Results 121 - 140 of 208
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90764 | ||
(2nd part) What religious group today has earned for itself the reputation of faithfulness to Christian principles and separateness from this world, with its members being hated and persecuted? Well, what worldwide Christian organization of well over 6,000,000 corresponds in every respect to historical descriptions of the early Christians? Regarding these, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The primitive Christian community, although considered at first but another sect within the Jewish milieu, proved unique in its theological teaching, and more particularly in the zeal of its members, who served as witnesses to Christ ‘in all Judea and Samaria and even to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1.8).”—Volume 3, page 694. Notice the expressions “considered . . . but another sect,” “unique in its . . . teaching,” “zeal . . . as witnesses.” And now observe how that same encyclopedia describes Jehovah’s Witnesses: “A sect . . . Witnesses are deeply convinced that the end of the world will come within a very few years. This vivid belief appears to be the strongest driving force behind their indefatigable zeal. . . . The fundamental obligation of each member of the sect is to give witness to Jehovah by announcing His approaching Kingdom. . . . They regard the Bible as their only source of belief and rule of conduct . . . To be a true Witness one must preach effectively in one way or another.”—Volume 7, pages 864-5. 5 In what respects are the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses unique? The New Catholic Encyclopedia mentions a few: “They [Jehovah’s Witnesses] condemn the Trinity as pagan idolatry . . . They consider Jesus as the greatest of Jehovah’s Witnesses, ‘a god’ (so they translate John 1.1), inferior to no one but to Jehovah. . . . He died as a man and was raised as an immortal spirit Son. His Passion and death were the price he paid to regain for mankind the right to live eternally on earth. Indeed, the ‘great multitude’ (Ap 7.9) of true Witnesses hope in an earthly Paradise; only 144,000 faithful (Ap 7.4; 14.1, 4) may enjoy heavenly glory with Christ. The wicked will undergo complete destruction. . . . Baptism—which Witnesses practice by immersion . . . [is] the exterior symbol of their dedication to the service of Jehovah God. . . . Jehovah’s Witnesses have attracted publicity by refusing blood transfusions . . . Their conjugal and sexual morality is quite rigid.” Jehovah’s Witnesses may be unique in these respects, but their position on all these points is solidly based on the Bible Truthfinder |
||||||
122 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90769 | ||
Hi again Mommapbs, You asked me “Who do I say Jesus is”. I understand the Bible clearly teaches through and through that Jesus is the “Son of God”. I believe Bible translations today confuse millions by “changing the original” into thinking Jesus is himself Almighty God. Through the centuries scribes substituted the word Lord or God for what the original had in it. If this was not done then one can easily see that Jesus is the Son of God and not Almighty God himself. The apostle John in Revelation 22:18 warned of this. I have posted in the past well over 150 different Bible translations that have restored the name of Jehovah in the New Testament alone. My only question is how and why would anyone continue to use a Bible translation that admits to its own errors? Are you a truth finder or do you want to believe a non-truth. Popular tradition has it that the fall of an apple started Sir Isaac Newton on the way to discovering the universal law of gravitation. Whatever may be the truth of this tradition, there is no question about Newton’s remarkable powers of reason. Concerning his renowned scientific work the Principia, we are told: “The whole development of modern science begins with this great book. For more than 200 years it reigned supreme.” Celebrated as were Newton’s scientific discoveries, he himself humbly acknowledged his human limitations. He was modest. Shortly before his death in 1727 he said of himself: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”2 Newton appreciated that God is the Source of all truth, and in line with the deep reverence he had for his Creator, he appears to have spent even more time searching after the true God than he did in searching out scientific truths. An analysis of all that Newton wrote reveals that out of some 3,600,000 words only 1,000,000 were devoted to the sciences, whereas some 1,400,000 were on religious topics. Would you like to read what he discovered and see why he believed that same as I do about who Jesus is? Truthfinder |
||||||
123 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90875 | ||
Hi Mommapbs, I was not implying that you care what Newton believed, I thought you might be interested in what he discovered. He proved that the manuscripts from which many modern translations base their translations on were tampered with. Tampered with to make Jesus appear to be one and the same as his God. Is that not confusing? Jesus' referring so many times to his God, if he himself were God? And John 1:1 the Logos (word) Jesus was "with" God. How can you be God if you are "with" God? Again modern translations try and mislead us by mis-translating John 1:1. I come to realize that so many times a person will believe what he "wants" to believe, but that just simply doesn't make it so. Yes, Jesus is GOD and should be worshipped as GOD, but GOD does not equal Almighty God. God means "mighty one" Jesus is Almighty God's Son. Jesus was the beginning of the creation of Almighty God. He had a beginning. Almighty GOD desirves to be worshipped as the Almighty GOD and his name is Jehovah. Ps 83:18 King James Version Truthfinder |
