D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Book mark
- Status
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
LOL, 39 pages later, 573 posts!
D
DobleGG
Guest
What happened to BibleSteve? I hope we didn’t run him off.
M
MHalsey
Guest
His account is under review. I hope not either, but the circular arguing gets tiresome after a while.What happened to BibleSteve? I hope we didn’t run him off.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Earlier in the thread, BibleSteve asserted that there are 50+ translations that don’t translate John 1:1 as “the Word was God.”
This is true, but somewhat disingenious.
Many of these translations translate it as,
“and the Word was Divine,” which is fine because only God is
Divine, and by saying the Word was Divine, the translator is making a needed distinction between the Father and the Word.
They are two persons sharing ONE, DIVINE nature, the Word being eternally begotten or generated from the father of the Father’s own divine essence without abscission.
Other translations translate it,
“and what God was, the Word was,” which is also perfectly Orthodox because it is saying that everything God is, the Word also is. No problem here.
And many of the translators have published statements that they were not intending to deny the Deity of Christ.
Julius R. Mantey, a well-known scholar of the New Testament whom the Society often quoted (out of context) in support of their renderings was so infuriated by the Watchtower’s tactics that he wrote a formal letter to the Society ordering them to never quote from him or his works again under penalty of facing legal consequences.
And as for the rest of the translations, who has even heard of these obscure translation****s except desperate people like the WTS who moved heaven and earth to find them in order to prove that not all translations use “and the Word was God.”
The fact is, all reputable scholars translate it either,
“and the Word was God” or
“and the Word was Divine” or
“and what God was, the Word was,”
all of which are perfectly fine and mean the exact same
thing as “and the Word was God.”
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
This is true, but somewhat disingenious.
Many of these translations translate it as,
“and the Word was Divine,” which is fine because only God is
Divine, and by saying the Word was Divine, the translator is making a needed distinction between the Father and the Word.
They are two persons sharing ONE, DIVINE nature, the Word being eternally begotten or generated from the father of the Father’s own divine essence without abscission.
Other translations translate it,
“and what God was, the Word was,” which is also perfectly Orthodox because it is saying that everything God is, the Word also is. No problem here.
And many of the translators have published statements that they were not intending to deny the Deity of Christ.
Julius R. Mantey, a well-known scholar of the New Testament whom the Society often quoted (out of context) in support of their renderings was so infuriated by the Watchtower’s tactics that he wrote a formal letter to the Society ordering them to never quote from him or his works again under penalty of facing legal consequences.
And as for the rest of the translations, who has even heard of these obscure translation****s except desperate people like the WTS who moved heaven and earth to find them in order to prove that not all translations use “and the Word was God.”
The fact is, all reputable scholars translate it either,
“and the Word was God” or
“and the Word was Divine” or
“and what God was, the Word was,”
all of which are perfectly fine and mean the exact same
thing as “and the Word was God.”
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
T
TraditionalCath
Guest
its 3 distinct persons sharing one divine nature not 2. you forgot the Holy Ghost.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Colossians 1:15-20 (New International Version)
The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Son of Man, fully human
Son of God, fully God John 5.
The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Son of Man, fully human
Son of God, fully God John 5.
Y
yessisan
Guest
He broke forum rules.What happened to BibleSteve? I hope we didn’t run him off.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
He ran himself off.
What happened to BibleSteve? I hope we didn’t run him off.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
John Pacheco and Jason BeDuhn
On the NWT and John 1:1
(an excerpt from Babylon’s Rebuttal: The New World Translation (NWT) of the Holy Scriptures)
The entire dialog between Mr. Pacheco and Dr. BeDuhn may be found here
John:
The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as ‘… and the Word was WITH God as the Word was a god’. How can the Word (Jesus) be ‘a god’ if God says in Deut 32:39, “See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me…”?
forananswer.org/Top_JW/pacheco.beduhn.htm
forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#BeDuhn
forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
forananswer.org/Top_JW/pacheco.beduhn.htm
Robert Hommel and Jason BeDuhn
On John 1:1 and the New World Translation
forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RH.Jn1_1.Index.htm
On the NWT and John 1:1
(an excerpt from Babylon’s Rebuttal: The New World Translation (NWT) of the Holy Scriptures)
The entire dialog between Mr. Pacheco and Dr. BeDuhn may be found here
John:
The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as ‘… and the Word was WITH God as the Word was a god’. How can the Word (Jesus) be ‘a god’ if God says in Deut 32:39, “See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me…”?
forananswer.org/Top_JW/pacheco.beduhn.htm
forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#BeDuhn
forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
forananswer.org/Top_JW/pacheco.beduhn.htm
Robert Hommel and Jason BeDuhn
On John 1:1 and the New World Translation
forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RH.Jn1_1.Index.htm
S
spudmurphy
Guest
Reply,
Re: John 1:1c
On the CARM forum and others forums, I have shown (examples on request) that there are some 48 translations that translate similar to the NWT and of those 48 there are some 18 that translate exactly as does the NWT at John 1:1c, either as “a god” or “a God”!
