Coptic John 1:1 makes it into the Watchtower.

by slimboyfat 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  WT November 1st has a two page article on how the early Sahidic Coptic version of the New Testament translated God with an indefinite article in John 1:1 and argues this supports the New World Translation's rendering "and the Word was a god".

  Online Witness apologists have been using this piece of evidence in support of the NWT for a few years now. In particular Solomon Landers promoted the Coptic version of John 1:1 in discussions with Evangelicals and other who oppose Witness theology. He ran a blog specifically on the subject of the Coptic rendering of John 1:1.

  That the Watchtower itself now also refers to this piece of evidence raises interesting questions about whether the activities of unofficial Witness apologists impact Watchtower writers, how they view unofficial apologists, and whether such apologists will take encouragement from the Watchtower's endorsement of this particular line of reasoning that they developed to continue their unofficial apologetic activities on behalf of the Witness community.

  There is perhaps some irony in this development considering the somewhat draconian Sept 2007 Kingdom Ministry that sought to clamp down on independent Bible study, since it was precisely through such independent research on which the Kingdom Ministry frowned that Witness apologists uncovered the Coptic version's support for the NWT's rendering of John 1:1.
• 

  wobble

  I did some online research into the Coptic version of John 1v1 and pretty soon came accross a number of scholars who shewed that this in no way justified a NWT english translation using the indefinite article. So if the WT starts getting their info. on the cheap via apologists with no expertise it will return to bite them in the bum!

  Love

  Wobble
• 

  DoomVoyager

  Even if it did say "a god", that doesn't explain Deuteronomy 32:39. "See now that I - I am HE, and there are no gods together with me."
• 

  civicsi00

  This is surprising. Is the Watchtower somehow letting itself be influenced by JW apologists?

  It's still an incorrect translation. This would mean the JW's are polytheistic...in a sense. Wouldn't it?

  I'm sleepy... sorry for my crappy response...
• 

  WTWizard

  Either way, it is "and the Word was God". Flat out, blatant.

  To explain, Jesus was speaking to bicameral (think: primitive) men. The peasants were not conscious thinkers, and Jesus sought to change that. That is why he taught in parables, to get through to them (just like speaking Chinese so you can get through to people that speak Chinese but not English). And one of those parables he needed was to put himself above the external powers to be that only wanted to assume control and exploit people. So Jesus needed to position himself in that position, and code his message so people would see the advantages of thinking on their own.

  From that perspective, Jesus was trying to put himself above those authorities so they could not pull them back down. The Satan that Jesus referred to was the tendency to relapse into primitive bicameral mode of thinking (being told what to do, either from one's own right brain hallucinations or external authorities). And the God that Jesus referred to was the God-Man that results when one becomes more proficient in self-leadership. Jesus, as the lead God-Man, was teaching everyone else to also become their own Gods. Hence, Jesus was to them God (at least until they got the hang of being their own Gods, that is). And the holy spirit was nothing more than a parable, intended to help people learn to lead themselves--and to give them courage in the face of external leaders that would try and pull them back to primitive bicameral mode.

  So in that sense, Jesus (the Word) WAS actually God. When I found that out, that demystified the Trinity forever, without having to alter the Bible itself. But, if you are going to take the Bible and Jesus' word literally, you cannot avoid that the Trinity is a Biblical teaching.
• 

  jwfacts

  Interesting find Slimboy. You always have enlightening comments. There are few people, either JWs or ExJWs, that are as up to date with Watchtower movements as yourself.
• 

  TheOldHippie

  Oh, the Wizard KNOWS what is right - no matter what other researchers say, he KNOWS that it flat out is GOD and not A GOD.

  I know whom I am going to turn to, from now on! WizardMan!
• 

  Pahpa

  The controversy of the trinitarian vs. the unitarian doctrine dates back to the early history of the church. It's clear that many Christians never accepted the trinity as the "central doctrine of Christianity." When Arius argued against it in the fourth century, he had the support of many including some of the Bishops. It was only when the trinitarians consolidated their power through political means that it become "orthodoxy." And the unitarian belief continued down through the ages. So, it is not an exclusive Watchtower doctrine as many seem to indicate.

  The topic has been discussed in length even on this site. It has not been resolved for two thousand years. So, it will remain a subject of discussion in the future. But for the average Christian not skilled in theological debate, the very human description of a "father" and a "son" is understood without the mystery of a complex explanation from a theologian.
• 

  Satanus

  It's very simple, it's talking about nature.
  
  S
• 

  minimus

  The Old Hippie, I thought you stopped defending the Witnesses. I guess not.