Posts by Wonderment

50

Should Jesus be worshipped?

by Melody in

can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

Wonderment

aqwsed: "The tally of non-traditional English versions you cite is, in fact, misleading and irrelevant to the question of grammatical correctness or theological coherence. Many such renderings arise from obscure, paraphrastic, or idiosyncratic translations, often outside the mainstream of linguistic or theological scholarship."

Your answer above indicates a prejudicial conclusion. I have examined many of the translations of John 1.1 with non-traditional renderings - and their scholarly background, and what it reveals is in stark contrast with your claim above. Many of those versions come from Catholic & Protestant sources from reputable universities at that, from the world over. So your statement is not factual. The majority of versions siding with the trinitarian view of John 1.1 are not necessarily more accurate than those coming from other sources with a different exegesis. Bias goes both ways.

You keep making the very same basic mistake,i.e., that a qualitative noun is altogether different in scope and reach, exclusive from the indefinite notion. Not true. You cite Colwell, Wallace & Dixon. They as Trinitarians came up with these studies to counter the distribution of Bible readings going against the current renderings of John 1.1. They were just as biased from the start as any other. They do concede that the subject is no clear matter. The qualitative and indefinite concept can often overlap, period. Wallace admitted so. He himself produced diagrams in the book where the concept of both were connected. Why deny this?

More importantly, most translators do not follow his rules to the dot. Both Wallace & Dixon say that the indefinite notion is the least popular of the three (incl., definite). Nonsense! It is a trinitarian play.

This is what they want the Trinitarian masses to believe, but in practice translators often render pre-verbal anarthrous predicates in the nominative with the indefinite article. Why don't you take the time to verify or deny these occurrences by using the Zondervan Greek-English Concordance?

Take Acts 28.4 literally for instance: "By all means murderer is the man this"

How do most translators deal with this construction? Do they translate this indefinite-qualitative predicate like Trinitarians do with John 1.1 and end up with: By all means, this man is Murderer? No. The NIV reads: “This man must be a murderer.” Is it wrong to just say that this man is murderer? No just like it is acceptable to say that "the Word was god," in a qualitative sense.

And this brings me to the last point. You claim that the Word was God is the most accurate rendering. Really? If you believe this, then you are not making any distinction whatsoever between the articular theos and the anarthrous theos in the same verse. Verse 2 argues for a distinction between the invisible God the Word was with, and the Word who was in his presence, now arriving in flesh before mankind. It is this only-begotten Logos who can explain the invisible Father like no other, by virtue of being in close association with God.

In English, the Word was God leads the reader wrongly to identify the Word with God, and does not bring out the qualitative force as god, or divine does in this descriptive predicate. Thus various translators render, "the Word was god (or, divine, a god)." Barclay explains this matter simply.

50

Should Jesus be worshipped?

by Melody in

can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

Wonderment

aqwsed: In summary, your appeal to Wallace is misplaced: his work, and that of other scholars in the field, supports the view that the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c is best understood qualitatively, not indefinitely.

---
No, my appeal to Wallace is not misplaced. I learned decades ago that Grammarians say one thing, and translators often do another. One thing is theory or theology, which Wallace as author admits being guilty of in his Preface, and another, the real world practice. He admits it is legitimate to disagree with him. Trinitarians do obviously evade the indefinite sense in pre-Verbal anarthrous nouns in Nominative constructions, as in John 1.1 for theological reasons. They appeal to other Trinitarians, of course, like Colwell, Dixon and Harner to make you believe that John 1.1 cannot be rendered as "a god." Their PhD's are supposed to seal the matter.

The NWT offered a list of such nouns similar to the one found in John 1.1 in the discussion in the Appendix of their 1984 Bible & KIT. To this day I have not seen critics been successful proving otherwise. The critics somehow have to cling to the argument that qualitative expressions run counter to indefinite ones, a claim that does not hold up under scrutiny.

To start, the Coptic of John 1.1c uses an indefinite expression. Wright & Ricchuiti in their review, declared that this choice indicates its qualitativeness. There is no other way for Trinitarians to say it. Will they admit that Jesus could be "a god" instead of "The God"? No, they can't help themselves. I suspect you too can come up with extensive arguments against the indefinite sense of the Coptic in writing. But there it is.

Do mainstream scholars say unequivocably that a qualitative expression rules out a potential indefinite sense in many cases? Some may claim so, but their research does not hold up. The list the WT provided in the Appendix cannot be undone. One can claim that the samples provided do not support such conclusion at John 1.1. Really? If so, grammar would not be the issue, theology, then would.

For instance, Wallace cites John 4.19 [found in NW list], and concludes: “Although the translation [of John 4:19] is most naturally ‘Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet,’ the sense may be better characterized as indefinite-qualitative.” (Bold letters added)

Is he correct here? Yes, he is. In English, the translator sometimes has no choice but to use the indefinite article when the original expression may be understood in a qualitative sense. Dixon admitted: “Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by prefacing the noun with ‘a.’” This is so because translating John 4.19 literally, "I am beholding that prophet are you" is not standard English. So the "a" before "prophet" must be supplied in English to smooth things out. Incidentally, adding the indefinite article in this text is not necessary in Latin-based languages, although some translators do so.

