Quote Interesting good or interesting way off?I'm not sure.Really, the only point on this specific thread that I am wanting to discuss is the translation of John 1:1c.Lately, I have been discussing the “the Word was divine” translation, which is favored by some, Jason Debuhn, being one of them. Notice his comments: “It is true that the most…[Read more]

Interesting first post.Hello.

Quote that He is something entirely other.–TimYes, perhaps he is something entirely other.But he is a spirit. They are spirits. So they have something in common we do not, and it is their divine nature. Their ….lack of flesh. They are spirits. We aren't.God is the creator.The angels are the created.That makes them markedly different.But, I…[Read more]

Quote I tried to discuss the greek for beginning and firstborn, but apparently you think English is better?–TimSorry, tim, I must have missed it. Part of it is that I've discussed these two scriptures on here about 43 times. I'm certain they're in many many threads. I was hoping this thread would be on John 1:1. I know that these two…[Read more]

Quote Hello David, do you know that the nwt translation is written by freemasons catholic jesuits and evil people.I'm not going to even respond to this drivel. I've spent a lot of time researching this freemason garbage. It is ridiculous. Yes, if you spend 5 mintues on garbage sites, you can find people saying these things. If you spend a…[Read more]

Quote No. Your point is not being made. The only point you were trying to make is the NIV didn’t translate YHWH to “Jehovah” which your organization claims to be “The Name of God”, but you refuse to explain why the NWTs version of the Tetragrammaton was used instead of the alternatives.You say that I refurse to “explain why the NWTs version o…[Read more]

Quote Leave the NIV out David, and you still have over 500 scholars that disagree with the NWTs rendering of John 1:1.WJ, so Just like that, you've discarded 100 scholars? Your number has dropped from 600 credible scholars to 500.Quote You asked me to give you a list of credible translations, and 1 non credible translation and I didI think I…[Read more]

Quote You weren't asking how someone who isn't God could be God himself.You were asking how someone who isn't God could be like God.–meQuote David, what's the difference?–TimI am like my father but not my father. We may have the same nature, but that doesn't mean I am my father or we are the same person.Quote David, it sounds as though you…[Read more]

Quote But do you think that the NWT can compare in translation to the over 600 real scholars that agreed on the text Jn 1:1 and its interpretation?Did they all agree? What proof do you have of this? Maybe 301 agreed and they won the vote, with only 299 saying they were completely wrong.You seem to think you know who the translators of the NWT…[Read more]

And I suppose “Jehovah” is the correct pronunciation of Gods Name?David, can anyone know with certainty how to pronounce “YHWH”.So the JWS version of the Tetragrammaton is the only correct one?You criticize the NIV and the KJV for not using “Jehovah”, why didn’t the unknown translators of the NWT hold closer to the name and translate it Yahweh or…[Read more]

Quote David, can I have your definition for “divine” please? And can you also tell me if you believe there is than one divine being? I'm trying to get a handle on your view here. Thanks.–Is 1:18godlike or heavenly.Quote And can you also tell me if you believe there is than one divine being? Question: Is a being that has “divine nature” a divine…

Quote Are you saying that the saved will all have the same nature as God? I can't accept that.Tim, I'm saying that those ones will have a “divine nature”and that God obviously has a divine nature.I'm saying that they will have “spirit bodies” as you sayand that God is “a spirit.”So in answer to your question:Quote How can someone who isn't God be…[Read more]

Quote Why all the secrecy from the NWT translators?Ever hear of humility?They, the translators wanted God's word to stand on it's own merit and weren't seaking prominence or anything like that. The NWT committee were not the only ones who have following this idea.Quote God forbid I should have to defend that I know what undisputed means.As far as…[Read more]

Quote 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.So 49 wouldn't do. That last 50th scholar must be very important to you. So, one translator can make all the difference? I'm really not sure this is how…[Read more]

OH, sorry, just got to your next posts, where you state something different:Quote DavidLet me clarify!No. Not necessarily.

Me:So would you say that any translation that translates any scripture differently from the majority is non credible? ? ?WJ:Quote DavidYes.So, you're willing to throw out your “credible” translations then?

Quote I have no reason to believe that all these scholars conspired to miss translate John 1:1.–WJNor do I. I don't think they “conspired” or got together but I do think they are human and it's a case of the blind leading the blind. I've kept trying to use an example of other scholars (something you can understand.)Yes, a huge group of scholars…[Read more]

W J :CredibleKJV (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…[Read more]

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 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…[Read more]