I keep noticing with Trinitarians, that they use a catch phrase, when it comes to translation,
“The fact is, all reputable scholars translate…” which is nonsense, as it can be shown that so called Trinitarian translations have been tampered with for theological reasons e.g. NIV and the GNB, two of several examples and as for Dr Mantey, it can be shown that he was guilty of theological manipulation and don’t forget William Barclay when he scolded the NWT at John 1:1c only to be found a liar some 320 years later, when he admitted in a personal letter to one of his respondents, that “a god” or “a God” is grammatically possible…!
Time and time again, lay Trinitarians enlist the support of so-called (unbiased???) scholars, but are themselves kept in the dark by such scholastic Trinitarian web sites and other sources to the other side of the coin in regards to these so-called “reputable scholars”!
Here is an example of what Mantey was up to:
"Is Dr. Julius Mantey’s criticism of the NWT “a god” justified?
It will be shown that Dr. Julius Mantey in his criticism, like other critics of the NWT was biased and theologically [Trinitarian] motivated!
Julius Mantey and the New World Translation
The purpose of this page is to comment on an article written by the late Dr Julius Mantey, in which he gives his opinion of the New World Translation. Dr Mantey’s article is in black, and our comments are indented in blue.
John 1:1, which reads “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,” is shockingly mistranslated, “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,” in a New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If a person very deeply and sincerely believes that Jesus is God, then it is easy to see why he would find the New World Translation rendering of John 1:1 ‘shocking’. Of course, a lot of things Jesus taught were also considered shocking by the people who heard him. So, too, the New World Translation may at times be shocking to traditionalists. The role of a Bible translation is not to avoid controversy, but to be accurate. But is John 1:1 mistranslated in the New World Translation?
See Part II*
S
spudmurphy
Guest
Reply,
Part II
"Let us see.
Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation I am making this statement.
The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, “the Word was deity.” Moffatt’s rendering is “the Word was divine.” William’s translation is, “the Word was God Himself.” Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have.
Is the English rendering 'The Word was God really qualitative?
This is an important admission on Mantey’s part. Either the anarthrous (i.e. without the article) noun emphasizes the ‘character, nature, essence, or quality’ of a person, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite. Either qualitative or indefinite. But the rendering ‘The Word was God’ is neither qualitative nor indefinite. It is definite and shows identity. C. B. Williams’ translation - “the Word was God Himself” - is even more clearly making a statement of definite identification; it is certainly not qualitative. So the statement that ‘each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek’ is odd to say the least, when the various renderings cited actually contradict each other. ‘The Word was divine’ is quite a different proposition to ‘the Word was God himself’!
The Lie!
No scholars in the whole world have translated the verse as Witnesses have, as far as Mantey knew. Apparently, that wasn’t very far. The expression “a god” appears as early as 1808 in The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London, as well as the Emphatic Diaglott, the German translations of Becker and Schulz. Many more translations have ‘the Word was divine,’ which corresponds much more closely in meaning to the New World Translation than to the traditional rendering. Of course it may be that some of these translations were made after Mantey wrote this piece.
Are the reasons for rejecting ‘a god’ at John 1:1c grammatical or theological?
Is their preferred reading based on grammar, or on theology?
J. W. Wenham, in The Elements of New Testament Greek, writes: “As far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed θεος εστιν ο λογος [theos estin ho logos], which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’. The interpretation of John 1.1 will depend upon whether the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god.” (page 35). Thus, theology rather than grammar is the stated reason for preferring ‘The Word was God.”
Note also this admission by C.H. Dodd: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of θεος ην ο λογος [theos en ho logos]; would be “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, θεος ην ο λογος [theos en ho logos] might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement, in that sense … The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.
See part III
S
spudmurphy
Guest
Reply,
Part III
"It is clear that C.H. Dodd, a scholar well known for his work on the New English Bible, is objecting to the rendering ‘a god’ on the basis of theology rather than grammar. Below I will consider the theological arguments presented by Mantey.
