Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses:a Greek Primer: John 1:1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 เม.ย. 2011
- This short examination sets out to refute the Jehovah's Witnesses on what they would label one of their most sophisticated arguments. In this examination is covered John 1:1 in the Jehovah's Witness translation rendering, then we examine it in the NRS and cover the ORIGINAL Koine Greek!
The goal of this study is to briefly cover a few Biblical Greek rules in showing how untenable the Jehovah's Witness position is.
-William Albrecht
You may follow me on Facebook
/ katholikos
Or Email me if you have a pressing question
gnrhead@gmail.com
GOD BLESS you!
www.Catholic-Legate.com
![Witnessing To Jehovah's Witnesses [Part1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NQ6Pf5ZDSCk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Witnessing To Jehovah's Witnesses [Part1]](/img/tr.png)
Two Jehovah Witnesses visited my home, I spent two hours trying to explain to them the deity of Christ to no avail, I then asked them who is the savior of the world? One of them responded " it might be Jesus" I then responded "He either is or isn't the savior of the world." It's very sad to see them being deceived by the organization. When I was eight years old I remember picking up the bible for the first time and opening it to the book of John chapter 1 and as I read the first chapter I understood right there and then who Jesus Christ is. I had no one trying to explain this chapter to me, I wasn't confused, I kept thinking to myself and saying "wow" Jesus is my creator, I had a full understanding of the bible verse that reads "God was manifested in the flesh!" and that All things were created by Christ! Jw's say that jesus was a god but he can't be one because if he was a god then they're saying he was a false god because there's only one true God!
Go read 1 Corinthians 8:5
Youee fibbing!
@mastiffsito These are clear Biblical
expressions. I suggest you study the Scriptures and the testimony of the FIRST Christians. You've been fed cultist theology so much that you cannot see beyond
it.
@damildlyshreddah As I pointed out earlier, fantastic point. Nevertheless, the grammar of John 1:1 is clear, Jesus Christ is NOT being identified as the SAME as the Father, that MUST be made clear. The doctrine of the trinity is brought out clearly in the Scriptures as well as the early Patristic sources.
@Ushawn (7) I know this response will fall on deaf ears. JWs are not only INCAPABLE of defending
their position, but they're UNWILLING for so many reasons.
@damildlyshreddah I never once claimed Theos was a proper name, I am simply giving the point as to why the NWT is a bad and sloppy translation. This isn't the only place where the translation is bad, there are so many others it'd take a novel LARGER than the Bible to point out all!
@mastiffsito Greetings sir, would you be interested in debating these verses in a live moderated audio radio debate? Since you seem so certain that these verses teach the JW position. I would be interested if you could defend this position when put under cross examination.
I have heard it said that Jehovah's Witnesses in Greece
(who actually speak Greek) use a different translation.
Bottom line; According to Jehovah's Witnesses,
Jesus was God (KJV 1 Timothy 3:16),
A God,
An Angel and
A Man.
They knock The Trinity and substitute with a Quaternity!
@mastiffsito (2) That's how weak this argument is.
Furthermore Christ quoted the Shema numerous times and indeed it IS true, but it only goes as far as to support my case. The Christian faith is thoroughly
monotheistic and always has been. Saying that our GOD is one is a clear truth, and it's a fact that the Trinity does not equate POLYTHEISM.
Only God was worthy enough to to remove all the sins of mankind on the earth, there is no one perfect, but God alone, therefore, Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh, the perfect Sacrificial Lamb foreordained from the foundation of the worlds to save mankind from their sins! (1 Peter 1:19-20) Abba Father!
I’m glad God brought me to the faith I was totally in but was not so into it. I do struggle but I do listen to your videos William and there are full of information. Just sucks I can’t explain it very well like you do. But I try
@mastiffsito What you are assuming is plain and simple: It's unitarianism--it's something that all the early Christians fought against in the Early Church and it's novelty.
Such was never the teaching of the Scriptures or of the Early Church. The Father is not ABOVE Christ, nowhere does any Scripture verse or Patristic
source say that. The title for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are titles that are careful in explaining their procession and duties.
@mastiffsito What are you talking about? The Holy Spirit, Hagios Pneuma, or in whatever order it appears IS a name. Perhaps you missed the whole point on how the Greek article functions. You're simply confused on how to do Biblical exegesis.
nice video, I would concur; have you done any research on the Coptic translation of John 1:1, because they also translate it as saying " a god"? I would be curious as to what you think about it. It is to bad that these brothers and sisters are so miss led by their organization. I am praying for them.
