Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112014 | ||
Hi EdB, A. T. Robertson, in his book "Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5 1932 on page 339 admits that "God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God", either makes good sense. end quote. While having to admit this, A. T. Robertson nonetheless surely takes a different stand on Jesus' God being Jehovah since he was of the Baptist faith, you are correct. The same is true of John 1:1. Robertson though makes the affirmation, not I, that "the article is never meaningless in Greek". Since John 1:1 is void of the Gr. definite article "ho" some reason for this is to be determined. Many Greek scholars conclude therefore that the "theos" in question be understood as qualitative. I am simply explaining a text with sound reasoning that several Bible translations agree upon. Tara1 |
||||||
2 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | EdB | 112021 | ||
Tara1 No, what your doing is twisting quotes to make the NWT look like a viable translation and the doctrine of the Jehovah Witness plausible. Again the NWT was created/written by men that had no translation expertise or experience. They took man’s understanding/explanation and incorporated it into what they called the NWT. Since then they have faced many attacks that showed the flaw of the translation, and over the years have come up with lengthy and hard to follow explanations in an attempt to validate the translation. The document you quoted in 5 parts I feel save in saying was cobbled together over the years piece by piece and as each bit was shoot down in times past new and I’m sure they hoped more convincing arguments were incorporated. In that document quote of Robertson it failed to mention the whole story. Here is another perspective. The writers of the claim have exhibited another trait common to Jehovah’s Witnesses—that of half-quoting or misquoting a recognized authority to bolster their ungrammatical renditions. On page 776 in an appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, when quoting Dr. A. T. Robertson’s words, “Among the ancient writers ho theos was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods,” they fail to note that in the second sentence following, Dr. Robertson says, “In the New Testament, however, while we have pro tou theou (John 1:1–2) it is far more common to find simply theos, especially in the Epistles.” In other words, the writers of the New Testament frequently do not use the article with theos, and yet the meaning is perfectly clear in the context, namely that the one true God is intended. Let one examine the following references where in successive verses (and even in the same sentence) the article is used with one occurrence of theos and not with another form, and it will be absolutely clear that no such drastic inferences can be drawn from John’s usage in John 1:1–2 (Matthew 4:3–4; 12:28; Luke 20:37–38; John 3:2; 13:3; Acts 5:29–30; Romans 1:7–8, 17–19; 2:16–17; 3:5; 4:2–3, etc.). Excerpt from Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin Bethany house Publishers |
||||||