Maybe the question should be rephrased. Is a particular bias justified, even if technically feasible, given the weight of authority in one direction or another? Even John 1:1c boils down to context after it's all said and done.
jonathan dough
JoinedPosts by jonathan dough
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
Hebrews 1:8 sure seems biased, and unscriptural, to me.
In accordance with the vast majority of translations, the inspired writer of Hebrews 1:8, 9 specifically referred to the Son as God. Chapter 1 is devoted to distinguishing Christ from angels and identifying Him as God the Son which should leave no doubt that Christ is not an angel as the Jehovah’s Witnesses preach.
[B]ut as to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your kingdom; You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; because this God, your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above your companions.” (Hebrews 1: 8, 9 Green’s Literal Translation)
According to the Catholic New American Bible “[T]he application of the name “God” to the Son derives from the preexistence mentioned in vv 2-3;…” (NAB notes 1:8-12).
…in these last days, he spoke to us through a Son,
whom he made heir of all things
and through whom he created the universe,
who is the refulgence of his glory,
the very imprint of his being,
and who sustains all things by his mighty word.When he had accomplished purification from sins,
he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, … (NAB)First, at verse 3 a literal translation says that Christ is “the express image of His essence” (Green’s Literal Translation; “imprint of His being” NAB). Here, “image” (Greek charaktar) denotes that the Son is “literally equal to God,” of whose essence he is the imprint. It is the fact of complete similarity which this Word stresses” (Strong and Vine’s, 269). Clearly, Christ could not have been created and most certainly was not an angel because either way He would not be literally equal to God, but much less.
Secondly, verse 13 quotes Psalm 110:1 where Jehovah God is said to refer to Christ as Adonai (adonay) (Hebrew for Lord) which is a title used exclusively for God (Strong and Vine’s, 6) , an interpretation even the Jehovah’s Witnesses concede (Insight, 1008). Hebrews 1:13 reads:
But to which of the angels did He ever say,
“ Sit at my right hand
until I place Your enemies as a
footstool of Your feet”? (Green’s Literal Translation)This is a direct quote of Psalm 110:1, a psalm of David, which reads:
A statement of Jehovah to my Lord (adonai):
Sit at my right hand, until I place
Your enemies as Your footstool. (Green’s Literal Translation)Adonai is identified with Interlinear Number 136 which cross-references to Strong and Vine’s entry for “adonai,” at page 6.
Not only is the Son not an angel, but this supports the interpretation of verse 8 which refers to the Son as God.
Third, it is important to note that verses 10-12 also play a significant role in the interpretation of Hebrews 1:8 because that is an Old Testament passage directed to God Almighty but “redirected to Jesus” (NAB notes 1, 8-12). Of the Son, He said:
And, “You, Lord, at the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands. They will vanish away; but You will continue; and they will all become old like a garment, and You shall fold them up like a covering, and they shall be changed. But You are the same and Your years shall not fail.” (Hebrews 1:10-12 Green’s Literal Translation)
Fourth, Hebrews 1:8 is an Old Testament quote from Psalm 45:6,7 (7,8) which also says in part “Your throne, O god…” (NAB). Psalm 45 is a royal wedding song. Here, “god” refers to “the king” who “in courtly language is called “god,” i.e., more than human, representing God to the people. Heb 1,8-9 applies 7-8 to Christ” (NAB notes Psalm 45:7).
Since they deny that Jesus is God, the Jehovah's Witnesses invert Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6 (7) to read “God is thy throne.” They justify this in part by quoting B.F. Wescott who in 1889 wrote regarding Psalm 45:6 that “It is scarcely possible that [Elohim] (god) in the original can be addressed to the king” (Reasoning, 422). Therefore, if elohim (god) cannot refer to the secular king, then a traditional rendering “Thy throne, Oh god” in Psalm 45:6 or “Thy throne, Oh God” in Heb 1:8 is not possible.
