by You Know 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
A common Christian understanding of that passage is that Jesus was the first to enter into the everlasting bodily life that is our finial reword.
Lazarus was rased form the dead only to die, Jesus on the other hand will never die.
in that way he was first to be free from death
Got any followers yet for your new religion with you as prophet, Robert? How long do you figure it'll take before it crosses the financial line from red to black?
Gee....I hope I'm not too late for this two hundred year old argument.
I thought JW'S believed in only "one" GOD.
Man..... I love dis kind of thing. I'd a' come sooner if I'd a' know'd you was havin' all dis fun.
It's like old zeke said......."It's not my ignorance dat' dun me up, but what I'd a' know'd dat' wasn't so"
The answer to this age old fencing match was solved a long time ago but you got to pull your noses back a little ways from those yeller pages you've burried them in.
It seems to me that you all seem to agree Jesus Christ lived before he was "BORN ON EARTH"....is it so tough to take the next step...... that being the first born.... in heaven ..or of all creation ....is saying the very same thing...that he lived before..... being the first born of GOD ...and of all the other creatures ....that would also be born ..IN HEAVEN.. A F T E R HIM.....then ..everyone was born a second time into mortality hear on good old planet earth?
Well, I can see the tomatoes comin'. But there will always be more than one way to look at an issue and if it looks feasible, there will be many adherents....in this case ...millions!
QUANTUM
My copy of the New English Bible reads "and what God was, the Word was."
This translation is no paraphrase except in the sense that every intelligent translation is a paraphrase. And it is most certainly in regular use in Christian churches, as you would expect considering its provenance.
It's debatable whether this translation of John 1:1c is a paraphrase, or just an extreme dynamic equivalence. It's certainly not a literal translation, but I would argue that it's more accurate than the literal "and the Word was God."
The meaning of this verse has been discussed ad nauseam on other threads so I just wish to limit this to suggest you are mistaken.
I don't agree, but if it makes you happier, I'll amend my original statement to "Nearly all of the translations that are in regular use in Christian churches (again, excepting paraphrases) read that way." Better? Also, I don't know about in Britain, but in America that translation is almost never used. The Bibles that are used in church services and quoted from in christian books and magazines are the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, and NLB (not sorted in any particular order). All others combined wouldn't make up 1% of the actual usage of the Bible in public.
Quite clearly, to say "what God was, the Word was" is not the same as saying "the Word was God".
Actually, it is saying the same thing. Both phrases mean "the Word was God, the one and only true God, with the emphasis on WHAT the Word was, not on WHO the Word was". As I said earlier.
If it was then the translators would not have changed it.
They "changed it" to make the meaning clearer -- the Trinitarian meaning, that is. Not to make it more literal.
In fact it is more akin to saying "the Word was a God". Now where have I read that before?
It's not akin to that at all. You have simply misunderstood it. Probably due to doctrinal bias caused by bad teachers.
Robert Frazier
By calling Jesus the 'firstborn of creation' in v.15, Paul has
explicitly identified Christ as part of creation. Amazingly, most Christians
overlook this fact. The JW's draw attention to it by inserting [other] into the
subsequent verses. A bit heavy handed, but in terms of the content and
meaning of the passage, perfectly correct. Paul does not mean to
assert that Christ created himself, and he of course did not create God;
rather he is the agent of creating everything else...'
*******
Perspi
Pauls comments deal only with mankind or the world of mankind and not the non-human world. And the title firstborn represents His position as God to such humanity or world created by Him just as John stated in John 1:1. The dual nature of this Christ is taken into account in this explanation by Paul as this Christ is now both Logos and Christ and can be addressed as either or both. For example:
1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Christ was raised as Logos to the position He held before mankind was created and as both creator and Savior of them is pre-imminent over them. Using this nature He also raised His own body (with such further use permitted by His Father) to complete His assignment as King of His Kingdom which will function to restore all qualified mankind.
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Everything mentioned here is human, from men of authority (in heaven) to common man (in earth). Broken down such rule be it visible (near) or invisible (far away as in Rome) or at some level of government (thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers) all this was created by Him and for him (permitted to exist to maintain order).
This same analogy is used in regard to the faith where some will occupy such heavenly positions, Paul continues:
1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
This does not mean that others have not died and been raised to life. But non of them were pre-imminent having authority over the rest so raised as Christ is the firstborn over them. In these texts the context for firstborn is: = preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
This includes those things in heaven that will rule over such things in earth in this Kingdom. So we have:
:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
All this will come together when the resurrection takes place here on earth.
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Thus every creature under heaven to which this discourse is directed (not non-human creatures) may take comfort from such words.
Joseph
Edited by - JosephMalik on 26 June 2002 17:26:16
Robert_F,
I think that to a large extent we are playing the same tune.
I had thought your support for 'and the Word was God' was implying it was the only accurate English translation of what John wrote. As you agree with the translators of the NEB "that ['and what God was, the Word was'] is more accurate", I clearly misunderstood the point you were making.
While we agree that the translators of the NEB changed it to make the meaning clearer, it seems rather subjective for you to insist it is a Trinitarian meaning. More to the point is that "what God was, the Word was" emphasises WHAT the Word was, not WHO the Word was. As you had said earlier.
And that is why I think the NEB is more akin to "the Word was a God". That translation is emphasizing WHAT the Word was in contrast to "the Word was God" which many (incorrectly) understand to refer to WHO the Word was. Both the NEB and the NWT say the same thing, but the NEB travels a more tortuous route.
Earnest
Edited by - Earnest on 28 June 2002 13:10:33
What is the point of all this??? Who ever translates the Greek to English is going to change the words to fit their point of view. Hello!. We have one verse translated 100 different ways. The whole concept of the 'verse' screwed up everything in the first place. There are no 'verses' in the originals. Whoever put them in (I forgot his name) did so pretty much at random. Forget the #s! Just read!
You Know is a SNAKE! (eat the apple, its good for you!!)
