JESUS IS NOT GOD

[onewithhim]

I would very much like to get opinions on this subject. I'll provide several verses from the King James Version of the Bible, and I ask you to give me feed-back.


Jesus' words:

1) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19)

2) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

3) "Neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42)

He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)

5) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say....Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50)

6) To his Father in prayer: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God , and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

7) "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

To John in the Revelation:
8) "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God..." (Revelation 3:12)



Do these quotations show that Jesus was NOT God?

Do YOU believe that he claimed to be God?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1730]
Truth in Translation is not a apology for the NWT. He is comparing about 9 versions of the Bible, the NWT being just one of them. His work is scholarly and accurate, I would say. What he says about Hebrews 1:8 makes the most sense. With the placement of "is" where it belongs in all other examples of it, it becomes clear that, being between the noun and the verb, which is usual, it should be read "God is your throne." In other words, Jesus gets his power from God.

[Difflugia]

Truth in Translation is not a apology for the NWT.

Have you read it? It totally is and it isn't subtle. His final chapter, called "A Final Word," is an unabashedly apologetic argument for the NWT.

He is comparing about 9 versions of the Bible, the NWT being just one of them.

And yet somehow always manages to find a reason that the NWT is the most correct translation of whatever verse he's examining.

His work is scholarly and accurate, I would say.

Of course you would.

What he says about Hebrews 1:8 makes the most sense. With the placement of "is" where it belongs in all other examples of it,

He ignored examples involving direct address, which wouldn't have an implied "is." Compare with Hebrews 10:7, which is exactly the same construction. Even the NWT has no problem rendering it "O God." Why didn't he mention that? Why didn't he mention the Septuagint's use of "O God" in direct address? He's either sloppy or disingenuous. Take your pick. Either way, his analysis is fatally flawed.

Incidentally, he does exactly the same thing with the "I AM" (ἐγώ εἰμι) passages from John in his "Tampering with Tenses" chapter. He completely ignores John's penchant for wordplay coupled with intentionally ungrammatical juxtaposition of subject and verb tenses in order to argue for a wooden translation that just happens to align with Witness theology. He writes, "On the subject of verbal tenses, there is a proper way to coordinate verb tenses in English that must be followed regardless of the idioms unique to Greek that provide the raw material for a translation." Especially when John is making intentional wordplay related to the Septuagint to highlight a theological point, apparently, and that point is theologically uncomfortable for some of its readers. That's a common conflict between the Gospel of John and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm sure it's a coincidence that it's shared with Truth in Translation.

it becomes clear that, being between the noun and the verb, which is usual, it should be read "God is your throne." In other words, Jesus gets his power from God.

If you can find another example anywhere of God being metaphorically referred to as someone's throne, maybe you'd have a point. Or maybe Jesus is going to sit on God's lap. As it is, the author of Hebrews is using a Hebraistic Greek construction that is common in the Septuagint and that she used elsewhere in the same book. The christology of Hebrews is also among the highest in the New Testament. 1:8 is itself part of a sequence of christological statements affirming Christ's divinity, culminating in statements by God Himself, contrasting the elevated status of Christ with that of even angels. God referring to Jesus as God is no more out of place in these passages than your attempted theological harmonization of God referring to Himself in the third person as Christ's throne. Such a reading is possible and you are, of course, free to read it in any way that helps you sleep at night, but claiming that "it should be read" that way is no more than chutzpah.

[Capbook]

I prefer the Authorized Version, that says God was manifest in the flesh. "Theos" Greek of God see below, Jesus(God) was manifest in the flesh. ....

Does the verse does not say Almighty God (λέγει Κύριος Παντοκράτωρ) The Father or YHWH ?

The verse proves that Jesus is God.

Jesus is god but he's not ALMIGHTY God, he's not equal in power, age or position to ALMIGHTY God Jehovah the Father.

Then why the Father did not say, "therefore God, even thy Almighty God" to be understood they are not equal?
This verse proves they are equal then.

Heb 1:9
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
KJV

[Capbook]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1730]
Truth in Translation is not a apology for the NWT. He is comparing about 9 versions of the Bible, the NWT being just one of them. His work is scholarly and accurate, I would say. What he says about Hebrews 1:8 makes the most sense. With the placement of "is" where it belongs in all other examples of it, it becomes clear that, being between the noun and the verb, which is usual, it should be read "God is your throne." In other words, Jesus gets his power from God.

May I know how you will consider the NWT, is it a word for word or a paraphrase translation?

[JehovahsWitness]

May I know how you will consider the NWT, is it a word for word or a paraphrase translation?

Forword to the original English edition of the New World Translation reads as follows

“We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.” Thus, the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought. As a result, the Bible can be read with ease and the reader can have full confidence that its inspired message has been transmitted faithfully.—1 Thessalonians 2:13.

SOURCE https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061201#h=21

[Capbook]

May I know how you will consider the NWT, is it a word for word or a paraphrase translation?

Forword to the original English edition of the New World Translation reads as follows

“We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.” Thus, the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought. As a result, the Bible can be read with ease and the reader can have full confidence that its inspired message has been transmitted faithfully.—1 Thessalonians 2:13.

SOURCE https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061201#h=21

But not from the original Hebrew and Greek?

