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]

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.

Thanks for posting, Ross. My understanding is that the rest of the group had less knowledge of the Greek than Franz did.

[2timothy316]

[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.

Yet how can you know what is consistent and what isn't. As you said, you're not fluent in Greek and yet you speak as if you were.

[2timothy316]

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.

Thanks for posting, Ross. My understanding is that the rest of the group had less knowledge of the Greek than Franz did.

Where did this information come from? The names are not published as to who translated the NWT.

[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.

Yet how can you know what is consistent and what isn't. As you said, you're not fluent in Greek and yet you speak as if you were.

Do some research, then get back to me.

There are two methods used in translating Bibles: formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence.

When you understand the methods, you’ll see that it doesn’t take a Greek language expert to tell the difference between a Bible that’s literal and one that isn’t.

[2timothy316]

[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.

Yet how can you know what is consistent and what isn't. As you said, you're not fluent in Greek and yet you speak as if you were.

Do some research, then get back to me.

There are two methods used in translating Bibles: formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence.

When you understand the methods, you’ll see that it doesn’t take a Greek language expert to tell the difference.

LOL You have no idea how much research I have done.
Have you read a book called Truth in Translation? That was written by an expert and he agrees that the NWT is good translation of John 1:1c. He is not a JW either and has no bias to any translation.

"The Jehovah’s Witness editors, in explaining this verse, say that they are trying to convey that the word has qualitative sense — that is, that the word belongs to the class of divine beings. This is correct. In fact, it seems clear to me that the word theos is in this verse a predicate adjective. I would translate as Moffatt and Goodspeed (two excellent scholars of Greek) have: “And the Word was divine.”

His reasoning?

"If John had wanted to say “the Word was God,” as so many English translations have it, he could have very easily done so by simply adding the definite article “the” (ho) to the word “god” (theos), making it “the god” and therefore “God.” He could simply have written ho logos ēn ho theos (word-for-word: “the word was the god”), or ho logos ho theos ēn (word-for-word: “the word the god was”). But he didn’t. If John didn’t, why do the translators?

"The culprit appears to be the King James translators. As I said before, these translators were much more familiar and comfortable with their Latin Vulgate than they were with the Greek New Testament. They were used to understanding passages based on reading them in Latin, and this worked its way into their reading of the same passages in Greek. Latin has no articles, either definite or indefinite. So the definite noun “God” and the indefinite noun “god” look precisely the same in Latin, and in John 1:1-2 one would see three occurrences of what appeared to be the same word, rather than the two distinct forms used in Greek. Whether a Latin noun is definite or indefinite is determined solely by context, and that means it is open to interpretation. The interpretation of John 1:1-2 that is now found in most English translations was well entrenched in the thinking of the King James translators based on a millennium of reading only the Latin, and overpowered their close attention to the more subtle wording of the Greek. After the fact — after the King James translation was the dominant version and etched in the minds of English-speaking Bible readers — various arguments were put forward to support the KJV translation of John 1:1c as “the Word was God,” and to justify its repetition in more recent, and presumably more accurate translations. But none of these arguments withstands close scrutiny. (pp. 115-116)"

So you as for literal but if it was actually literal then John would have wrote "ho logos ēn ho theos (word-for-word: “the word was the god”), or ho logos ho theos ēn (word-for-word: “the word the god was”)". But that is not what John wrote.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... Translating Jesus was “a god” would be acceptable in a literal translation ...

IS THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION A LITERAL TRANSLATION?

As stated in the foreword to the original English edition of the New World Translation: “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.” - NWT pp. 1718-1721A1 Principles of Bible Translation

.... .there is no consistency.

Why this variety in the way words are translated? The translation committee judged that to render the best sense of these words according to the context was more important than to produce a strictly literal translation. Even so, the New World Translation is as consistent as possible in rendering Hebrew and Greek words into the target language.

Clearly, Bible translation involves more than simply rendering an original-language word the same way each time it occurs. Translators must use good judgment in order to select words that present the ideas of the original-language text accurately and understandably. In addition, they need to assemble the words and sentences in their translation in a way that conforms to the rules of grammar of the target language.- w08 5/1 pp. 18-22How

Literal bible translations
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... bible.html


VARIOUS OTHER TRANSLATIONS

The King James Version: ... a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant [in agreement or harmony] as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek. - Directives, King James I, February 10, 1604

The Jerusalem Bible text is a version in modern English which keeps as close as possible to the literal meaning of the ancient texts from which it has been translated" - Ian Robinson, British literary critic and English lecturer

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)" ...convey as much of the information and intention of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures the maximum transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the the original"

RELATED POSTS

John 10:30: What did Jesus mean by My father and I are one?
viewtopic.php?p=1112118#p1112118

How should John 1:1 be properly translated?
viewtopic.php?p=1112024#p1112024

How should Zechariah 12:10 be properly translated?
viewtopic.php?p=1112224#p1112224

How do various TRANSLATIONS render Zechariah 12:10 ?
viewtopic.php?p=1112233#p1112233

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

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

[tam]

Peace to you,

I just want to make clear that I am not a JW. I do not belong to any sect or religion. I belong to Christ (and so also to His Father).