Their expert’s reasoning, however, contradicts the Jehovah's Witnesses’ own statement in the previous paragraph where they state “Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel” (Reasoning, 422). Such an obvious contradiction is perplexing, especially in light of the official definition of elohim which actually did apply to secular kings and magistrates in the Old Testament, i.e.,
… rulers; judges, either as divine, representatives, at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power, divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.” (Strong and Vine’s, 17)
A simple reading makes it quite obvious that Psalm 45 did in fact apply to a secular king, possibly Solomon. Psalm 45:6 also applied to Christ; it has a dual application as seen by reference to the throne lasting forever and ever. This cannot be said about that earthly Jewish king’s Old Testament throne at Psalm 45:6, but can be said of Christ’s throne.
Even though “throne” can refer to a seat (Matthew 23:22), heaven (Matthew 5:34), or grace (Hebrews 4:16) (Strong and Vine’s, 117), the Jehovah's Witnesses use it here exclusively with reference to “power and authority.” Thus, for them, “God is thy throne” only means God is the source of Christ’s power, authority and kingship (Reasoning, 422).
While at first glance that might be true, a deeper look at the use and application of “throne” (Greek thronos) shows that God’s throne is also Christ’s throne and if it is also Christ’s throne then it is illogical to say “God is your throne,” in the exclusive sense that it is a separate power or authority apart from Christ. It wouldn’t make sense.
For example, before the 1,000 year reign Revelation 3:21 refers to Christ sitting down with His Father on His throne, together. Christ is seen as being not only at the right hand of God’s throne at Revelation 5:6 but at 7:17 the Lamb is in the midst of God’s throne. And, at Revelation 22:3, after the millennial reign, the throne is “of God and of the Lamb;” it is both their throne, and “his servants shall worship Him” (NAB; “sacred service” NWT) which is a direct reference to the Lamb or the unity of God and the Lamb and an overt declaration that the Lamb shares the power and authority symbolized by the throne which implies equality.
Jesus illustrated the shared equality of power and authority with his “hand,” a metaphor for the power of God (Strong and Vine’s, 271).
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one. (John 10: 27-30)
Jesus is saying far more than the Father and He share a unity of purpose, as the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret these verses. Having the same purpose goes without saying. Verse 30 is “justification for v. 29; it asserts unity of power and reveals that the words and deeds of Jesus are the words and deeds God” (NAB notes 10, 30).
Out of the mutual recognition between Jesus and his own comes the gift of eternal life, and the ultimate security of believers, that is, of those who stand under the authority of Jesus (in his hand). This authority, and this security, are moreover the authority and security of God himself; say ‘Jesus’ and you have said ‘God.’ (C.K. Barrett, Peake’s Commentary, 856)
Jesus is not simply acknowledging unity of power and authority with God. To be God is to have God’s power and authority inherently. The illustration necessitates a unity of identity in the triune fashion because Jesus speaks of only one hand. If no one (including God) can take Christ’s sheep out of his hand, and no one can take these same sheep out of God’s hand (including Christ) there can only be one hand, the same hand. Thus, Jesus could rightfully claim that “The Father and I are one,” not two as the Jehovah's Witnesses argue, but one, and the same. Hence, Hebrews 1:8, “Thy throne, Oh God, is forever and ever.”
This is made all the more evident by Christ’s own proclamation that he possesses all power and authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), and rightfully so because as mentioned in section 23 since there can only be one “First and Last” and since both the risen Jesus and God Almighty are “the First and the Last”; and, because “the First and the Last” (Jesus) is also the Alpha and the Omega, and furthermore, because at Revelation 21:5 the Alpha and the Omega sits on God’s throne, the throne of power and authority is that of God and the Lamb ultimately, as one principle. The Jehovah's Witnesses don’t realize it, but by interpreting Hebrews 1:8 to read “God is your throne,” they inadvertently concede that Jesus is God.