[JehovahsWitness]

May I know how you will consider the NWT, is it a word for word or a paraphrase translation?

Forword to the original English edition of the New World Translation reads as follows

“We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.” Thus, the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought. As a result, the Bible can be read with ease and the reader can have full confidence that its inspired message has been transmitted faithfully.—1 Thessalonians 2:13.

SOURCE https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061201#h=21

But not from the original Hebrew and Greek?

The New World Translation is a fresh translation from the original Bible languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. By no means is it a revision of any other English translation, nor does it copy any other version as to style, vocabulary, or rhythm. For the Hebrew-Aramaic section, the well-refined and universally accepted text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, the 7th, 8th, and 9th editions (1951-55), was used. A new edition of the Hebrew text known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, dated 1977, was used for updating the information presented in the footnotes of the New World Translation​—With References. The Greek section was translated principally from the Greek master text prepared by Westcott and Hort, published in 1881. However, the New World Bible Translation Committee also consulted other Greek texts, including Nestle’s Greek text (1948). source “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” p. 320

RELATED POSTS

The New World Translation
viewtopic.php?p=960898#p960898

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION and ... BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

* bible interpretation

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1730]
Truth in Translation is not a apology for the NWT. He is comparing about 9 versions of the Bible, the NWT being just one of them. His work is scholarly and accurate, I would say. What he says about Hebrews 1:8 makes the most sense. With the placement of "is" where it belongs in all other examples of it, it becomes clear that, being between the noun and the verb, which is usual, it should be read "God is your throne." In other words, Jesus gets his power from God.

May I know how you will consider the NWT, is it a word for word or a paraphrase translation?

It is more of a word-for-word translation, as Westcott and Hort showed in their work, which the NWT translators basically followed. Sometimes it is impossible to translate word-for-word, because English has different rules than Greek. An addition of articles in English is sometimes necessary, and paraphrasing is deemed necessary to put the meaning of the verse across. An example is John 1:2. The original wording was "This one was in beginning with God." The King James Version, but not the NWT in this case, paraphrases it this way: "The same was in the beginning with God." Exactly the same meaning. (And the NWT adds "the" to the original wording, as does the Interlinear Bible published by Henderson, to make it make sense in the English rendering.) So sometimes an equivalent rendering is called for, as long as it doesn't distort the meaning, and the NWT never distorts the meaning, and the KJV did not either, concerning John 1:2.

[Capbook]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1730]
Truth in Translation is not a apology for the NWT. He is comparing about 9 versions of the Bible, the NWT being just one of them. His work is scholarly and accurate, I would say. What he says about Hebrews 1:8 makes the most sense. With the placement of "is" where it belongs in all other examples of it, it becomes clear that, being between the noun and the verb, which is usual, it should be read "God is your throne." In other words, Jesus gets his power from God.

May I know how you will consider the NWT, is it a word for word or a paraphrase translation?

It is more of a word-for-word translation, as Westcott and Hort showed in their work, which the NWT translators basically followed. Sometimes it is impossible to translate word-for-word, because English has different rules than Greek. An addition of articles in English is sometimes necessary, and paraphrasing is deemed necessary to put the meaning of the verse across. An example is John 1:2. The original wording was "This one was in beginning with God." The King James Version, but not the NWT in this case, paraphrases it this way: "The same was in the beginning with God." Exactly the same meaning. (And the NWT adds "the" to the original wording, as does the Interlinear Bible published by Henderson, to make it make sense in the English rendering.) So sometimes an equivalent rendering is called for, as long as it doesn't distort the meaning, and the NWT never distorts the meaning, and the KJV did not either, concerning John 1:2.

Original Greek in Heb 1:8 Word throne comes first followed by God, which renders the KJV correct translation.
Not "God is your throne" in the NWT.

Heb 1:8 prós dé tón huión:
ho thrónos sou ho theós, eis tón aiœ¡na toú aionos,
kaí he rhábdos tes euthútetos rhábdos tes basileías sou.

(from Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27 th Revised Edition, edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia, © 1993 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Used by permission.)

[Difflugia]

and the NWT never distorts the meaning

You keep saying this despite repeatedly being shown otherwise.

For the record, I searched my old posts and found the distortions that I've previously discussed. Here they are in no particular order:

• John 10:38 — "in union with me" instead of "in me."
• 1 Samuel 28 — scare quotes around Samuel's name.
• John 8:58 — mistranslates ἐγὼ εἰμί as "I have been."
• Genesis 24:67 — "and he fell in love with her" instead of "he loved her."
• Luke 4:7-8 and 24:52 — translation of προσκυνέω differently when used of God the Father rather than Jesus. This one's in other places as well, but the contrast in Luke is most obviously the result of theological manipulation.
• Matthew 1:20, et al — Replacing "lord" in the New Testament with "Jehovah" where the translators think it belongs.
• Exodus 21:22-25 — adding "premature" and mistranslating "injury" as "fatality."

There are more than this, but search broke while I was compiling the list. This should be enough, though. The NWT routinely distorts the text of the Bible during translation to either avoid or support particular theological conclusions. The fact that you agree with the theological conclusions doesn't somehow make the distortions disappear.