Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday 347 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  besty

  Reniaa - you didn't answer me and now I'm hurt

  So besty! translate a scripture contrary to it's original meaning so it's in-line with mainstream chrisitianity! interesting thought but nope.

  In which case I'm sure Janko and 3rdwitness can help you with the John 1:18 dilemma:

  New International Version: No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

  New World Translation: No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

  In line with your assertion that the NWT is correct, why did the <anonymous> Translation Committee see fit to translate John 1:18 with two different renderings of theos in the same verse?

  Also whilst you are asking Janko and 3rd Witness for help find out for me why the need to add the word [position] to the text.

  Lastly, ask them to help you understand why the NIV managed a much more elegant translation with 20% less words than the NWT.

  Or did I miss your answer....
• 

  passwordprotected

  Because the NIV translators were qualified and weren't retards?
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Because the NIV translators were qualified and weren't retards?

  LOL!
• 

  besty

  Reniaa - one more thing

  My original (or, in the beginning) question to you was

  Reniaa - Would you agree that JW's wouldn't need this lengthy and roundabout explanation for Isa 43:10,11 if they simply translated John 1:1 in line with mainstream scholarship?

  But when you play that back to me it becomes

  So besty! translate a scripture contrary to it's original meaning so it's in-line with mainstream chrisitianity!

  You do know the difference and why I used the word scholarship, don't you?
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Ren my dear, you stated several times that every Chritian religion has its own version of the trinity. Could you outline what these different versions are? I have heard of modalism (which most Christians deny) and ontological equality combined with functional subordination. What are the others?

  Another thing: If the growth of JW's during the 20th century is proof of God's blessing, why wouldn't we assume that He must have blessed the trinitarians? After all, there growth way outstripped the Arians. Why didn't Jehovah preserve the writings of the Arians?

  Thank you,

  MD
• 

  reniaa

  hi besty I misread you sorry it wasn't deliberate. So your saying mainstream scholars would say it was 'God' and not 'a god'? in john 1:1 lets see.....

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

  The most common rendering in English is:

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

  This rendering is preferred among popular English translations today. However, this is not universal in usage among scholarly translations. Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render it:

  "...and the Word was divine."

  Other variations also exist:

  • The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God."
  • The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was."
  • Wycliffe's Bible reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.

  There are additional translations that render John 1:1c in a similar manner. An example of such translations includes The New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses which renders part of John 1:1 as "...and the word was a god" [ 3 ] [ 4 ]

  Two issues need to be remembered as regards the original text. First, old Greek manuscripts of the Bible are in capital letters only. Second, the word theos in the original text cannot grammatically have the definite article. [ 5 ] John 10:35 has similar usage of Greek word theos (god), with and without ho (the) when describing human rulers as "gods".

  So scholars are as conflicted over it as all are but that it lacks the 'ho' is agreed upon.

  we can try and look at early translations before trinity happenned

  what really was a massive blow for supporters of John 1:1 as God was the Sahidic Coptic which because it's not in greek the grammer can be looked at more closely and so which viewpoint does it back up? this 3rd century manuscript before trinity was established?

  The Sahidic Coptic was translated in the 3rd century, about a hundred years before the Trinity became official church doctrine. The Sahidic Coptic calls the Word in John 1:1 "a god," not "god" or "the god."

  this is a very clear translation that only allows a qualitative rendition of John 1:1c

  If you have the NWT w/ References edition, you will find that the NWT translators offer, not just one, but three renderings for John 1:1c. All of which can be qualitative.
  
  1. And the Word was a god.
  2. And the Word was god-like.
  3. And the Word was divine.
  
  All three are qualitative in meaning. The Appendix on John 1:1 in the NWT also says that John 1:1c is qualitative.
  
  Another point:
  In English, "and the Word was a god" can be considered qualitative. It can also be indefinite. But the phrase "and the Word was God" is not qualitative. It is only definite.

  Many Greek scholars admit that John 1:1c is qualitative in the Greek, yet insist on a strictly definite English translation.
  
  The NWT is more honest by offering three renderings, all of which are qualitative.

  and now back to wiki....

  However, at John 1:1 in Coptic, we have a distinction between "p.noute," or "the god," i.e., "God" in English, and another entity, the Logos or Word (Shaje in Coptic) identified as "u.noute," or "a god." Whereas "divine" could fit here as a paraphrase, there is no contextual or grammatical reason to overlook the entirely proper literal translation, "a god."

