Psalm 82 and John 1:1 (New World Translation)

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
As in another thread I have posted, I mentioned I was annotating the Watchtower’s New World Translation. In the NWT John 1:1 is translated “… And the Word was a god.”

I have had a Witness tell me that was not polytheistic, pointing me to Psalm 82. In their translation it says:
1 God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One;
In the middle of the gods he judges: …] 6 “I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods,
And all of YOU are sons of the Most High. 7 Surely YOU will die just as men do;
And like any one of the princes YOU will fall!’” (cf. John 10:34-35; 1 Cor 8:5)
Click to expand...
He then told me something like: “Look, ‘god’ can mean something as a mighty one, a high position, not another deity!” I have no idea how to answer this and need help. I know about the grammar, that John 1:1 is mistranslated “a god”, but I am seeking to show that even in the NWT, Jesus is God or at least that their translation of the verse cannot make sense.

I hope you can clear this up for me. God bless!
 
hmmm… I think the issue is that you have a correct translation of Psalms 82 but an incorrect translation of John 1:1

Let’s read on through to John 1:15-18
IF ‘a god’ means merely a “mighty one” - and that this applies to Jesus, who was mighty…but NOT God… then WHY in verse 18 we see this: bolded for affect "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

However, when the JW runs to their bible they will again… see another mistranslation, for in the NWT this verse is rendered: “No man has seen God at any time; the ***only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father ***is the one that has explained him.”

So unfortunately, I think unless you can go back to the original Koine Greek on this one… I think that you are comparing apples n oranges. At every point, their bible will have mistranslated things to fit their beliefs.

So HOW exactly do you argue that their ‘grammar’ is wrong or that their translation doesn’t make sense, IF you continue to use their translation and don’t attack the NWT translation itself.

Now… wikipedia is by no means authorative and definitive. However, I think in this case, it could be used as a kinda objective 3rd party… and luckily enough for us… it DOES contain not only the Koine Greek, but also the latin vulgate. (JWs don’t care about the latin, but us Catholics love that sorta thing…its the native tongue of our faith)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

and in that we see that although there is still some room for debate… the over all thrust of MOST translations are that the NWT has it wrong and other mainstream Christian bibles have it right.

Now at this point… seeing that the Koine Greek which the New Testament was written on, better supports mainstream Christianity’s interpretation of “was God” vs. “was a god” –
So then unless the particular JW knows Koine Greek his/herself and can convince you otherwise, it appears that they are wrong, regardless of what Psalm 82 means.

Lastly, we could put the nail in the coffin if we know the bible well enough to show them the countless OTHER verses in the bible which DO seem to point to the fact that Jesus IS God and not “a god” or an angel, or a ‘mighty one’ or a ruler.
But I’ll hopefully leave that to other members to chime in and show how ridiculous their assertion is.
 
jschutzm said:
Now… wikipedia is by no means authorative and definitive. However, I think in this case, it could be used as a kinda objective 3rd party… and luckily enough for us… it DOES contain not only the Koine Greek, but also the latin vulgate. (JWs don’t care about the latin, but us Catholics love that sorta thing…its the native tongue of our faith)
Click to expand...
👍

In principio erat Verbum,
In beginning was Word,

et Verbum erat apud Deum,
and Word was in the presence of God,

et Deus erat Verbum.
and God was Word.

John 1 is easily recognizable to those who attend the EF.
 
Have you attempted to read any Gospel on that sacrilegious “new world” translation? Or the Psalms? I dare to call it a sorrowful experience, one which I do not advise to anybody.

Thank you, ProVobis, for going back to the 5th Century Biblia Sacra Vulgata. It is truly the most reliable and wonderful version of the Scriptures. And when at times it is hard to understand, we can trust the translations that the Church - with literally centuries of experience - has provided.
 
R_C said:
Have you attempted to read any Gospel on that sacrilegious “new world” translation? Or the Psalms? I dare to call it a sorrowful experience, one which I do not advise to anybody.
Click to expand...
That’s a good way of putting it. And the sad part is that I don’t think the Church has condemned this or any other translation. Technically it doesn’t violate Latin-English translation rules but one has to wonder how far this creativity of translations will go. After all, the Latin practically translates itself in the Western culture. Here is the rest:

Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.
That was in beginning in the presence of God.

Omnia per ipsum facta sunt:
All things through Him were made:

et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est:
and without Him was made nothing, that was made:

in ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum:
in Him life was, and life was light of men:

et lux in tenebris lucet,
and light in darkness shines,

et tenebræ eam non comprehenderunt.
and darkness it not comprehended.
 
R_C said:
Have you attempted to read any Gospel on that sacrilegious “new world” translation? Or the Psalms? I dare to call it a sorrowful experience, one which I do not advise to anybody.

Thank you, ProVobis, for going back to the 5th Century Biblia Sacra Vulgata. It is truly the most reliable and wonderful version of the Scriptures. And when at times it is hard to understand, we can trust the translations that the Church - with literally centuries of experience - has provided.
Click to expand...
I know, it is sacrilegious. I do not use it in any way, like for regular Bible reading or so. I only use it for discussions with a JW. (They trust it more than other translations.)
 
CutlerB said:
(They trust it more than other translations.)
Click to expand...
I know, and that is what makes me experience the deepest sorrow: that this “translation”, crafted specifically for them by the Society, is all they supposedly listen to, the only authority they supposedly recognize.

Yet, it is the Society, through their pamphlets and booklets, that tells them what to believe or do, backing their heresies by hand-picked (often hand-crafted) quotes from “their” translation.

Was Jesus God?
“No, because the Bible says that the word was a god”
How do you argue with that? You cannot argue against the Bible!