Example: The French translation by Segond reads in John 4.19, “Je vois que tu es prophète," with no indefinite article. It sounds just fine without one. But another French translation (by Darby) adds the indefinite meaning, “Je vois que tu es un prophète."

In John 6.70, where the Greek says, "and out of you [in plural] one devil is," Dixon says: “It is best, therefore, to take διάβολος qualitatively. A good rendering might be: ‘one of you is a devil.’”

And in John 8.44, the Greek reads: "That (one) man-killer was from beginning." On this, Robert Hanna wrote: The second segment of this verse should be translated 'your father the Devil was a murderer from the beginning.'" Note: Hanna makes it clear here that grammatically adding the indefinite article is acceptable. In John 1.1, he denies it, althought the construction is similar. Why the difference? Obviously, theology is the culprit. Can you see that?

There is an axiom in Koine Greek. "Nouns without the definite article are either indefinite or qualitative.” (J. Harold Greenlee) If so, don't you think it is dishonest to claim that John 1.1 can, or should only be translated in the traditional way?

One more thing, you and some other posters often bring out that most scholars render John 1.1, "and the Word was God." True! However, most Bible readers on the internet seem to be unaware that those translating otherwise, like, "the Word was divine," the Word was a god (or, "a divine being"), the Word was godlike, etc., are no small number.

It is estimated that there are some 500 English versions of the Bible. The number of translators rendering John 1.1 in a non-traditional way in various languages tally up to upwards of 150 translators, most with university credentials. In English alone there are dozens of them. No hard rule, but the number may be, perhaps, one in ten English tanslations that deviate from the norm. How significant is this? That's for the reader to decide. What is clear is that a translator's PhD cannot settle this issue. More relevant to the subject is what the Bible itself teaches. We would do better in accepting that the Gospel of John was purposedly written to have the people the world over believe "that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God," not The God. (John 20.31)

50

Should Jesus be worshipped?

by Melody in

can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

Wonderment

aqwsed: "the anarthrous θεός almost always carries a qualitative force, not an indefinite or polytheistic sense."

---

You state this as a broad fact, but Grammarian D. Wallace observed:

“It is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times (just as at other times it is difficult to distinguish qualitative from definite nouns).”

You seem inclined to make the same mistake that some Trinitarian scholars tend to make, namely, that anarthrous nouns in the predicate can only be qualitative, not indefinite - a theological evasion at that.

I have a proposition for you. Share with us the number of predicate pre-verbal anarthrous nouns in the NT & LXX in the NOMINATIVE - indicating a qualitative force, and those with an indefinite sense.

50

Should Jesus be worshipped?

by Melody in

can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

Wonderment

Vanderhoven7: "The truth is that ALL MEN SHOULD HONOR THE SON EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER (Jn.5:22, 23)" (Capital letters, his)

---

I agree! However, the problem facing Trinitarians is that, either by action or tradition, they fail to honor the Father as they honor the Son. Besides, the message here is not that Christ followers should honor the Son to the same degree in a quantitative sense as they do with the Father. Rather, the Jewish audience (in the 1st Century), who traditionally worshipped the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, must now welcome this new arrival sent by The God as venue of salvation, as if it was God himself. (John 3.16; 1 Tim. 2.5; 1 John 5.13)

50

Should Jesus be worshipped?

by Melody in

can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

Wonderment

aqwsed: "In sum, the linguistic, canonical, and historical data converge on a single verdict: the Son is to be worshipped."

Vanderhoven7: "There is not one example of the disciples or anyone else in scripture limiting their expression of worship of Christ."

---

Yet, the Son himself directed religious worship toward the Father:

Nevertheless, the hour is coming ... when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. (John 4.23)

In reply Jesus said to him [Satan]: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” (Luke 4.8)

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Wonderment

J.N. Darby: “Nothing could be more mischievous than the resting the divinity of the Lord Christ on this passage [Acts 20.28] - a passage tortured by critics, no two of whom hardly can agree upon it. […] For my own part I am perfectly satisfied that ‘by the blood of His own’ - that is, what was more than our words of ‘near’ and ‘dear’ can possibly convey, it was God's own dear and beloved Son - is the true translation.” (STEM Publishing: Acts 20:28 :heart: 4004E> 105)

---

The Bible simply says that God provided Jesus' blood in sacrifice to save the world. (John 3.16; 1 John 1.7)

Those who seek to impose the Trinity dogma through this verse have no choice but to use convoluted exterior sources in length to argue against the plain biblical statement.