Fifth, this “kingship” or throne of power and authority lasts forever and ever:
[B]ut as to the Son, “Your throne, O God,
is forever and ever…, (Hebrews 1:8 Green’s Literal Translation)Daniel 7:14, which the Jehovah's Witnesses cite in support of Christ’s kingship and dominion, or rule and authority, also makes it very clear that it lasts forever and shall never be destroyed:
His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Green’s Literal Translation)
But even the Jehovah's Witnesses don’t believe that. Their version of Jesus Christ, the angel, has a very limited, narrow role to play in salvation history and for all practical purposes He is dispensed with after the millennial reign. He is not regarded by them as the eternal king of an eternal kingdom, but reverts back to being an angel on the sidelines. They write:
Since sin and death are to be completely removed from earth’s inhabitants, this also brings to an end the need for Jesus’ serving as “a helper with the Father” in the sense of providing propitiation for the sins of imperfect humans. (1Jo 2:1, 2) That brings mankind back to the original status enjoyed when the perfect man Adam was in Eden. Adam, while perfect, needed no one to stand between him and God to make propitiation. So, too, at the termination of Jesus’ Thousand Year Reign rule, earth’s inhabitants will be both in position and under responsibility to answer for their course of action before Jehovah God as the Supreme Judge, without recourse to anyone as legal intermediary, or helper. (Insight, 170)
When God … raised Jesus Christ from the dead to spirit life in heaven … the heavenly Jerusalem received him into the midst of her organization of angelic sons in heaven, but as the Chief One among them, in the position of Archangel. (M. Alfs, Concepts of Father, Son and Holy Spirit [Minneapolis, Minnesota, Old Theology Book House, 1984], 71 n. 152) (Concepts)
The Jehovah's Witnesses should probably take a closer look at Hebrews 7:25: “Consequently He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” RSV). This refers to the “intercession of the exalted Jesus, not the sequel to His completed sacrifice but His eternal presence in heaven, cf. Romans 8:34 (NAB notes Hebrews 7,25).
Sixth, the Jehovah's Witnesses contend that someone other than God is speaking at Hebrews 1:8, reasoning that “God, thy God” must be someone other than God, “showing that the one addressed is not the most high God but is a worshipper of that God,” and therefore presumably cannot be God speaking (Reasoning, 422). But this argument is weak because no mention there is made of any third party “worshipping” God the Son. It refers to what God was saying about the Son; it is not the Son or anyone else speaking, but God the Father speaking of the Son and emphasizing His divinity. Chapter 1 verses 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13 are obviously in reference to what God said, and it is no different at verses 8 and 9.
Seventh, the Catholic New American Bible at John 1:18 makes an emphatic declaration that the Son is God: “No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.”
The only Son, God: while the vast majority of later textual witnesses have another reading, “the Son, the only one” or “the only Son,” the translation above follows the best and earliest manuscripts, monogenes theos, but takes the first term to mean not just “Only One,” but to include a filial relationship with the Father, as at Lk 9, 38 (“only child”) or Heb 11, 17 (“only son”) and as translated at Jn 1, 14. The Logos is thus “only Son,” and God, but not Father/God. (NAB notes 1, 18)
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
Replacing the word "Lord" with Jehovah in the NT seems to indicate a bias.
As does changing phrases like "Christ is in you" to "Christ is in union with you."
And at Colossians 1, changing reference to the Word being "before all things," to "being before all other things" (which is exactly how they write it in the Insight books, without the brackets) indicates a clear bias promoting the heretical notion that the Word was created.
There is bias involved in changing "The Word was God" to "The Word was a god."
I don't understand how anyone can deny bias here, even if it is subject to a different interpretation, and in other Bibles as well. So much of it is a judgment call. Just because one version is "possible" doesn't automatically make it non-biased in adopting that version. You can still have two versions, and adopting one over another contrary the great weight of authority indicates a clear bias.
The same goes for changing I AM to I have been, as a means of denying deity to Christ.
Bias is rampant and blatant in the NWT. Of course, the same can be said of any other Bible, so maybe it's a question of degree.
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-7.html#36
even though for any given text both options are technically feasible.
But I don't think that bias requires that one version be technically false, or that it is enough for one version to be technically feasible.
And even if one version might be "technically" feasible, if it is logically or scripturally improbable, or within a given context should lean one way over the other, that's where the bias comes in. The NWT is horribly biased. For all practical purposes it is not a Bible and a person is advised to obtain a more accurate Bible.
Perhaps the problem here is the lack of clear definition of what "bias" means in this context.
-
165
evolution question
by outsmartthesystem init has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.
being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.
i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.
-
-
jonathan dough
Start here: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20
And anything you need to know about atheism is right here:
-
83
Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation
by Londo111 into be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.
obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.
but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.
