The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

[EastwardTraveler]

Here is a thread I started on another forum, but wanted to put it up here as well. I am new here, but I am already enjoying this forum much better. Less trolls and better discussion and attitudes.
*********************************************

This is a response to a tread about John 1:1 and how the New World Translation corrects this mistake about calling the Word "God". The NWT claims to fix this issue by calling the Word "a god". Next the assertion is there are many gods in the Bible and being a god is different than being God, implying that God is not a god. Being a god is said to be more of a title or status, and nothing could be further from the truth.

First there is a word play here does not exist in the Hebrew. There is no capitalization in Hebrew, so in English terms, there is no big or little g. The context of the scripture would have let the reader know which god is being talked about. Even from a grammatical point of view this changes nothing. Here is what I mean. It is grammatically correct and scripturally correct for me to say that "God is a god". God is just a proper pronoun letting us know which god we are talking about. A god is not a status but the nature of something. God is a god because he happens to be a spiritually divine being.

So changing John 1:1 does not change the problem of the Word being called God. You are still left with a big problem of the identity of Jesus if he was by nature an elohim.

The next tactic that will be used to to bring up that there are many gods in the Bible. This is a silly argument, because all of the other gods of the Bible are false gods or men calling themselves gods. Neither of the two pleases God, so I find it odd that this is used to justify the Word being called a god/elohim and he not be God. Lets break it down even further. Just because men made up gods and created images to them, does not make them a real god. Same if a man calls himself or another person a god, it does not make them a true god. Again this does not please God to do so.

Here is my beleif, that God/elohim is the only real god/elohim in the scriptures. All other gods/elohim are false gods/elohim. No where in scripture is it a good thing to be call a god/elohim if the thing being talked about is not God himself.

While I started off mentioning The NWT I am eager to hear from all who do not believe that Jesus is God, not just Jehovahs Witness. I prefer not to hear from Trinitarians and Unitarians on this post, but ultimately am not opposed to it.

My last request is that for those responding, try and keep it short. I do not want a page of verses quoted and a dissertation on each on. Lets try and keep it to a verse or two at a time so we can actually have a discussion that is meaningful.

Thanks and look forward to hearing from all of you out there.

[JehovahsWitness]

Here we see the the word el/elohim #430 as decribed by Strong's Exhaustive concordance concurs with me on the fact that the the word is used of God and god. True God, false god, ect. The point here is that the capitalization we see in the English really doesn't not matter and that brings me to my earlier point that in Hebrew has no capitalization and it is context that lets us know which God/god we are talking about.

Well you can't say that the capitalization "doesn't matter" and at the same time say that it reflects some information about the context. The fact that English Capitalization is largely left at the discretion of the translator doesn't invalidate its funcion. In short, in English Capitilzation is used to reflect something about the context of the word and DOES MATTER. However and this is the point, since neither Greek nor Hebrew capitalizes, and where we see a capital letter for god is largely left at the discretion of the translator, it is not something one can build an entire theology on.

If the passage explicitly means "no other God", I thought by capitalizing it we were only talking about God anyway. ...

NOTE: It is, in my personal opinion, best to use the personal name of the god being referred to rather than speak about a capital-G god and little g-god - which is , rather confusing and since capitalization varies according to translation, rather pointless. The bible almost invariably (especially in the Hebrew scriptures) identifies YHWH/Yawheh/JEHOVAH by name when speaking about Him or refers to Him uniquely as the TRUE God and Almighty God. These unique titles and His personal name mean we can usually dispense with the awkard and redundant referens to "big G- gods and little g- gods.

Do you have anything against refering to the God of the Israelites by his name (YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah/Yehowah etc)?


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

This presents some problems of its own and brings us no closer to finding out what God wants.
For example:Hosea 13:4
King James Bible
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
NWT
But I am Jehovah your God from* the land of Egypt;+You knew no God except me,And besides me there is no savior.+
JPS Tanakh 1917
Yet I am the LORD thy God From the land of Egypt; And thou knowest no God but Me, And beside Me there is no saviour.

♦NOTE When the scriptures say "know" they mean "know as in worship" All the scriptures identify YHWH as speaking so the command of YHWH/Jehovah is that the Israelite are not to worship "other gods"/"other Gods". Meaning they are to worship no other than YHWH.

This presents some problems of its own and brings us no closer to finding out what God wants. Why worry about another God is there is indeed only one and all the ancients knew this?

♦ There isn't only one god, there are millions of gods (hindus have literally millions), the Egyptians had hundreds. Only one of those many god that has the right to be worshipped.

It gets more confusing [...] Are they now a God even if they are false?

You ask:

• Are they now a God even if they are false [gods]?
  Are they now cars even if they are faulty cars?
  Are they now apples even if they are bad apples?
  Are they now girls even if they are ugly girls?