||||||
124 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90883 | ||
Hi Flinkywood, Did I quote something you disagree with? I quote what I feel is truth and then comment on it to make a point. With so many differing ideas, proper logical reasoning should help us all to come to an accurate understanding of a particular idea. Tradition, miss-translation and philosophy, and yes propaganda are a snare, but I assure you my friend I am not the culprit. Yes, perhaps possessing differing interpretation of many here but I can base my logic and reasoning on what God in the Bible, originally said. Paul tell me at Eph 5:6, Let no man deceive YOU with empty words, for because of the aforesaid things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partakers with them; 8 for YOU were once darkness, but YOU are now light in connection with [the] Lord. Go on walking as children of light, 9 for the fruitage of the light consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth. 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and quit sharing with [them] in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness, but, rather, even be reproving [them], 12 for the things that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate. 13 Now all the things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything that is being made manifest is light.” For me I do not want to be deceived. I do not want to be in the darkness. I keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord. Sorry I offended you. Please accept my apology. Truthfinder |
||||||
125 | Do Angels have Genders? Male and Female? | Matt 22:30 | Truthfinder | 94506 | ||
Hi Christian24, May I ask you a question? The words “apostles,” “prophets,” “evangelizers,” “shepherds,” and “teachers” are all in the masculine gender (Eph 4:8, 11) does that mean that only men qualify for these positions? Also since God is always refered to in the masculine gender does that mean his sex is male? Truthfinder |
||||||
126 | Do Angels have Genders? Male and Female? | Matt 22:30 | Truthfinder | 94550 | ||
Hi EdB, The phrase "they do not marry" of Matthew 22:30 is commented on by Matthew Henry’s Commentary and concurs with the reasoning I presented. It says, “But, in the resurrection, there is no occasion for marriage; whether in glorified bodies there will be any distinction of sexes.” This is a well thought out conclusion. In it’s entirety the commentary makes explanation. It says, “It is not like the state we are now in upon earth; They neither marry, nor are given in marriage. In our present state marriage is necessary; it was instituted in innocency; whatever intermission or neglect there has been of other institutions, this was never laid aside, nor will be till the end of time. In the old world, they were marrying, and giving in marriage; the Jews in Babylon, when cut off from other ordinances, yet were bid to take them wives, Jer. 29:6. All civilized nations have had a sense of the obligation of the marriage covenant; and it is requisite for the gratifying of the desires, and recruiting the deficiencies, of the human nature. But, in the resurrection, there is no occasion for marriage; whether in glorified bodies there will be any distinction of sexes some too curiously dispute (the ancients are divided in their opinions about it); but, whether there will be a distinction or not, it is certain that there will be no conjunction; where God will be all in all, there needs no other meet-help; the body will be spiritual, and there will be in it no carnal desires to be gratified: when the mystical body is completed, there will be no further occasion to seek a godly seed, which was one end of the institution of marriage,” Here he tells us that there will be no male/female but like the angels. As you know, the purpose of God’s making the two sexes was for producing offspring. Another line of reasoning is the fact that merely referring to God or angels in the masculine gender is a grammar characteristic of that language. Examples found in the Bible and everyday usage today abound where the pronouns and nouns are of a certain gender but not necessarily literally of that gender, Las casas in Spanish is in the feminine gender but certainly does not mean that the houses are female. Likewise angels in English are in the masculine but that does not mean they are males. They are spirit creatures that were created without the privilege of procreating. Before the deluge of Noah’s day, angels had to materialize in order to procreate, to have gender. But as angels, they could not cohabit, procreate, marry nor have gender. Truthfinder |
||||||
127 | Do Angels have Genders? Male and Female? | Matt 22:30 | Truthfinder | 94577 | ||
Hi EdB, I appreciate your conviction and agree with you that we can only arrive at that conclusion by reasoning on the scriptures. It was interesting though in arguing the point. Until next time. Truthfinder |
||||||
128 | Do Angels have Genders? Male and Female? | Matt 22:30 | Truthfinder | 94620 | ||
