John 1:1.
In the NWT Reference Bible, is there any acknowledgement of the original translation (ie; footnote)
HELP! Information needed ASAP.
by KW13 17 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
wobble
Dear KW,
The footnote says : " " A god" Gr. theos , in contrast with ton Theon , " the God ", in the same sentence ; J 17,18 (Heb), we'.lo.him, "and god".
For a discussion of "a god" ,see App 6a. "
Hope this helps,
Love
Wobble
-
cameo-d
1. In the beginning [of creation]
there was the Manifestation*;
And that Manifestation was with God;
and God was [the embodiment of] that Manifestation.
2. This was in the beginning with God.
3. Everything was within his power*,
[otherwise] nothing would ever exist.*
4. Through him [there] was Life*
and Life became the spark* of humanity
5. And that [ensuing] fire* lights the darkness
and darkness does not overshadow it.
6. There was a man sent by God, his name [was] John [the Baptist.]
7. He came for that testimony, to testify [concerning] the light, so that
every human [being] may [come] to believe by his [testimony*.]
8. He was not the light, except that he was to testify [concerning] it*.http://www.v-a.com/bible/john_1-7.html#JOHN#1
(The above is from this source)
Jesus the Messiah spoke in the Galilean dialect of the Ancient Aramaic language. This is the language in which the disciples and the apostles preached the Gospel and the scribes recorded the Scriptures. The New Testament has been preserved in this sacred, scribal language since the Apostolic Age. The whole Bible was originated in this language. The translation that you find on this website is made from the original Ancient Aramaic Scriptures directly into English, bypassing the errors of translation introduced in the Greek Original, the Latin Vulgate and all the Western translations made from them. The Disciples New Testament is the best translation of the authentic and original Scriptures that the Apostles compiled.
-
KW13
is there anything that can be used against their john 1:1 translation, in their own reference bible or other literature? (for example an acknowledgment that they added the 'a' before god, rather than it already being there? Maybe thats me being over-hopeful, but anything else that will help would be good.
-
Mary
This is a tricky subject hon. While I know many scholars do not agree with the WT putting "a god" in there, I believe there are a few that allow it (albeit, reluctantly). If they had said "and the Word was divine", I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash, but to translate it as "a god" was really stupid.
This is probably a good question for Leolaia......
What do you need this for anyway? Are you studying with the Dubs?
-
KW13
hey mary.
yes i'm engaging with an ex-jw's on another website, who still believes what they believe, and he dragged up the whole john 1:1 thing. i mentioned johannes greber, but he seems to think that regardless of who the society use to support it, their rendition is perfectly fine.
-
GLOWCELL
GOD
WORD UP
-
wobble
There is a thread on here that shows how disingenuous the Appendix argument in the Ref. bible is,the manuscripts referred to and other sources do not support their argument. if I can locate it I will post it.
I know that most scholars of repute i.e Bruce Metzger feel it is not supportable to render "a god" at that place.
Reference to the Coptic scriptures does not help your case, as they have the indefinite article here, (for reasons of language, not theology)
The point to remember in discussion with a Witness is that this scripture ,even with the poor NWT translation of "a god" is no proof against the trinity doctrine, even the WT acknowledges that John 1v1 is only making the point that the Father and Word are of the same quality, divine. It says nothing to prove that The Word was inferior in any way to the Father, or that He was created.
The Dubs just love to pick a verse ,or better still a phrase, and say "See that proves our belief" whilst ignoring the bulk of scripture.
Love
Wobble
-
GLOWCELL
wobble
-
trebor
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures from 1969. Commonly called the "KIT" it is a good Bible to use for countering the Watchtower Society's propaganda because it is/was a bible supported by Jehovah's Witnesses and it proves their 'error' in translating John 1:1.
-Trebor