@aParadisean (4) modern day Arians can stand up to the light of the WORD of GOD!
GOD BLESS you!
@damildlyshreddah Your second point is a bit confusing. Are you saying that my examples of the passages lacking the article are both PREPOSITIONAL phrases or are you saying that the article is lacking herein , which is INSIDE a prepositional phrase? There is a big difference. And just because TEKNA lacks the article, it does not therein follow that theou should also, there are COPIOUS examples that refute this logic.
Just a point: The icon you are using is St. Spyridon the Wonderworker. As he is one of my patrons, I thought you should know. I know the "Arian Catholic Church" used this icon for him on their website a long time ago, but they have since removed it to the best of my knowledge.
@mastiffsito Why would he have to see the Holy Spirit next to the other two persons? Does the Doctrine of the Trinity preclude this? Is the vision of heaven so NARROW that because the Holy Spirit is not there it is a truth that he isn't important or doesn't exist? Your argument is sad. It's no wonder the cult of the JW won't let their people openly defend their faith. Groups that work on mind control are akin to preventing people from defending a lost cause. The Holy Spirit doesn't have a name?
@mastiffsito (1) If that's your best argument, then I truly feel sad for your position. If your best attempt at a response is to claim that the absence of a word defeats a doctrine, then
that's only a signal of how weak your position truly is. In order for a doctrine to be true you don't need to find a WORD appear. The exact list of the Scriptures
don't appear in index form in the Bible either. For that matter, the word JEHOVAH doesn't appear in the Scriptures either!
William A. Wonderful vid brother!
Thanks!
2 years later lol but that's ok brother haha
My apologies. I am very active on my official FB page where I post debate and talk schedules, but usually don't get the chance to check my TH-cam comment section as it can get quite cluttered. Accept my apologies. GOD BLESS
William Albrecht I am very happy that you are a defender of Christian theology. Your videos on TH-cam and on Agustin Astocio's Podcast has helped me out a lot over the years. Thanks brother God bless
awesome as usual! Thank you!
Nice work.
Will you be doing anything else? Like maybe the claims of the Mormons or Christian Science?
In the KIT text, these brackets ( ) mean the word inside the brackets were added.Like,when it says "all(things)" in the word for word transliterated text.
GREAT ANALYSIS, AMEN
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
@William Albrecht, They are arguing not about θεόν but about θεὸς, because they say the termination makes it an attribute, so the examples don't apply to their believes.. +William Albrecht
How does your bible read this verse ? What translation are you looking at?
where can i get the image you used in the beggining for "the word"?
I have.....Have you done any research on what Greek scholars say about this rendering?
So who is speaking in Rev 1:8? Keep in mind that the greek only shows Lord and God but the NWT has added the a name in this spot. Since you seem to have a firm grasp of Greek how would you translate that verse?
JW's used to come to our farm, I would ask them several questions, and their response 99% of the time was "we'll get back to you", even when I asked about John 1.
The Greek doesn't have the indefinite article so it is left up to the translators to add it or not. Based upon the actual Greek grammar of John 1:1c, where an unmodified anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb is used, there are only 4 proper texts that can be compared to it so as to shed light on how it should be translated.
1. John 4:19 -(“a prophet”)- all Bible translations
2. John 8:48 -(“a Samaritan”)- all translations
Ummm were did I talk about the Hebrew language? Please tell me were? Was it on another video?
@damildlyshreddah I think the early Christians were very clear that Christ was the second person of the Trinity. We can find Trinitarian concepts in the Apostolic Fathers as well as many Fathers from all the eras leading into the Golden Age. I do believe the "Word was a god" is not plausible based on Biblical Koine Greek logic.
Nicely put!
Aaron how many beginnings are there?
The def article really isn't necessary.
Do you have a greek interlinear?
Larry Charms, it is written, according to your own bible the New Translation of the holy scriptures, "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1 NWT) Is this two Gods? The CAPITAL definite article "The God," and the smaller letter indefinite article "a god"? Isn't this a polytheistic doctrine? Yes, it definitely is. You Jehovah's Witnesses try to rationalize that Jesus Christ is the "Mighty God" and that the Father is the "Almighty God," but they ignore the fact that there is only one God! Not two, not three, but one. There are only two choices, either Jesus Christ is the true God (John 5:20) or a false god (Jeremiah 10:11).