-
-
jonathan dough
Plenty of websites devoted to the NWT at the link below.
The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation Bible, of which there are over 100 million copies circling the globe, continues to come under intense criticism by respected Bible scholars the world over. Although the Watchtower Society boasts of a handful of defenders, the vast majority of Bible scholars are vehement in denouncing the New World Translation Bible as a horrific distortion of God's word claiming it is false and misleading, and crafted for the sole purpose of promoting the Jehovah's Witnesses' unorthodox theories.
A careful examination of the New World Translation Bible reveals this to be true. It is unfortunate that many potential converts' initial exposure to a Bible of any kind is the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation, never suspecting that liberties to such a great degree could be taken by God-fearing people. Consequently, they too often give the Watchtower Society and their New World Translation Bible the benefit of the doubt until it is too late. As it turns out, the Jehovah's Witnesses really do have their own Bible as alleged, and it is a radical departure from Holy Scripture.
Critics decry their Bible as being written, or mistranslated, by non-Greek speaking pseudo-scholars, totally unqualified to translate the Greek into any language. This criticism is robust and extensive. Here are just a few examples of how they have altered God's word:
Whereas the great majority of Bibles interpret John 1:1 as "...the Word was God," the New World Translation claims the "Word was a god," thereby denying the deity of Christ. Collosians 1:17 provides that the Word was "before all things" and therefore could not have been created but is eternal, but the New World Translation inserts the word "other" to allow room for the Word's creation and inferiority to God, stating that the Word was "before all [other] things." Throughout the New Testament of the New World Translation, the word "Lord" is changed to "Jehovah" despite the tetragrammaton YHWH not existing in any of the known 5,000 original manuscript texts. The word "in" is changed to "in union with" so that Christ is not actually within the Christian, thereby denying the indwelling. Christ's identifying himself as the I AM and deity is changed to "I have been" at John 8:58.
The list goes on. The New World Translation Bible's voluminous mistranslations are extensive and profoundly alter the very definition of Christianity. It is the primary tool employed to turn mainstream Christianity upside down and invert 2,000 years of Bible truths. And it is no wonder that respected critics of the New World Translation Bible refer to selected portions of their works as "a shocking mistranslation," "obsolete and incorrect," and "an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar." Bible students are cautioned in relying solely on the New World Translation Bible and should seriously consider cross-referencing it with reputable texts. Better yet, discard the New World Translation altogether and get a real Bible. Reliable Christian texts are abundant.http://www.144000.110mb.com/directory/new_world_translation_bible_holy_scriptures.html
-
17
When...JERUSALEM DESTROYED? PART TWO - c.o.Jonsson
by diamondiiz inhttp://kristenfrihet.se/vtsvar/vtsvar2.pdf.
i loved part 1 by jonsson so this one should be great read as well..
-
-
jonathan dough
Larsinger58: Jonsson is not taken seriously by more experienced Bible chronologists in regards to the 70 years of servitude/desolation because it is not an issue of the nations serving for 70 years but those of the last deportation as noted by Josephus in Ant. 11.1.1.
Utter nonsense. Jonsson is in line with the most reputable scholars familiar with the issues, as he points out at page 6-7 in the first part of his treatise. I'll quote some of it here.
As Professor Norman Gottwald points out:
“Certainly it must be stressed that the seventy years refer primarily to the time of Babylonian world dominion and not to the time of the exile, as is often carelessly supposed.” (N. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, New York, Evanston, London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964, pp. 265, 266)This is the conclusion of many historians and Bible commentators, not just “some”, as the authors of the Watchtower article state on page 27, evidently in an attempt to defuse this important observation.
Some examples were quoted in GTR4 on page 215, and many other leading scholars agree. One example is Professor Jack Finegan, whose Handbook of Biblical Chronology is a classic. In the second edition, published in 1998 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers), he concludes on page 255:
“The „seventy years … for Babylon,? of which Jeremiah speaks are therefore seventy years of Babylonian rule, and the return of Judah from exile is contingent upon the end of that period. Since the final fall of the Assyrian empire was in 609 B.C. (§ 430), and the New Babylonian empire endured from then until Cyrus the Persian took Babylon in 539, the period of Babylonian domination was in fact seventy years (609 – 539 = 70).”
