The Trinity

by meadow77 740 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

herk
Some Translations that Disagree at John 1:1
with the King James Version
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S., 1794, "a God"

Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D, 1809, "a God"

Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"

Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god"

Andrews Norton, D.D., 1833, "a god"

Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Robert Young, 1885 (Concise Commentary), "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]"

J.N. Jannaris, 1901, "[A]nd was a god"

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church, 1903, "a God"

Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]

Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]

George William Horner, 1911, "[A]nd (a) God was the word"

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine."

Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]

Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind]

Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god"

Pefflin, 1949, "war von gottlicher Wucht" [was of divine Kind/kind]

Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]

James L. Tomanec, 1958, "[T]he Word was a God"

Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]

Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort" [God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word]

New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"

Cotton Parch Version, 1970, "and the Idea and God were One"

Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature"

Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos"

Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]

Simple English Bible, 1980, "and the Message was Deity"

Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981, "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity."

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "Er war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich" [He was with God and in all like God]

Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine"

Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].

Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was"

Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was"

Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

International English Bible, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]"

21st Century NT Literal, "In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god."
DakotaRed

Dakota,
"John 1:1 has also been shown to be a poor translation,"

This is proof that you are the one turning a blind eye. Dakota, is that why almost every single translation says "the Word was God"?
Or is that why A.T. Robertson (world reknown Greek Scholar) said it was a proper translation? I don't see where you've shown it to be a poor translation.

And again, one verse, one scholar. And yet, you still refuse to see that if the Word is God and yet with God, you are left with two Gods! You cannot be with yourself in language. I also note you say "almost every single translation." Interesting word, almost. Coult it be because translators and scholars are in disagreement over it? Yet, I show you where Jesus clearly calls another "the ONLY true God," and it is worded as that in every single translation, with absolutely no deviation, you ignore it or say it isn't proper.
But, pray tell, if A.T. Robertson, the "world reknowed Greek Scholar" is correct about John 1:1c, how then does he justify the translations of John 4:19 as "..a prophet," John 8:44 as "....a murderer," John 10:1 as "..a thief," John 10:33 as "..a man," when they contain the same exact sentence structure in Greek as does John 1:1c? Surely, since it is admitted that the *literal* translation of John 1:1c is "and a god was the word," but they feel that to be misleading and so properly, as you put it, translate it as "and the Word was God," shouldn't the above also be John 4:19 as ".. prophet," John 8:44 as ".... murderer," John 10:1 as ".. thief," John 10:33 as "..man?" Why is it only proper to deviate from the *literal* when it suits the trinity?
As to name calling, LOL, early one, you belittled me as unsaved and not worthy of you and insinuated I was to burn in your ficticous hell. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Remember, your precious KJV also says "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?"
If you care to learn the concept of neighborly love that Jesus spoke of often and taught, and show it, you may get it back in return. But, that violates the feelings of supiority that Born Again Fundamentalists seem to think they have.
Lew W (of the Dear God, please protect us from your followers class)
DakotaRed

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
Do you worship 15 Gods?

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Romans 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (RSV)

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. (RSV)

1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us. (RSV)

John 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. (RSV)

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (RSV)

1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (RSV)

Lew W
onacruse

A series of logical (and I assume, self-evident) propositions:
1) God is infinite.
2) Distinguish infinity into three parts.
3) You have three infinite parts.
4) Finiteness cannot comprehend infinity.
5) Each of the three infinite parts are therefore individually beyond finite comprehension.
6) The combined infinity of the parts is beyond finite comprehension.
7) God is therefore beyond finite comprehension.
So, who wants ketchup with their beans?
Craig
UnDisfellowshipped

