it vertually the same.
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 (? Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;Darbys (? Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Websters (? Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.HNV (? Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Those with ? marks I havnt researched how many scholars were involved!
I have no reason to believe that all these scholars conspired to miss translate John 1:1.
Therfore untill I see credible evidence stacked up against 600+ scholars I will believe John 1:1 just as it says.
Non credible, all those who translate John 1:1 differntly!
Quote Some things are undisputed and some things are not. I am not claiming that the majority is always right. You most certainly have no idea what the word “undisputed” means, if you feel that the traditional translation of John 1:1 is undisputed. It is perhaps the most disputed.
And again, you may not be “claiming” that the majority is always right.
Yet, you certainly keep alluding to it in that it seems to be your sole arguement and you have repeated it several times.Quote Non credible, all those who translate John 1:1 differntly! So would you say that any translation that translates any scripture differently from the majority is non credible? ? ?
please answer.
Quote (david @ May 11 2007,11:35) Quote Non credible, all those who translate John 1:1 differntly! So would you say that any translation that translates any scripture differently from the majority is non credible? ? ?
please answer.
DavidYes.
I will go with the translators I mentioned. For I also believe there is other scriptural evidence that supports John 1:1.
If you can present even one translation that has at least 50 credible Greek Hebrew, Aramaic scholars who translates, John 1:1 differently then I will consider John 1:1 as being ambiguous.
However I doubt that you can find such.
I believe John 1:1 is unambiguous!
Quote (david @ May 11 2007,11:35) Quote Non credible, all those who translate John 1:1 differntly! So would you say that any translation that translates any scripture differently from the majority is non credible? ? ?
please answer.
DavidLet me clarify!
No. Not necessarily. I would look at all the translations and the greek and trust that I could make the right choice by the Spirit of truth in me.
But again the scripture we are talking about, there is no disagreement at least among the translations shown, so that would mean to me that the scholars could find no reason to translate John 1:1 differently.
Quote (david @ May 11 2007,11:34) Quote Some things are undisputed and some things are not. I am not claiming that the majority is always right. You most certainly have no idea what the word “undisputed” means, if you feel that the traditional translation of John 1:1 is undisputed. It is perhaps the most disputed.
And again, you may not be “claiming” that the majority is always right.
Yet, you certainly keep alluding to it in that it seems to be your sole arguement and you have repeated it several times.
DavidYour patronizing makes me not want to talk to you.
You say…
Quote
You most certainly have no idea what the word “undisputed” means, if you feel that the traditional translation of John 1:1 is undisputed. It is perhaps the most disputed.
God forbid I should have to defend that I know what undisputed means.As far as I am concerned it is undisputed, for the ones I have seen dispute it have no credentials or they are questionable in their motives. IMHO.
Like I said except for the few antagonist or random scholars scattered here and there who “dispute” John 1:1, there is no credible evidence that John 1:1 has been misinterpreted by the over 600 scholars I have mentioned.
Quote (david @ May 11 2007,11:34) Quote Some things are undisputed and some things are not. I am not claiming that the majority is always right. You most certainly have no idea what the word “undisputed” means, if you feel that the traditional translation of John 1:1 is undisputed. It is perhaps the most disputed.
And again, you may not be “claiming” that the majority is always right.
Yet, you certainly keep alluding to it in that it seems to be your sole arguement and you have repeated it several times.
DavidWhat do you have?
So your argument goes with the NWT that hardly has any credible translators.
You cant even show who the Translators are.
Why all the secrecy from the NWT translators?
Quote (david @ May 11 2007,10:00) Quote
Ok the NWT stands alone with all the other non credible translations!Wow. So as I said or asked before:
Quote WJ, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF THE CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND ONE OF THE NON-CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS. THANKYOU.
You seem to have down which are the “credible” translations. I was wondering if you have a list.
Or is your sole basis for this the following:Credible translation: Renders John 1:1: The word was God.
Non-credible translation: Renders John 1:1 any other way.Is this what YOU are basing this on?
A list would be nice.
DavidI have presented the translations from credible websites.
I did not just pick out the ones that translate John 1:1 the same.
In fact I havnt finished compiling my list.
Here they are, check for yourself.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1;&version=9;
For what ever reason David, non of these sights chose to include the NWT.
Hi WJ.
Have you checked with the Interlinear Scripture Analyser, it gives the original Greek scripture and letters, translated to English.
See “scripture4all.org” I believe this to be very accurately translated, the authorized version is written to compare.Blessings.
Quote (david @ May 10 2007,17:48) Quote How can someone who isn't God be like God? As much of your Christology as you can would be greatly appreciated. –Page 13, Tim2
How can someone who isn't God be like God?
1. Humans aren't “God Almighy.”
2. God Almighty is divine.
3. Certain humans will be given “divine nature.”Hence, someone who isn't God can still be like God and even have the very nature of God.
This could be applied to Jesus as well. Jesus can be like God and have a divine nature and yet, not be God.The English word “divine” means: “having godlike nature.”
Certainly Jehovah God almighty has a godlike nature. If he doesn't, who does?
The FACT that the Bible very clearly very plainly says that some will be given “divine nature” indicates that some will be like God in that they will have spirit bodies. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the [heavenly] kingdom.” So, these ones will be given divine nature, or spirit bodies.I guess i should mention that this post is in response to Tims post a page back that says:
Quote 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.
Hi David,I basically agree with you regarding the divine nature in which we will share, that it will consist of us having spirit bodies, as the Lord currently has. But the spiritual body of Jesus isn't what suggests His deity and has never been suggested by Trinitarians as doing so. Moreover, believers having a spiritual body is a long way off from having “the very nature of God.” Are you saying that the saved will all have the same nature as God? I can't accept that. You haven't shown me that “theias” is applied to Jesus or the Father in the Bible, so it certainly isn't proof that we will have the same exact nature as God. By this logic the angels have the same nature as God, because Jesus says our spiritual bodies will be like the angels in Matthew 22:30. “To whom will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?” Isaiah 40:18.
But back to John 1:1, it says Theos was the Word, not theias. Now you admitted to believing that this theos is the first of God's creation. This alone makes this god completely different from God, for God is uncreated. But it isn't Scriptural to say that the Word was created because the Bible doesn't say that. Rather, it says everything was made through the Word, and in the beginning the Word was! I think John 1:3 would have been a good time to mention that the Word was created, since John is discussing the creation of all things, and repeats Himself, but he leaves out the creation of the Word. And of course, 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?
But it really all comes down to Exodus 20:3, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” If John is talking about this other god, mentioning him in the beginning before he mentions god, ascribes creation to this other god, and calls this other god the true Light, which John says is God (1 John 1:5), I'd say John is violating the first commandment. But of course John isn't, because the Word was God.
Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
