Serious Research?

[tigger2]

Hoghead1 wrote in post 148 of What is a soul?

FYI: [A] I've done some serious research on the NWT, which is precisely why I say it is bogus. For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were. [C]More importantly, the text, key points, has been unduly corrupted to suit the biases of teh WatchTower Society. For example, in the prologue to JN. the indefinite article "a" is inserted, so that the text is mistranslated as "and the Word was a God." The rules of Greek grammar rule out the use of teh indefinite article here, which is why it is absent in the solid, standard translations. The reason why the WatchTower Society want the "a" in there is that this will support their anti-Trinitarian bias. [D]Also, in passages that speak of Hell and torment, the NWT reads "annihilation." That was done to bludgeon Scripture to fit their bias about the afterlife. It is one thing to disagree with Scripture. I respect that. it is quite another to corrupt the translation so that it agree with your position. [E]Also, "Jehovah" is a serious mistranslation. And that is Hebrew 101 material. So I feel I have very good reason to write off the NWT as bogus and corrupt.

I intend to discuss the individual parts (A-E) of the above.

Ill save part A for last.

B. You wrote:

For one thing, the translators are kept secret. this is the only translation of teh [sic] Bible I have ever found where nobody wants to reveal who the translators were.

For the first 30 years at least, the publishers of the NASB kept their translators anonymous:

The Fourfold Aim of The Lockman Foundation
1.These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable to the masses.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; no work will ever be personalized. - page v., NASB, Ref. Ed., Lockman Foundation, 1971.

For many years the names of the NASB translators and editors were withheld by the publisher. But in 1995 this information was finally disclosed. - http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html

Bible translations of the OT and NT texts should be judged according to their accuracy - not the person(s) who did the translation.

[JehovahsWitness]

As a P.S., I want to add that Origen never referred to Christ as "a god." Instead, he referred to Christ as a ktisma, a creature.

You are mistaken.

Actually, Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". -"Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3. Origen even referred to Christ as a ktisma, a creature (a created being) this indicates that he (Christ, The Word) is subordinate to that which created him. (see Fortman, E. "The Triune God." Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972, p. 54)

[onewithhim]

As a P.S., I want to add that Origen never referred to Christ as "a god." Instead, he referred to Christ as a ktisma, a creature.

You are mistaken.

Actually, Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". -"Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3. Origen even referred to Christ as a ktisma, a creature (a created being) this indicates that he (Christ, The Word) is subordinate to that which created him. (see Fortman, E. "The Triune God." Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972, p. 54)

This discussion gets more and more interesting. I wasn't aware that there was so MUCH proof that scholars of the first century were not fooled into believing that the Scriptures indicated that Jesus was God. This stirs me to do even more research. I'll have more examples in my arsenal of reasonable people.

I've been doing more reading in one of my reference books, and this quote by Professor J.A.T. Robinson is interesting:

"The clear evidence of John is that Jesus refused the claim to be God."




(The Doctrine of the Trinity, Buzzard & Hunting, p.173)

[Monta]

[Replying to post 140 by onewithhim]

I've been doing more reading in one of my reference books, and this quote by Professor J.A.T. Robinson is interesting:

"The clear evidence of John is that Jesus refused the claim to be God."//

I don't think it is that clear cut, but certainly Jesus according to his human can not be equal with God. After the death of the 'human' by crucifiction and ressurection, he was fully united with the divinity of the Father which was in Him from the beginning.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 140 by onewithhim]

I've been doing more reading in one of my reference books, and this quote by Professor J.A.T. Robinson is interesting:

"The clear evidence of John is that Jesus refused the claim to be God."//

I don't think it is that clear cut, but certainly Jesus according to his human can not be equal with God. After the death of the 'human' by crucifiction and ressurection, he was fully united with the divinity of the Father which was in Him from the beginning.

He was united with the Father, as he always was, even while on Earth. But nowhere is there an indication of Jesus becoming EQUAL to God.

We have defined "divine" many times here, and by now I trust that we understand that it means---not that someone is God, but---that someone is OF God, or RELATES TO God, or PROCEEDS DIRECTLY FROM God.

We also have discussed Philippians 2:6 ad nauseum. Please don't go there. I would have to spend another post debunking that whole mess.

[marco]

Very little study will show that the indefinite article simply does not exist in NT Greek!

The NWT has never rendered John 1:1c as you say: and the Word was a God. Instead it has always rendered it as a god.

There is nothing awesome about the absence of articles in languages. The same applies in Latin and in the Slavonic languages.