If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that “the Word was with (the) God” (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and the nature is the highest in existence, namely divine.
Actually, Mantey is reading far more into the expression than it actually states.
True, θεος (theos) in this verse is used qualitatively, but that does not prove that Christ is of the same ‘family or essence that characterizes the Creator’. (It’s not clear what he means by ‘family’ here.) Note what Mantey himself said above: “whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing.” ‘Character, nature, essence or quality’ has become ‘family or essence’ - which is a considerably narrower concept. Mantey has moved the goalposts! What is proved is that Christ is divine, that is, in the same class as God.
Examples where the noun in the predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, “God is spirit,” (not a spirit); I John 4:16, “God is love,” (not a love); I John 1:5, “God is light,” (not a light); and Matthew 13:39, “the reapers are angels,” i.e. they are the type of beings known as angels. In each instance the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristics of the subject, whether as to nature or type.
Mantey apparently rejects the King James Version’s rendering of John 4:23, which states that ‘God is a spirit’. Even if that is debatable, are we really to believe that Matthew 13:39 means that the reapers are ‘the type of beings known as angels’? Generations of Bible readers have certainly and correctly understood Jesus to be saying that they are angels!
The situation is more complex that Mantey makes out. What applies to uncountable nouns, such as love and light, does not necessarily apply to nouns denoting persons. In any case, Romans 2:19 does have the expression ‘a light’ for Greek phos without the article. (I checked 13 different English translations. They all had ‘a light’.) Of course no translation has it at 1 John 1:5; it depends on context.
Note how anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb are translated throughout John’s gospel. The following table shows some examples of the exact same grammatical structure found in John 1:1c (the noun is without the article and is before the verb). Mantey implies that they should all be translated qualitatively, rather than indefinitely. Do you agree?
Verse Greek New World Translation King James Version New International Version
John 4:19 προφητης a prophet a prophet a prophet
John 6:70 διαβολος a slanderer a devil a devil
John 8:44 ανθρωποκτονος a manslayer a murderer a murderer
John 8:44 ψευστης a liar a liar a liar
John 8:48 Σαμαρειτης a Samaritan a Samaritan a Samaritan
John 10:1 κλεπτης a thief a thief a thief
John 18:37 βασιλευς a king a king a king
See part IV
S
spudmurphy
Guest
Reply,
Part IV
"On the whole, we can agree with Mantey’s comment that the anarthrous predicate noun is used to describe some ‘quality or characteristics of the subject, whether as to nature or to type.’ Let’s keep that in mind as we discuss further.
The apostle John in the context of the introduction to his gospel is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ but also His equality with the Father.
Actually, leaving aside the expression under discussion (John 1:1), what other ‘stops’ is John pulling out to portray Christ’s deity and his equality with the Father? Certainly, John is emphasizing Christ’s proximity to the Father (‘with God’ verse 1, ‘bosom position’ verse 18) and his great glory and superior position (although, even then, his glory is said to be from a father, therefore received rather than inherent.) But it’s a big step from that to saying that he is God.
He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence through Him and that not even one thing exists which was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did not say?
When Mantey says ‘He states that … He was God,’ as part of his argument, then that is petitio principii, i.e. begging the question. He’s assuming as true what he is seeking to prove. That’s a circular argument and can be dismissed immediately.
True, ‘all creation came into existence through him [Greek: δι’ αυτου, di’ autou]. Interestingly, verse 17 says that the Law was given through Moses δια Μωησεως, dia Mouseos]. Same Greek preposition, δια, dia. Just as Moses was not the source of the Law, but rather its mediator, similarly Christ is not the ultimate source of creation, but rather the one through whom creation took place.
In John 1:18 he explained that Christ had been so intimate with the Father that He was in His bosom and that He came to earth to exhibit or portray God.
True enough, but intimacy does not prove equality or deity. So the point is irrelevant.
But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, “He that has seen me has seen the Father,” that would be enough to satisfy the seeking soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature."
See concluding part V
S
spudmurphy
Guest
Reply,
Part V (conclusion)
"The ‘Invisible Interpreter’ at work
This is a case of the ‘invisible interpreter’ at work. No-one who heard Jesus say those words would go away and think: “Oh yes. Jesus meant that he and God are the same in essence, both divine and equal in nature.” That is pure fantasy on the part of Mantey. The term essence isn’t even used in the Bible; it’s a post-biblical concept. The expression ‘divine nature’, on the other hand, is used in the Bible, in 2 Peter 1:4, where it is used of the experience of Christians taken to heaven. Thus it can hardly be said to mean equality with God.
