The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
TripleZ
Banned
Banned
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:07 am

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #91

Post by TripleZ »

EastwardTraveler wrote: 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.
btw, what it is that you hope to HEAR form all of us out here and on what in particular ? I ask so that I may reply to you with something relevant ?

TripleZ
Banned
Banned
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:07 am

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #92

Post by TripleZ »

onewithhim wrote:
EastwardTraveler wrote: 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.
First of all, "elohim" is not a title reserved for the one true God. Angels are referred to as "elohim," and pagan gods are called elohim---even gods that are not trinities, like Dagon of the Philistines.

In Greek, proper nouns are shown to be either one of a kind, or one of many, by using ARTICLES. There is no article in Greek for indefinite adjectives like "a" or "an." So when, in English, a translator wants to say "a cat," he sees that the word "cat" is alone and has no article there, and thus to be true to the way Greek has to be translated into English, he includes the qualifier "a." But when he wants to say that something is the only one, the translator sees the DEFINITE ARTICLE in front of the word and translates it as unique. For instance, if "cat" would have a definite article in front of it, the translator would know that it was special, and it would be "THE cat." There are no others. The second "god" in John 1:1 has no article and therefore is one of many.

This is the case with John 1:1. The first "god" mentioned is THE god. So to be honest, the translator would render it that way. The second "god" mentioned does not have the qualifying definite article, indeed, and no article at all. The translator knows that this "god" is NOT "THE" god, and since it has no article, it is to receive, in English, the qualifier "a." That is the way translators translate everywhere else in the Bible, except at John 1:1, except for a few honest translators, one of which is the Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson.

The New World Translation is true to the way Greek is supposed to be translated
you make a lot of claims an yet never provide any proof on anything what so ever ? I ask, whhy should we just automatically believe YOU over and above the very Word of God,, ( if this was not so very sad and evil it would be hilarious ) ...
You need to realize this, all that you claim against others and the Scriptures and God and such can just as easily be directed towards the WT and the NWT and so on, ie' it is not a one way street nor is it just ALL ABOUT YOU!!
Rom 3:21 But now, quite apart from Torah, God's way of making people righteous in his sight has been made clear — although the Torah and the Prophets give their witness to it as well —
Rom 3:22 and it is a righteousness that comes from God, through the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah, to all who continue trusting. For it makes no difference whether one is a Jew or a Gentile,
Rom 3:23 since all have sinned and come short of earning God's praise.
Tell us the meaning of the word " all " in the passage above, NB verse 23 ?

TripleZ
Banned
Banned
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:07 am

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #93

Post by TripleZ »

EastwardTraveler wrote: 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.
I think you will find that if you post here that we are all allowed to reply to your posts without " conditions "...
The WT has made a care and an industry about John 1...and have become very rich and profitable in doing so, with condemning millions to eternal hell. JWs just believe the WT's man made views and word and NOT Gods word..

please do this little test if you please.
ask a JW and a Mormon and a 7th Day, " what do YOU believe ? ".. they will never answer.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 14437
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 19 times
Contact:

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #94

Post by JehovahsWitness »

TripleZ wrote:
please do this little test if you please.
ask a JW and a Mormon and a 7th Day, " what do YOU believe ? ".. they will never answer.
I'm one of JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES and I'm more than happy to tell anyone that asks me what we believe. Our main beliefs are as follows:


God. We worship the one true and Almighty God, the Creator, whose name is Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18; Revelation 4:11) He is the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.—Exodus 3:6; 32:11; John 20:17.

Bible. We recognize the Bible as God’s inspired message to humans. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16) We base our beliefs on all 66 of its books, which include both the “Old Testament� and the “New Testament.� Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that Jehovah’s Witnesses built “their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there.� *

While we accept the entire Bible, we are not fundamentalists. We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1.

Jesus. We follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and honor him as our Savior and as the Son of God. (Matthew 20:28; Acts 5:31) Thus, we are Christians. (Acts 11:26) However, we have learned from the Bible that Jesus is not Almighty God and that there is no Scriptural basis for the Trinity doctrine.—John 14:28.

The Kingdom of God. This is a real government in heaven, not a condition in the hearts of Christians. It will replace human governments and accomplish God’s purpose for the earth. (Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:9, 10) It will take these actions soon, for Bible prophecy indicates that we are living in “the last days.�—2 Timothy 3:1-5; Matthew 24:3-14.

Jesus is the King of God’s Kingdom in heaven. He began ruling in 1914.—Revelation 11:15.

