Posts by scholar

164

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:.

scholar

aqwsed12345

Your argument relies heavily on a misunderstanding of what the qualitative force of "theos" means in John 1:1c. The commentary you cited from Sacra Pagina acknowledges that the qualitative "theos" describes the nature of the Word—“what God was, the Word also was.” This means that John is affirming that the Word shares fully in the divine nature of God, but not confusing the Word with the Father. The NWT rendering "a god" misinterprets this qualitative force by suggesting a distinction in divinity between the Word and the Father. The NWT's translation implies a secondary, lesser deity, which is not what the qualitative meaning entails. If the Word possesses the nature of God, then the rendering "a god" diminishes this very nature by introducing a subordinationist framework inconsistent with John's intent.

----

There is no misunderstanding regarding the qualitativeness of theos in John 1:1.as shown not only by the Catholic commentary I cited but also by the NWT's rendering of theos' as 'a god'. Such a rendering in English affirms the Deity and divinity of the Word. The traditional rendering theos as 'God' displaces or negates such qualativeness making the theos definite rather than indefinite..Further, the rendering of 'a god' shows the distinction between the Father and the Son, which is made most clear in the Prologue, the Gospel of John, his Epistles, and Revelation. The NWT's rendering 'a god' describes not only His nature but His relationship to his Father as distinct from the Father but his unity with the Father In short, the NWT states most clearly in English not only what John said but what he meant by means of theos without the article hence indefinite and qualativeness by its placement before the verb. Clearly, John introduces the concept of subordination by using the indefinite theos and not the definite ho theos.

----

The NWT introduces a theologically problematic reading by translating "theos" as "a god," suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the monotheism presented in John and throughout the Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10). The qualitative force means that the Word possesses the very nature of God, not as a second or lesser god, but fully participating in God's divine essence. Trinitarianism holds that the Father and the Word (Son) share the same divine nature without being identical persons, which avoids the confusion that the NWT translation introduces.

--

The NWT's rendering 'a god' is no more theologically problematic than the traditional rendering 'God' or 'what God was, the Word also was. Any rendering of theos in this instance is open to interpretation hence becoming 'theological problematic'. Such a rendering does not introduce a notion of multiple Gods but preserves the Monotheism container in both the OT and NT. as shown by the use of God's distinctive name throughout. the Bible. Further, it is Trinitarianism that makes multiple gods by its creedal teaching of three Persons in one God, each person being fully God-polytheism or tritheism in disguise?

The qualitative force of theos does indeed show the very nature of God but His relationship to God as a Son to a Father or subordinate and separate to the Father as being His Son with full Godship for any other interpretation blurs the distinction between these two entities- Almighty God whose name is Jehovah and His Son who was known as the 'Word' later becoming the man, Jesus Christ. The NWT's 'a god' preserves that both the Son and the Father have the same divine nature but are wholly distinct from each other as a Father to a Son.

---

The claim that Trinitarianism is “rooted” in Neo-Platonism oversimplifies the development of Christian theology. While some Church Fathers used philosophical terminology to articulate their doctrines, the core concepts of the Trinity are rooted in Scripture and the early Church’s understanding of Jesus' divine identity. The idea that Trinitarian theology simply “adopted” Neo-Platonism ignores the biblical evidence for Christ's deity found in texts like John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20. Moreover, the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, was not simply a product of Greek philosophy, but of theological debates that sought to remain faithful to the apostolic tradition

--

Christian Orthodox Theology arose from many sources in the Ancient World over many centuries and chief among those many influences was Neo-Platonism which had a distinct vocabulary adopted by the Church. Many of these terms or concepts are non-biblical which has muddied the waters creating a doctrine that is incomprehensible- Trinitarianism. The core elements of the Trinity are not found in Scripture neither the OT or the NT as many scholars admit. The Nicene Creed, 325 CE was a product of fiery debates amongst the assembled bishops and others presided over by a pagan ruler and not the result of the Holy Spirit. as shown at Pentecost, 33 CE and the First Jerusalem Council,l49 CE. Further, it could not be argued that those assembled were faithful to the apostolic tradition but rather to apostasy or the the teachings of the Antichrist as foretold by the Apostle John in his Epistles.

