Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now as for what real Greek scholars think about the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1:1 here's quite a few.
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
Yes and he even wrote the NWT misquoted him. OOps not so as I have Mantey's grammar and ... he was quoted correctly. He used a perfect example.
Mantey’s: “A Manual Grammar (pg 148, 149)
(3) With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence. The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenephon’s Anabisis 1:4 :6. . emporium h=n to xwriovn,, and the place was a market. We have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai. qeo.j h=n o` lo,goj, and the word was deity. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos.
Great he believes Jesus was part of God. Do you believe he is less than 100% God?
Walter Martin, who I proved publicly to be a liar (KBRT in LA, CA)and who had to make changes in one of his books because of it, pressured Mantey into the false statements.
Quote:
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:
"Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Oh yes and Barclay said AFTER really studying Greek.
First he said:
"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. Jn [1:1] is translated: 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." (An Ancient Heresy in Modern Dress, 1953, 65), p. 30
Oops it isn't and 'a " something is common as I showed in verses with the same structure.
Then he had to say:
"'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.'. You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: 'the Word was a God'; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong." (Ever Yours, A selection from the letters of William Barclay, CBE DD, Compiled and edited by Clive L. Rawlins), p. 205.
You really need to check and learn NOT just read what you like. They ,,,, lie.
Then learn what he word God actually meant in the 1t century and before. Oh, is there more than one G/god?
Humm is God only a God of false non existent G/gods?
ASV Deuteronomy 10:17 For Jehovah your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.
KJV Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
Until you critically analyze what you are told, you will just be a follower of men.
'The Word was God' does NOT mean the same thing as 'the Word was the God.' And no reputable Greek scholar would agree with you. Wallace certainly doesn't. Furthermore, no reputable Greek Scholar would agree with the New World translation of John 1:1c as 'a god.'
And John did not write, 'and the Word was a god,' or 'and the Word was the God.' He wrote, 'and God was the Word', which as Wallace has stated is properly translated into English as, 'and the Word was God.
Once you've taught Greek classes at a University or Seminary, and have produced an intermediate Greek Grammar like Wallace has, then you get back to me.
Now as for what real Greek scholars think about the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1:1 here's quite a few.
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):
"A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:
"Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Now here is Dr. Mantey's letter to the Watchtower Society regarding the fact that they took quotes from his Greek Grammar out of context to support their mistranslations.
And one point that Dr. Mantey made in his letter follows below.
(4) Prof. Harner, Vol. 92.1 (1973) in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature of character of the subject . He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark, Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended, the Gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John l: 1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god".
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
[/font]
I will try one last time to help you SEE,
Again according to grammar and usage it DOES. That is why they say it isn’t definite BUT they translate ita s a definite Noun. Plus as Qualitative it is pointing to a member of a class just as John 6:70 does. Wallace gives no support for his assertion.
Now to show that Scholars do agree with the NWT consider:
The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefiniteand undistributed.—A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition, 1934, p. 767.
In John 1:1...Theos en (“was deity”);...The qualitative forceis obvious and most important,—Alfred M. Perry, “Translating The Greek Article” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1949, Vol. l68, p. 331.
Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated “the word was with the God (= the Father), and the word was a divine being.—John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, p. 317. A Jesuit Scholar.
The late Dr. William Temple in His Readings in St. John’s Gospel (1939), 4, obviously accepts Moffatt’s translation, for he says, ‘The term “God” is fully substantival [shows identity, who, or what, ‘the God’, the Father, is] in the first clause pros ton then [“with the God”, both “the” (ton) and “God” (Theon) being spelled accusative case endings] it is predicative and not far from being adjectival in the second - kai theos en ho logos [“and (a) god was the Word”]—R.H. Strachan, The Forth Gospel (3rd ed., 1941).
As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.—Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p
We reach a more difficult issue in the Gospel of John. Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God, but, as often observed, in contrast with the clause, ‘the Word was with God’, the definite article is not used (in the final clause.) For this reason it is generally translated ‘and the Word was divine’ (Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the Absolute sense of the name...In a second passage in the Prologue (I 18) the textual evidence attests ‘only-begotten God’ more strongly than ‘only begotten Son’, but the latter is preferred by many commentators as being more in harmony with Johnnine usage and with the succeeding clause, ‘who is in the bosom of the Father’. In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called God, while again and again in the Gospel He is named ‘the Son of God.—Vincent Taylor, The Expository Times, January
This is a short list. You need to understand there is no unanimity of agreement among scholars other than Jesus is Not the God he is with, an impossibility according to the grammar.
Next will be a list of versions by reputable scholars, in the main Trinitarians who ..... agree with the NWT.
