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.

[2timothy316]

I agree but, Ha'Satan, only means the High Adversary. Its not his name, proper.

It became his name according to the Bible. Even in Job the adversary is addressed as Satan. What that angel's name was before, there is only speculation.

Whatever that angel's name a person prefers, Original Serpent, Devil, Beelzebub or Satan. They all refer to a single individual angel. Who has made himself a god and many follow him.

[onewithhim]

This is why the Bible clearly tells us His name. (Ps 83:18) Tells us His plans and tells us what His defining qualities are. (1 John 4:8, Isaiah 48:17 and Gal 5:22, 23) He wants to stand out from these false gods if they have real power like Satan or a god that we give power such as our own appetites. Satan is trying to make the One True God's name obscured and to convince us that the Almighty God's ways are bad.

I agree but, Ha'Satan, only means the High Adversary. Its not his name, proper. Even in the Talmud stories, the best I have seen so far besides that is a label of sublime Seraphin. I also believe this world, as we see it, is not completely as it is. We have scales on our eyes and need God to open them. Which He will from time to time for some.

I have the same understanding as you do about the name of God's chief adversary. He is not named, but just referred to as the Adversary or the Resister, where the name "Satan" comes from. Our excellent resource called Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 866, explains what "Satan" means.

"In many places in the Hebrew Scriptures, the word satan appears without the definite article (ha'. Used in thius way, it applies in its first appearance to the angel that stood in the road to resist Balaam as he set out with the objective of cursing the Israelites (Num.22:22,32). In other instances it refers to individuals as resisters of other men (I Sam.29:4; 2 Sam.19:21,22). But it is used with the definite article ha' to refer to Satan the Devil, the chief Adversary of God (Job 1:6; Zech.3:1,2). In the Greek Scriptures the word satanas' applies to Satan the Devil in nearly all of its occurrences and is usually accompanied by the definite article ho.

"The Scriptures indicate that the creature known as Satan did not always have that name. Rather, this descriptive name was given to him because of his taking a course of opposition and resistance to God. The name he had before this is not given."

[Crow65]

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.

It seems rather simple to me that it is a statement of invested authority. IOW, God the father investing the authority of his words in his Son whom he knows will faithfully represent all that he speaks.

If I sent my son to you to tell you things that I told him to tell you, I would expect you would understand that, when he spoke, it bore all the authority of myself directly speaking it to you.

How difficult is that?

Does that not harmonize with Hebrews 1:1-2  "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.."

[Crow65]

Matthew 7:28-29 “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.�

The issue John dealt with was the issue as to Jesus' authority which the chief priests and elders of his people refused to accept:

Matthew 21:23-24, 27  “And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. …............ And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.� (Compare Luke chapter 20 and John 5:16-40 and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28)

It is all about where Jesus gets his authority. And while disputing Jesus' authority of God the Father men go about taking God's authority presumptuously to themselves.

Nothing is new under the sun.

[Overcomer]

Eastward Traveller wrote:

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.

Thank you for responding. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You say that the word "god" refers to divine spiritual beings, right? And you say that Jehovah is the only god and all others are false. Then you say Jesus is "a god" according to the first verse of John. And you say it refers to his nature. Have I got that right?

So you're saying the word "god" doesn't mean that Jesus is a divine spiritual being, but he has the nature of God. If so, what do you mean by "nature"? Are you talking about essence/ontology? Are you talking about characteristics? If it's the latter, can you give me other examples where the word "god" is used in the Bible to describe someone who is called a god because of his nature being like that of Jehovah? The Scriptures you have provided are all about hand-made idols so that's obviously different from "a god" in John 1:1.

Thanks! O.

[onewithhim]

Eastward Traveller wrote:

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.

Thank you for responding. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You say that the word "god" refers to divine spiritual beings, right? And you say that Jehovah is the only god and all others are false. Then you say Jesus is "a god" according to the first verse of John. And you say it refers to his nature. Have I got that right?

So you're saying the word "god" doesn't mean that Jesus is a divine spiritual being, but he has the nature of God. If so, what do you mean by "nature"? Are you talking about essence/ontology? Are you talking about characteristics? If it's the latter, can you give me other examples where the word "god" is used in the Bible to describe someone who is called a god because of his nature being like that of Jehovah? The Scriptures you have provided are all about hand-made idols so that's obviously different from "a god" in John 1:1.