---

The qualitative rendering, as supported by scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace, emphasizes the divine nature of the Word without introducing henotheism. The NWT's translation "a god" distorts the meaning by suggesting that the Word is not fully God but a lesser divine being. This interpretation is inconsistent with the broader context of John’s Gospel, which consistently affirms the full divinity of the Word (John 1:3, John 1:18) and aligns with the monotheistic faith of Israel.

Wallace has much to say about the translation of John 1:1, the NWT' rendering of theos and deals with the following issues:

Is Theos in John 1:1 Indefinite?

Is Theos in John 1:1 Definite?

Is Theos in John 1:1 Qualitative?

Wallace would have better served if he had bothered to read the Appendix on John 1:1 in the NWT 1950.

The NWT rather than distorts the meaning of theos but rather clarifies its meaning in harmony with its context for the Reader in describing the Son's Deity and Divinity as not fully God but as His Son having the same nature, essence or substance as to the Father being created by Him as Firstborn and in subjection to Him.

---

n conclusion, the NWT translation "a god" misrepresents the qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c by introducing theological confusion and contradicting the monotheistic message of both the Old and New Testaments. The traditional rendering, “the Word was God,” is the most accurate and consistent translation that preserves the full divinity of the Word.

--

In conclusion, the NWT' rendering the Johannine theos as 'a god' is superior to all other translations and has withstood the test of time in respect of Bible scholarship since the fifties. It alone preserves Biblical Monotheism thematic throughout the OT and the NT. The rendering theos as God' is inaccurate and nonbiblical for it represents the foretold deviation from the True Religion expressed as Trinitarianism- an ancient heresy.

scholar JW

164

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:.

scholar

aqwswed12345

Your objection rests on the claim that the anarthrous "theos" (without a definite article) in John 1:1c is qualitative, and you emphasize that the New World Translation (NWT) reflects this understanding correctly by rendering it as "a god." You also argue that calling the Word "divine" is merely describing a quality of the Word rather than identifying Him as God.

-----

Note what one notable Catholic commentary by an Australian Catholic theologian says regarding the translation and commentary of John1:1:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was turned toward God, and what God was the Word also was"

'This verse concludes with a description of the consequences of the intense intimacy between the Word and God. Although the traditional translation is "and the Word was God", there is a danger that this might lead the contemporary reader of the English text to collapse the Word and God into one: they are both God. The author has gone to considerable trouble to indicate that an identification between the Word and God is to be avoided. The Greek sentence (kai theos en ho logos) places the complement (theos:God) before 'to be' and does not give it an article. It is extremely difficult to catch this nuance in English , but the author avoids saying that the Word and God were one and the same thing. The translation 'what God was the Word also was' indicates that the Word and God retain their uniqueness, despite their oneness that flows from their inimacy' - Sacra Pagina, The Gospel of John , Francis J. Moloney, SDB,1998, pp.33,35, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota,

Such difficulty is nicely resolved by the NWT's rendering for the Anarthrous Nominative predicative noun-theos in John 1:1 as the indefinite, qualitative ' a god' or 'divine'.

-----

You accuse Catholic theologians of being influenced by Neo-Platonism, suggesting that this influence is what drives their theological conclusions. However, this is a misrepresentation of Church doctrine. The affirmation of the Word's full divinity in John 1:1c is rooted in the biblical and historical understanding of the Christian faith, long predating Neo-Platonism. While some philosophical terms were later adopted to clarify the nature of the Trinity, the core belief that the Word is fully divine (not "a god") comes from the apostolic teaching itself.

Absolutely not! Trinitarianism is rooted in Neo-Platonism which predates Nicea and was the current philosophical doctrine at that time which influenced some of the Church Fathers. You acknowledge this by the fact that there was an adoption of many Greek and Latin terms from Greek philosophy later incorporated in Church doctrine or theology prior to and after Nicea.

scholar JW

University of Sydney

Department of Religion

164

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:.

scholar

aqwsed12345

In John 1:1, the context clearly refers to the divine nature of the Word (Logos). The statement "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" ("and the Word was God") affirms the deity of Jesus Christ. The capitalization of "God" in English reflects the qualitative nature of the Greek construction, where "theos" without the article is used to emphasize divine essence rather than to suggest a second, lesser god.

---

Bunkum! The context clearly shows that the anarthrous theos in the last clause of John 1:1 is not only indefinite as the noun omits the definite article but it is also qualitative.Wisely, the NWT Committee. stated in the Appendix article on John 1:1 in 1950 the following: "Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos 'was divine' is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God".