Salvation. Deliverance from sin and death is possible through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. (Matthew 20:28; Acts 4:12) To benefit from that sacrifice, people must not only exercise faith in Jesus but also change their course of life and get baptized. (Matthew 28:19, 20; John 3:16; Acts 3:19, 20) A person’s works prove that his faith is alive. (James 2:24, 26) However, salvation cannot be earned—it comes through “the undeserved kindness of God.�—Galatians 2:16, 21.

Heaven. Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, and the faithful angels reside in the spirit realm. * (Psalm 103:19-21; Acts 7:55) A relatively small number of people—144,000—will be resurrected to life in heaven to rule with Jesus in the Kingdom.—Daniel 7:27; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 5:9, 10; 14:1, 3.

A woman and a little girl work together in a flower garden
Earth. God created the earth to be mankind’s eternal home. (Psalm 104:5; 115:16; Ecclesiastes 1:4) God will bless obedient people with perfect health and everlasting life in an earthly paradise.—Psalm 37:11, 34.

Evil and suffering. These began when one of God’s angels rebelled. (John 8:44) This angel, who after his rebellion was called “Satan� and “Devil,� persuaded the first human couple to join him, and the consequences have been disastrous for their descendants. (Genesis 3:1-6; Romans 5:12) In order to settle the moral issues raised by Satan, God has allowed evil and suffering, but He will not permit them to continue forever.

Death. People who die pass out of existence. (Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) They do not suffer in a fiery hell of torment.

God will bring billions back from death by means of a resurrection. (Acts 24:15) However, those who refuse to learn God’s ways after being raised to life will be destroyed forever with no hope of a resurrection.—Revelation 20:14, 15.

A husband and wife and their two children spend time outdoors together
Family. We adhere to God’s original standard of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, with sexual immorality being the only valid basis for divorce. (Matthew 19:4-9) We are convinced that the wisdom found in the Bible helps families to succeed.—Ephesians 5:22–6:1.

Our worship. We do not venerate the cross or any other images. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19; 1 John 5:21) Key aspects of our worship include the following:

Praying to God.—Philippians 4:6.

Reading and studying the Bible.—Psalm 1:1-3.

Meditating on what we learn from the Bible.—Psalm 77:12.

Meeting together to pray, study the Bible, sing, express our faith, and encourage fellow Witnesses and others.—Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 10:23-25.

Preaching the “good news of the Kingdom.�—Matthew 24:14.

Helping those in need.—James 2:14-17.

Constructing and maintaining Kingdom Halls and other facilities used to further our worldwide Bible educational work.—Psalm 127:1.

Sharing in disaster relief.—Acts 11:27-30.

A congregation meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Our organization. We are organized into congregations, each of which is overseen by a body of elders. However, the elders do not form a clergy class, and they are unsalaried. (Matthew 10:8; 23:8) We do not practice tithing, and no collections are ever taken at our meetings. (2 Corinthians 9:7) All our activities are supported by anonymous donations.

The Governing Body, a small group of mature Christians who serve at our world headquarters, provides direction for Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide.—Matthew 24:45.

Our unity. We are globally united in our beliefs. (1 Corinthians 1:10) We also work hard to have no social, ethnic, racial, or class divisions. (Acts 10:34, 35; James 2:4) Our unity allows for personal choice, though. Each Witness makes decisions in harmony with his or her own Bible-trained conscience.—Romans 14:1-4; Hebrews 5:14.

Our conduct. We strive to show unselfish love in all our actions. (John 13:34, 35) We avoid practices that displease God, including the misuse of blood by taking blood transfusions. (Acts 15:28, 29; Galatians 5:19-21) We are peaceful and do not participate in warfare. (Matthew 5:9; Isaiah 2:4) We respect the government where we live and obey its laws as long as these do not call on us to disobey God’s laws.—Matthew 22:21; Acts 5:29.

Our relationships with others. Jesus commanded: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.� He also said that Christians “are no part of the world.� (Matthew 22:39; John 17:16) So we try to “work what is good toward all,� yet we remain strictly neutral in political affairs and avoid affiliation with other religions. (Galatians 6:10; 2 Corinthians 6:14) However, we respect the choices that others make in such matters.—Romans 14:12.

