Questions about Jesus and JW’s

[MissKate13]

1. Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” This is how the NWT reads (John 1:1).

Do JW’s believe Jesus was a true or false god?

2. JW’s say Jesus is a created being.

When was Jesus (capital or lower case g) created?

I look forward to your responses to one or both questions.

MissKate13

[MissKate13]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #70]
Who is the speaker in Proverbs 8?

[kjw47]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #70]
Who is the speaker in Proverbs 8?

Gods master worker--The being God sent to earth and was named Jesus as a mortal.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #65]
The only two I recognize is Vine and Barclay. I would need to see their full quotes and not excerpts.

So get to it; the references are all sourced. Report back.

I am unfamiliar with the other three.

So WHAT!? Are we to limit our research to the field of your familiarity? I cannot see what the point of this comment can possibly be.





JW

[MissKate13]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #65]
The only two I recognize is Vine and Barclay. I would need to see their full quotes and not excerpts.

So get to it; the references are all sourced. Report back.

I am unfamiliar with the other three.

So WHAT!? Are we to limit our research to the field of your familiarity? I cannot see what the point of this comment can possibly be.
JW

Are you some sort of high ranked military man? A Colonel perhaps? “Get to it!” “Report back!” LOL

“YES SIR!”

After researching, it became clear that what these men are saying is that IF this were a word for word translation, then a POSSIBLE translation would be “a god.” In that case it could not be faulted.

The NWT is not a word for word translation. The majority of Bibles are not.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #72]

Do you believe Jehovah lacked wisdom?

[JehovahsWitness]

...I believe we need to look at the actual Hebrew or Greek words in their context to truly know what is being said.

That is a very good approach, so let us do that shall we?


HOW SHOULD JOHN 1 VERSE 1 PROPERLY BE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH?

Put very simply, John explains in that someone called "The Word" (logos) was with God. He uses the definite article "THE" (Greek "HO" ) when talking about the later. So he says The Word was with THE God (ho theos) . But then John turns his attention to The Word (in Greek : "logos") , he says this one (The Word) "was God". Interestingly, this time he does not used the definite article.

So there is a difference in the original text between the how first GOD (theos) appears and the second. ( For more on the definite article used for God see the following WORD STUDY: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... 11c-a.html
viewtopic.php?p=849585#p849585).

Bible scholar Philip B. Harner points out that in "... these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express" but here is where a knowledge of the basic Greek comes in. In Greek in John 1: 1c (speaking about The Word) we have what is called a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, this construction points to a quality about someone.

One might think of the famous Oscar Wilde play "THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST" which is a play on words of the adjective "earnest," meaning honest or sincere, and the German boy's name "Ernest". Although in English the two words are pronounced the same, Ernest identifies the individual while "earnst" tells us something about his character or behaviour. So the sentence "Ernest was earnest" may sound the same but the two words have completely different functions

In very simple terms, the second time "god" (theos) apears its acting like an adjective, its telling us what this person was like rather than who he is. We do something similar in English when we might say of someone : "She's an angel". Again we are not identfying what she is (a winged supernatural creature) but how she behaves. We say "She is an angel" we MEAN she is a very good, kind person; she is like an angel. She has an angelic nature As Harner explains, the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." - "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1", Philip B. Harner, (Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1973), 92:75-87. (For more considerations of an unmodified "theos" without the article see the following WORD STUDY : http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_21.html)

ADDING AN "A"

So how can the translator help the English reader understand the difference between the two appearances of the word GOD? How can the English properly reflect the Greek meaning that the 2nd apearance of the word "God" (theos) was speaking about qualities rather than identity? More Greek anyone?

There are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb in scripture, such as in Mk 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article [ a ] is inserted before the anarthrous‚ in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read ... "a god" ( For more on the adding of an indefinite article see the folowing WORD STUDY http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_21.html
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p924329)

So by adding the indefinite article : "a"/ an , (and for some translators, using a lower case 'g' ) the translator can signal to the English reader what is evident in the Greek, while still using the English word " god " (theos), namely ... that "The word " was "godlike", of a "divine" nature. For more on this : viewtopic.php?p=1108708#p1108708







FURTHER READING

http://onlytruegod.org/defense/john1files.htm
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... 11c-a.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... gress.html