DakotaRed (Lew) said to SwedishChef:
Numerous times, you have been shown scholarly evidence that 1 John 5:7 was a added scripture, yet you continue to throw it out as proof.
I have read several different scholars' opinions and research on 1 John 5:7, and there is so much controversy surrounding that Verse, that I do not use it when I'm talking about the Trinity.
I was curious though, to see how many Translations read like the King James Version does at 1 John 5:7, and here they are:
1899 Douay-Rheims Bible
New King James Version
Third Millennium Bible
Modern King James Version (puts "The Father, The Word, and The Holy Spirit" in italics)
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (puts "The Father, The Word, and The Holy Spirit" in italics)
1833 Webster Bible (puts "The Father, The Word, and The Holy Spirit" in italics)
1898 Young's Literal Translation (puts "The Father, The Word, and The Holy Spirit" in italics)
So, out of about 30 Translations I checked, only 7 read the way the King James Version does at 1 John 5:7, and 4 of those 7 Translations put the Verse in italics to let people know that the words were probably added to the Bible.
So, that's why I don't use 1 John 5:7 in my discussions about the Trinity.
However, I do find it interesting that it says "The Father, The Word, and The Holy Spirit" instead of "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit".
I find it interesting because Jesus is only called "The Word" in the writings of the Apostle John, and it would seem to me that if I was going to add those words to the Bible, I would have put "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit".
I do definitely agree that it seems spurious based on what I have read about it.
Most of the Trinitarian scholars I have seen think that it is spurious also.
DakotaRed said:
John 1:1 has also been shown to be a poor translation
Now that is a very interesting statement to make.
I checked 36 Bible Translations, and there were only TWO that read differently!
One was the "New World Translation" -- The Watchtower's "Bible". (Need I say more)
The Watchtower's John 1:1 reads:
"In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
The other was "Johannes Greber's Bible".
The Watchtower used Greber's Bible to try and support their Translation of John 1:1.
Do you know who Greber was?
He was a SPIRIT MEDIUM who contacted DEMONS!
Greber wrote a book called "Communication with the Spirit World".
He said that "spirits" flashed the words in front of his eyes that he should put in his Bible Translation!
He said, on page 21 of that book, that the first thing that one of the "spirits" told him to change in the Bible, was the Apostle Thomas saying to Jesus, "My Lord and my Master" instead of "My Lord and my God" as it exists in all known Greek texts.
On pages 267-268 of his book, Greber says that one of the "spirits" told him that God created Christ and then all [other] things were created by and through Christ.
Then, on pages 366-369 of his book, Greber says that the "spirit" told him that forgery was resorted to by individuals to insert doctrines such as the Deity of Christ in the New Testament. He mentions such passages as Rom. 9:3,4; Titus 2:13; Phil. 2:5,6; 1 John 5:20 and John 1:1 where this occured.
He said that one of the main things the "spirits" had told him was that Jesus was "a god", not THE God, and that Jesus was the first created angel of God.
Now, why would DEMONS tell someone that Jesus is actually "a god" and not The God?
All 34 of the other Translations I checked read the exact same as the King James Version of John 1:1.
I have read several scholars' opinions and research, and I have yet to find anyone doubt that John 1:1 should read "The Word was God".
Also, DakotaRed said:
And yet, you still refuse to see that if the Word is God and yet with God, you are left with two Gods!
And, if it is Translated as "The Word was a god" you're not left with two Gods?
How do you think John 1:1 should be Translated?
John 1:1 is saying that the Word and the Father are God, not two Gods.
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 10 December 2002 4:11:38
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 10 December 2002 4:26:58
LittleToe

Is the state of Godhood a title or a nature (distinct from angelic life)?
Is the state of Manhood a title or a nature (distinct from animal life)?
Craig:
Nice to see that you relieved the itch
I was surprised how my view of the scriptures changed when I started reading Father, when it said Father, and God, when it said God. Previously I had been trained to read them synonymously.
I heard recently that 1 John 5:7 is regaining some credibility, due to some more ancient manuscript finds. Can anyone confirm that?
UnDisfellowshipped

Also, if the Apostle John was simply saying that the Word was Divine, and not God, why doesn't John 1:1 include the Greek word "theios", which means "Divine" or "Deity", instead of "theos", which means God?
That would have made things a lot more clear, if that's what John was trying to say.
Also, here is an interesting Website about John 1:1: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm
herk