SOURCE: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... s-beliefs/

Anyone with the internet can read about our beliefs at our official website HERE
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/

There is also a subforum HERE to ask groups about their beliefs which I frequently participate and where anyone interested in knowing our beliefs can post
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... m.php?f=45


Further since all JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES peach publically anyone can approach one of their public preaching carts or ask them what they believe when they call during their door to door ministry.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

TripleZ
Banned
Banned
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:07 am

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #95

Post by TripleZ »

onewithhim wrote:
EastwardTraveler wrote: 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.
First of all, "elohim" is not a title reserved for the one true God. Angels are referred to as "elohim," and pagan gods are called elohim---even gods that are not trinities, like Dagon of the Philistines.

In Greek, proper nouns are shown to be either one of a kind, or one of many, by using ARTICLES. There is no article in Greek for indefinite adjectives like "a" or "an." So when, in English, a translator wants to say "a cat," he sees that the word "cat" is alone and has no article there, and thus to be true to the way Greek has to be translated into English, he includes the qualifier "a." But when he wants to say that something is the only one, the translator sees the DEFINITE ARTICLE in front of the word and translates it as unique. For instance, if "cat" would have a definite article in front of it, the translator would know that it was special, and it would be "THE cat." There are no others. The second "god" in John 1:1 has no article and therefore is one of many.

This is the case with John 1:1. The first "god" mentioned is THE god. So to be honest, the translator would render it that way. The second "god" mentioned does not have the qualifying definite article, indeed, and no article at all. The translator knows that this "god" is NOT "THE" god, and since it has no article, it is to receive, in English, the qualifier "a." That is the way translators translate everywhere else in the Bible, except at John 1:1, except for a few honest translators, one of which is the Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson.

The New World Translation is true to the way Greek is supposed to be translated

, again , No Scripture!!!
Here is what is the original says;
Remember well that back then John Gospel was TO Israel ONLY and also there was no CHURCH at this time. Greek was not used at all until 400 hundred years later.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
BTW there is ONLY ONE WORD - ONE! The Word! - The Word! - The Word!

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�׃
John wrote this in Hebrew TO Israel, not in Greek, that was much later by someone else.

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�׃

User avatar
tigger2
Sage
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:32 pm

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #96

Post by tigger2 »

ZZZ wrote:

Here is what is the original says;
Remember well that back then John Gospel was TO Israel ONLY and also there was no CHURCH at this time. Greek was not used at all until 400 hundred years later.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


BTW there is ONLY ONE WORD - ONE! The Word! - The Word! - The Word!

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�׃
John wrote this in Hebrew TO Israel, not in Greek, that was much later by someone else.

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�׃
[/quote]

.........................................

This is pure nonsense.

1. "Remember well that back then John Gospel was TO Israel ONLY" - John's Gospel was written long after the book of Acts and the letters of Paul. It was not to the the Jews only.

2. "there was no CHURCH at this time. Greek was not used at all until 400 hundred years later." - The Church had been in existence for many years (see Acts and the Letters of Paul) before John wrote his Gospel..

Greek was the language of much of the Roman world, including the area where Pontius Pilate governed. In fact Pilate had the message board over Christ's head written in three languages: Hebrew, Latin, and GREEK!

3. " John wrote this in Hebrew TO Israel, not in Greek, that was much later by someone else." - There is no evidence whatsoever that John ever wrote in Hebrew!

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17488
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 36 times
Contact:

Post #97

Post by otseng »

TripleZ wrote: ask a JW and a Mormon and a 7th Day, " what do YOU believe ? ".. they will never answer.
:warning: Moderator Final Warning

Please do not make blanket statements about others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

EastwardTraveler
Student
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:43 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Been gone for a while

Post #98

Post by EastwardTraveler »

Sorry I've been gone for so long. Glad to be back and look forward to talking to you allday again.

EastwardTraveler
Student
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:43 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: further clarification re: a god

Post #99

Post by EastwardTraveler »

[Replying to post 74 by Overcomer]

Sorry I disappeared there for a while. I will jump back in by responding to your post. Hopefully I will get to it tonight.

EastwardTraveler
Student
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:43 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: further clarification re: a god

Post #100

Post by EastwardTraveler »

[Replying to post 74 by Overcomer]

Sorry I disappeared for so long. I believe exactly how you stated it, that the word god refers to spiritual beings and all gods besides God are false gods. Remember God is a god, he just happens to be the only true god. This a grammatically and theologically correct sentence. So as you point out when Jesus is called a god it is referring to his divine nature as a god. Since you ask about my "meaning" of nature, I mean his ontological nature or essence. Does that clear it up any?

Post Reply