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.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to TripleZ]

I did not say you could not post, just that I prefered to hear from the other side. I have every right to ask for such just as you have every right on here to ignore it. No hard fellings either way.

[Donray]

I don't understand all the debate about what something in the bible says. First off, we have no idea how wrote John and in what language. So, since we don't have an original script we don't know what the author wrote.

The best we have is something that went through many manual copying with possible changes in each copy.

For all anyone knows John1:1 was not even in the original.

Why all the argument over grammar when there is no original to say what the original author wrote?

[101G]

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.

Addressing the OP only.

John 1:1c in the NWT stand in contrast as to who Jehovah/the word (the Lord Jesus) is. for if the Word is the Lord Jesus, as per said in John 1:1b, then the NWT has a big problem when it renders Jesus (the Word) as a god, lower case "g" in god. because in revelation 22:6 when the angel tells John who sent him, (in reference to Rev 1:1) the NWT says it's Jehovah who sent his angel. but in the same chapter, 22 at verse 16 the NWT turns and says that it is Jesus who sent his angel. so either the NWT is incorrect here in Revelation 22:6 and 22:16, or it's incorrect about John 1:1c., take your pick.

Peace in Christ Yeshua.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to 101G]

So is the problem strictly in Revelation pertaining to who sent the angel, or is there another line of logic that I am not following in connection with the word elohim? Not saying I agree or disagree, but my focus in this thread is only on the meaning of that word. So help me a little better in connecting the two if you do not mind.

[Donray]

http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/coptic.pdf

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to Donray]

Thanks much. Ill read and respond

[101G]

[Replying to 101G]

So is the problem strictly in Revelation pertaining to who sent the angel, or is there another line of logic that I am not following in connection with the word elohim? Not saying I agree or disagree, but my focus in this thread is only on the meaning of that word. So help me a little better in connecting the two if you do not mind.

sure, and thanks for the response.

here is the reasoning. the angel in Revelation said the "Lord God" of the holy prophets sent him, Revelation 22:6 "And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done".

clearly the angel is saying the God of the OT as well as the NT sent him. I have had scholars from all doctoral beliefs with PHD's say that it was Yahweh, or Jehovah who sent his angel to John. and even the JW witness have it in print that Jehovah sent his angel to John.

well all, including the NWT was found to be in error. because in the same chapter at verse 16 it states who sent "his" angel. Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star".

I can't see how the JW let something like that slip pass their scholars and put it in writing.

this is how one expose false doctrine. because many say JESUS is not Yahweh, or Jehovah as they believe. and when this is pointed out to them they are in shock.

and these are people with phd's highly educated.

but the NWT put it in print. well I have to give them credit, at least they are bold, but in error as two left shoes.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 106 by 101G]

Ok, I am following your line of thought now and I thought that was where you were going with this. I just wanted to make sure I wasnt missing a connection between John 1 and Revelation. While you have an interesting arguement, I do not see the connection it has in relation to John and the word "elohim" and its meaning. I believe your point, and this will be a JW's answer to this, is a problem of agency. A contradiction or preceived one in Revelation is the focus, not on how the word elohim is used.
I am not saying I disagree with you but I am strictly focusing on the word elohim/theos/god. Maybe I will start another thread on this to go back and forth with you on this in detail. I'll let you decide.

[2timothy316]

this is how one expose false doctrine. because many say JESUS is not Yahweh, or Jehovah as they believe. and when this is pointed out to them they are in shock.

Shock? Not quite.

A father says "I'll send my child to you" and a mother says the same thing to someone else, this doesn't mean they are the same person. A president says, "I'll send my employee to pick up coffee" and the vice-president says the same thing, does that make them the same person? No. If we use exegesis what we can conclude from the two scriptures is that both Jesus and Jehovah command angels.

So the interpretation that Jehovah and Jesus are the same person because they both said, 'my angel' is what is called, eisegesis. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,� which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. It's known to be a flawed way to interpret the Bible.