Trinitarians don't like to be labeled as gullible, but the facts are the facts. Note two examples in the above posts. UnDisfellowshipped wrote:
. . . I don't use 1 John 5:7 in my discussions about the Trinity. However, I do find it interesting that it says "The Father, The Word, and The Holy Spirit" instead of "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit". I find it interesting because Jesus is only called "The Word" in the writings of the Apostle John, and it would seem to me that if I was going to add those words to the Bible, I would have put "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit".
LittleToe wrote:
I heard recently that 1 John 5:7 is regaining some credibility, due to some more ancient manuscript finds.
Because it supports the pagan doctrine of the Trinity, UnDisfellowshipped is willing to give some benefit of the doubt to a verse that was deliberately added to the Bible. He tries to see some value in a scheme to make the Bible teach something that it doesn't. So, he is suspicious that it was added despite what even Trinitarian scholars have to say about it. He writes that "it would seem to me that if I was going to add those words to the Bible, I would have put 'The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.'" Obviously, this is meant to suggest that perhaps there is something divine about the addition, after all, since it says "The Word" instead of "The Son." What other reason could UnDisfellowshipped have than his hope that maybe the added text belongs in the Bible? Rather than show disdain for something that will bring a curse upon someone, he tends to want to show support for the cursed person.
"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deuteronomy 4:2)
"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it." (Deuteronomy 12:32)
"Do not add to his words or he will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." (Proverbs 30:6)
"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18)
LittleToe hopefully looks for the impossible. How can one even imagine that 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Bible? It didn't appear in even one Greek manuscript until the 16th century when the Reformation began! It was absent from the Bible for 3/4 of the time from Christ until now! It's like someone adding to the American Constitution in the year 3300 AD and claiming that Thomas Jefferson wrote it.
But watch, these Trinitarians will make an attempt to defend their biased view. Instead of accepting the fact that they truly are gullible and ready to believe anything that supports this pagan teaching, they will try to show they had some good reason for saying what they said.
Herk
JosephMalik

I heard recently that 1 John 5:7 is regaining some credibility, due to some more ancient manuscript finds.

Because it supports the pagan doctrine of the Trinity, UnDisfellowshipped is willing to give some benefit of the doubt to a verse that was deliberately added to the Bible. He tries to see some value in a scheme to make the Bible teach something that it doesn't.
Hello Herk,
Added or not it makes no difference. Either way the trinity is NOT taught in 1 John 5:7. I went through all this "the verse is spurious" routine years ago so in Beyond Trinitarianism I show how even if it was a valid text it still does not teach a trinity. It isimply teaches a unity of the faith that is similar to what is found in Matt. 28:19.
You really had some good sources for John 1:1. If trinitarians are going to be literal then be literal with the entire text and admit there are two Gods and not just be literal with one word of it. But John wanted to say the WORD was God because he wanted to explain such use of this term which was also used of David as King. The Geneology lists did this for the other Gospels going all the way back to the Justified Adam but John completed the task by way going all the way back to the creator of humanity itself. So this is simply an abbreviated geneology list with a little more detail added to it. It fills out what was missing in the others and provides further proof that this Word that became flesh was qualified to redeem mankind (taking Adams place). John's gospel consists mostly of fills of this sort and very of his little material is common with the others. The way he discusses the last passover but avoids what was already adequately covered in the other gospels is another example. Fills with just enough information to stay in sync with the others.
Joseph
Edited by - JosephMalik on 10 December 2002 10:56:48
DakotaRed

And yet, you still refuse to see that if the Word is God and yet with God, you are left with two Gods!

And, if it is Translated as "The Word was a god" you're not left with two Gods?
How do you think John 1:1 should be Translated?