@gnrhead My english is slopppy at times. IF I remember correctly (I will check tomorrow. My wife is trying to get my off the computer), when using prepositional phrases such as εκ θεου and παρα θεου the word in the genitive case often losses it's article. Concerning genitive constructions such as τεκνα θεου it is generally the case that when one word lacks the article than so does the other, and one word has the article the other one often has it as well.
continued...On the subject of verbal tenses,there is a proper way to coordinate verb tenses in English that must be followed regardless of the idioms unique to Greek that provide the raw material for translation.John 8:58 has two verbs,one ("am") in the present tense,and the other ("came to be") in the past (technically,the "aorist") tense.In most sentences where we see a past tense verb and a present tense verb,we would assume that the action of the past verb is earlier in time then...continued
Translating John 1:1: The Coptic Evidence
(Solomon Landers, September 2006)
The Coptic translation of John 1:1
1a. ZQT[QUZQQRUVQ 1b. []VQQRTY[ZQ 1c. []Q[[ZQQVQ
It is becoming well-known that the primary Coptic translations of John 1:1c - the Sahidic, the proto-Bohairic, and the Bohairic - do not render it “the Word was God,” as is common in many English versions, but “the Word was a god,” found notably in the New World Translation.
The significance of this is remarkable. First, the Coptic versions precede the New World Translation by some 1,700 years, and are part of the corpus of ancient textual witnesses to the Gospel of John. Second, the Coptic versions were produced at a time when the Koine Greek of the Christian Greek Scriptures was still a living language whose finer nuances could be understood by the Coptic translators, so much so that many Greek words are left untranslated in the Coptic texts. Third, the Coptic versions do not show the influence of later interpretations of Christology fostered by the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries CE.
The Greek text of John 1:1c says, -,(1%+01.1*1%an anarthrous pre- verbal construction that can be literally rendered as, “and a god was the Word.”
Likewise, the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1c reads,[]Q[[ZQQ VQ, an indefinite construction that literally says “and a god was the Word.”
Coptic grammarians agree that this is what the Coptic says literally. But the theological presuppositions of certain grammarians do not allow them to be satisfied with that reading. Just as they attempt to do with the Greek text of John 1:1c, certain Evangelical scholars seek to modify the clear impact of “a god was the Word.”
But whereas the Greek text allows for some ambiguity in an anarthrous construction, the Coptic text does not allow for the same ambiguity in an indefinite construction. Unlike Koine Greek, Coptic has not only the definite article, but the indefinite article also. Or, a Coptic noun may stand without the article, in the “zero article” construction. Thus, in Coptic we may find : [ZQ , “the god,”
[[ZQ, “a god,” or [ZQ, “god.”
The Sahidic Coptic indefinite article is used to mark “a non-specific individual or specimen of a class: a morpheme marking an element as a non-specific or individual or specimen of a class (“a man,” “other gods,” etc.).” - Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 1988), A. Shisha-Halevy, p. 268
Given these clear choices, it cannot but be highly relevant to their understanding of the meaning of John 1:1c that the Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it.
Were the Coptic translators looking at John 1:1c qualitatively, as has been suggested by some scholars in their analysis of the Greek text? That is not likely, since the Coptic text does not use the abstract prefixes before the count noun for god, [ZQ. They were specifically calling the Word “a god,” and only in the
sense that a god is also “divine” can a translation in the order of “the Word was divine” be glossed from the Coptic text. Whereas “the Word was divine” can be a legitimate English paraphrase of the Coptic text, it is not the literal reading.
The Coptic evidence is significant given the fact that Bible scholars have roundly chastised the New World Translation for its supposedly “innovative” rendering, “the Word was a god” at John 1:1c. But this very way of understanding the Greek text of John 1:1c now proves to be, not new, but ancient, the same translation of it as given at a time when people still spoke the Greek that John used in composing his Gospel.
But what about John 1:18, where the Coptic text has the definite article before [ZQ with reference to the only[-begotten] Son: [ZQO_Q[]Z?
Certain Evangelical scholars have asked, ‘Is it reasonable that the Coptic translators understood the Word to be “a god” at John 1:1 and then refer to him as “the god,” or “God,” at John 1:18?’