Thanks! O.

There are LOADS of references in the Bible to gods that are not divine. Anyone who has been following this discussion will remember that the Bible says that ANYTHING THAT A PERSON THINKS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YHWH IS A GOD TO THAT PERSON.

We can recall that there is a reference to a person's stomach as being a "god" to them (Philippians 3:19). A rock idol is a "god" to many.

The Bible writers sometimes used the term "god" to refer to powerful, influential persons, such as human judges (Psalm 82:1,6; John 10:34) and angels (Psalm 8:5). Even Satan is called "the god of this world" at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

People in John's time understood that "god" could mean any important, powerful, well-liked individual, and thus he referred to Jesus Christ (the Word) as "a god." Of course Jesus is far above any other thing or individual who is termed "a god," but he still can be called "a god." Just like referencing men. There are good men and bad men, weak men and strong men. When Jesus was on Earth as a human, he was a man, but was far more excellent than any other man. He was the best, most perfect man that existed, yet he was still called, at that time, "a man." The exact same thing can be said about the term "god." There are many things and persons that can be called "a god." Yet none of them will ever compare with Jesus Christ who is also "a god." And, having said that, there are no gods that are equal to THE ONE TRUE GOD, YHWH, who is the Most High. (Psalm 83:18; John 17:3)....not even His Son, Jesus Christ.

[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

,, here is what God has said on this matter, believe God or not, it is our choice, I actually believe Gods word alone.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
Joh 1:3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing made had being.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not suppressed it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God whose name was Yochanan.
Joh 1:7 He came to be a testimony, to bear witness concerning the light; so that through him, everyone might put his trust in God and be faithful to him.
Joh 1:8 He himself was not that light; no, he came to bear witness concerning the light.
Joh 1:9 This was the true light, which gives light to everyone entering the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world — the world came to be through him — yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own homeland, yet his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to as many as did receive him, to those who put their trust in his person and power, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 not because of bloodline, physical impulse or human intention, but because of God.
Joh 1:14 The Word became a human being and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, the Sh'khinah of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

,, and this above is Gods word, we have a choice, believe or not, I believe!

[tigger2]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
.... ,, and this above is Gods word, we have a choice, believe or not, I believe!

No, they are the words of an English-speaking Trinitarian translator! That is what you are choosing to believe, the words of a man who has decided to support the 4th century trinity doctrine (for obvious reasons).

You are certainly free to believe whatever you wish. However, I KNOW that John 1:1c is properly translated as "and the Word is a god."

Unfortunately, the way to find the correct translation takes a little time and effort. And it even takes a little study (eeeek!) of NT Greek.

I have repeatedly tried to share an actual honest study of John's use of Greek Grammar and what it clearly means in his writing of John 1:1c with a number of folks in on-line discussions. Invariably they will not stick with it beyond the first lesson (except for extraneous, off-subject comments).

So you have your belief in a man's translation, and I have my knowledge of what John intended by καὶ θεὸς ἦν � λόγος (kai theos en ho logos).

[TripleZ]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

So I looked at the thread and that is not the angle I am going for. My thread is not to attack the NWT or argue over the indefinite article as far transnational purposes. Most of what I saw was a bunch of side issue and other verses that have nothing to do with elohim.

Let me restate it. For arguments sake, I am going to accept the NWT of John 1:1 as the correct translation. My position is that the change does not affect the identity of the Word as God by how we use the word elohim in that verse. I am interested in discussing the word elohim and how it is used in the scriptures and how it is applied to the Word.

(For all of those who do not accept the NWT for whatever reason, this is not to validate that translation.)

no, the NWT is a huge lie,,,,,, Greek, unlike English has more than ONE word for any English word, for example, the English word " love " in Greek has several different words for love. This is juts one of many Greek words. it is like saying in English. " I love rump steak ", " I love my wife. " I love my children " " I love to have a coll swim at the beach on a hot day " all the statements above do have a different meaning of the word " love "... Greek thus, uses different words for " love " where our English uses just the one word ie; " love ". Greek was 3 words for " word " itself.. Both pagan Rome and Pagan Greek changed the " letters " written by the witnesses to Yeshua and His Salvation.. Pagan Rome remains still to this day, where ? in Rome of course and all who follow the word " J " Jesus are being lied to.. His true Name as per Gods word is " Yeshua "....

[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!!!