The example you select in a poor illustration of the point you're making. It is not the case that one allocates an article before any noun. It would be silly to place one before most proper nouns. Thus no article is required before the word God and only when we want to use the word "god" would be need an article, since there are quite a few of them.

My Russian version of John's gospel of course capitalises the word for God. The singular problem is that you are trying to sell an inferior variation of what the rest of the Christian world see as sensible.

[tigger2]

Very little study will show that the indefinite article simply does not exist in NT Greek!

The NWT has never rendered John 1:1c as you say: and the Word was a God. Instead it has always rendered it as a god.

There is nothing awesome about the absence of articles in languages. The same applies in Latin and in the Slavonic languages.

The example you select in a poor illustration of the point you're making. It is not the case that one allocates an article before any noun. It would be silly to place one before most proper nouns. Thus no article is required before the word God and only when we want to use the word "god" would be need an article, since there are quite a few of them.

My Russian version of John's gospel of course capitalises the word for God. The singular problem is that you are trying to sell an inferior variation of what the rest of the Christian world see as sensible.

The first thing I did in my studies was to verify the claim by even some Trinitarians that the article is used before theos when 'God' is intended. I examined ALL the uses of theos in John's writings (and the writings of the other Gospel writers). ALL uses of the dozens of proper examples clearly intended for God used the definite article. Exceptions were a very few uses of theos modified by a genitive or a preposition and the one or two uses where it applies to the Word.

I might take you seriously if you actually examined my studies on John 1:1c carefully and gave responses specifically to the findings there.

Since you and others simply ignore my original studies on this issue, you cannot be convincing in your replies against them.

Specifically, what is the first thing which you believe is incorrect in my first lesson?

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... r_21.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 11c.html

[hoghead1]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

That is not correct. Origen never said,"The Word was a god." That statement is not to be found at any point in his "Commentary on John." I would suggest you go online and read it for yourself.

In his "Commentary on John, Book 1, Chaps. 41 and 42, "Of the Various Ways in Christ Christ is the Logos, what he actually says is are things like, " There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers; and of those, Christ is the highest and best, it is called not only the Wisdom of God, but also His power."
In Book 2, he makes no such statement. Instead, he says things such as, "In the same way, now, that some have faith in that Reason which was in the beginning and was with God and was God, so did Hosea and Isaiah and Jeremiah and others..."

If you read through these chapters of his "Commentary," I think you will find a subordionationalistic theme is introduced, whereby God transcends the Word, just as we transcend our Windom. He is making a distinction between God and his power and wisdom. I consider that a false dichotomy, but that is another story.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 140 by onewithhim]

The early Christian community was very divisive on many issues. There was very heated debate over the Deity of Christ. That's why Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. Two very powerful anti-Trinitarian movements were represented by the gnostics and the Arians. There arguments, however, had nothing to do with an argument over how to best translate John. Rather, their arguments were metaphysical in origin. The gnostics and the Arians were deeply imbued in certain major schools of Hellenic metaphysics, which condemned the world of time and change and mater as something inherently evil, as we find in Plato. The gnostics, who produced around 42 gospels, argued the universe was created by the evil Hebrew God of the OT. All souls preexisted and let themselves get sucked down into the temporal-material order. Christ was not God, not at the top of the pecking order of gods, but a lesser deity who came to set all souls free, so that they could break out of being continually reincarnated into the temporal-material order. The Arians, also imbued in Hellenic metaphysics, argued Christ could not be God, as Christ changed and suffered, whereas God could not. The Greeks enshrined the immune ant the immutable.

Both Gnosticism and Arianism did not vanish from the face of the earth, but continued to persist all down through the ages. One unique modern-day example is scientology, which borrows heavily on ancient Christian Gnosticism.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 144 by tigger2]

As I mentioned before, I am not interested in reading through your work, as I do not see you even begin to have the credentials to take on major NT scholars, such as Metzger and others. Also, I pointed out, the argument you have presented is irrelevant, as it does not use analogous examples and breaks Colwell's Rule. Now, certainly I find it interesting to hear what you have to say and certainly you have the right to share your views. But you have to remember that the rest of us also have the right to disagree and to carefully choose the sources we considerable reliable and qualified. There's all kinds of literature out there. I can't read it all. I don't have the time. Nobody does. And credentials say a lot about the source. hence, when it comes to recommendations for a long read, I reserve the right to be pragmatically picky and choosy and choose only those sources who have the big credentials and the well-earned major scholarly reputations.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 144 by tigger2]

You have written, and cite here, some studies in John 1.

What is your training, your background, your position, that would warrant we read and seriously consider what you present in those studies?