That is a logical question, but the logic is backwards. Since John 1:1 is the introduction of the Gospel, the more logical question is ‘Is it reasonable that the Coptic translators understood the Word to be God at John 1:18 after referring to him as “a god” at John 1:1c?’
No. Although the Coptic translators use the definite article at John 1:18 in identifying the Word, this use is demonstrative and anaphoric, referring back to the individual , “the one who” is previously identified as “a god” in the introduction. Thus, John 1:18 identifies the Word specifically not as“God,” but as “the god”
previously mentioned who was “with” (“in the presence of,”Coptic: Y) God. This god, who has an intimate association with his Father, is contrasted with
his Father, the God no one has ever seen.
A modern translation of the Coptic of John 1:18 is “No one has ever seen God at all. The god who is the only Son in the bosom of his Father is the one who has explained him,as found at
copticjohn.com
Being closer in time to the original writings of the apostle John, and crafted at a time when Koine Greek was still spoken and well-understood, the Coptic evidence weighs heavily in the direction of those who see in the Gospels a Jesus who is not God, but the Son of God, a divine being who is “the image of the invisible God,” but not that Invisible God himself. This one is the Representative of his Father, who declared the Good News of salvation to mankind, and sanctified his Father’s Name.
@gnrhead @gnrhead I'm sorry if I misrepresented your statement concerning the article. I should perhaps not have formulated myself in the way I did. I would agree that definitivness is not one of its main usages but nevertheless it is one of its functions, yet you say: "the usage of the article is not that of making a word the definitive".
Proper names are always definitive, so there is no need for the article unless it makes another grammatical point. Are you claiming θεος is a proper name?
How many non-JW Bible translations are there that read differently than "the Word was God" ? Are they any? If so, how many?
@Ushawn (3) The Catholic Scriptures show that! In 4 replies I explained to you that I cannot quote enough in order to show the CLEAR teaching of the
doctrine because I would have to interweave MASSIVE portions of the Book of Genesis that would equal out to more than 30 replies. Do you not understand
that that is logic? Not the mere quoting of random verses OUT of context, but establishing a context and then showing the meaning.
3. Jn 18:37 (a)-(“a king”)- all
4. Jn 18:37 (b)-(“a king”)- in the Received Text (TR) and 1991 Byzantine text
When all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found @ Jn 1:1c) examples found in John’s writings are examined in various Trinitarian Bibles (KJV,NASB,RSV,NIV), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as “you are a prophet”(Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of Jn 1:1c as “The Word was a god” in the Greek language
Sahidic Coptic and Koine Greek were written and spoken in the same time period.So when the translators John 1:1 from Koine Greek to Sahidic Coptic they translated it in S-coptic into "a god"
@gnrhead In other words, it does not seem unlikely that the authors of NT used language in a similar fashion.
part 3
how will you get unity if you are not connected or divided?
where does paul say this?
@Ushawn (2) For you to compare
present day Judaism with Ancient Judaism and think they are ONE and the same and then ask why Jews today don't believe in the Trinity only shows that you
have much studying to do. No one argues that Jesus quoted his Father in Heaven. You say that as if it carries weight with it to defeat my position. I
acknowledge that.
Did you note that the way the first word God end with a v in Greek (with God) an the last (the word was God) ends with a (s) why write it different if It refers to the one that was ( the word was with God)
How can you read john 1 1 without reading John 1 2 " 2 He was with God in the beginning" im guessing this means the word was with himself?
The term Godhead is found three times in the King James Version: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9. This is the Trinity.
The KJV was written hundreds of years ago. Language has changed.
@Ushawn
2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the TRADITIONS [a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
We can do a word by word analysis in the Greek if you're still confused about this passage. Indeed, Sacred Tradition is all throughout the Sacred Scriptures themselves. This is an elementary Biblical Christian concept.
@mastiffsito Jesus Christ is the SECOND person of the Trinity. Where do they Scriptures say that HE had to resurrect himself? Are you confused? The Trinity is a doctrine that teaches there are THREE persons. This is a key tenet of Christianity.
Heb 1 vrs 10 "And (the and shows a continuation from the previous verses of God talking about Jesus) "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thine hands"
@mastiffsito Jesus Christ prayed to his Father numerous times. I think the Scriptures are rather clear on that.
yes indeed,as jesus the man ,he possessed the double nature of a man and god,the hypostatic union,he prayed the father as a man.......
Which scripture are you referring to?
Great Case Study to learn Koine.