See why I use such a heavy word, sacrilegious, regarding that “translation”? Because it blinds them - I have some experience on this matter… - from becoming aware of the deception of the Society.

Here a few examples: Rutherford, reformer of the Bible Students and founder of the Witnesses as we know them, came up with a few random ideas, such as these:
  • Christmas was of pagan origin, not to be celebrated (1927)
  • Holidays and birthdays support “Satan’s organization” (1931-32)
  • saluting a flag means breaking the covenant with God and being “guilty of death” (1935)
Through his anonymous collaborators, he hand-picked a few verses from “his” translation, gathered a few myths and legends here and there, and then the Society published their “commandments” on some pamphlet and there you go, no more Christmas, no more happy birthday, no more hand on the heart to honor our Country, one Nation under God. Why? “Well, it’s all explained in this Bible of ours, which is the only authority we recognize”… so Jesus is actually a creature, an angel called Michael, and His resurrection was only spiritual, that is, He returned to be the angel Michael? “Yes, that’s what the Bible says.”

@ProVobis
Thanks, but I’d even argue that, after reading such things as Luke 22:19:
“hoc est corpus meum” → “This means my body”

:nope:
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
 
What you might want to try is to show them that their translation is invalid. A good place to start might be to read the Catholic Answers tracts on Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Here are a few you might want to check out:
History of JW
Stumpers for JW
More Stumpers for JW

That’s my two cents.
Good luck, and God bless!
 
R_C;9565738 said:
hoc est corpus meum
Click to expand...

" → “This means my body”

But FWIW, even “This is my body” isn’t very accurate because the demonstrative pronoun in Latin refers to the corpus (because it’s neuter gender) and not the bread panem (feminine gender), which most people mistakenly think of. Thus any English translation is at best ambiguous because of the weakness of the English demonstrative (this, that, etc). There were books in the 60’s pointing this out. The “means” in your example just compounds the confusion, if not downright error. And if this creativity in translations doesn’t stop, the the next one could easily become “This bread could be our body,” as an example.
 
CutlerB said:
As in another thread I have posted, I mentioned I was annotating the Watchtower’s New World Translation. In the NWT John 1:1 is translated “… And the Word was a god.”

I have had a Witness tell me that was not polytheistic, pointing me to Psalm 82. In their translation it says:

He then told me something like: “Look, ‘god’ can mean something as a mighty one, a high position, not another deity!” I have no idea how to answer this and need help. I know about the grammar, that John 1:1 is mistranslated “a god”, but I am seeking to show that even in the NWT, Jesus is God or at least that their translation of the verse cannot make sense.

I hope you can clear this up for me. God bless!
Click to expand...
In this case, from the perspective of the Hebrew language, and scriptures this is correct. The Hebrew word, ‘elohim’ **does not always **refer to God the Father, (or to the Son of God in the theophanies or Christophanies of the OT).

In once such theophany in Genesis it says: “the LORD (Yahweh) rained down fire and brimstone from the LORD (Yahweh) out of heaven”. Thus, the LORD as the pre-incarnate Son of God appeared as a theophany to Abraham and to Lot and rained down fire and brimstone from the LORD, God the Father out of heaven. This is explained by several of the early church fathers.

Sometimes(on rare occasions) it refers to angelic beings, or to the judges of Israel who have authority from God to judge, or to rule. (Sometimes the pagan gods are referred to as elohim, but in those instances the scriptures say that they are not really elohim).

God’s peace
 
CutlerB said:
He then told me something like: “Look, ‘god’ can mean something as a mighty one, a high position, not another deity!” I have no idea how to answer this and need help. I know about the grammar, that John 1:1 is mistranslated “a god”, but I am seeking to show that even in the NWT, Jesus is God or at least that their translation of the verse cannot make sense.
Click to expand...
He’s trying to use Virgil Latin (or Homer Greek) instead of Ecclesiastical Latin, the codified Latin which the Church Christianized. Thus, words such as oratio become “prayer,” not “speech,” gratia becomes “grace,” Deus becomes the true God not Jupiter or Zeus, etc. We need not bring pagan mythology into play as apparently these groups are trying to do.
 
I think anyone would agree that if there were any “other gods,” then they would by definition have to of come into existence after the Father. The Father himself is uncreated, therefore if there are any other gods in the universe, God Almighty would of created them or allowed them to come into existence.

But God Almighty states without question that there were no other God’s before him, or after him in Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, and Isaiah 45:5-6, among other places.

You start by showing how there is only One God; scripture clearly shows this consistently in both the OT and NT. The context of Psalm 82 begins in verse 1; it shows how the judges were judging “unjustly,” and showing partiality to the wicked. In verse 7 it shows that these “gods” will die like men; God is explaining to us that even though they wield power as if they were “gods”, they are going to die like the rest of us. The JW is right on one point, these judges were not truly gods in any way, shape, or form. Because, there is only one true God and he did not create any other “gods.” They were mighty men who wielded power on the earth.

However, Jesus is called God with a capital G in several places in their NWT, so this line of reasoning cannot be used (Isaiah 9:6, Matthew 1:23, John 20:28.) The fulness of the Deity also dwells bodily within Jesus, Colossians 2:9. In John 20:28 Thomas literally states that Jesus is “the Lord of me and the God of me.” If the JW does try to use their same reasoning from Psalm 82 then they are stating that Jesus was mighty like the “gods” in Psalm 82, but he himself is only that; not deity in any way. If that is true, then calling Jesus your God is blasphemy against the one true God, YHWH the Father.

In John, Jesus just said “I and My Father are One;” the Jews were trying to stone him because he claimed to be God. Jesus referenced this Psalm since the Jews were judging him unjustly; just as the Judges of the past were doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top