No, it does NOT. The previous clause - John 1:1b states that the Word was with God. This shows distinction between the person of the Word and the person of the Father. The Word cannot be the person He is with. Therefore, John did not use the definite article when He said that that the Word was God in order to show distinction between the Word and the Father. On the other hand, John did not say that the Word was 'a god' because the Bible is clear that there is only one God, and John was not a polytheist. Therefore, Θεὸς in John 1:1c is qualitative and means that the Word was God, but not the Father.
You quoted Alford and Robertson, neither of whom supports your argument. I have posted what they say concerning John 1:1 below.
On p. 268 of 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics' Wallace quoted several commentators concerning Θεὸς being qualitative and not definite.
Westcott's Commentary on John: ''It is necessarily without the article (Θεὸς not ὁ Θεὸς) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ὁ Θεὸς.''
Robertson, Grammar, 767-68: ''ὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (convertible terms) would have been pure Sabellianism . . . . The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea.''
Lange's commentary on John: ''Θεὸς without the article signifies divine essence or the generic idea of God in distinction from man and angel' as σὰρξ, ver. 14, signifies the human essence or nature of the Logos. The article before Θεὸς would here destroy the distinction of personality and confound the Son with the Father.''
Chemnitz says: ''Θεὸς sine artic. essentialiter, *** artic, personaliter.'
Alford points out: ''The omission of the article before Θεὸς is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the words might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ Θεὸς would destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. Θεὸς must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, -not ὁ Θεὸς , 'the Father,' in Person . . . . as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο [John 1:14], σὰρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in Θεὸς ἦν, Θεὸς expresses that essence which was His εν ἀρχῇ: -that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity, -was with God (the Father), -and was Himself God.''
Luther states it succinctly: '''the Word was God' is against Arius; 'the Word was with God' against Sabellius.''
In post #96 I showed you and everyone else who is reading this, comments from 15 scholars which say that John 1:1c cannot be translated 'the Word was a god.' If you believe that the Word was 'a god' then you are a polytheist. If you believe that the Word and the Father are the same person, then you are a proponent of Sabellianism. The apostle John was neither.
Yes and he even wrote the NWT misquoted him. OOps not so as I have Mantey's grammar and ... he was quoted correctly. He used a perfect example.
Mantey’s: “A Manual Grammar (pg 148, 149)
(3) With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence. The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenephon’s Anabisis 1:4 :6. . emporium h=n to xwriovn,, and the place was a market. We have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai. qeo.j h=n o` lo,goj, and the word was deity. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos.
Great he believes Jesus was part of God. Do you believe he is less than 100% God?
Are you unable to understand that he was saying that while Jesus is God, He is not the Father. He is a Trinitarian. Jesus is the Second Person of the Godhead. He is fully God in His essence, but He is one of three 'Persons' in the Trinity. The one true God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
From Mantey's letter.
You quoted me out of context. on pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence. . "theos on ho logos" emphasises Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature.''
0ur interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TEV: "What God was, the Word was": and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God'' , which you quoted in your letter to Caris. http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/...tey_letter.htm
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j01.html
Quote:
Walter Martin, who I proved publicly to be a liar (KBRT in LA, CA)and who had to make changes in one of his books because of it, pressured Mantey into the false statements.
No. You claimed that he was a liar.
Quote:
[/indent]Oh yes and Barclay said AFTER really studying Greek.
First he said:
"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. Jn [1:1] is translated: 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." (An Ancient Heresy in Modern Dress, 1953, 65), p. 30
Oops it isn't and 'a " something is common as I showed in verses with the same structure.
Then he had to say:
[
You really need to check and learn NOT just read what you like. They ,,,, lie.
Then learn what he word God actually meant in the 1t century and before. Oh, is there more than one G/god?
FONT="]"'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.'. You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: 'the Word was a God'; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong." (Ever Yours, A selection from the letters of William Barclay, CBE DD, Compiled and edited by Clive L. Rawlins), p. 205.[/font]
FONT="]"'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.'. You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: 'the Word was a God'; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong."(Ever Yours, A selection from the letters of William Barclay, CBE DD, Compiled and edited by Clive L. Rawlins), p. 205.[/font]
Quote:
Humm is God only a God of false non existent G/gods?
ASV Deuteronomy 10:17 For Jehovah your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.
KJV Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
Until you critically analyze what you are told, you will just be a follower of men.
So then you are a polytheist?
There is only one true God as the Scriptures say. The false gods and idols of men are inspired by Satan.
1 Chron. 16:26 For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the LORD made the heavens.
Psalm 115:4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man's hands.
As Jesus said of the Father, speaking from the standpoint of His humanity.
John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Jesus wasn't denying that He Himself was God, but was as a man speaking of the fact that the one true God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The true God is a tri-unity of three 'Persons' who are a united one by reason of their essence or nature.