Most people don't know how To structure Greek sentences form those times. How to structure the subject from Object
It is more than just the article missing. It is a single anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb which makes it by rules of greek grammar to be qualitative. Do a google. More than enough information out there to confirm it.
@Johnnyprc Got a question? I'm assuming that you are a JW. Now here's my question: Re: John 1:1 - When did "a god" become a god? Before you attempt to answer this question let me reference Isiah 43:10-12. Now when then "a god" become a god?
very good jerome ,good question
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.
Isnt it interesting that Russel wrote a book called "The time is at hand"
@ABibleReader Not only are the Fathers UNANIMOUS on the interpretation of John 1:1, but all of the Apostolic Fathers taught that Jesus was indeed GOD, not "a" GOD. We must be faithful to the original Greek and the everlasting tradition of the Faith that Jesus the Christ left us! GOD BLESS you!
If you believe he is already back then you are not waiting for him to return.
I never once said "The article does not make a word definite". Perhaps you should listen carefully. I pointed out that the usage was not to make a word in the definite. If one continues listening you can see that the point experts make is that the main usage of the article is NOT that of making a word definite. That IS true. Furthermore I gave the example that even if the article is ABSENT a proper name would be DEFINITE. This is the primary reason why the JWs and their convoluted logic fails.
Awesome!
THANK YOU that's what I want every JW in the world to see. Your comment!
In Colossians 1:15 Paul states that Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” This text has often been understood in the sense that Jesus was born before the creation of humankind and in one way or another emanated from God the Father in ages past, or that Jesus was created by the Father and then continued the creation process begun by His Father. How should the term “firstborn” be understood in the context of
Colossians 1:15? Cont>
In fact, ANYONE interested in debating the topics of the Eucharist, the JW having an incomplete Bible, the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity---all have an OPEN invitation to debate me in a live moderated radio debate.
Sorry for mistake, but the last scripture was Revelation 19:10). I'm only human .
So who then is Theos in John 20:28?
The correct translation"the word was a god" because this vs is called a b-verb sentance in Koine Greek.Meaning the subject( logos)of the vs and the predicate(theos) of this vs are in the same case,the nominative.When you have a construction like this you need the definite article (THE) to make this last occurance of theos definite which would also change the case of theos to ether theon or theou the accusative or genitive case.When theos is in the genitive case you dont need the article (the).
@gnrhead There are of course exceptions to this rule of thumb, but nevertheless this might not be a good example of θεος without the article, unlike Joh 1:18.
Good night! :-)
David who was the eighth child of his parents (1 Sam 16:10-11) would be made the firstborn. What this
means is expressed in the second half of the verse: David as the firstborn would be the highest of the kings.
Right on Demetrius.
@aParadisean The teaching of Jesus the Christ, the future Messiah to become incarnate is a truth that was revealed from the very pages of the OT, in the Wisdom Literature of the Deuterocanon and finally comes to fruition in the New Testament Scriptures. Thank you for bringing up such wonderful questions. That is the BEAUTY of the Christian faith.
takiriDixon, If you add the indefinite article "a god," and you have the definite article "The God,"
Wouldn't this be two Gods? Would this be polytheism? Yes, it would be, sir! There is only one God and one Lord, the Father and his Son, Christ Jesus (1Corinthians 8:6).
No' because Jehovah God has given His Son, the Power and Authority to rule for a, thousand years.- Dan 2 ; 44; Matt 28: 18- Heb 1:2, 3.) That makes Jesus a God. He is the reflection of God's glory and exact representation of his very being, yep a copy. Heb 1; 3;) Jesus is given the right to rule in his place. Ps 110: 1; Rev 3:21;) Jehovah his God makes him his appointed king and savior of mankind. Because of his Faithfulness on the torture stake. Jesus did not deserve to die he was a perfect man, but, out of love for his Father Name and righteousness Jesus payed the ultimate Ransom. read the scriptures, its in any Bible you wish to chose. This, will upset all those who believe That Jesus is Almighty God, but he is not, He is a mighty God, not the Almighty God. Yes' Jesus is given authority to rule. (Isa 9:6;- Ps 45:6, 7.) Then after the thousand years have been fulfilled, Then Jesus hands back the Kingdom back to his God and Father Jehovah, then Jesus, subjects himself to one whom gave him the authority and power, His Father and God, Jehovah. Cor 15 : 24, 28.
takiri dixon, it is written, "And now, Father, glorify Me along with Yuorself and restore Me to such majesty and honor in Your presence as I had with You before the world existed." (John 17:5 AMP) It is written again, "He is the sole expression of the glory of God, and He is the perfect imprint and very image of His nature, upholding the universe by his Mighty word of power." (Hebrews 1:3 AMP) This sounds like God to me! READ Isaiah 9:6 NWT, it calls Him "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father." Is your bible false?