John 1:1 is saying that the Word and the Father are God, not two Gods.
First off, UnD, I wouldn't be all that hard on Gerber. Yes, He was a spirit medium, but does that negate his abilities and education in translating ancient Greek into modern English? Although I don't readily have the numbers, I was shocked to discover that quite a few respected Biblical Greek scholars don't even believe in God and have no religious affiliation, yet their work is also readily accepted. To me, that would be similar to declaring the US Constitution null and void today due to many of it's authors owning slaves back then. Just my thoughts.
On to your words about John 1:1
Please note the difference between God (capitalized) and god (lower case). The latter being used to denote many different ones in the Bible, and the first being used to denote the Supreme Deity. Ancient Greek had no punctuation nor capitalization in the ancient scripts, it was up to the reader to supply them. Although not a student of Greek myself, I have read many different accounts of John 1:1 and it's translation and in Greek wording, there is a difference between the wording of theos in "the Word was with God" and "the Word was God." I included comments on this by Professor Jason BeDuhn, of Northern Arizona University (who trinitarians have tried to discredit due to his once using the Watchtowers Interlinear Bible to teach Greek, but who has no more love or support of the JWs than any other religion), in an earlier reply addressing the translation. I mention this as I don't wish to repeat it here, but will, if you like.
If you look to Vines Expository Dictionary, you will find a statement under the subject "God," of "To translate it literally, "a god was the Word," is entirely misleading." I submit that to translate it as they have for so long as "and the Word was God" is equally as misleading. I also find it curious that we would not want the literal translation of a scripture. Throughout the book of John, Jesus is called the Son of God, not God. Also throughout John, Jesus is continually showing himself lesser to God. Surely, if John was trying to tell us he was actually God, wouldn't he have been more consistent?
The same word theos is used in relation to satan at 2 Corinthians 4:4, yet he is not also declared God, is he? That is why in Greek, when denoting the Supreme God, it is written as ho theos, or literally, "the God." Without the ho, it is literally, "a god." In John 1:1, the first instance is written as ho theos and the second, theos. So, I see John not telling us the Word was God, but that he was part of a class of beings, spirits, in the beginning. Some other translations use wording as "divine" or "godlike," as shown by Herks post of many various renderings of John 1:1 recently (btw, thanks for that, Herk, I saved that one in my files).
How would I like to see it, you ask? I have no problem with "a god" as I see a difference between God and god. But I also acknowledge that it gives others problems. So I equally have no problem with substituting words as "divine" and "godlike" used to try to gain the true meaning of what John was trying to tell us.
The Technicalities of John 1:1
John 1:1 has been subjected to a minute analysis by commentators of every shade of opinion It is obvious that some modern translations are blatantly Trinitarian interpretations. The Living Gospels(Tyndale House 1966) reads: "Before anything else existed there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is Himself God " But that is to raise the whole Trinitarian problem. Suddenly God is two persons. A little-known fact is that the "word" was not assumed to be a second person in translations prior to the King James Version. The Bishops' Bible of 1568, replaced by the King James Bible in 1611, understands the word to be impersonal, and uses the pronoun "it," as does the Geneva Bible of 1560.
It is an assumption that by "word" John meant a second uncreated personal being
alongside the One God. John elsewhere recognizes that the Father is the "only true God"
(John 17:3) and "the one who alone is God" (John 5:44). Many have recognized an
obvious connection between the "word" and what is said of Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible.
In Proverbs "Wisdom" is personified and is said to be "with" God (Prov. 8:30). John says
that the "word" was "with [pros] God." In the Old Testament a vision, word or purpose is
said to be "with" the person who receives it or possesses it. The word has a quasi-
existence of its own: "The word of the Lord is with him"; "the prophet has a dream
with him." It was in the heart of David (literally, "with his heart") to build a temple.
Wisdom is "with God. (2 Kings 3:12; Jer. 23:28 (Heb.); 1 Kings 8:17; 2 Chron. 6:7; Job
12:13, 16; Job 10:13: "with you" is parallel to "concealed in your heart," i.e., "fixed in
your decree." See also Job 23:10, 14)
The latter is a striking parallel to John's opening sentence. In the New Testament something impersonal can be "with" a person, as, for example, where Paul hopes that "the truth of the Gospel might remain with [pros} you," present to the mind (Gal. 2:5). At the opening of John's first epistle, which may provide just the commentary we need on John 1:1, he writes that "eternal life was with [pros] the Father" (1 John 1:2). On the basis of these parallels it is impossible to say with certainty that the "word" in John 1:1-2 must mean a second member of the Trinity, that is, the Son of God preexisting.
John goes on to say that "the word was God" (John 1:1). Intense discussion of the exact meaning of "God" (which has no definite article) has made the whole passage seem complex. According to some a rule established by Colwell demands that the absence of the article does not weaken John's intention to say that the word was fully God and identified with Him. Others have insisted that "God" without the article is John's way of telling us that the word had the character of God and was fully expressive of His mind. The Trinitarian Bishop Westcott's opinion is much respected and has the tentative approval of Professor Moule:
Bishop Westcott's note [on John 1:1], although it may require the addition of some reference to idiom, does still, perhaps, represent [John's] intention:
"[God] is necessarily without the article (theos, not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say that 'the Word was ho theos.'" (C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1953 pg 116.)
The bishop's point was that the "word" cannot be distinct from God (with God) and at the same time identified with Him. This would blur all distinctions in the Godhead. Rather, John describes the nature of the "word," and the absence of the article before God "places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its mere identity. An object of thought may be conceived of from two points of view: as to identity or quality. To convey the first point of view the Greek uses the article; for the second the anarthrous construction is used."
Quoted from The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianitys Self Inflicted Wound, pg 270 & 271, Buzzard and Hunting
Lew W

The Trinity

Share this