Another recent example is Dr. Jack Lundbom, an internationally respected authority on the book of Jeremiah. His three-volume commentary on Jeremiah in the Anchor Bible series is the most extensive and detailed modern commentary on the book, covering 2262 pages in all (Vol. I, 1999, XXV+934 pages; Vol. II, 2004, XVI+649 pages; and Vol. III, 2004, XIV+638 pages). In his discussion of the 70 years in Jeremiah 25:10-12 and 29:10 Dr. Lundbom concludes that this period refers “not to the length of Judah?s exile or to „Jerusalem?s desolations? but to Babylon?s tenure as a world power (Duhm).” He further observes:
Classical Historians – How Accurate? – The Canon of Ptolemy
7“From the fall of Nineveh (612 B.C.) to Babylon?s capture by Cyrus (539 B.C.) was 73 years; from the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.– Nebuchadrezzar?s first year; cf. 25:1) to Babylon?s capture by Cyrus (539 B.C.) was 66 years; and from the actual end of the Assyrian Empire (609/8 B.C.) to Babylon?s capture by Cyrus and the return of the exiles (539 B.C.) was almost precisely 70 years.” (Vol. II, Doubleday, 2004, pp. 249, 250)
The answer to the question, “?Seventy Years? for Whom?”, then, is “for Babylon.” This is what Jeremiah clearly predicted at Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:10. The claim of the authors of the Watchtower article, that the Bible “shows that the 70 years were to be a period of severe punishment from God – aimed specifically at the people of Judah and Jerusalem,” conflicts both with Jeremiah?s prophecy and with the extra-Biblical historical evidence and is clearly false.
-
25
Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal
by slimboyfat ina couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.
a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.
the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.
-
-
jonathan dough
"The lord of me and the God of Me".
The word who is Christ, is WITH God and IS God.
Yes.
The Word’s relation to the Godhead, in the sense of being “with” God does not mean “mere company, but the most intimate communion” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words Compilated and Expanded upon in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible [Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001], 152) (Strong and Vine’s). This intimacy of the Word with God is a product of their mutual indwelling, among other things, the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (John 17:21 NAB). Furthermore, the Word (Logos) is the personal manifestation, “not of a part of the divine nature, but of the whole deity” (Strong and Vine’s, 152).
His answer to Christ, "My Lord and my God, “forms a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: “and the Word was God” (NAB notes John 20, 28).
-
25
Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal
by slimboyfat ina couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.
a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.
the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.
-
-
jonathan dough
Anyone who argues that the Word was, or was not, God based solely on John 1:1c is simply wagging the dog by the tail. Overall context of the Bible is the determining factor, all of the proof texts that establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was, and is, God, as that concept is understood in the trinitarian world.
And here is the proof. http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20
-
25
Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal
by slimboyfat ina couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.
a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.
the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.
-
-
jonathan dough
Ontological identity of the Logos with God would mean that Jesus is also the Father, which Trinitarianism claims to reject.
Again, you don't understand the Trinity doctrine. In particular, you are confused about the difference between immanent trinity (the triune God before creation) and economic trinity (post creation). When John 1:1 refers to the relationship of God and the Word in the beginning, it speaks of immanent trinity. It has nothing to do with Jesus born to Mary (economic trinity). You're right, the church rejects the heresy that the Father became the bleeding Son on the cross, that the father became the son; this is the lie that the Jehovah's Witnesses continue to spread, that this is what real Christians believe, but that is not mainstream teaching. That is the heresy of patripassianism. John 1:1c isn't claiming to say that the Word was Jesus. That is simply not true and mischaracterizes the issue.
But in fact, if the Logos is the same in every way with the Being described as God in the Bible, then "the Word is God" can only mean that the Word is the Father.
More confusion. You have to ask in what sense they are equal. God the Son and God the Father are equal with respect to divinity, power and nature.There is subordination of relation and order among the three Persons, but not in nature:
Moreover, the subsistence and operations of the three Persons are marked by a certain order involving a certain subordination in relation, though not in nature. The Father as the fount of deity is First: He is said to originate. The Son, eternally begotten of the Father, is Second: he is said to reveal. The Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, is Third: He is said to execute.
