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.

[TripleZ]

[Replying to post 1 by EastwardTraveler]

Tigger, it's for you!

(LOL just kidding).

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..

If I understand your point, you are saying even acknowleding that the second "G/god" of John 1:1c as not being the g/God previously mentioned doesn't IDENTIFY who each indivicual is.

Am I understanding your point correctly?


RELATED POSTS

Does the NWT take liberties by adding the indefinite article to certain passages?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 563#821563

the NWT most surly has changed the wording at John 1 verses 1 and 2..

Look and see and hear the ORIGINAL;


Joh 1:2  הו� היה בר�שית �ת ה�להי�׃ 
Joh 1:3  הכל נהיה על־ידו ומבלעדיו ל� נהיה כל־�שר נהיה׃ 
Joh 1:4  בו היו חיי� והחיי� היו �ור לבני ה�ד�׃ 
Joh 1:5  וה�ור ה�יר בחשך והחשך ל� השיגו׃ 
Joh 1:6  ויהי �יש שלוח מ�ת ה�להי� ושמו יוחנן׃ 
Joh 1:7  הו� ב� לעדות להעיד על־ה�ור למען י�מינו כל� על־ידו׃ 
Joh 1:8  הו� ל�־היה ה�ור כי ��־להעיד על־ה�ור׃ 
Joh 1:9  ה�ור ה�מתי המ�יר לכל־�ד� �שר ב� �ל־העול�׃ 
Joh 1:10  בעול� היה ועל־ידו נהיה העול� והעול� ל� ידעו׃ 
Joh 1:11  הו� ב� בשלו ו�שר־המה לו ל� קבלהו׃ 
Joh 1:12  והמקבלי� �תו המ�מיני� בשמו נתן־עז למו להיות בני� ל�להי�׃ 
Joh 1:13  �שר ל� מד� ול� מחפץ הבשר �ף ל�־מחפץ גבר נולדו כי ��־מ�להי�׃ 
Joh 1:14  והדבר נהיה בשר וישכן בתוכנו ונחזה כבודו ככבוד בן יחיד ל�ביו רב־חסד ו�מת׃ 
Joh 1:15  ויוחנן העיד עליו ויקר� ל�מר הנה זה הו� �שר �מרתי הב� �חרי היה לפני כי קד�־לי היה׃ 
Joh 1:16  וממלו�ו לקחנו כלנו חסד על־חסד׃ 
Joh 1:17  כי התורה נתנה ביד־משה והחסד וה�מת ב�ו על־ידי ישוע המשיח׃ 
Joh 1:18  �ת ה�להי� ל�־ר�ה �יש מעול� הבן היחיד �שר בחיק ה�ב הו� הודיע׃ 
Joh 1:19  וז�ת עדות יוחנן בשלח היהודי� כהני� ולוי� מירושלי� לש�ל �תו מי �תה׃ 
Joh 1:20  והו� הודה ול� כחש ויודה ל�מר ל� המשיח �ני׃ 
Joh 1:21  וי�מרו �ליו ומי �תה ה�ליהו �תה וי�מר �ינני ה�תה הנבי� ויען ל�׃ 
Joh 1:22  וי�מרו �ליו מי־זה �תה למען נשיב �ת־שלחינו דבר מה־ת�מר לנפשך׃ 
Joh 1:23  וי�מר �ני קול קור� במדבר פנו דרך יהוה כ�שר �מר ישעיהו הנבי�׃ 
Joh 1:24  והשלוחי� ב�ו מן־הפרושי�׃ 