Last edited by Michael Way; 02-01-2015 at 04:04 PM..
What I don't understand is that Judaism recognises the Holy Spirit, but a suggestion to an orthodox Jew that they worship a diune god (god the father and the holy spirit) is likely to be met in the best of cases with laughter. As well as deifying Jesus, did Hellenic Christians also deify the holy spirit?
Is the holy spirt power of god or a person or both??
The Holy Spirit has power....
Romans 15:19Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
But He is a Person.
Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
In order for men to establish a testimony or to judge any one, there has to be at least two or three witnesses;
Deuteronomy 17:6At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 19:15One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
That was the Old Testament; and now the New Testament below:
Matthew 18:16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Therefore what God commands of men, so does He do.
Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
The fulfillment of this prophesy was seen at Jesus's baptism of God and His Spirit sending God the Son.
Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
In spite of people doubting the validity of 1 John 5:7 in the KJV, they do have verse 9 in all modern Bibles in referring to the witness of God being greater than the witness of men, but the problem is, if they remove verse 7, where and how is the witness of God being greater than the witness of men? See? So verse 7 belongs all along in how God having Three Witnesses is how He can establish a word in creation as well as judging any one.
What I don't understand is that Judaism recognises the Holy Spirit, but a suggestion to an orthodox Jew that they worship a diune god (god the father and the holy spirit) is likely to be met in the best of cases with laughter.
Monotheism is firmly entrenched in the Old Testament.
Mike555 the underlying fact is that you cannot demonstrate that the Trinity is the only valid interpretation. The Trinity is a dogmatic contruction of human beings that came hundreds of years after Christ and the apostles were dead and gone. Anyone can grab a few selected verses and twist them to mean what they want them to mean. You've been trying and failing to convince anyone for the simple reason that the Trinity is not taught by the Bible. You might be able to find passages that seem to hint that your opinion is the correct one, but there's just as many passages contradicting you as well. The core concept of the Trinity is that there are three persons unified in one substance and one God. There is no passage in the Bible that teaches anything like that. For some reason, that fact doesn't bother you a bit. I thought that the Protestant way was, "if it's not in the Bible, don't believe it." For some reason, Protestants could care less that this doctrine cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. I find that very puzzling.
The reality is that if you could find a person who has zero familiarity with Christianity and handed them a Bible to read with zero coaching, they wouldn't in a million years reconstruct the doctrine of the Trinity. I could easily see them coming up with either the JW version or something very similar to mine -- because those are simple and obvious concepts.
As you probably realized, I haven't been trying all that hard to debate the issue. It's just another debate about the Trinity and I've heard all the arguments on both sides before. I won't likely be responding to this thread much more. But for the OP's information, the Trinity is not the only opinion out there, nor is it "the Biblical opinion." It is just one theory about the nature of God.
Monotheism is firmly entrenched in the Old Testament.
Of course it is, although OT Jews flirted a lot with other gods. But, in my opinion, the OT holy spirit just emanates from YHVH and is not seen as a being/divinity in its own right. When did it become a person and why? I suppose there were so many unexplained phenomena back then, that inventing divinities that controlled them made some sense to most people.
1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
In spite of people doubting the validity of 1 John 5:7 in the KJV, they do have verse 9 in all modern Bibles in referring to the witness of God being greater than the witness of men, but the problem is, if they remove verse 7, where and how is the witness of God being greater than the witness of men? See? So verse 7 belongs all along in how God having Three Witnesses is how He can establish a word in creation as well as judging any one.
Verses 7 was added to the Bible centuries after the original writers were dead. The reason for adding it is obvious: It's because the Trinity is not clearly set forth anywhere in the Bible. The Athanasian Creed, the Catholic Church and most Trinitarians say you'll go to hell if you don't believe in the Trinity. How could something so important not be in the scriptures? So they added it in and that was that. Apparently they weren't as obsessed with Biblical purity as we are today.
Here is what you're left with once you delete that added text: Verse 6 - This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
Verse 8 - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Verse 9 - If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
The result: The Trinity isn't taught in this passage. Not at all. Sure I suppose you could assign the Spirit, the water and the blood to different members of the Godhead, but what is the justification in doing so?
I do believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I just don't buy into the whole "three persons, one substance, one God" nonsense. Leaving verse 7 in the Bible wouldn't hurt my viewpoint at all. The more important matter is that 1 John 5:7 was not written by the author of 1 John (presumably the apostle John.) It doesn't appear in any old Greek manuscripts. So whether you believe that God is three -- Trinitarian or otherwise -- you should do the right thing an omit verse 7 from any discussion about the Trinity and/or the nature of God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
