John 1:1 in the KIT, how blind a JW must be to actually believe the WT

by A-Team 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  A-Team

  Ok, ya know the scripture and all, but there is something that even JWs can't even deny. In John 1:1, the word God, or Theos. The lower case word of god, in the greek is qeov, The upper case word is "8eov" (My keyboard doent have that letter as you know) The word God appears twice in this verse, written the exact same way. However, the WT has translated One word as "God" and the other as "god", as we know to fit their theology.

  I am wondering does the Followers of the WT even examine the Bible to see if it lines up with the JW Theology or what?
• 

  Honesty

  I am wondering does the Followers of the WT even examine the Bible to see if it lines up with the JW Theology or what?

  It doesn't matter to JW's if the Bible lines up or not. Their Faithful Slave can't be wrong. Ever.
• 

  Qcmbr

  That verse was added much later to promote the trinity. It isn't an original - it's actally (though I 'hate' to say it - a vindication of JW beliefs that early christianity - or at least a significant portion - thought Jesus was not God)
• 

  Lady Liberty

  Dear A-Team,

  I am so glad you brought this scripture up. I cannot post another topic for 14 more hours. But I had a question regarding this very scripture.

  Let's just take the JWs reasoning on the matter for a minute. The scriptures say that Jehovah is the only true God, right? Then all others MUST be false. So then back to the scripture....the word (Jesus) was (a) god. Regardless wether or not the word God is upper or lower case, would not any other god be false..including Jesus??

  They may argue, there are many god's. The bible even speaks of Saten being a god. True. Yet if Jehovah is almighty God, and there is no other God but him.. See Deuteronomy 4:39:

  39

  And you well know today, and you must call back to your heart that Jehovah is the [true] God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. There is no other.

  Then what does John 1:1 mean? What is Jesus a god of?? Why does it not say the word was God's son??

  Anyhow, thank you for bringing this point out A-team. There is no doubt they are twisting the scriptures to suite their own doctorine. Like I have said before, I am still undecided as to what to make of the whole Trinity issue. Although I must admit, the scriptures sure do seem to show there is much more to it then I ever thought before. Yet many of the scriptures I have read in the NWT seem to be like the one you have shown. ...twisted. Therefore, the question begs to be answered, "Cannot the truth stand on it's own without altering the scriptures to make it sounds more accepting??"

  It makes me so angry that they have changed the meaning of God's holy word!!

  Sincerely,

  Lady Liberty
• 

  A-Team

  Lady:

  It's the little very suttle things that you must keep in mind when reading the Bible. Even the change of a punication, or captialization can severly alter the true meaning of a verse, or in some cases, entire chapters.

  I recommend to one of my students, who is converting from Hindu to Christianaity but is looking to becoming either a Baptist, Luthurn or JW, you must read the Bible for yourself to see what it really says. Anyone can twist the scriptures to fit their theology. That is how so many people can get screwed up. Just read the Bible for yourself and see what it really says, and if you can get ahold of a Greek and/or Hebrew version, you are set.
• 

  Lady Liberty

  Just read the Bible for yourself and see what it really says, and if you can get ahold of a Greek and/or Hebrew version, you are set.

  Dear A-Team,

  Yes, I agree. I have do a degree. I guess the subject kind of scares me because I am afraid of offending God either way. I pray he will read my heart and know I have been so brainwashed in all these other things, that I cannot help but being confused on this matter. I am sure though with more study, and prayer, this too will become ever clearer.

  Sincerely,

  Lady Liberty
• 

  Narkissos

  Even the change of a punication, or captialization can severly alter the true meaning of a verse

  What about the change of language (aka. translation)?

  You cannot simply extrapolate the use of capitals in English to another language, especially an ancient one. It happens that the oldest Greed NT manuscripts were written ALL CAPITALS (uncials), usually without any space between words and, of course, no ponctuation. Plus, divine names like theos and kurios were often (not always) abbreviated (nomina sacra). Modern critical editions, such as Westcott & Hort's which the KIT reproduces, normalise the text in lower case (generally all lower case), separating the words and introducing the likeliest ponctuation (the critical apparatus -- footnotes -- gives the alternative ponctuations with other variant readings). So, while the NWT rendering is debatable, the Greek graphy as you read it is of no help in the debate.

  Qcmbr,

  Are you really thinking of John 1:1, or 1 John 5:7f? While the prologue arguably belongs to the comparatively late strata of GJohn and has a literary history of its own, I don't think John 1:1 per se can be described as a later, especially Trinitarian, addition.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Hi Narkissos - no I was meaning John 1 - 18 , the Prologue is written using aslightly different style and wording than the rest of John (I'm leaning heavily on Bart Erhmen here) and from a textual criticism point of view is at least suspect. The Johannine comma however, is I think a fairly obvious addition (addition s aren't necessarily wrong mind you - whose to say that an addition doesn't take us closer to an original meaning??)
• 

  Narkissos

  Qcmbr,

  OK then, but in view of the central role of this passage in 2nd-century Gnostic vs. Orthodox debate it was certainly not added to promote the (4th-century) Trinity (cf. the debate over the ponctuation of v. 3-4 which implies a gnostic, not trinitarian, problematic). Moreover, the "inclusion" with 20:28 ("The Word was God" and "My Lord and my God" bracketing the once complete Gospel) suggests that it belongs to a (proto-gnostic) restructuration of the work prior to the addition of the "second conclusion" in chapter 21, which attempts to relate the Johannine movement to Peter as the head of the "Great Church".
• 

  A-Team

  I am wondering that if ya 3 here realize that the word God, in the old testiment (Elohim), was plural almost 5 out of every 6 times it was used and never was really intended to be used for Jehovah only, unless written as Eloah?

  Look at it and tell me your opinions on it.

  I should add, the Trinity will still be pretty much somewhat a mystery until the day we arrive in heaven...or the day Judgemnt happens.