See John 1:1 with your own eyes: Bible translators have translated Latin, not Greek.

by Wonderment 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  godrulz

  Wallace is correct that Jn. 1:1 refutes modalism (the Greek would be different if it is true) and Arianism (a god=polytheism if true god). The inspired grammar, context, theology supports trinitarianism. The world's most prominent Gk. scholars and translators get this right. No one on the NWT translation committee was qualified to translate (Fred Franz had some language background, but probably less than I do) and it shows by the poor English and sectarian bias on every verse dealing with the Deity of Christ.

  Those who think they know more than Wallace probably don't even understand his point about anarthrous/qualitative (supports Deity). Divine, etc. is inadequate. Looking for obscure translations (liberal) or the doctrines of demons of Johannes Greber or Diaglott (anti-trinitarian Christadelphian) shows how desperate the WT is for support of their heresy. Hundreds more (versions/scholars) take them to task for their ignorance.
• 

  Terry

  The object of John 1:1 theologically as it now stands is the product of deliberate insertion. It should not surprise anybody that

  the parsing of the language reveals a Trinitarian mindset. It was intended to be.

  But, by whom and when?

  That is the ONLY issue worth deep discussion here, imho.
• 

  Wonderment

  Some claim: "The world's prominent Gr. scholars and translators..... hundreds more versions.scholars..." etc.

  In Jesus's day hundreds of "scholars" were wrong, and did not recognize the promised Messiah was right in the midst of them. Yet, comparatively, a small number of untrained, unschooled individuals were able to see through this. Even Bible writers were perhaps no match in grammar with those folks. Yet, God chose them as writers, not the arrogant ones of the world.

  Douglas Stuart: ‘Just because a person has a Ph.D does not necessarily mean he is right and you are wrong.’
• 

  Terry

  A logical way to look at it from OUR view and language is if God is a Species ( He isn't and can't be qualified as such but for argument sake lets say Yes), then Christ is of the same species, the species Diety.

  But the very nature of THAT species is to be of the same essence as well as the same nature YET to be different persons.

  ONE TRUE GOD, to be a true description, is forced to be interpreted singularly as to identy, kind and nature.

  Once you re-define ONE to mean [plus] something else......the meaning has vanished into chaos.

  For example: the definition of 3 and the definition of 1 can't be the same definition and remain true. Numbers imply quantity. The identity of quantity

  is instantiated by application to really existing application. If you point to one turtle and say one turtle, one turtle, one turtle you don't produce an example of 3 turtles in so doing. Trying to prove there are 3 turtles when only one is there would require bending the hell out of words, descriptors and definitions.

  Which is, oddly enough, what theology manages to do!

  Species? A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

  So, GOD, to produce a "Son" would interbreed with whom?
• 

  PSacramento

  Terry, this has nothing to do with the trinity.

  The trinity was just the way man worded his understanding of God at THAT TIME, and the vast majority had no issue with if for THAT TIME.

  And it was in direct response to Arian's misunderstanding of Christ's nature.

  If you find the term species to vague or you find my example, "not good enough", then fine, choose your own.

  God doesn't need to interbreed or reproduce to produce a Son, you are once again, putting human limitations on a baing OUTSIDE the relm of nature as WE KNOW it.

  In short, you are doing the same mistake that they did 1700 years ago trying to respond to Arian heresy, they tried to BOUND God and Christ within the human and very limited understanding of the Universe that we know, not to mention the one we don't know.
• 

  Terry

  My only point is this: if we are going to act like we are discussing something while at the same time pretending it is undiscussable--we are wasting our time.

  The John one one thingy is just words.
• 

  AGuest

  A couple of things, if I may (may you all have peace!):

  1. The account attributed to John was not written by John or any mystic; it was written by Lazarus (Simon the Kanean/Leper) for whom my Lord had affection and who Peter inquired about when he asked my Lord what would occur with him:

  "Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom [Jesus loved] was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against [Jesus] at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?"). When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?" [Jesus] answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

  Peter asked because Lazarus had been resurrected and he (Peter) was curious as to whether he would remain alive until my Lord returned... or die again. He (Peter) was told that it really wasn't his concern:

  "Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But [Jesus] did not say that he would not die; he only said, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?'"