While this does not suggest priority in time or in dignity, since all three Persons are divine and eternal, it does suggest an order of precedence in operation and revelation. Thus we can say that creation is from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)
Each Person has the divine nature, but each has it differently:
Whatever is other, distinct, plural, personal, and proper in the Godhead is exclusively a matter of relationship. Father, Son and Spirit do not differ as God, but in the way each is God with respect to the others. Each has and is the divine nature, but each has it differently: the Father from Himself, the Son from the Father, the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. God, then, is one in substance, three in Person, and what is significant about this distinction, what makes it non-contradictory, is that what is personal in the Godhead is not something absolute, but something purely relative, (Council of Florence, 1442). (Catholic Encyclopedia, 303)
The doctrine also holds that the divine Persons exist in their relationships to one another:
The three divine Persons exist in their particular, unique natures as Father, Son and Spirit in their relationships to one another, and are determined through these relationships. It is in these relationships that they are Persons. Being a person in this respect means existing-in-relationship. (Trinity and the Kingdom, 172)
[T]he three divine Persons possess the same individual, indivisible and one divine nature, but they possess it in varying ways. The Father possesses it of himself; the Son and the Spirit have it from the Father (ibid., 172). The Trinitarian Persons subsist in the common divine nature; they exist in their relations to one another. (ibid., 173)
“A divine Person is a non-interchangeable existence of the divine nature.” By the word ‘existence’ - existential - [he] meant: existence, in the light of another” (ibid., 173).
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html
As a matter of fact, the view which the Jehovah's Witnesses ascribe to Trinitarians - the exaggerated view of Noetus which identified “Christ with the Father,” was rejected by the church many centuries ago along with similar heretical distortions (Catholic Encyclopedia, 296).
In its extreme form it may suggest that the whole of God was, for example, present in Jesus - that heaven was empty when Jesus walked on earth. In relation to the cross, it may imply that, because there is no distinction between Father and Son, the whole of God suffers equally as Jesus dies, and indeed God dies entirely on the cross …. (Oxford, 1211)
This and similar notions are precisely some of the “pitfalls” the “doctrine of the Trinity sets out to avoid …” (Oxford, 1211). Any implications or explicit assertions by the Jehovah's Witnesses to the contrary are untrue - they are false accusations.
-
25
Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal
by slimboyfat ina couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.
a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.
the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.
-
-
jonathan dough
To share divine nature does not make the Logos God any more than it makes Christians who partake of the divine nature, God. -- 2 Peter 1:4
This is also a false teaching. Let me repost part of what I wrote regarding the sharing of divine nature and the JWs' false analogy.The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that “[b]eing truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than humans are coequal or all the same age just because they share humanity or human nature” (Reasoning, 421). But that is not necessarily true. If all persons share humanity it does make them all human, and they are all equally “human.” One person is not more or less human than another. So, if the inevitability of death is one aspect of humanity, then all humans die, all are mortal; they are equal in that regard. Similarly, if divinity inherently includes an eternal nature, and Jesus and God are divine, of the same essence (consubstantial), then both are eternal.
Actually, the Jehovah's Witnesses’ comparison of Jesus with all humans who share humanity is another flawed analogy because Jesus doesn’t share God at all like humans have a share in humanity. Jesus is fully God, and not somehow made God by virtue of the hypostatic union.
At Hebrews 1:3 Christ is said to be “the very imprint of His (God’s) being” (NAB) (“the very stamp of his nature” (RS) (“the express image of His substance” (Strong and Vine’s, 269). The Greek word used here for image, stamp or imprint is charaktar and means an exact copy or representation, and stresses complete, not partial, similarity of essence.
(2) In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb 1:3, of the Son of God as “the express image of His substance.” The phrase expresses the fact that the Son “is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the imprint. The Son of God is not merely his “image” (His character), He is the “image” or impress of His substance, or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses. (Strong and Vine’s, 269)
Accordingly, such equality applies to His eternal existence, omnipotence and omniscient nature, as God and the Word are literally equal to each other with respect to their essential being.