Does "Colwell's Rule" shed light on how John1:1 should properly be translated?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 38#p822838
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/metzgercolwell.htm
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blog ... n-11c.html

RELATED POSTS

Is it true that one cannot use an indefinite article with a predicate nominative in Greek?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p822778

What is the literal Greek meaning of John 1:1c according to biblical scholars?
viewtopic.php?p=1111946#p1111946

JOHN 1:1 The word was "divine"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 96#p870896

Is The New Word translation the ONLY bible that has rendered John 1:1c " . ... and the word was a god"?
viewtopic.php?p=1111348#p1111348

Is The New World Translation a literal translation?
viewtopic.php?p=1112080#p1112080

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

JESUS , , THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED and ... BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

[kjw47]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #72]

Do you believe Jehovah lacked wisdom?

Not at all.

[Ross]

I don’t know who your NWT translators were, so I can’t comment about their “higher learning.” Do you know who they were? Can you post their credentials? Please share with me their names so I can research them. It is my understanding that the NWT translators were all JW’s. That’s a cause for concern.

The New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures had one primary translator, Frederick William Franz, who was the chief theologian of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society for many decades. He later became president. The other members of the translation committee according to witness sources within the organization had no Greek or Hebrew learning whatsoever.

Franz was unable when put under test to translate a basic Biblical Hebrew text.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #63]
I wrote in another post that I am no Hebrew or Greek language expert. However, in the case of some translations, we see bias. Wouldn’t you agree?

I don't think there is a Bible translated without bias. I care about a bias toward accuracy. I wouldn't care who translated John 1:1c as 'a god', I would find it correct because there are scholars who agree this is the correct Greek grammar and it harmonizes with the rest of the Bible. Those Bibles that translate John 1:1 as 'was God' I see as bias but not for accuracy. It doesn't fit harmoniously with the rest of the Bible. It actually is direct contraction for many scriptures that have already been brought out many many times on this forum.

Nearly all translations that I am aware of, translate God both times in John 1:1 with capital G. The only translation which does not is the NWT. Are/were the men who translated the NWT smarter than all the men who translated the KJV, ASV, etc?

So the G fine, not for accuracy, but as long as it fits your dogma?
Also, the NWT is not the only translation that translates John 1:1c as ' was a god'. viewtopic.php?p=402240#p402240
Yet, I know that people will dismiss these translations not because they want accuracy but because they fear they might be correct. If they are correct then their belief system falls apart and that is way too scary to deal with. Where as I on the other hand only care about accuracy. If the Bible was harmonious about Jesus being Almighty God and the grammar fit, then so be it. I am not afraid to change my dogma to fit what is accurate. But is is not accurate to say Jesus is the True God Almighty.

I think the best any of us can do is study the Scriptures for ourselves using the tools available (interlinears, lexicons, dictionaries). I believe that our God is very pleased when we do. He wants us to study for ourselves and not be lead by the blind lest we both fall into the pit. (Matthew 15:14)

ALL tools available and not just the ones that match what we were brought up to believe.

I can't remember which bird is was, but there is a bird that nest on the ground. If one would go and rearrange the leaves and sticks around it's nest, trying to make the next unrecognizable from the air. This bird flies higher to find other landmarks in a wider area to find it's nest.

This the way I look at the Bible. When there is a teaching appears to make one verse unrecognizable, I zoom out to take in more context and other markers to determine what the verse is actually trying to say. More chapters in that book or even more books of the Bible. Jesus as Almighty God doesn't fit when I do this.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #79]

The quotes JW provided all speak of a literal, word for word translation. Translating Jesus was “a god” would be acceptable in a literal translation, but the NWT is not a word for word translation, therefore, there is no consistency. This is the reason nearly all Bibles do not say “a god.” They are not literal translations.

My dogma is dependent first and foremost on God’s truth, not my truth, or even my congregation’s truth. I was raised in a false religion. I take the saying, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” very seriously. I examined and continue to examine every teaching. I take nothing for granted.

When you study all of the Scriptures, the whole counsel of God, it is impossible to not see that Jesus is Jehovah! It’s easy to prove in a face to face conversation with one who is willing to examine ALL of the Scriptures concerning the topic rather than cherry picking verses or worse a word or two. It’s almost a waste of time trying to prove anything in a forum setting.