  This disciple wrote the account:

  "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."

  Lazarus himself told us who that is the disciple whom my Lord loved:

  "Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. So the sisters sent word to [Jesus], "Lord, the one you love is sick."John 11:1-3

  "When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" John 11:32, 36

  2. Lazarus lived in Bethany, which was only about 2 miles from Jerusalem. As the author of the account, he wrote it in Aramaic, not Greek. And so what we have today are English/other versions, translated from Latin, translated from Greek... translated from Aramaic. Given that my Lord gave a warning as to the works of the scribes ("Woe, to you... scribes!") AND that even the most articulate among us probably can't get through a game of "telephone" with with the original message intact... AND the tendency for human error (in translating letters and symbols, as well as words)... AND the lack of HOLY SPIRIT... there's no wonder that so much concusion surrounds this one verse (John 1:1).

  3. Since the Book of "John" wasn't written by John (of any ilk) at all, but Lazarus... but the high and mighty "scholars" apparently haven't been able to grasp even THAT truth, even now... why in the world would we put total faith in anything ELSE they say is "true" of the account? We shouldn't be surprised at their erroneous translation... and teaching... regarding this verse. We don't have to be like them, however, and lean upon our OWN understanding; rather, we can PROVE our faith in Christ... and can do what HE (and for those of you who need to hear it said, the BIBLE) said:

  "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to COME TO ME to have life." John 5:39, 40

  The reason you keep looking and searching in the Bible... is because you are THIRSTY! For what? TRUTH!! You are thirsty because you have not yet been sated. You "drink"... but you still thirst. You haven't been sated because the "water" you keep drinking from... leaves you thirsting yet. And tired. Because it is not of the SPIRIT... of TRUTH. But Christ is recorded to have said:

  "Come to ME, all you who are toiling and loaded down!" Matthew 11:28

  "If anyone is thirsty, let him COME TO ME... and DRINK!" John 7:37

  "If you knewthe gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked HIM and HE would have given YOU living water. ... whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 4:4-6

  If you want to know what Lazarus MEANT... why not ASK the One about whom he WROTE? You say you believe in him, and that he was resurrected from the dead. Why, then, do you treat him as if he is yet dead???? How can you say you believe... in him... in his resurrection... but do not listen to him... do not even consider that not only is he alive... but SPEAKS? (Hebrews 12:25)

  If you want to know the truth... whether he was/is God... was/is a god... or whether Lazarus said something else entirely... why do you not ask him? Why do you lean upon the teachings of those who truly do not KNOW?

  My Lord, the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen/Anointed One of JAH (MischaJah) is not the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. As High Priest, he alone has the greatest access to the Most Holy; however, WE have access to him... the Holy... and THROUGH him... the Most Holy. But they are not one and the same.

  Lok to the temple. Look to Joseph and Pharaoh. Look to what Christ himself said... who he prayed to... who he told US to pray to... and who it was that said, "This is my son, the Beloved - listen to HIM!"... before granting His blood... holy spirit... to come down upon that One.

  While the Father IS greater... HIS direction is for us to kiss... and listen to... the Son.

  I hope this helps an, again, bid you all peace!

  A slave of Christ, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit,

  SA
• 

  ProdigalSon

  godrulz says: only begotten=monogenes...this has nothing to do with being first created (nor does firstborn). He is the unique Son of God, equal with the Father. You are spouting WT nonsense, not biblical truth. He is not Michael, but the Creator of Michael (Col. 1; Heb. 1; Jn. 1). The Holy Spirit is developed in Jn. 14-16, not in Jn. 1:1 (using your logic, there is no Son, because some verses only mention the Father). Jesus is YHWH, not a secondary false god (polytheism if a true god).

  Wes Penre says:

  http://www.illuminati-news.com/fraud-in-the-bible.htm

  A Few Translations
  
  These translations, while only three in number, will change your whole way of thinking about what is being presented in your Bible.
  
  Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being".
  