[101G]

[Replying to post 106 by 101G]

Ok, I am following your line of thought now and I thought that was where you were going with this. I just wanted to make sure I wasnt missing a connection between John 1 and Revelation. While you have an interesting arguement, I do not see the connection it has in relation to John and the word "elohim" and its meaning. I believe your point, and this will be a JW's answer to this, is a problem of agency. A contradiction or preceived one in Revelation is the focus, not on how the word elohim is used.
I am not saying I disagree with you but I am strictly focusing on the word elohim/theos/god. Maybe I will start another thread on this to go back and forth with on this in detail. I'll let you decided.

GINOLJC, to all.

First, thanks for the Response, second, thanks for the civil discussion. one don't find civil discussion for people of maybe opposing views, so again thanks.

now to your question. yes God is an "elohim" which is a plurality of ONE. what do I mean by this. it means God the Spirit is "ANOTHER" of himself in flesh.

let's break this down, follow me.

Step #1. to understand this plurality of ONE as in John 1:1 for example. one must understand the Greek term G243 Allos. I'll be using the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words , so that my definitions can be verified.

Another: G243 Allos. it expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort.

Step #2. we have a numerical difference, (two) or more, there is the plurality of God, but if you go to Dictionary.com and type in "sort" one will see what KIND of numerical difference he is. 1. a particular kind, species, variety, class, or group, distinguished by a common character or nature. 2. character, quality, or nature.
see he's the same "Kind", the same "variety", the same, ""class", "Group", meaning the God kind, the God, variety, the God, class and the God Group. follow so far.

ok, let's zero in on #2. character, quality, or nature in Step #3.


Step #3. the Nature of JESUS the Christ. since he's in the Same group, class, ect as the almighty Spirit God is, now we need to know what "TYPE" of NATURE he has. this can be found out in Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".

ok if he's being in the "FORM" of God, what do "Form" here means,
using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, it means, G3444 μο�φή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

look at definition #2. fundamental nature, but the question begs, "WHAT TYPE OF NATURE?" the answer is found in the root of this word which is,
G3313 μέ�ος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).
2. a part.
3. (as an adverb) partly, in part.
4. (as a participle) participating (i.e. the act of taking part in).
5. a piece (i.e. a limited portion).
6. (of location) a district.
7. (of livelihood) an occupation (i.e. as ones' portion in life).
8. a portion in Jesus (see John 13:8).
{literally or figuratively, in a wide application}
[from an obsolete but more primary form of μεί�ομαι mȇír�mai “to get as a section or allotment�]
KJV: behalf, course, coast, craft, particular (+ -ly), part (+ -ly), piece, portion, respect, side, some sort(-what)


notice definition #1. a portion, another word for portion is "SHARE". so our answer is that our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ have a "shared" NATURE with, with, with the Spirit. see how I used "with", John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

in Philippians 2:6 this NATURE is "EQUAL". and in Isaiah 40:25 "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One". or Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?".

there is no one "Equal" to him, so by being a "shared" equal nature, it is God himself who is the "another" of himself . that's why he can say in Isaiah 41:4 he's the first and the Last, showing this plurality of one in Sharing of himself, listen. "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he".

he's the First "WITH" the Last, "I am he". see the "with" there as in John 1:1b. and notice in Isaiah 41:4, he says "I" indicating only one PERSON.

so we can clearly see that God the Spirit is one person who shared himself, (a numerical difference) in flesh.

now knowing this, that JESUS is a equal shared spirit with God. that eliminates the "god" at John 1:1c, and here's why also. Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand". if there is "no god" with him, and that small case "g" in god. and JESUS is "with" God as the shared spirit, then John 1:1c written as "god" is contradicting what the bible says about God and his word. see the evidence now.

that's why we have a Father, and a "Son" who is God. Knowing this, straighten out John 17:3 ......(smile). and son here is God's "own" character. let's prove this out.

Step #4. the definition of Son: using again the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Son means, metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics. remember "Sort" in G243 allos means, character, there's the Son. quality, or nature there's his nature, a "shared" equal one, which is equal to the Spirit, and again the plurality of God.

Conclusion: the Lord JESUS is another of the Spirit in flesh. the Spirit (Father, ROOT) is the First, the alpha, and the beginning. and by sharing himself in flesh (Son, Offspring), is the Omega, the end, and the Last.

see, JESUS is the First and the Last, the beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega. the "SAME" one Person, only shared of himself in flesh.

I hope you followed me. if you have any question, please ask them.

Peace in Christ Yeshua.