Hi Christian24, My post answers the question, "Do angels have gender?" Clearly they do not. Please see my posts to Searcher also for Matthew Henry's commentary) Please show me why you think Michael is male. As a spirit being he (notice I used the masculine pronoun "he" for Michael as does the Bible but that does not mean he is male) cannot be male as they have no gender. Different gender is a creation of God for his creatures to procreate. Angels do not procreate unless they materialize as humans then they can and do have gender. Since the flood of Noah's day, they no longer have that privilege. Truthfinder |
||||||
129 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Truthfinder | 95919 | ||
Hi Hank, On this issue, I am inclined to agree to agree with you 100 per cent. :-) Jude 5, RS: “I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Italics added.) Matt. 24:13, RS: “He who endures to the end will be saved.” (So a person’s final salvation is not determined at the moment that he begins to put faith in Jesus.) Phil. 2:12, RS: “As you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (This was addressed to “the saints,” or holy ones, at Philippi, as stated in Philippians 1:1. Paul urged them not to be overly confident but to realize that their final salvation was not yet assured.) Heb. 10:26, 27, RS: “If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.” (Thus the Bible does not go along with the idea that no matter what sins a person may commit after he is “saved” he will not lose his salvation. It encourages faithfulness. See also Hebrews 6:4-6, where it is shown that even a person anointed with holy spirit can lose his hope of salvation.) But I still have a problem in counting to three. I get to one and stop. Have a nice week end. Truthfinder |
||||||
130 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 71479 | ||
Part 2 First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also Joh 1 vs 2, which would be unnecessary if Joh 1 vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Additionally, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os') in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os'] and [ho the·os'] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os']; cf. Joh 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110. After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os'] is not the same thing as [ho the·os'] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—AT; Sd; compare Mo --Insight on the Scriptures Truthfinder |
||||||
131 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 71481 | ||
Hi Tim Moran At John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: “The Word was a god.” Yes, in many translations this expression simply reads: “The Word was God” and I feel is used to support the Trinity doctrine. Not surprisingly, Trinitarians dislike the rendering in the New World Translation. But John 1:1 was not falsified in order to prove that Jesus is not Almighty God. Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of “god” long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language. Five German Bible translators likewise use the term “a god” in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as “of divine kind” or “godlike kind.” These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine. But Jehovah and Jesus are not the same being, the same God. (John 14:28) YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. (John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’” . Jürgen Becker, Jeremias Felbinger, Oskar Holtzmann, Friedrich Rittelmeyer, and Siegfried Schulz. Emil Bock says, “a divine being.” See also the English translations Today’s English Version, The New English Bible, Moffatt, Goodspeed. “It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available” THAT is how Dr. Jason BeDuhn describes The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which translates John 1:1 "a god". He explains: “I have just completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, [U.S.A.] . . . This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students.” Why does Dr. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear translation in his college courses? He answers: “Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your ‘New World Bible Translation Committee’ has done its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your ‘New World Translation’ is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today.” The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is published by Jehovah’s Witnesses to help lovers of God’s Word get acquainted with the original Greek text of the Bible. It contains The New Testament in the Original Greek on the left-hand side of the page (compiled by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort). A literal word-for-word English translation is found under the lines of Greek text. In the narrow right-hand column is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which allows you to compare the interlinear translation with a modern English translation of the Bible. Truthfinder |
||||||
132 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 72917 | ||