• ♦ The answer to all the above is... YES! You are confused because you are trying to impose the square peg of your own personal definition of the word (elohim), into the round hole of how the word is used in scripture (and what virtually the entire academic world accepts the word to mean). Please see Tigger2's earlier post for the correct definition of god (elohim) as used in scripture
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 313#868313

Elohim is a general generic title that can be applied to virtually ANYONE and ANYTHING real or imagined, good or bad, spirit or phyical that is considered to have a measure of power, authority and/or influence (real or imagined)

♦ The above definition applies to YHWH but since I said "real or imagined" the same definition applies to both false elophim and true elohim. The word itself is not specific enough to tell us more. JEHOVAH (yhwh) however is a different matter. There is only one YHWH (Jehovah). One God that has the right to be worshipped according to the bible. For the Isaelites and all those that accepted the writings of Moses and the Prophets, worship belongs only to the god called YHWH.

Are you still confused? If so perhaps you might like to share why?

JW

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 23 by brianbbs67]

So, Brian, what is your point? It's a burden, really, to read through all of those scriptures and then not find any summary by you.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 23 by brianbbs67]

So, Brian, what is your point? It's a burden, really, to read through all of those scriptures and then not find any summary by you.

Did not mean to burden you. And I was trying to keep it short like the OP asked. I posted a list of a few verses that state, YHWH is the one true god. The God of Hosts, which I always thought was the meaning of El oh im? So, while their are other worldly beings in the host of heaven, God is in charge.

[EastwardTraveler]

Do you really not understand that a noted trinitarian scholar will nearly always agree with a trinitarian interpretation and ignore or downplay an alternate non-trinitarian interpretation?
Absolutely, but for the most part I will give credit for most Trinitarian scholars will actually talk about this interpretations. Most of these Trinitarian Bibles will also let you know about issues within the text as well. And these are scholars and there are other reasons why they may hold some of the ideas they hold. And just for the record some of these Trinitarian scholars do disagree with each other on certain issues. You make it sound like these guys are just a bunch of dishonest fools.

Of course you will find trinitarian interpretations by trinitarian scholars (just look at the trinity-supporting 'evidence' found in most Bibles)! But when many noted trinitarian scholars agree on a non-trinity-supporting interpretation of scripture, that makes it virtually certain. So I am not sure how we keep getting to Trinitarian Bibles, I have not even gone that route. What few scripture I have quoted I have done so with the NWT with a few others, but primarily the NWT. So what light are you trying to paint me in.

Yes, I created that list. If I should copy something, I will give the reference.
Thats not what I asked. Did you read these books yourself and then make the list or did you make the list from another website. Same question with the Philo quotes. Have you read these books or are you just quoting what I am finding on the enternet.

But what if one of us should use the WT as a source for a post? Are you unwilling to examine it simply because of your bias? Don't we examine and use trinitarian sources?
Where have I said not to use you WT sources or that I do not trust them? I gladly examine anything that you guys have. Again, I feel like you are trying to paint me a way that I have not come off, but if thats the route you want to go when you start quoting WT sources maybe I should show how the WT blantantly misquotes sources and sometimes straight out lies. I will show how the WT down plays some things as well. I can do this not just by going online myself and find list where this has happened, but I can also show you where I have personally found where the WT has done this, when I was examining some of the literature myself. Now I do not use these examples to discredit the whole WT and I am more than willing to listen/read whatever you guys have to offer and we can discuss it. So are we done with this wierd thing of trying to discredit me or Biblical authors?

My whole point in asking about the validity of the sources you cited was are you going to accept it when I start using some of these same sources and authors or other Trinitarian authors as well? Just a simple question.

PHILO

“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos� - Philo , vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.

Eminent NT scholar Dr. E. F. Scott writes:

“The prologue [of the Gospel of John] consists of a succinct statement of a Philonic doctrine of the Logos, which is forthwith identified with Jesus Christ.� - p. 54, The Fourth Gospel, Its purpose and Theology .

"... it is barely possible that these extraneous theologies may have exercised some influence on the Fourth Evangelist [John], but there can be little doubt in regard to the main source from which his Logos doctrine was derived. It had come down to him through Philo , after its final development in Greek philosophy.� - p. 146.

“The Fourth Gospel is based on a doctrine of the Logos which to all appearance is closely similar to that of Philo. …. every verse in the Prologue offers striking analogies to corresponding sayings of Philo. We have seen reason to believe that John had acquainted himself directly with the works of the Alexandrian thinker, and consciously derived from them.� - p. 154, The Fourth Gospel, Its purpose and Theology, E. F. Scott, D.D.

Philo “differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [2 Cor. 4:4].� Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son [Ro. 8:29]....divine [a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].� - Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)

“Philo of course conceives of the Logos - which he occasionally calls divine (θεὸς) [literally, 'a god'], but never ‘God’ (� θεὸς) - as the highest angel and as the highest idea at the same time....� - p. 126, John 1, Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.

“The Logos which having been in the beginning, and with God, and divine [‘a god’], had entered human life and history as the Word ‘made flesh!’ .... But the identification of Jesus with the Logos was not tantamount to recognizing him as ‘God.’ Neither the ‘Word of God’ in Hebrew nomenclature nor the Logos in Greek speculation was ‘God’ though it was definitely ‘divine’ [‘a god’].� - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p.25.[/quote]

Those are all fine and well brother, but what about what Philo said himself?
If you want to delve into Philo, I would love to, but lets start a seperate thread. As I stated before I would like to hold off until I get back home from vacation so I can cite my book correctly, but if not I can find it online. All up to you.