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Wonderment

J.N. Darby: “Nothing could be more mischievous than the resting the divinity of the Lord Christ on this passage [Acts 20.28] - a passage tortured by critics, no two of whom hardly can agree upon it. […] For my own part I am perfectly satisfied that ‘by the blood of His own’ - that is, what was more than our words of ‘near’ and ‘dear’ can possibly convey, it was God's own dear and beloved Son - is the true translation.” (STEM Publishing: Acts 20:28 <34004E> 105)

90

What is Your Favorite WT Lie?

by Sea Breeze in

i would like to start a thread on lies that the watchtower and their reps have told.

surely we all have one or two that truly sticks out in our memories, no matter how much we would like to forget.

my favorite wt lie: the reason they don't want to release the name of the "scholars" who worked on the new world translation is because they do not want to accept "glory and honor" from others.

Wonderment

Sea Breeze: I would like to start a thread on lies that the Watchtower and their reps have told. Surely we all have one or two that truly sticks out in our memories, no matter how much we would like to forget.

My favorite WT lie: The reason they don't want to release the name of the "scholars" who worked on the New World Translation is because they do not want to accept "glory and honor" from others. [...] (Q): Why the secrecy?

(A): Because the committee of translation wanted it to remain anonymous and not seek any glory or honour at the making of a translation, and having any names attached thereto.
Oh! The humility.

It would be a lie if they only adhered to this principle of anonymity with their Bible version and not elsewhere. But there is evidence that the WTS initiated the anonymous practice in their publications way before the appearance of their Bible. Furthermore, as far as I know, they have extended this practice, wherever feasible, to other facets within their organization, and have kept the practice to this day -- overall. So their statement of not seeking "glory and honor" in their Version seems genuine, and not out of place.

27

BABYLON THE GREAT IS NOT FALLING ANYMORE? (NEW LIGHT FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING)

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/rsbfa_7lqv4?si=muuxmgtll1n1ifad.

the watchtower’s babylon the great: a shrinking reality?.

so this latest annual meeting introduced a new idea about babylon the great, and here is the part from geoffrey jackson's talk we real need to dig in and consider it's ramifications..... so you’ve got to hand it to them; they know how to keep things interesting with their ever-evolving interpretations and, of course, those classic "adjustments" in understanding.

Wonderment

aqwsed12345:

In principle, according to the JW interpretation, "Great Babylon" means all "false religions", that is, everyone else besides them, but to put it mildly, they do not deal with all "false religions" to the same extent.

The question is why the Watchtower does not polemize nearly as much about Islam or the Jews? For example, I have seen in many Watchtower publications that the destruction of "Babylon the Great" is illustrated with destroyed churches, but I have never once seen in the Watchtower a mosque or synagogue destroyed by a meteor shower at Armageddon in the picture. What is the reason for this? [...]
Why do they only polemicize with mainstream Christianity, especially Catholicism? Perhaps Hinduism or African nature worshipers are not "false religions"? Or are they less bad than Catholicism?

Or when it comes to the wrongdoings of the "false religion", it is always only about things from many hundreds of years ago, mostly Catholic, and at the same time, there is never a mention of, for example, Islamic terrorism.

Good point! Although I have noticed the WTS had already toned down their harsh Catholic rhetoric compared to decades earlier pre-2000.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Wonderment

acqsed12345 said: "The examples of John 4:19 and Acts 28:4 involve different grammatical structures. John 4:19 uses "προφήτης εἶ" (you are a prophet), where the predicate noun ("prophet") follows the verb and lacks an article."

Again, this statement is wrong. Both John 4.19 & Acts 28.4 have the predicate noun without the article before the verb and subject just like John 1.1 as seen below. Verbs in bold:

J 4.19, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ = I see that prophet are you

Acts 28.4, Πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος = Surely, murderer is the man this

J 1.1, και θεός ην ο λόγος = and god was the logos

All three texts exhibit the same grammatical structure,i.e, anarthrous predicate noun before the verb and subject. If you still insist that the theological factor changes the grammatical structure in Jn 1.1 you are free to do so, but I suspect you will lose serious credibility among fellow posters.

You seem to admire Wallace, Dixon & Harner, but all three argue against interpreting Jn 1.1c as definite as Colwell suggest. BTW, the opposite of definite is indefinite.

At the same time you argue that the Coptic's indefinite rendering at Jn 1.1 has a qualitative meaning, you make it sound like the indefinite reading (a god) of some versions in the same verse cannot be ever understood in a qualitative sense. Sounds like double speak, doesn't it? Remember, Wallace labeled Jn 4.19 as indefinite-qualitative, a text which shares a similar grammatical structure to Jn 1.1. Furthermore, Dixon & Harner mentioned other texts sharing this concept.

Over all, it's more important to give greater weight to John's understanding of the opening verse than to give the benefit of interpretation to men of a later era.

John v. 2 adds: "He was in the beginning with God." Common sense has it that someone who is in the company of another cannot be one and the same person. Otherwise the "with" is misleading.

John took great effort in writing his Gospel to help everyone get closer to God thru Christ. He concluded: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

These words have no trinitarian overtones. It does indicate that Christ is not at the same level as God is. He is the Son of God. And the Son of God told the world that 'his Father was greater than him.' We still see Christ subject to God in Rev 1.1 decades later after his human submission experience on earth.