Hi Colin, You wrote: The NWT mentions Michael 5 times as 1)"one of the foremost princes..." (Dan 10.13); 2)"the prince of Daniel's people..." (Dan 10.21); 3) "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel's] people" (Dan 12.1); 4) "the archangel who had a difference with the devil and was disputing about Moses' body" but "did not dare to bring a judgement against him in abusive terms" (Jude 9); and 5) an actor in Heaven's conflict when "Michael and his angels battled with the dragon" (Rev. 12.7) Well, Michael is the only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called “archangel” according to Jude 9. As you say the first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as “one of the foremost princes”; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by “the prince of the royal realm of Persia.” Michael was called “the prince of Daniel’s people,” “the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of Daniel’s people.” (Daniel 10:13,20,21) But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Mi'cha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia. 20 So he went on to say: “Do you really know why I have come to you? And now I shall go back to fight with the prince of Persia. When I am going forth, look! also the prince of Greece is coming. 21 However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these [things] but Mi'cha·el, the prince of YOU people. (Daniel 12:1) “And during that time Mi'cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book. This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that “Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body.” (Jude 9) But when Mi'cha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Matthew 28:18) And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. (Revelation 17:14) These will battle with the Lamb, but, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him [will do so].” If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God. (continued) Truthfinder |
||||||
133 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 72918 | ||
Part 2 There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon. Re 11:15; 16:14-16. The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea.’” Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels. In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, “Who Is Like God?” points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator. Truthfinder |
||||||
134 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90776 | ||
Hmmmmmmm, then why did Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) who is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early church." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)say what he did? Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers." [Quote] We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the article, not without it. God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father. [Unquote] For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being *because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father." What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and hO QEOS in John 1:1. As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god." Truthfinder |
||||||
135 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90870 | ||
Hi Radioman, You wrote: No one uses the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! You error in these assertions. Millions, including myself, use the NWT. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have the copy rights to, publish, and distribute the following Bible translations in numerous languages: King James Version 1611, The Bible in Living English 1972 by Steven T. Byington, Diaglott of the No. 1209 Vatican Manuscript 1942 by Benjamin Wilson, and the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 1969 texts of Brooke Foss Westcott D. D. and Fenton John Anthony Hort D. D. 1881 edition. You also wrote: The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation You are correct since this is the most accurate translation. Notice the following translations of John 1:1 The Greek Diaglott,1864 Benjamin Wilson. The three different translations by Moffatt, Schonfield and Goodspeed (An American Translation) have: "...and the Word was divine." Todays English Version reads:"...and he was the same as God." The Revised English Bible reads:"...and what God was, the Word was." Reflecting an understanding of John 1:1 with the New World Translation's: "and the Word was a god." we have: The Emphatic Diaglott (1864), Benjamin Wilson London and New York. The New Testament in an Improved Version(1808) The New Testament in Greek and English (A.Kneeland, 1822.) A Literal Translation Of The New Testament. (H.Heinfetter, 1863) Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R.Young, 1885) The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G.W.Horner, 1911) Das Evangelium nach Johannes(J.Becker, 1979) The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J.L.Tomanec, 1958) The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists(J.S.Thompson, 1829) Das Evangelium nach Johannes(S.Schulz, 1975) These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word (the·os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os´. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ho theos, that is, the·os´ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os´. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. You also wrote: 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, These other Greek Scholars, Bible translators (of John 1:1) would most certainly take offense in this comment since they consider themselves Christians. The fact that God sent his “only-begotten” Son to the earth is not an assumption. The Holy Scriptures teach it. Justice required satisfaction. Man, though created perfect, fell from that state through sin and thus Adam and his offspring came under God’s condemnation. Justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitated that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedient Adam. But love moved God to purpose a substitutional arrangement whereby justice would be satisfied, and yet without any violation of justice, repentant offspring of sinner Adam could be forgiven and could achieve peace with God. (Col 1:19-23) Therefore, Jehovah “sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” (1Jo 4:10) Notice in verse 10 that God sent. It does not say God came. (Heb 2:17) Propitiation is that which makes propitious, or favorable. Jesus’ propitiatory sacrifice removes the reason for God to condemn a human creature and makes possible the extending to him of God’s favor and mercy. This propitiation removes the charge of sin and the resulting condemnation to death in the case of spiritual Israel and all others availing themselves of it. 1Jo 2:1, 2. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. If Jesus were the Almighty God of this verse then the ransom does not fulfill its purpose of this substitutional arrangement. Truthfinder |
||||||
136 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90871 | ||
Hi Radioman, You wrote: The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). First, it should be noted that the text of John 1:1 itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also vs 2, which would be unnecessary if vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Again note, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os´) in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os´] and [ho the·os´] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os´]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110. After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os´] is not the same thing as [ho the·os´] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os´] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579. The Hebrew Scriptures are consistently clear in showing that there is but one Almighty God, the Creator of all things and the Most High, whose name is Jehovah. (Ge 17:1; Isa 45:18; Ps 83:18) For that reason Moses could say to the nation of Israel: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.” (De 6:4, 5) The Christian Greek Scriptures do not contradict this teaching that had been accepted and believed by God’s servants for thousands of years, but instead they support it. (Mr 12:29; Ro 3:29, 30; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 1Ti 2:5) Jesus Christ himself said, “The Father is greater than I am” and referred to the Father as his God, “the only true God.” (Joh 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; Mr 15:34; Re 1:1; 3:12) On numerous occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father. (Mt 4:9, 10; 20:23; Lu 22:41, 42; Joh 5:19; 8:42; 13:16) Even after Jesus’ ascension into heaven his apostles continued to present the same picture.—1Co 11:3; 15:20, 24-28; 1Pe 1:3; 1Jo 2:1; 4:9, 10. These facts give solid support to a translation such as “the Word was a god” at John 1:1. The Word’s preeminent position among God’s creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all things, and as God’s Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called “a god” or mighty one. The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called “Mighty God,” though not the Almighty God, and that he would be the “Eternal Father” of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, “Jehovah of armies,” would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, is called a “god” (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and propriety is God’s firstborn Son called “a god,” “the only-begotten god” as the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him. Truthfinder |
||||||
137 | Where is Jesus called "...the God"? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90976 | ||
Hi Ray, You wrote: The Jehovah's Witness would not agree with us if we said as does John 1:2, "This One was in the beginning with God." Ray, Why did you say that? Quote me one Jehovah's Witness that would not agree that Jesus was in the beginning with God. I know you feel you are doing the right thing here but you are in error, as all witness believe that. That is a verse that clearly shows Jesus is not Almighty God, because he was "with" God. How can you be Almighty God if you as John 1:1 says you as Almighty God are with Almighty God? That too is the reason John 1:1 must be translated as "and the Word was a god". The "context" shows the Word was with Almighty God. Thus for two reasons, 1) the lack of the definite article and 2) the context, tells us that the translation "and the Word was a god" is better than Moffatt's, Schonfield's and Goodspeed's translations that say "and the Word was divine". 3) Another reason must be included; What does the rest of the Bible say about Jesus and Almighty God? This verse must agree with the whole Bible. Note what Vincent Taylor says: "Here, in the Prologue[of John's Gospel]the Word is said to be God, but as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used(in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine'(Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was,the Word was',....In neither passage[including 1:18]is Jesus unequivocally called God...."- Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?, Expository Times, 73, No.4(Jan.1962), p.118. You also wrote: Looking at verse 8 they would not see the difference between the man called John and the Man called Jesus. John 1:8, "That one [John the baptist] was not the Light, but came that he might bear witness of the Light. There [that One, He] was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." Ray, where do you get your information? This again is not true. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. That's what the scriptures say isn't it? Well, if the Scriptures say that, then it must be true, through and through. Truthfinder |