Joh 1:25  ויש�להו וי�מרו �ליו מדוע �פו� מטביל �תה ��־�ינך המשיח ול� �ליהו ול� הנבי�׃ 
Joh 1:26  ויען �ת� יוחנן וי�מר �נכי מטביל במי� ובתוככ� עומד �שר ל� ידעת� �תו׃ 
Joh 1:27  הו� הב� �חרי �שר היה לפני ו�ני נקלתי מהתיר שרוך נעליו׃ 
Joh 1:28  וז�ת היתה בבית �ניה מעבר לירדן �שר יוחנן מטביל ש�׃ 
Joh 1:29  ויהי ממחרת ויר� יוחנן �ת־ישוע ב� �ליו וי�מר הנה שה ה�להי� הנש� חט�ת העול�׃ 
Joh 1:30  זה הו� �שר �מרתי �חרי יב� �יש �שר היה לפני כי קד�־לי היה׃ 
Joh 1:31  ו�ני ל� ידעתיו כי ��־בעבור יגלה בישר�ל ב�תי �ני לטבל במי�׃ 
Joh 1:32  ויעד יוחנן וי�מר חזיתי הרוח כדמות יונה ירדת משמי� ותנח עליו׃ 
Joh 1:33  ו�ני ל� ידעתיו והשלח �תי לטבל במי� הו� �מר �לי �ת �שר־תר�ה הרוח ירדת ונחה עליו הנה זה הו� �שר יטבל ברוח הקדש׃ 
Joh 1:34  ו�ני ר�יתי ו�עידה כי זה הו� בן־ה�להי�׃ 
Joh 1:35  ויהי ממחרת ויסף יוחנן ויעמד ועמו שני� מתלמידיו׃ 
Joh 1:36  ויבט �ל־ישוע והו� מתהלך וי�מר הנה שה ה�להי�׃ 
Joh 1:37  ושני תלמידיו שמעו �ת־דברו וילכו �חרי ישוע׃ 
Joh 1:38  ויפן ישוע �חריו ויר� �ת� הלכי� �חריו וי�מר �ליה�׃ 
Joh 1:39  מה־תבקשו וי�מרו �ליו רבי �יפה תלין׃ 
Joh 1:40  וי�מר �ליה� ב�ו ור�ו ויב�ו ויר�ו �ת־מקו� מלונו וישבו עמו ביו� ההו� והעת כשעה העשירית׃ 
Joh 1:41  ו�נדרי �חי שמעון פטרוס היה �חד מן־השני� �שר שמעו מ�ת יוחנן וילכו �חריו׃ 
Joh 1:42  הו� מצ� ר�שונה �ת שמעון �חיו וי�מר �ליו מצ�נו �ת־המשיח׃ 
Joh 1:43  ויבי�הו �ל־ישוע ויהי כהביט �ליו ישוע וי�מר שמעון בן־יוחנן לך יקר� כיפ� והו� ביונית פטרוס׃ 
Joh 1:44  ויהי ממחרת ויו�ל ישוע לצ�ת הגלילה וימצ� �ת־פילפוס וי�מר �ליו לך �חרי׃ 
Joh 1:45  ופילפוס מבית־צידה עיר �נדרי ופטרוס׃ 
Joh 1:46  ויפגע פילפוס ×�ת־נתנ×�ל וי×�מר ×�ליו מצ×�נו ×�ת ×�שר כתב משה בספר התורה והנבי×�×™×� ×�ת־ישוע בן־יוסף מנצרת׃ 
Joh 1:47  וי�מר �ליו נתנ�ל המנצרת יצ� טוב וי�מר �ליו ב� ור�ה׃ 
Joh 1:48  ויר� ישוע �ת־נתנ�ל ב� לקר�תו וי�מר עליו הנה ב�מת בן־ישר�ל �שר �ין־בו רמיה׃ 
Joh 1:49  וי�מר �ליו נתנ�ל �יך ידעתני ויען ישוע וי�מר לו בטר� קר� לך פילפוס ו�תה תחת הת�נה �נכי ר�יתיך׃ 
Joh 1:50  ויען נתנ�ל וי�מר �ליו רבי �תה בן־�להי� �תה הו� מלך ישר�ל׃ 
Joh 1:51  ויען ישוע וי�מר �ליו יען �שר הגדתי לך כי־תחת הת�נה ר�יתיך ה�מנת הנה גדלות מ�לה תר�ה׃ (1:52) וי�מר �ליו �מן �מן �ני �מר לכ� מעתה תר�ו השמי� נפתחי� ומל�כי �להי� עלי� וירדי� על בן־ה�ד�׃ 

