Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87691 | ||
Hi Jibbs, Yes, I would be glad to explain the translation of the Greek of John 1:1. Since the apostle John purposly refrained from using the definite article "ho" in this instance, he had to have meant something else other than "ho theos". Also the context states that the Word was with "ho theos" indicating that it(the Word) was not the one and the same as the God. If I were with Mary then it would most certainly be nonsensical to conclude that I was Mary. Notice the list of Greek scholars' translations of this verse that agree with me: Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)” Gr.(kai the·os' en ho lo'gos) 1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. 1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany. 1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin. 1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany. If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask. Truthfinder |
||||||
2 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | JibbyJee | 87754 | ||
I urge you to get out of the Watchtower while you still can! Tell me, why is it that you folks always do your work while crawling around in the dark? Why don't you just come out and tell everyone you're a JW? Why all the secrecy? Anyway, back to your post. I'm below the amateur level of Greek translation ability so I will defer to a real Greek Scholar. (Your list of 'scholars' is hysterical!! JOHANNES GREBER?!?!? LOL) Here's what Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (www.aomin.org for the complete essay) has to say about the JW/Arian translation of John 1:1--- The third clause of this verse has occasioned great debate and controversy, mainly due to the fact that the Greek word for God, theos, does not have the definite article ("the") before it. Some pseudo-Christian or Arian groups have said that this means that the Word was a "god" or a god-like being like an angel (Jehovah's Witnesses). But is this the case? Actually, the answer to the whole question seems fairly obvious, even to a first-year Greek student. The third clause of 1.1 is a copulative sentence - that is, it follows the form "The (noun) is (predicate nominative)". In Greek, one distinguishes the subject of a copulative sentence by which noun has an article in front of it. For example, in 1 John 4:8 we have the last clause reading "God is love." Now, in Greek this is ho theos agape estin. There are two nominative nouns in this sentence - God (theos) and love (agape). However, the first noun, God, has the article ho before it. This indicates that "God" is the subject of the sentence, and love is the predicate nominative. It would be wrong, then, to translate 1 John 4:8 as "Love is God." The only way to make the two nouns interchangeable is to either put the article with both nouns, or to not put the article there at all. As long as one has the article and the other does not, one is definitely the subject and the other the predicate. Hence, 1 John 4:8 does not teach that all love is God, nor that God and love are interchangeable things. Rather, the term "love" tells us something about God - it functions almost as an adjective, describing the noun (God) that it modifies. We have the same situation in 1.1c. The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. Notice that the term Logos has the article ho while the term theos does not. This tells us that the subject of the clause is the Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase "and God was the Word" for that would make the wrong term the subject of the clause. Hence, the term "God" is the predicate nominative, and it functions just as "love" did in 1 John 4:8 - it tells us something about the Logos - and that is, that the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term "God" by placing it first in the clause - this is not just a "divine nature" as in something like the angels have - rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as "Deity"). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, "And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity." Before summing up the verse, then, let the reader note that when groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses quote from Dr. Philip Harner's article on the nature of anarthrous (without the article) predicate nominatives, they don't understand what they are talking about. Harner accurately pointed out that the anarthrous predicate nominative functions as a descriptive term rather than a specific or definite term. Problem is, the Jehovah's Witnesses make "God" in John 1.1 just as definite as the translations they attack! Rendering it "a god" misses the whole point - the word "God" is functioning to describe the Logos - translating it as "a god" means a definite god is in mind, rather than following the actual sense of Harner's article and making the term describe the being of the Logos. The point Harner is making is that it is not the definite "God" that is in view, far less the JW translation of "a god" (both are definite) but rather the nature of the Logos that is important. Hence, 1.1 tells us some immensely important things. First, we see that the Logos is eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see that there are two Divine Persons in view in John's mind - the Father and the Logos. Thirdly, there is eternal communication and relationship between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see that the Logos shares the nature of God. These items will be important for a proper understanding of many of the statements made by our Lord in this book. It seems to me that John felt it was vitally important that we understand the majesty of the Person of Jesus Christ right from the start. We cab see these concepts played out through the rest of the Gospel of John. What do you think TF? JibbyJee |
||||||
3 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87758 | ||
Hi again JibbyJee, If you had read my profile you would have seen that I am no longer a "Jehovah's Witness". But for the most part the NWT by far is a superior translation than say the NASB or the NIV. These translations have chosen to change words from the oldest manuscripts to cause confusion as to the true identity of the Almighty. Thus I understand why you and others feel that Jesus is one and the same as Jehovah. Translations and more important, manuscripts have promulgated the trinity doctrine. For instance why would you personally use a translation that admits having changed from the oldest manuscripts and no doubt the original the translation of God's name? That in itself accounts for around 7,000 errors. Errors of utmost importance. Why would God have had it in the Bible if he didn't want it there? Something BIG is wrong here. I have seen so many people that even despise that name because of this. So now we have it. Today people think that Jesus is Jehovah. What can I say? If you want to try and make the trinity work, go ahead, but it simply is not truth, never was, never will be. If you want to try and make Jesus Almighty God, go ahead. He's not, he is God's "only-begotten son", "first born of all creation". That's what the Bible tells us and if you want to try make it mean otherwise, and what others have told you go right ahead but that doesn't make it true. As far as John 1:1 is concerned, again the translators such as the NIV and NASB and King James have tried to make the trinity appear as true. I have studied what Greek scholars say defending their translations for and against. Both translations are proved by these scholars as acceptable Greek grammar. But the context, and bias toward the understanding of Jesus' identity dictates how it's translated. This controversy has been debated for centuries. I have studied it for 40 years now and there is no doubt in my mind that the trinity doctrine is one of the greatest injusteses that could have been done to our heavenly Father. One last thought friend, “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) Truthfinder |
||||||
4 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 87762 | ||
'If you want to try and make Jesus Almighty God, go ahead. He's not, he is God's "only-begotten son", "first born of all creation".' He is that and more: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." --Hebrews 1:1-3a 'But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.' --Hebrews 1:8 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." --Revelation 22:12-16 Jesus is the Alpha and Omega? Who is "the Alpha and Omega" in Rev. 1:8 and 21:6? And if the NWT is so dedicated to accurate Bible translation, where does the word "other" come from in its rendition of Colossians 1:16-17? It is used four times there, but has no business being there at all, Greekly speaking. Same thing with John 1:3. Take your eraser to them and what do you get? The deity of Christ. Really, now, who is playing fast and loose with the translations? "That's what the Bible tells us and if you want to try make it mean otherwise, and what others have told you go right ahead but that doesn't make it true. As far as John 1:1 is concerned, again the translators such as the NIV and NASB and King James have tried to make the trinity appear as true. I have studied what Greek scholars say defending their translations for and against. Both translations are proved by these scholars as acceptable Greek grammar." And the anti-Trinitarian arguments do not make sense in the context of John's prologue. In verse 1:3, John makes it clear that NOTHING was made without Jesus' participation. If Jesus was made, then he is self-created (a logical impossibility) or else he is eternally pre-existent like Jehovah the Father. --Joe! |
||||||