So here is what I propose we do, lets us go to those scriptures individually that those silly Trinitarians are talking about and lets examine them ourselves and see where it takes us. Is that not ultimately what matters most. All of these Trinitarian and non-trinitarian scholars and those writers at Bethel can give us some great info to think about, but it is scripture that ultimately counts right?

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 33 by brianbbs67]

I saw and was busy with some other post. I really want to get into those verses because I do have to interesting questions on them. I have not over looked you at all.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 23 by brianbbs67]

So, Brian, what is your point? It's a burden, really, to read through all of those scriptures and then not find any summary by you.

I believe what he is quoting and how he is quoting says it all my friend lol. I know you know, just trying to have a little levity myself.

[EastwardTraveler]

This presents some problems of its own and brings us no closer to finding out what God wants.
For example:Hosea 13:4
King James Bible
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
NWT
But I am Jehovah your God from* the land of Egypt;+You knew no God except me,And besides me there is no savior.+
JPS Tanakh 1917
Yet I am the LORD thy God From the land of Egypt; And thou knowest no God but Me, And beside Me there is no saviour.

♦NOTE When the scriptures say "know" they mean "know as in worship" All the scriptures identify YHWH as speaking so the command of YHWH/Jehovah is that the Israelite are not to worship "other gods"/"other Gods". Meaning they are to worship no other than YHWH.
So you are putting words into my mouth. That's why in my explanation after I quoted those scriptures I said "have/know". When I said have, that means they are putting those gods/Gods in their lives and worshiping them. No where did I state that the Israelites did not KNOW of other gods. Of course they did, they were surrounded by them from all the other cultures. I think I made myself clear in what I asked. Did I not make myself clear, does me saying "have" indicate simple knowledge of or taking possession of it and putting it into your life?

This presents some problems of its own and brings us no closer to finding out what God wants. Why worry about another God is there is indeed only one and all the ancients knew this?

♦ There isn't only one god, there are millions of gods (hindus have literally millions), the Egyptians had hundreds. Only one of those many god that has the right to be worshipped.

We have covered the fact there are multiple gods. I have made that explicitly clear. But you have not answered this. Some of those gods, claimed to be God, so now how many Gods are there? I thought there was only one.

It gets more confusing [...] Are they now a God even if they are false?

You ask:

• Are they now a God even if they are false [gods]?
  Are they now cars even if they are faulty cars?
  Are they now apples even if they are bad apples?
  Are they now girls even if they are ugly girls?

• ♦ The answer to all the above is... YES! You are confused because you are trying to impose the square peg of your own personal definition of the word (elohim), into the round hole of how the word is used in scripture (and what virtually the entire academic world accepts the word to mean).
  
  All are cars you are absolutely right, but all of those cars, girls, and apples exist in real life and also no one is denying their exist in a text like I am implying in scripture.
  
  No the whole academic world does not, but lets say they all did. Can we not examine what they are looking at? Is that not how the Jehovahs Witnesses got there start.
  
  Please see Tigger2's earlier post for the correct definition of god (elohim) as used in scripture
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 313#868313

Elohim is a general generic title that can be applied to virtually ANYONE and ANYTHING real or imagined, good or bad, spirit or phyical that is considered to have a measure of power, authority and/or influence (real or imagined)

Yes, you are absolutely right, that is not what I am denying. I am over and over again said that they are all false gods and did not exist.
NWT Isaiah 43:10
10 “You are my witnesses,�+ declares Jehovah,“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,+So that you may know and have faith in me*And understand that I am the same One.+ Before me no God was formed,And after me there has been none.+ So if the context is only God and all of the other pagan gods were little g gods, then is God saying there is only one of him. Of course you are going to say, he is saying there are no other Gods like him. But wait a minute, what happens to this statement when there are many other pagan gods that claim to be God, supreme and the only one of their kind. This is now make Isaiah 43:10 inncorrect. Does not matter if they are real or imaginary does it I suppose.

♦ The above definition applies to YHWH but since I said "real or imagined" the same definition applies to both false elophim and true elohim. The word itself is not specific enough to tell us more. JEHOVAH (yhwh) however is a different matter. There is only one YHWH (Jehovah). One God that has the right to be worshipped according to the bible. For the Isaelites and all those that accepted the writings of Moses and the Prophets, worship belongs only to the god called YHWH.

This I agree with.

Are you still confused? If so perhaps you might like to share why?

As I quoted Isaiah 43 above and you state that the same definition applies to real and imaginary gods is Jehovah saying there are no imaginary gods/Gods created or that no real gods/Gods have been or will be created?
JW

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 23 by brianbbs67]

So I was going to reply to you by simply stating what I have said over and over again about the word elohim and that a god is not different, but instead I will go a different route and answer you, JW, and the others in a different way. Look for a post labeled My final question and stance on Elohim.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 38 by EastwardTraveler]

I will