[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.

I don't see how that matters as to how the verse should be rendered. If "a god" is meant to convey the understanding of "divine" in the original language (or something similar), then that is how it should be rendered. But I think that last post by timothy offered some good information about how meanings can be and have been lost when translating from the vulgate (which is a translation as well).

This is the reason nearly all Bibles do not say “a god.” They are not literal translations.

How does that help the case of those who assert that "Jesus" is "Jehovah"?

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.

First... many people say that. "If you study the scriptures as a whole, you would see [that the interpretation I accept is correct]." But this is not the way to come to know what is true. You might come to know some things that are true that way; but since it depends upon interpretations from men, there will also be error. Because JWS say exactly what you just said (as do others) - and yet, you each 'see' the opposite thing. What I have found is that people say that when their point has been proven to be wrong. Or when a scripture has disproved their theology. Which to me seems like you (general you) are just letting your eyes glaze over so you can 'see' the whole book without having to actually SEE those parts that disprove what you believe.

If you truly want to know what is true, then listen to Christ. He is the One to whom God said to listen. He is the One who is Himself the Truth.


**

Now, above, you said:

When you study all of the Scriptures, the whole counsel of God, it is impossible to not see that Jesus is Jehovah!

But it is absolutely possible to see that "Jesus" is NOT "Jehovah".

(notable: my Lord's name is Jaheshua <- He is the Chosen One of JAH. His Father's name is JAH. JAHVEH if you take the longer ending from [YHWH]. "J" pronounced as a "Y" as in, HalleluJAH, which means Praise JAH.)


Just take Psalm 110:1 for instance (and we know from Christ that David is speaking).

[The LORD] said to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

[The LORD] is actually written in place of [YHWH].

And "my Lord" is referring to Christ.


Therefore, the verse reads:

[YHWH] said to my Lord (to Christ): "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a foostool for your feet."


[YHWH] is speaking TO Christ.

Christ is NOT [YHWH].


Put another way,

Does [YHWH] ever speak to the Father?

Of course not. Because [YHWH] IS the Father.

But [YHWH] does speak to the Son. Because YHWH is not the Son.


Christ also never once taught that He is [YHWH]. And I am sure that it has been pointed out that even after Christ has ascended (in Revelation), He still refers to God as HIS GOD. Rev 3:12.


**

I was fooled once as well, btw. I did not know how I would ever trust my own judgment again after that. But here is the thing. It is not about trusting MY OWN judgment, or listening to myself. It is about placing my faith in Christ, trusting Him, and listening to HIM. I don't have to trust my own judgment if I am listening to Him. I just have to listen to Him.

People leave their religions all the time, but often carry baggage leftover from that religion - and you know there are so many lies out there about God and His Son, many of those lies coming from the religion that is supposed to be (but is not) from either of them. Tear it all down, straight down to the cornerstone: to Christ. Then let Him build you back up on HIM, the ROCK, the SURE foundation. Listen to Him, remain in Him... and who CARES what other things men teach. God never told us to listen to those men, or to 'the bible as a whole'. He said to listen to His Son. Just His Son.




Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[MissKate13]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #85]

You say you have done a lot of research, but you won’t give me the benefit of doing the same.

My time is spent in actual Bible study, and not research of what men say. I don’t read much in the way of commentaries. As I said before, I do use Bible tools such as interlinears, lexicons, dictionaries, etc.

It seems I am communicating with three JW’s here, and that is more posting that I have time for. I can’t possible answer all of the lengthy posts the three of you are writing. I don’t really want to spend time discussing the validity of translations. I prefer to discuss the Scriptures themselves. I’d like to talk about Proverbs 8, and others verses from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation to name a few. If you’re interested, let me know. If not, I’ll move on to someone who is.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to tam in post #87]

I’m sorry Tammy, but I don’t have time to be debating with three JW’s at the same time. Your post is very long, and much more than I can do justice to. I appreciate the time you put into your post, but believe it or not, I do have a life outside this forum. I hope you understand. I simply don’t have time to respond.

Have a blessed evening.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #86]

I’d like it if we could discuss the actual Scriptures themselves, and not translations.

You Proverbs 8 as proof that Jesus was a created being. I’ve stated in posts that Proverbs 8 is wisdom personified. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?