Uche Ben, the Hebrew word for God is "Elohim" that appears in the very first sentence of the Bible and the Torah. When we pray to Elohim, we remember that he is the one who began it all, creating the heavens and the earth and separating light from darkness, water from dray land, night from day. Elohim (e-lo-HEEM) is the plural form of El or Eloan, one of the oldest designations for divinity in the world. The Hebrews borrowed the the term El from the Canaanites. It can refer either to the true God or to pagan gods. Though El is used more than two hundred times in the Hebrew Bible, Elohim is used more than twenty-five hundred times. It plural form is not used to indicate a belief in many gods but to emphasize the majesty of the one true God. He is the God of gods, the Lord of lords, the highest of all (Deuteronomy 10:17). Elohim occurs thirty-two times in the first chapter of Genesis. After that the Tetragrammaton "YHWH [Yahweh]" appears as well and is often paired with Elohim, and the two together are often translated "LORD God." The terms "Elohim [God]" and "Adonay [Lord]" are interchangeable, both mean the exact same thing: Lord, God, Master, in other words, Divinity! If Jesus is our Lord, He is our God!
takiri dixion, there is no Indefinite Article in the Greek language, only a Definite Article: "The". In English language there are three Articles: a, an and the. The word "The" is a Definite Article, and the other two "a and an" are Indefinite Articles. There is no Indefinite Article in the Greek language, such as "a" or "an,", so any use of an Indefinite Article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text. There is a good reason why theos has no Indefinite Article in JOHN 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. Read The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, it is written, "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word." (John 1:1 KIT of the Greek Scriptures) Why would the translators use a small case letter, when this Verse is referring to the Father Himself? It is written, "and the Word was toward God, and god was the Word?" Dumb!
Uche Ben, no we want the Hebrew Meaning, the true meaning of what the word "Elohim" means, not the English meaning of the word "God." That's given to English interpretation, not the true Hebrew meaning!
Most translations of John 8:58 stray from normal English usage in word order and verbal tense complementarity.That is,it puts the subject after the predicate,which is not the normal word order of English sentences,and it mixes a present tense verb with a past tense verb in a totally ungrammatical construction.most other versions have the same problem.
What is going on here?You may think that there is a particularly difficult or convoluted Greek clause underlying this mess of English.
Are JW's considered Protestants from the Roman Catholic point of view?
@Ushawn I am sorry sir, but I am not expressing any such opinion. I am simply quoting the Biblical text. I am not even attempting to INTERPRET IT. I allow the text to speak
for itself. You, on the other hand, have allowed your cultish interpretations to be placed into the text without understanding the context. In Matthew 15, Christ is
speaking about traditions of MEN, traditions which SHOULD be condemned.
Sorry if I miss your point. I thought you were one with the ones in favor of the trinity Dogma.
If the Greek is so obvious, why do many other versions translate it differently. Are all these scholars wrong too?
Read John 1:1 a thousand times until it gets into head...
@damildlyshreddah It is not possible because of the simple fact that the Theology that John is describing within his Gospel does not match the philosophy of Philo in anyway at all. Philo's usage of the Logos is very different. Furthermore John was a Christian, and thus monotheistic in his writings. That is very clear and affirmed by the Patristics--that in and of itself would eliminate comparing his theology of the logos with that of Pagan sources!
Leaving the translation at the stage of a lexical ("interlinear")rendering which is one way to describe what most translation do here,simply won't work.That is because Greek has more flexibility with word order then English does,and it can mix verbal tenses in a way English cannot.On the matter of word order,normal English follows the structure we all learned in elementary school:subject +verb+object or predicate phrase.The order of the Greek in John 8:58 is...continued
@Ushawn Unfortunately, for your position--you are wrong. Tradition AND Scripture are the pillars
of Faith the Bible puts forth. There is a difference between SACRED TRADITIONS, Traditions the Apostles HANDED down, and between (t)raditions of men that
were condemned. It's unfortunate you did not know of such a key difference in the Scriptures.