Albert Barnes’ notes say concerning John 14:9: “Hath seen the Father. This cannot refer to the essence or substance of God, for he is invisible, and in that respect no man has seen God at any time. All that is meant when it is said that God is seen, is, that some manifestation of Him has been made; or some such exhibition as that we may learn his character, his will, and his plans. . . . The knowledge of the Son was itself, of course, the knowledge of the Father. There was such an intimate union in their nature and design, that he who understood the one did also the other.” (Albert Barnes was a Presbyterian minister.)
Besides, the whole tenor of New Testament revelation points in this direction. Compare Paul’s declaration in Colossians 1:19, for instance: “that all the divine fullness should dwell in Him,” or the statement in Hebrews 1:3, “He is the reflection of God’s glory and the perfect representation of His being, and continues to uphold the universe by His mighty word.” (Williams translation).
Colossians 1:19 actually states that Christ would have divine fullness dwelling in him because “it pleased the Father” to give it to him - not because it was something inherent in him. So that rather argues against Mantey’s point. If Jesus were God, he would have had such divine fullness anyway.
Likewise, Hebrews 1:3 is not incompatible with the view that Christ is God’s created Son. He reflects God’s glory; he is not the source of that glory, as we already noted in John 1:14.
And note the sweeping, cosmic claim recorded in Matthew 28:19, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and earth.”
Yes, that is what Jesus said. Given. By whom? When? And what was his position before ‘all authority’ was given him? (God always has had, and always will have, all authority.) This verse actually disproves Mantey’s point.
And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New Testament message both in whole and in part? Why, if John, in the midst of the idolatry of his day, had made such a statement would not the first century hearers and readers have gotten a totally inadequate picture of Christ, who we believe, is the Creator of the universe and the only Redeemer of humanity?
Julius Robert Mantey, A.B., Thd.D., PH.D., D.D.
Will I really go to hell for reading the New World Translation?
Mantey’s objection to the NWT “a god” is purely theologically motivated and biased!
Thus, an analysis of Mantey’s objection to the translation ‘a god’ shows it to be basically theologically motivated. His grammatical objections are not shared by all other scholars and are in any case easily disproved by an examination of verses with parallel grammatical structures, as seen above. But the main thrust of his objection is basically theological - it conflicts with his own ideas about who Jesus is and his understanding of other NT texts. Mantey apparently said in an interview that he believes that those who allow themselves to be misled by Jehovah’s Witnesses will end up in hell! The article commented on above reflects such emotionalism. It is not a good reflection of the scholarly work of which Mantey was undoubtedly eminently capable. Of course, Mantey, is entitled to have his opinion. But more relevant and important than his opinion is what he can prove. And, in this piece at least, he has not proved his point."
Spud
S
spudmurphy
Guest
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
All these arguments in favor of “a” god for John 1:1 are moot.
All of the early 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (PRE-Constantine, PRE-Nicene Council)
Church fathers, who quoted John 1:1, quoted it as The Word was God, not “a” god,
and all of them who discussed the matter, e.g., Justin Martyr and Irenaeus,
declared that Christ was God Almighty, Justin even repeatedly
calling Jesus The Lord of Hosts (or Jehovah of Armies, as the NWT renders it).
The early Christians, except for the urine-drinking Gnostics, and a couple of other crackpots, all believed that Christ was God Almighty. Scholars who make claims to
the contrary are Liberals and are lying.
All of the early 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (PRE-Constantine, PRE-Nicene Council)
Church fathers, who quoted John 1:1, quoted it as The Word was God, not “a” god,
and all of them who discussed the matter, e.g., Justin Martyr and Irenaeus,
declared that Christ was God Almighty, Justin even repeatedly
calling Jesus The Lord of Hosts (or Jehovah of Armies, as the NWT renders it).
The early Christians, except for the urine-drinking Gnostics, and a couple of other crackpots, all believed that Christ was God Almighty. Scholars who make claims to
the contrary are Liberals and are lying.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Note that you are also responding to a 4 year old thread.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Thanks, DCNBILL,
I hadn’t noticed that.
But believe me, THIS is one topic that
is going to keep coming up every time JWs and their apologists
visit these forums.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
I hadn’t noticed that.
But believe me, THIS is one topic that
is going to keep coming up every time JWs and their apologists
visit these forums.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Understood, and appreciate your zeal in defending our Lord and Savior both now and in the past!
- Status