||||||
138 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91021 | ||
Hi Radioman2, I have posted over 150 different translations of the New Testament that use Jehovah. So it is NOT "just" the NWT. Secondly, I have presented the evidence for "restoring" not "inserting" the name where it was in the original in past posts. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation is not proof that the originals did not have it in them. The KIL is based primarily on the Greek text by Westcott and Hort 1881 and in the KIL on pages 11 and 12 is the explaination for using older manuscripts when "restoring" the divine name Jehovah where it was originally. Truthfinder |
||||||
139 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91169 | ||
Hi Tim, You say I speculate? Quite the contrary. It is and I say sadly, modern scholars, in their quest for the “real” Jesus, that have hidden his true identity behind layers of baseless speculation, pointless doubts, and unfounded theorizing. Should God allow the evidence to be so dubious, equivocal and ambiguous as to make any deductions regarding his name mere speculation? I think not! First of all, unlike the thinking of many that post here, the theme of the 66 Bible books, is the vindication of Jehovah’s name and sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his kingdom under Christ, the promised “Seed”. Christ’s perfectly fulfilling the reason for being sent here was paramount in the success of this issue settlement. And during his 3 and a half years of preaching how did he show us what his primary purpose was? In his model prayer of Matthew 6:9 his initial words concentrated on the prime issue of vindicating Jehovah’s name and his sovereignty (right to rule), where he says, “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” We notice the two things of utmost importance to Jesus, since it was first mentioned and it was the “model” prayer. 1) God’s “name” to be sanctified and 2) the kingdom rule. Because of his keeping sinless integrity, Jesus vindicated his heavenly Father as the rightful universal Sovereign and proved the Devil to be a base and gross liar. Proverbs 27:11 can be applied at least in principle if not wholly as Jehovah’s words to his Son Jesus, “Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me.” I adamantly believe that the most wicked Adversary, Satan the Devil, caused men and angels (or demons) to join his opposition to God and man. Satan first showed his opposition in the garden of Eden, where, through cruel and underhanded action, he led Eve and then Adam into a course of rebellion that brought sin and death upon all mankind. In the courts of heaven Satan displayed his antagonism, charging Jehovah with bribing Job for his loyalty, a charge which became this issue of universal importance. Job 1:6-11; 2:1-5. The greatest indignity that modern translators render to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures is the removal or the concealing of his peculiar personal name. Actually his name occurs in the Hebrew text 6,828 times known as the Tetragrammaton. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Chicago (1980), p. 13, says: “To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word ´adona(y) for the proper name itself. This was the error ridden tradition that Jesus would have no part in, Tim. Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels e and a to remind the reader to pronounce ´adona(y) regardless of the consonants. This feature alone occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests its importance to the Bible’s author, whose name it is. (1st of 2 parts) Truthfinder |
||||||
140 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91170 | ||
(2nd part) Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter’s speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. As a follower of Christ, Peter used God’s name, Jehovah. When Peter’s speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. Most assuredly someone was trying to hide something here. As I have posted in times past, the use of the Tetra in the Christian Greek Scriptures is not speculative but sound evidence as, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: “Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.” This presentation of the facts of history in the transmission of Bible manuscripts is “evidence” clearly not mere “speculation” as you assert. Paul in Romans 10:13 quoted Joel 2:32 where he say, “For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” If I were to read just the NASB or the NIV the whole point would be obscured! If I read Psalm 110:1 in the same versions, “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand.” would be obscured. And likewise Matthew quoted this Psalm at Matt 22:44. How clear can it be? Something in Matthew 22:44 is missing in many modern translations! Yes, God’s name was taken out, when Jehovah God had it initially and intentionally. In conclusion, I believe what Jesus himself told us what he had accomplished while on earth. If he had not used his father’s name, how could he have said as he did in John 17:26, “ I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”? Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [11] >> |