  NWt have been completely vindicated in their translation of john 1:1c IT is trinitarians that are being forced to just deny what has become a basic truth their theology just doesn't allow for this to be even translated divine or God-like. Jws rendition is entirely proper literal translation as the the article says.

  I know many trinitarians will ignore what I have put or quote from their own biased scholars whose personal theology mean they cannot accept the lessening of Jesus in this scripture from there own translation calling him 'God' but TRUTH will out and this early pre-trinity translation backs up NWT translation. Some mock the translators of it in a few recent posts but in translations the proof is in the pudding and here the NWT has proved tasty and delicious hehe

  Reniaa
• 

  mindmelda

  I detest Bible hopscotch. The over all theme of the Christian Scriptures indicates that there is a unity or oneness between Christ, God, and Holy Spirit that is absolute. The exact physiological nature of spirit beings or how they manifest themselves is pure speculation. We may not even be able to grasp their nature except in anthropomorphic terms, which I tend to think is why the Bible uses them. It's ridiculous to conceive of God as some three headed freak or having multiple personalities, but as a superhuman being who is capable of manifesting various expressions of himself, well...I can grasp that.

  That's all I care about, really. It seems that Christ is the image of God that we can understand best, the expression of his love. That is more important than theological wrangling.

  There may have even been subtle differences in the way that each of the Biblical writers perceived God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit for all we know. Apparently, a bit of private interpretative difference was not punishable by death.

  Don't make the mistake of desiring total uniformity of religious doctrine or thought that the WTS does. It's not humanly possible.
• 

  Tuesday

  I know many trinitarians will ignore what I have put or quote from their own biased scholars whose personal theology mean they cannot accept the lessening of Jesus in this scripture from there own translation calling him 'God' but TRUTH will out and this early pre-trinity translation backs up NWT translation. Some mock the translators of it in a few recent posts but in translations the proof is in the pudding and here the NWT has proved tasty and delicious hehe

  As opposed to you posting your own biased scholars whose personal theology cannot accept that Jesus was in fact God. But truth will out when another translation older than this translation is found where it is described as Jesus being God. Some will then mock the translators of it but the proof will be in the pudding and I'm sure this will prove equally tasty and delicious.

  You're getting into a contest of who's translator translated something better than another translator. I'm sorry to say but a conversation like this can only lead down a rapid tunnel of bullshit. "My translator is awesome!" "No my translator is awesome!" When bible ping-pong doesn't suffice, when there's a mexican stand-off in the amount of scriptures pulled, then we devulge down this worthless path.

  Reniaa, what is your qualifications for determining which translator is correct?

  Anyone who contradicts Reniaa's translator's translation, what are your qualifications for determining which translator is correct?

  Until either of you provide proof of study in terms of a degree, or of various classes taken in ancient hebrew or greek, or even provide proof of studying these actual texts not just reprints but the actuals from a museum and have shown the ability to read them straight from the page and translate them I consider your arguments moot.
• 

  Chalam

  Hi,

  It seems to me almost universal the rendering of John 1:1

  http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm

  International Standard Version(©2008)
  In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  New American Standard Bible(©1995)
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  GOD'S WORD® Translation(©1995)
  In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  King James Bible
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  American King James Version
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  American Standard Version
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  Bible in Basic English
  From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.

  Douay-Rheims Bible
  IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  Darby Bible Translation
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  English Revised Version
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  Webster's Bible Translation
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  Weymouth New Testament
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  World English Bible
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  Young's Literal Translation
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

  53 English versions available over here

  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 1:1

  Not a single one says "a god", I just checked them all.

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  besty

  It is my ignorance in language translation that led me to frame my question the way I did.

  I used the word 'mainstream' advisedly. It precludes the need for the TranslatorTopTrumps that Reniaa so eagerly embraced.

  Establishing the mainstream position allows lazy people like me to form a reasonable opinion. Here's an example:

  The most common rendering in English is:

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

  This rendering is preferred among popular English translations today.

  OK so now we have the mainstream position established and I don't need any more useless (to me) knowledge on that subject.

  Thanks to Reniaa for uncovering this gem from Wikipedia - I had no idea just how badly inaccurate the NWT was.

  Conversation closed on John 1:1.

  That just leaves my trinity of questions on John 1:18 for Reniaa to answer.