It would appear that you and your Roman Catholic theologians some being mystics have been influenced by Neo-Platonism originated with Plotinus which accounts for the theological mumbo-jumbo dressed up as biblical theology but is nothing but Mysticism rather than sound Biblical scholarship, presented in the 'celebrated' NWT -the most brilliant translation of the Bible ever made which puts modern scholars to shame.

scholar JW

University of Sydney

164

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:.

scholar

aqwsed12345

A prime example is the rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT as "the Word was a god," rather than "the Word was God." This translation violates standard Greek grammar and has been rejected by mainstream biblical scholars across various denominations. The translation reflects the Jehovah’s Witnesses' denial of Christ's deity rather than a "fresh" or "innocent" reading of the text. Similar issues arise with their translation of Colossians 1:16-17, where the word "other" is inserted to suggest that Christ is a created/made being (while according to the NT the Son is born/begotten), despite the absence of the term in the Greek text.

---

Utter nonsense! The NWT's rendering of John1:1 does not violate any rules of Greek grammar.A careful study of any published greek grammars right up to the present would confirm that the rendering 'a god' or 'divine' is accurate and theologically acceptable. there have many articles published in academic journals on this subject and again there is no real problem with this particular rendering in this instance of theos.

I studied NT Greek under the tutelage of Dr. John A Lee at the University of Sydney for the sole purpose of understanding this subject and was letter from Dr. Lee was given to the class which contained his opinion of the translation of this verse which stated that grammar alone cannot settle this issue but comes down to interpretation.

scholar JW

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

scholar

Jeffro

Not odd at all. Young correctly indicates that it was 587 BCE, provides reasons, and concludes that it is therefore the preferred position despite some other sources still using the incorrect 586 BCE. Only odd thing is your inability to process information.

--

What is odd is that you are unable to recognize the difference between an opinion and dogmatism. The fact is that as with your contrivance as with Young's discussion, both are based on some assumptions hence an opinion.

scholar JW

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

scholar

Jeffro

Steinmann is also correct. Good on him. The selected sources that incorrectly place the end of the siege in the wrong year also have the wrong year for the start of the siege. No surprises here.

--

The matter is further complicated by debate about the length of the siege of Jerusalem. Further, I have just accessed the book by Robb Andrew Young who supports 587 BCE rather than 586. In his study on page 21 he states "The correct date of 587 BCE for the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem is substantiated by examination of the exile of Jehoiachin".Then in the very next paragraph, he begins "It is thus preferable, in my opinion, to date the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE".

Methinks rather an odd comment considering he discusses the subject at some length of som 4 pages with extensive footnotes.

scholar JW

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

scholar

Jeffro

On the other hand, I have reconciled all of the relevant verses. The siege ended in July 587 BCE. Correct application of the dating systems consequently identities the start of the siege in January 589 BCE.

---

On the other hand for a beginning date for the siege against Jerusalem we see this:

Jeffro -27 January 589 BCE

Thiele- 15 January 588 BCE

Lipschits - early January 587 BCE

Finegan - 15 Jan 588 BCE

Steinmann - 27 January 589 BCE - Tuesday

Jones - 588 BCE 3416 AM

Jonsson -, January 589 BCE

scholar JW

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

scholar

Jeffro

Where do people get this incorrect notion that it’s not taught anymore??

--

The said scholar teaches the subject with great gusto in the field ministry.

scholar JW

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

scholar

Jeffro

You’re just demonstrating your own Ignorance. The analysis makes no assumptions. Unless you want to go on some infinite regress to hard solipsism.

--

You certainly make assumptions. Just read your article or better still if you were to provide a proper PDF without its silly ads then I could refer you to specific paragraphs.

scholar JW

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

scholar

Jeffro

See how ‘scholar’ continues to bleat with empty words but fails to demonstrate either an understanding of the material or any refutation of any premises (fallacy: poisoning the well). He also continues to defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s (fallacious appeal to authority).

--

The said scholar does not deal in empty words or speech for he simply observes that your contrivance is just one of so many attempting to prove either 586 or 587 BCE ending up proving no such thing. The fact is that despite the numerous charts, books on chronology, and academic journal articles no scholar today knows the precise date for the fall except Jehovah's Witnesses by means of those 'celebrated' WT scholars.

scholar JW