  Son of God: The word bar means a likeness or resemblance to the suffix word. The Aramaic term that Son of God comes from is bardalaha. Translated literally as "son of God" it does not mean this. Bardalaha in reality means "like God" or "God-like". So when Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" we should read this correctly as "God-like" or "like God". So what does that tell you about the translation we read in today's Bibles? It tells you that Jesus was not the Son of God - but that he was "God-like". There is a big difference. Jesus himself repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being". The Aramaic reference does not mean one is physically divine - it means there is an important spiritual relationship between God and the man whom is bestowed that phraseology. In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such.
  
  Only Begotten Son: The world ehedaya is Aramaic. It is very important to understand its meaning when hearing that phrase being bantered about. When we read that Jesus was God's "only begotten son" - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John. The phrase we read in English was translated from a Greek word, monogenes. Monos means "single" or "one" and genos means "kind". So the Greek translation originally was with "one-of-a-kind". So where does 'begotten' come from? The Greek word genos is distantly related to the verb gennan which means "to beget". Thus, to translate monogenes as "only begotten" is improper and incorrect--which is an indication of an ill-trained translator being involved with the text. The actual translation should be "unique son" or "one-of-a-kind". The Aramaic word ehedaya means "sole heir" and "the beloved". So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get "one-of-a-kind, beloved son". That's considerably different from 'only begotten son'.
• 

  AGuest

  The Aramaic word ehedaya means "sole heir" and "the beloved". So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get "one-of-a-kind, beloved son". That's considerably different from 'only begotten son'.

  Actually, it's not different at all, dear ProdSon (peace to you!). What's "different" is folks' understanding of what "only-begotten son" means. For many (most) it means that my Lord was solely begotten by God. That is not what it means, however, at all. To understand what it DOES mean, one must look to Abraham and Isaac.

  Abraham had two sons: Isaac, by his free wife, Sarah... and Ishmael, by his slave "wife", Hagar. Isaac... was Abraham's ONLY-BEGOTTEN son... by Sarah. Although Abraham loved Ishmael greatly... his son by his FREE wife, Sarah... was the heir... and the beloved.

  Like Abraham, the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, also had two sons: JaheShua, by His FREE wife, "Sarah" (Jerusalem Above, the spirit realm)... and Adham, by His "slave wife"... "Hagar"... the physical realm (earth). Christ is JAH's ONLY-BEGOTTEN son... by Jerusalem Above (Sarah). As such, he is the heir... and beloved.

  A quick glance at the following verses should clarify; however, not all will hear... and get the sense of these truths.

  Luke 3:38 (God has two sons, thus far)

  Hebrews 11:17 (Isaac was called Abraham's "only begotten" son, although Abraham did not conceive him alone AND had other sons, including Ishmael and sons by Keturah)

  Matthew 17:5 (Christ is called "my Son, the beloved" by God)

  Galatians 4:26-31 (Jerusalem Above is the "mother" of all who are sons of God; she is the spirit realm whose children are free... by means of the "white robes"... spirit bodies... that they have/receive. Unlike the physical realm... Hagar... whose children are born in the manner of the FLESH... and thus are slaves TO the flesh... all of Jerusalem Above's children... are FREE... because their MOTHER is free... and because they are "born" NOT by means of flesh... but by means of a PROMISE... which promise is RATIFIED... by the NEW Covenant. As God's free "wife".... she depicts that Covenant. Through it, they are "adopted" as sons of God, so as to become beneficiaries... heirs... of the promises OF that Covenant. And hat is the promise? To be SET free... from sin... and death... by means of the blood of the MEDIATOR of that Covenant, Christ. Romans 8:32, 36; John 6:48-58 The children of Hagar, the slave wife, those who only know the birth through Adham will remain slaves... and bound to the Law Covenant, which delivers over TO sin... and death).

  Revelation 12:1, 2, 5 (She, Jerusalem ABOVE... is the "woman" who gave birth to the male child, Christ, who was caught away to God's throne. She is the "barren" woman who will eventually bear more children... so many they cannot be numbered - and so her tent pins must be spread out! - NOT because of a relationship of the flesh, as with "Hagar" who produced Adham, a man of flesh...but because of a PROMISE. Just as it was with Sarah and Isaac.)

  May any with ears to hear, ear and get the sense of these truths. May those who do not, but wish to, be given ears... to hear these truths AND when the Spirit and the Bride says to YOU:

  "Come! Take 'life's water'... FREE!"

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  still thinking