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

Joh 1:1 בר�שית היה הדבר והדבר היה �ת ה�להי� ו�להי� היה הדבר׃
Joh 1:2 הו� היה בר�שית �ת ה�להי�׃
Joh 1:3 הכל נהיה על־ידו ומבלעדיו ל� נהיה כל־�שר נהיה׃
you have been proved wrong!!!

I don't know what you think you have proved, but it has nothing to do with the correct translation of what John wrote at John 1:1c.

First, what you have quoted is a relatively recent (probably the Hebrew New Testament by Franz Delitzsch) TRANSLATION of the NT GREEK text.

Second, there are no early Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospels in existence. That is why NT Bibles are based on NT GREEK texts compiled from very early Greek manuscripts.

Third, your quote of John 1:1c, like the Greek, literally says: "a god was the word."

[TripleZ]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

Joh 1:1 בר�שית היה הדבר והדבר היה �ת ה�להי� ו�להי� היה הדבר׃
Joh 1:2 הו� היה בר�שית �ת ה�להי�׃
Joh 1:3 הכל נהיה על־ידו ומבלעדיו ל� נהיה כל־�שר נהיה׃
you have been proved wrong!!!

I don't know what you think you have proved, but it has nothing to do with the correct translation of what John wrote at John 1:1c.

First, what you have quoted is a relatively recent (probably the Hebrew New Testament by Franz Delitzsch) TRANSLATION of the NT GREEK text.

Second, there are no early Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospels in existence. That is why NT Bibles are based on NT GREEK texts compiled from very early Greek manuscripts.

Third, your quote of John 1:1c, like the Greek, literally says: "a god was the word."

Well show us proof of your suppositions then if all of your claims are world wide and general ?
Do you profess to be an ancient Greek and or Hebrew and or Latin scholar ....?
Those languages are gone and dead,,,
Also you are totally wrong about the translator
Look at the quoted ORIGINAL language above......it is well recorded in Hebrew it is form the Gospel Book of John which is to ISRAEL!!!!
also again, you are totally wrong about both the Bible version and the translator...
You now have also professed to believe in more that one true God...( God and a god ), your words not mine...

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 82 by TripleZ]

Well show us proof of your suppositions then if all of your claims are world wide and general ?

Show your reference for your Hebrew quotation above and for your statement concerning it ("Look and see and hear the ORIGINAL").

Do you profess to be an ancient Greek and or Hebrew and or Latin scholar ....?
Those languages are gone and dead,,,

I'm enough of a Greek and Hebrew scholar to know that everything I said in my last post is correct (except, of course, for my obvious guess about who made the translation you posted).

Also you are totally wrong about the translator

And how does that matter? The point was that there are no existing early Hebrew manuscripts of John. Any Hebrew text you may quote is a translation of the Greek text translated many hundreds of years after the original by John.


"Has a Gospel in Hebrew Been Found?

�David N. Bivin

"From time to time, one hears reports of the discovery of a portion of the New Testament written in Hebrew or Aramaic. To date, such reports have proven false. There is not a single extant Hebrew-language or Aramaic-language manuscript from the early Christian era of any of the New Testament books."

Look at the quoted ORIGINAL language above......it is well recorded in Hebrew it is form [sic] the Gospel Book of John which is to ISRAEL!!!!

Give proper reference for your Hebrew quote: title, translator, publisher, date of publication. There is no proof that John actually wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.

also again, you are totally wrong about both the Bible version and the translator...

There are dozens of relatively recent (1500 A.D. to present) Hebrew translations of the ancient NT Greek texts. One of the more popular is that of Delitzsch. If I guessed wrong, so what?

You now have also professed to believe in more that one true God...( God and a god ), your words not mine...

I have NEVER professed to believe in more than one true God (the Father only - John 17:1, 3). This only true God is also known by the personal name of YHWH (Jehovah, Yehowah).

A large number of recognized NT scholars (and early Christian Fathers) recognize that "a god" can refer to men and angels in Scripture:

Some of these (mostly) trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,� Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133 (angels, judges), Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208 (angels, judges), Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, (angels, judges, kings) Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.
(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Hellenic Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God�/“a god� about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus�; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.�

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 82 by TripleZ]

https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/1146/

Also http://www.biblesocietyinisrael.com/st ... modern-nt

[TripleZ]

[Replying to post 1 by EastwardTraveler]

Tigger, it's for you!

(LOL just kidding).

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..

If I understand your point, you are saying even acknowleding that the second "G/god" of John 1:1c as not being the g/God previously mentioned doesn't IDENTIFY who each indivicual is.

Am I understanding your point correctly?


RELATED POSTS

Does the NWT take liberties by adding the indefinite article to certain passages?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 563#821563

Your suppositions are famous.. No one is stating that Yeshua ( His Real Hebrew Name ) is GOD, Scripture is there for all of you to READ and ingest,believe and understand...IF this is what you want to do ?
Where does Scripture say these things that you claim people are saying ?

[TripleZ]

I hope this isn't getting off-topic, but I was wondering if you could clarify something for me, please, Eastward Traveler.

