by JesusISJehovah 45 Replies latest watchtower bible
Because, as I said before, Jehovah is not a name, but a derivative of the verb "to be" (in Hebrew).
God has no static name, he was called something different in the New Testament.
The OT and the NT, are in different languages.
That is why the Jehovah's witnesses are wrong. God has no name, He is. He needs no name, He is.
You may find the article Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns at http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/colwell.htm will enhance your understanding of Colwell's Rule which many cite with a dogmatism completely alien to Colwell himself.
Earnest
God has no name
The OT speaks of God's name, even Jesus spoke of God's name yet you say "God has no name?"
Who gave you this authority?
IW
"Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article" This is from the article you recommended.
theos en ho logos
that was the original greek
theos is before the verb, lacks an article, and is definite. If you wish, you may add the "ho" definite article (yeilding "ho theos en ho logos") but the meaning remains the same.
let me give you a little history lesson:
Today, names are just arbitrary labels, but in ancient times, they were meant to be an insight into the nature of a person. In the OT, God says his name is "I AM" (Exodus 3:14). Originally, that "I am" was in Hebrew, but when that NT was written, it was written in greek, and therefore, the "I AM" of Hebrew (Yahweh) was no longer applicable, and He was called "kurios" (a different name, with a different meaning, offering different insight into who God is), therefore, as I said before, God has no static name. It changes. In the OT, he wanted the Jews to refer to him as I AM, and they spoke Yiddish. We speak English, and because he hasn't designated to us what he wants to be called in English, we revert to the literal translation of the greek (Lord, God etc) or, in the case of the JW's, the Yiddish Jehovah.
Lord help us, another quasi scholar chimes in.
Colwells rule, eh? Please explain why that same rule does not apply at John 4:19 were it's translated as "..a prophet," or John 8:44 as "....a murderer," or John 10:1 as "..a thief," or John 10:33 as "..a man," when the original text contains NO "indefinite" article?
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
We also have s ome Translations that Disagree at John 1:1
with the King James Version
Basically, if the Word is God and was also with God, then like it or not, you are stuck with 2 Gods, and that also blows away any thought of a trinity.
Lew W
JesusISJehovah,
May I ask then, every time the name Jehovah or its equivalent is used in the OT is it translated as "I Am"?
IW
Edited by - IslandWoman on 30 December 2002 21:19:25
Welcome to the board, JesusISJehovah.
Well, I registered under the assumption that this site would be
host to a membership of predominantly Jehovah's Witnesses...
It seems you have a lot of questions...and you can see there are many knowledgeable people here that are willing to discuss these queries with you, but if you are interested in challenging the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's ideology, you will find no contention here. Most of us have already been convinced that Jehovah's Witnesses are a confused group of people, and no longer share their beliefs. Nevertheless, feel free to explore your ideas here...there is much to learn
Orbit
Wondering Where These Folks Come From...
Edited to Add:
There you go! See, DakotaRed has provided you with a number of sources to refer to--if you are genuinely interested in learning.
Edited by - OrbitingTheSun on 30 December 2002 21:23:15
Amazing "JesusisJehovah" that you are here asking that question in the first place, you seem to have all the answers already.I'm sure somewhere there is a "Trinity" link to re-assure you. But for me, I'm with IW on this one. The very simple fact was that Jesus acknowledged that the Father (Jehovah) was greater than him, why when dying did Jesus ask his father to forgive those that had done that to him? and how can Jesus sit at the "right hand side" of God? Can you sit at the right hand side of yourself? I've tried.....and you can't. honest. Keep your history lesson (respectfully of course).
Hey JiJ,
We're mostly non-JW's or ex-JW's here. You may or may not know that the official policy of the Governing Body of JW's is that their members are not to read religious information on the Internet. They are supposed to get all their info from the nipple of their spiritual "mother" in Brooklyn, NY.
So when you said "Let me give you a history lesson..." I kinda shuddered...brought back memories of being preached to at the Kingdom Hall. We have endured so much doctrinal dogma..
So when some of us seem to "shrug our shoulders" at the Trinity controversy, it's because many on the board are weary of religious controversy, having shared in it for so long...
But in the interest of clarification, when Jesus said "hallowed be thy name", couldn't the word NAME mean exactly the same as we understand it today? Or does everything (even a simple word like "name") need to be decoded? (Kind of reminds me when a president of the USA disputed what the word "is" means.)
Thanks for your consideration...
