Your explanation for a total contradiction in the New World Translation.

by Johnny Brown 62 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wonderment

  jhine:    "...there is no doubt that the idea of a Trinity was in the VERY early church with the claim that it was passed down from the Apostles themselves."

  Theophilus of Antioch (no me neither ) circa 180AD:

  
  

  ‘In like manner also the three days which were befoer the luminaries , are types of the Trinity, of God HIs Word and HIs Wisdom.’
  

  and Tertullian 160-215:

  ‘We define that there are Two , the Father and the Son and three with the Holy Spirit , and this number is made by the pattern of salvation .... which brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three , Father Son and Holy Spirit’
  

  These at least show that the Watchtower statements about the Trinity and when and how it came about are wrong ."

  
  

  
  

  Theophilus in this quote makes no mention of the holy spirit.   How could this be any indication that his particular "trinity" came from the apostles?

  Tertulian is first attributed with coining the term "trinity," and early on in the 3rd century mentioned a triad of God Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.   But how would this be any proof that Tertulian based his belief on biblical teaching?

  Tertulian said this also:  "There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge."  (The Catholic Encyclopedia)   The Son having ‘a beginning’ is contrary to later trinitarian doctrine.
  

  Also, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says of Tertulian's theology:  "In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable.  Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical."

  Tertulian used a lot of unscriptural terminology, and one could say perhaps that a source of many of his theological ideas came from Greek apologies which he learned from, and not Scripture.

  In conclusion, the word "trinity" appears nowhere in Scripture, and the concept is not found there either.  It is only when one lets the influence of modern trinitarian theology that one is able to find earlier isolated scriptural strands made to fit the convoluted trinitarian dogma of heathen nations.
  
• 

  smiddy

  "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Christian Greek Scriptures" published by the WTB&TS , a word for word translation does not contain the tetragrammaton anywhere in its text.

  So , in my book the mistranslated word jehovah should not be their.

  And in John 1:1 in that same publication , the word for word translation reads ,

  " In the beginning the word was and the word was with God and the word was God"

  It does not say the word was a God , it plainly states the word was God..

  smiddy
• 

  Wonderment

  smiddy: 
  

  "And in John 1:1 in that same publication [KIT] , the word for word translation reads ,

  ‘In the beginning the word was and the word was with God and the word was God.’

  It does not say the word was a God , it plainly states the word was God."

  
  

  Smiddy, first of all, in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, the publication you refer to, John 1:1c does not say in the interlinear English gloss:  "The word was God."  This is what it says:  "and god was the Word."  So, it is wrong to start an assumption by quoting incorrectly. 

  Secondly, the reason KIT has a small initial letter for "god" is due to language protocols in Greek and English.  Dr. Machen explains in New Testament Greek for Beginners the following: 

  
  

  "There is no indefintite article in Greek, and so  adelphós  means either  brother  or  a brother  (usually the latter)."  Greek has, however, a definite article, and where the Greek article does not appear, the definite article should not be inserted in English translation.  Thus,  adelphós  does not mean  the brother.  In the plural, English, like Greek, has no indefinite article.   Ánthropoi,  therefore, means simply  men.   But it does not mean  the men."

  Also, Hewett in New Testament Greek wrote:  "Since Greek has no indefinite rticle, the English translation of a Greek word that does no have an article [as in Jn 1:c] may be preceded by the indefinite article  ‘a’  or  ‘an.’ "
  

  This means that the KIT translators did the right thing by observing a difference in writing between the articular "God" in John 1:1b, and the unarthrous "god" in John 1:1c.   Hence, John 1:1c does not ‘plainly’ say that the Word was God.  What it does say is:  the Word was god  [i.e. in a qualitative sense],"  or,  "the Word was a god [indefinite]."  Both of these two readings are acceptable, but as Professor Machen noted, "usually the latter" with an indefinite nuance is the common way of expressing the unarthrous Greek nouns in our language.