Who or what is "a god"? Do you think that's referring to Jesus? If so, are you suggesting there is a pantheon of gods with Jehovah at the top and the other "gods", like Jesus, with a small "g" are lesser ones? Or are you saying Jesus is a false god?

Or if Jesus isn't the "god" referred to in that verse, who is that god? And where does he fit in the scheme of things?

Thanks! O.

This is not off-topic at all. In fact this is exactly where I wanted to conversation to go. When we talk about a god in the scripture, we are talking about a divine spiritual being. That is the context we see in scripture, especially in the old testament. No where in scripture is it good to be called a god and scripture not be talking about Jehovah, no where end of statement. I am not saying there is a pantheon or that Jesus is a false god. When we read John 1:1 and see that Jesus is called a god, we are presented with a problem. By being called a god we are talking about Jesus' nature and only one god/theos/elohim exist. All other gods are false gods. If scripture is referring to something that is a god and is real, and is apart Jehovah's system then we must be talking about Jehovah himself, because he is the only real god in existence.

In short, what other real gods are there?
Psalm 115:5
Psalm 135:16
Deuteronomy 4:28
Daniel 5:23
The above verses make it abundantly clear from Jehovah himself that ALL other gods/Gods are false and do not exist. They are the imaginations of man, and it baffles me that people use the existence of false gods in our minds to justify that it is okay for Jesus to be a god, yet not be God himself.

well according to WT ideology if you buy a " flock " of sheep you only get one but if you buy THE flock of sheep you one flock..
the WT is just another cult, akin to the RCC and Mormons and 7th dayers,several others..

[TripleZ]

[Replying to post 1 by EastwardTraveler]

Tigger, it's for you!

(LOL just kidding).

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..

If I understand your point, you are saying even acknowleding that the second "G/god" of John 1:1c as not being the g/God previously mentioned doesn't IDENTIFY who each indivicual is.

Am I understanding your point correctly?


RELATED POSTS

Does the NWT take liberties by adding the indefinite article to certain passages?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 563#821563

the NWT is a huge LIE, form ccover to cover an it hows that the WT cult is a religion of " Footnotes " only.. BTW , JWs are forbidden to read the NWT..so that alone says it all about their cult leaders.

[tigger2]

ZZZ:

the NWT is a huge LIE, form [sic] ccover[sic] to cover an[sic] it hows[sic] that the WT cult is a religion of " Footnotes " only.. BTW , JWs are forbidden to read the NWT..so that alone says it all about their cult leaders.

This is completely false (and ridiculous) and shows the quality of research being done by some. Not only are JWs free to read the NWT, but any other Bible as well.

When one makes such charges, he should produce references and quotes at least.

[dianaiad]

I hope this isn't getting off-topic, but I was wondering if you could clarify something for me, please, Eastward Traveler.

Who or what is "a god"? Do you think that's referring to Jesus? If so, are you suggesting there is a pantheon of gods with Jehovah at the top and the other "gods", like Jesus, with a small "g" are lesser ones? Or are you saying Jesus is a false god?

Or if Jesus isn't the "god" referred to in that verse, who is that god? And where does he fit in the scheme of things?

Thanks! O.

This is not off-topic at all. In fact this is exactly where I wanted to conversation to go. When we talk about a god in the scripture, we are talking about a divine spiritual being. That is the context we see in scripture, especially in the old testament. No where in scripture is it good to be called a god and scripture not be talking about Jehovah, no where end of statement. I am not saying there is a pantheon or that Jesus is a false god. When we read John 1:1 and see that Jesus is called a god, we are presented with a problem. By being called a god we are talking about Jesus' nature and only one god/theos/elohim exist. All other gods are false gods. If scripture is referring to something that is a god and is real, and is apart Jehovah's system then we must be talking about Jehovah himself, because he is the only real god in existence.

In short, what other real gods are there?
Psalm 115:5
Psalm 135:16
Deuteronomy 4:28
Daniel 5:23
The above verses make it abundantly clear from Jehovah himself that ALL other gods/Gods are false and do not exist. They are the imaginations of man, and it baffles me that people use the existence of false gods in our minds to justify that it is okay for Jesus to be a god, yet not be God himself.

well according to WT ideology if you buy a " flock " of sheep you only get one but if you buy THE flock of sheep you one flock..
the WT is just another cult, akin to the RCC and Mormons and 7th dayers,several others..

Moderator Warning


Address the content of the post. Do not use uncivil language, generalities or insults as a substitution for civil debate.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.