HELP! Information needed ASAP.

by KW13 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sacolton

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The "Word" refers to Jesus (v17), the only begotten of the Father who became flesh and dwelt among us (v14). This affirms that Jesus is a separate individual from the Father (He was with God), and yet He Himself possesses Deity (He was God). Note that the context affirms both Jesus' Deity and His humanity: God became flesh and dwelt among us.

  Some argue that the Greek "was God" has no definite article before "God," whereas there is a definite article in "with God." Hence, it is claimed that Jesus is god is a lesser sense, different from the Father. Hence, the "New World Translation" says, "the word was a god." However,

  (1) All major standard translations say, "the Word was God." None say "a god." Hence they contradict the NWT. (See NKJV, KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.).

  (2) If Jesus is "god" in a lesser sense than the Father, then we would have two different true gods! Clearly Jesus is not a false god; hence He is true God. But if He is "god" in a different sense than the Father, that would violate the passages saying there is one true God!

  (3) Many Scriptures use "God" (Gk. theos) without an article to refer to the true God. See Matthew 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35,78; John 1:6,12,13,18; Romans 17:17; and many others.

  (4) Many Scriptures use "God" both with and without an article in the same context, yet both uses clearly refer to the true God. See Matthew 4:3,4; 12:28; Luke 20:37,38; John 3:2; 13:3; Acts 5:29,30; Romans 1:7,8,17-19; 2:16,17; 3:5,22,23; 4:2,3; etc.

  (5) The context of John 1:1-3 shows that Jesus is eternal and created all things. To call Him "God" in such a context must surely mean He is God in the same exalted sense as the Father.

  (6) We will soon see other passages referring to Jesus as "God" using the definite article. If the NWT distinction is valid, then these passages must prove conclusively that Jesus is God in the same sense as the Father.

  So John 1:1 refers to both Jesus and the Father as "God" in a context that affirms the eternal existence of Jesus and that He is the Creator of all (v1-3). This would be blasphemy if He does not possess Deity as the Father does.

  [Marshall, Vine, Vincent, Lenski, Robertson, and other Greek scholars contend that the article is absent from "was God" in John 1:1, not to imply that Jesus was a "lesser god," but simply to identify "God" as the predicate nominative despite the fact it precedes the verb for emphasis (Colwell's Rule). If it had the definite article, that would imply that "the Word" and the Father are the same person. In any case, the Scriptures listed above clearly show that the lack of the article does not prove Jesus is God in a lesser sense than the Father.]
• 

  sacolton

  Kingdom Interlinear and John 1:1

  It is very interesting to see how the Jehovah’s Witnesses Greek-English Interlinear translation compares with the NWT and with more accurate translations. One Jehovah’s Witness said that their translation comes from an interlinear translation of the Westcott and Hort text and that the NWT is a good translation of it. But let’s check into the two primary interlinear translations appealed to by Jehovah’s Witnesses: the Kingdom Interlinear and the Emphatic Diaglott.

  The Kingdom Interlinear 8 says:

  

  Look carefully at John 1:1 . The Interlinear doesn’t translate Theos ( θεος ) as “a god,” which is an unjustifiable change in the NWT (to the right of the interlinear above). Strangely the interlinear does not capitalize God the second time it occurs, though it does the first.

  One possible reason they tried distinguishing this particular word for God is due to the spellings ofTheos (God) in this passage ( θεον , θεος ) is due to variant endings. Another variant ending is commonly θεου .

  In one case, all three variants for God are in one passage and translated as God:

  2 Thessalonians 2:4
  who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God ( θεον ) or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God ( θεου ) in the temple of God ( θεον ), showing himself that he is God ( θεος ).

  There is really no obvious reason for the change to “a god” or a lower case “god” by the NWT orKingdom Interlinear.

  The next interlinear to be checked was the Diaglott. 9 It translates John 1:1–3 as:

  

  The interlinear this time incorrectly states that theos is “a god”, but the side translation disagrees and says the Logos was God, instead of “a god.” So again, there are mismatches that make no sense.
• 

  sacolton

  Lastly, how important is it to understand the true identity of Jesus Christ? Read this scripture:

  John 8:24

  "Unless you believe that I Am, you shall die in your sins."

  According to Jesus it was very critical that we have a particular belief about him, and if we don't then we are lost in our sins.
• 

  Sad emo

  (2) If Jesus is "god" in a lesser sense than the Father, then we would have two different true gods! Clearly Jesus is not a false god; hence He is true God. But if He is "god" in a different sense than the Father, that would violate the passages saying there is one true God!

  But what about psalm 82:6 -

  "I said, 'You are "gods";
  you are all sons of the Most High.'

  Which Jesus himself referred to? does he really have to be the true God when this verse is taken into account?
• 

  sacolton

  Jesus was Begotten.
• 

  John1one

  Hello KW13,

  You asked:

  "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."

  Here's something you might find useful:

  Many who take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of 'theos' in John 1:1c (as, "a god") often miss the point that the structure of this whole clause is that it is 'a singular anarthrous predicate noun (meaning, without the Greek definite article), but one which is also *preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)*' - that is, not just that use of the noun 'theos' in the third clause is lacking the Greek definite article. (In the Greek language of this period, there was no such thing as an indefinite article; therefore, depending upon the grammar, syntax, immediate and global context of the phrase, when translating to English, the decision on whether to add an indefinite article or not would be made by the translator.)
  
  Quite interestingly, at other places within the "New Testament" where the syntax (Greek word order) is also the same as that found within John 1:1c, it is not uncommon to read where Bible translators will typically add the English indefinite article, either as an "a" or "an". You may wish to examine the following within your own preferred translation(s) of the Bible, that is, to see whether, within those works, such had actually been done. Here are a few scriptures to look into:
  
  Mark 6:49
  Mark 11:32
  John 4:19
  John 6:70
  John 8:44a
  John 8:44b
  John 9:17
  John 10:1
  John 10:13
  John 10:33
  John 12:6
  
  Quite interestingly, when we encounter that very same Greek grammatical construction in John 1:1c, many translators do not follow the same guideline, that is, as when they had translated the above verses. Apparently, this inconsistency is due to their own theologically induced predisposition, that of the centuries old, "Catholic" inspired tradition, the unbiblical belief that God is a Trinity. In other words, unknown to their readers, they are just being dishonest.
  
  Obviously, there need be more evidence to substantiate such a rendering as, "and the Word was a god," as well as to address many of the other issues often raised by such wording. This is just a number of the many points we hope to address within our forthcoming work, "What About John 1:1?"
  
  To discover something of its design and progress, you are invited to visit:
  
  http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
  
  Agape, JohnOneOne.
• 

  KW13

  you folks are fantastic :D
• 

  Farkel

  KW13,

  Besides what has already been brought up about the fact that if Jesus is A god and there can only be one true God, then Jesus must be a false god, here's another one to use.

  Let's assume that Jesus IS "a" god as the NWT states and he isn't a false god, then Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheists, i.e. they believe in following more than one God!

  Let them explain their way out of THAT one.

  Farkel