by Dansk 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hey...
'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done."
Duh...is anybody reading? Now I don't care for the teaching of the Dubs anymore than many here, but is everyone just biased with their own thinking against the Dubs--duh? Read Inkie above--again--and if you haven't, read it now.
Inkie
"If he wanted to appear to his followers in the form of a dancing banana, he could." ..... Meet my god: http://people.cornell.edu/pages/slp29/pbj.html
As for how scholars translate the scripture, go to Bible Gateway and type in the scripture. You will find 14 different translations. Every single one of them translates the scripture "the word was God", except for those who are even more adamant about it.
The point here, is not whether God is a trinity. This would be like argueing whether spiderman has blue eyes. God is just pretend, so feel free to pretend him in any configuration you wish. The point is that the Society blatantly and dishonestly misquoted this man, as they have done many other times. Their ideas are not strong enough to stand without deception.
Inkie,
Since leaving JWs, I've also become aware that there are many translations that are similar to the NWT. Thanks for posting that interesting list. As you are probably aware, a similar list could be drawn up for Bible translations in languages other than English.
It seems you and I and some others here are in agreement that neither side of the Trinitarian/JW controversy can use John 1:1 to build a strong case for their doctrine. The fact that scholarly translators have chosen to render the verse in basically two ways shows that it doesn't conclusively prove the Trinity and it doesn't conclusively prove that Jesus is "a god."
Still, I wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets stretched into many pages. As weak as their case is, some see John 1:1 as the principal support for what they believe about God and Christ. There are others who will add their 2 cents worth by mocking both sides. I think it's a shame in this 21st century that so many still lose their cool when discussing this simple verse. One of my great disappointments is that I've allowed myself to become swept into such heated discussions. I also think it's a shame that your list will probably be ignored by most of the participants here.
Herk
Herk:
Thanks for your "reasonable" words. I appreciate them. I agree with your assessments and final conclusion. It's unfortunate (for those others) that you've, in all likelihood, 'hit the nail right on the head.'
Inkie
The fact that this guy ends his comments with "They should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell," tells me that he is as quacky as the JWs.
Amac , I agree totally! I also think Inkie has done a good job in producing a contrary list. Isn't it amazing that there's one group of "Expert Greek and Hebrew Scholars" in favour of the Trinity and another group of "Expert Greek and Hebrew Scholars" in favour of a monotheistic God. Who, then, really are the experts?
Personally, I can't get my head around the Trinity doctrine, nor can I believe in hell-fire. Nor can I believe that the BIble was inspired of God. With experts like the above I think I'll just stick to my attempts at producing good Karma.
Dansk
So many good comments in this thread.
Inkie:
Others...have recognized that the rendering "a god" is grammatically possible.
You cut right to the quick with that, and your remonstrations are well-taken. It's a fact that the grammatical structure of John 1:1 allows for both "a god" and "God," as evidenced by your references, and by many other Greek commentaries as well. There are several Bible verses like John 1:1 that are "ambiguous" in the grammatical sense and can only be translated based on the theological perspective of the translator. The NWT rendering is not intrinsically "right," nor is it categorically "wrong."
Mary:
after much debate, the Trinity was accepted for a variety of reasons
The very fact that there was so much debate is historical proof that even the 1st-century Chrstians weren't clear in their own minds. There are numerous passages from the "Church Fathers" that support the Deity of Christ, and then there are other passages from those same writers that seem to indicate (read could be interpreted to suggest) to indicate the non-Deity of Christ.
metatron:
I have been puzzled by John - he seems mystical and almost Gnostic in his writings
If we accept the general idea that John wrote toward the end of the 1st-century (and if it was really John the apostle who wrote), then we can speculate that John was finally, after decades of debate in the Christian community, stating his "take" on the issue. For myself, I think he was pro-Deity of Christ, but recognized that there were "mystical" aspects of that idea that can't be "defined" in words. After all, how would one intellectually describe the presence of an infinite Being in the finite world?