@mastiffsito (3) The doctrine shows
us that their are THREE persons in ONE. Your level of argumentation only shows you are neither capable NOR willing of defending your position in debate.
I have heard it said that Jehovah's Witnesses in Greece
(who actually speak Greek) use a different translation.
Bottom line; According to Jehovah's Witnesses,
Jesus was God (KJV 1 Timothy 3:16),
A God,
An Angel and
A Man.
They knock The Trinity and substitute with a Quaternity!
@Ushawn According to a few tracts LEFT on my car windshield and under my house door, YES, this IS considered one of their most advanced arguments--and like ALL their other ones, it's AWFUL. JWs do NOT read the entire Bible, they have an EDITED, ABRIDGED Bible to go along with their bad translation. John 1:29 speaks about Christ being the LAMB of GOD...how on earth is this a passage of proof that shows Christ being INFERIOR to the Father? The words you suggested don't appear anywhere in the text.
Paul says: while we are in the flesh, we are separated from the Lord. This also shows Lord has not returned.
A third precedent for translating John 1:1,"... and the Word was a god" comes from the Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson. His translation actually reads "the LOGOS was God". but he placed the words "a god" under "theos" in the Greek and English.
Mr. Wilson never studied biblical Greek in college. He was a follower of John Thomas, a proven false prophet by biblical definition, and the founder of the Christadelphians, a Christ-dishonoring cult.
The Society argues that because the definite article “the” doesn’t appear before God in this half of the verse, that justifies their insertion of the article “a” in their translation. However, the Society is inconsistent with their “rule” for if they were consistent, they would have to translate John 1:6 as, “there arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a God.” Since this translation wouldn’t make sense, the Society picks and chooses how it wants to apply its “rule”
@aParadisean I don't offer a single opinion, I simply put forth the teachings that have always been part of the Christian faith. You can pick up any edition of the Church Fathers to read them for yourself. What's better, you can read the PG or PL to read them in their original languages. If that's not enough for you, pick up a copy of Aland's GNT and you'll see that there is virtually nothing in the JW faith that was found in ancient Christianity. It's the stark reality
@damildlyshreddah Trust me, I have read Mcgrath and Hurtado. Hurtado is a fantastic author, and himself argues that although the term THEOS is used by early Patristic writers, we must see HOW it is used. The main error of the JWs and those that advocate positions similar to theirs is that when they see the word THEOS, they all of a sudden believe it's usage is akin to that as when it's employed for the ONE true GOD. That is a fallacious position.
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.
continued...is:predicate phrase+subject + verb.So it is the most basic step of translation to move the predicate phrase "before Abraham came to be"(prin Abraam genesthai) from the beginning of the sentence to the end,after the subject and verb.Just as we do not say"John I am"or"Hungry I am" or "first in line I am,"so it is not proper English to say "Before Abraham came to be I am."Yet all of the translations we are comparing...offer ..precisely this sort of mangled word order...continued
2 Corinthians 5:6. Please read this in the light of 1 Thessalinians 4:17: rapture of the resurrected ones and changed ones occurs together, not at different times like from 1918 -1935 or onword. Don't you agree?
He's the one that's since 9 or 10 years disfellowshipped for visiting another church, he repented YEARS ago but his vindictive congregation refuses to reinstall him as a JW!
I would like someone to reference Genesis Chapter 1 seeings how we can clearly see more than 1 presence but the text shows unity of those presence. In deed there is ONE God and Father of all.
hjow can someone be with someone if he is that someone?
@damildlyshreddah (cont...) So I'm not sure if these are the best examples but there are others such as John 1:18.
Now, "the word was a god" is a possible translation although it is not the preferred one. Although, since Philo considered the logos to be a second god, the translation "a god" would perhaps not be so unthinkable. At least I would not say it betrays simple logic. Why could God not have an agent par excellence who was not God and through whom he created all things? (inb4 Isa 44:24)
@aParadisean (2) it's clear since the time of Akiba that it has undergone a major revision. Such was shown even through Martry and varous early Christian figures. So to say that the Jews NEVER believed in the Trinity is outrageous. I quoted the fact that the Books of Genesis and the Deuterocanon text show the truth of the Messiah Christ and the Trinity and you simply swipe it away. I am sorry sir, but there is not enough room in this tiny combox to detail the CLEAR teaching of the Trinity...