A couple of books that I've found very useful in my studies about this: The Origin of Christology by C.F.D. Moule (Professor of Divinity at Cambridge U.), and particularly The Christology of the New Testament, by Oscar Cullman (Doctor of Divinity at Edinburgh U.) Also A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker (Professor of ecclesiastical history at Yale U.) My comments above are derived from their works.
Craig
There is no doubt that the Word spoken of by John is Christ. This was the whole thrust of John in his Gospel. "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" couldn't be a more explicit term used by John on who the Word is, so this would shatter the whole theory that it might not be Christ who was the Word, for what other Word can become flesh and dwell among us? So too, the thrust of the Gospels in general is to present Jesus, so in that sense alone we can see that John clearly points to Christ when he speaks of the Word.
G'day Dansk,
I salute you for your post at the head of this thread.
Whatever we believe about the nature of God, it's important to state that the WTS has added to scripture in furtherance of its own teachings.
I don't promote my own feelings in this regard, but I do feel it's important to face our own personal belief or not in the Bible. If we do believe it's the word of God, then on what basis can we add to it, as the WTS does?
Personally I feel that understanding the nature of God is secondary to our realisation of the role of Christ. But that's my personal view. It was when I was challenged over the role of Christ and finding no satisfactory response to my challenge whilst working in the halls of Bethel that I had to stand back and say, "Now what?"
Cheers, Ozzie
Lord Zagato,
You wrote:
There is no doubt that the Word spoken of by John is Christ.
There are many persons who for good reasons do have doubts. And so, it would be more accurate for a person to say "There is no doubt in my personal view."
It is merely an assumption to say "This was the whole thrust of John in his Gospel." John himself says his "thrust" was "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)
From William Tyndale on down to translators of today, others have had a view different from yours. Note that several translators do not personify "the word." It is not a "him." "The word" is an "it":
The problem I have with your statement is that it is more dogmatic than you have a right to be. It is possible to understand "the word" as being just that, the "word" spoken by God Himself, the same "word" that brought into existence all other things, as shown by the verses I quoted above in an earlier post.
It is also possible to view differently than you do the phrase "the word became flesh." For example, when God promised Abraham that he would "surely become a great and mighty nation," he did not mean that the future nation would literally be Abraham. (Gen 18:18) He meant that Abraham would produce that nation. Similarly, the man Jesus Christ can be viewed as the product of God's "word." That "word" produced the heavens and the earth. It can also produce a human being.
I realize that this is a concept not popular in today's world. We've all heard another interpretation, either from trinitarians or from JWs. But when we put aside their concepts and read the Bible from the standpoint of the time when it was written, we can arrive at another understanding that may be more in keeping with the writer's intention.
Mary asked above in one of her posts:
How can God go from being "One" in the Old Testament, to being three in the New Testament? The Israelites/Jews never believed in a Trinity; they believed in one God, Yahweh.
That is an appropriate question, in view of what Jesus said concerning himself and other Jews of his time on earth: "We worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)
"......This is GOD, for heaven's sake. If he, tomorrow, wanted to split himself into 4 entities, two of which were lop eared bunny rabbits, he could. If he wanted to appear to his followers in the form of a dancing banana, he could. The biggest problem I have with fundamental Christianity is that they seek, on a daily basis, to LIMIT the very deity they turn around and exalt as the infinitely powerful creator of the universe. It's stupid. There's not a 'nicer' way to put it. Just stupid....."
Sara, I don't appreciate you telling me my post is "stupid", just because I ask a simply question. Yes, God could split himself into 4 entities if he wanted to, but seeing as we have no way of knowing whether He's done this or not, all we can go by, is what's written in the Bible. I'm not trying to "limit" God; I'm simply stating that if He revealed Himself to the nation of Israel as "one", then from a human standpoint, He wouldn't suddenly become "three gods in one" in the NT.
