Question about John 1:1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kanuckistani
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kanuckistani

Guest
I’ve had a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness about John 1:1, and he’s using the NWT. I am using the RSV-CE. Obviously the two translations are different. My question is, why are they different? And did the Watchtower knowingly change the verse to follow its own doctrine? Also, could some explain how it was translated the way it was (in the RSV-CE or any other Catholic/Protestant Bible).

Btw, I believe in the Trinity, just want some insight into this specific verse.
 
The other day, I welcomed into my house a JW who I thought was a Christian Pastor. Anyway, he wanted to talk to me partly because I said I read my Bible every night (I do).

Anyway, as he was sharing various scriptures (intentional uncapitalization) with me, I noticed that some of the verses seemed to be translated differently. I also noted his lack of belief in Hell–I’ll say eternal damnation, as he like to wrestle with the various words like sheol, hades, etc. He also stated that he didn’t believe in everlasting life, but that we only existed in God’s memory after death.

Anyway, before leaving, he gives me a Watchtower tract: Ugghhh! A JW! I thought. No wonder he doesn’t believe in the tenets of the Christian Faith!

So, to answer your question, I believe the JWs use their own translation which is importantly different than Christian translations.
 
If you can’t get the Bible to support your doctrine then change the Scriptures until it does. That’s an old trick that many heretics use. No doubt that is why Protestants have about as many English translations as they have denominations! A related deceptive trend I see today is that there are many out there that go to the original languages to claim that this or that word or phrase supports their interpretation, as if they have just unlocked some hidden meaning that was lost in translation until now. Its gotten to a point now that not only many non-Catholic translations have been biasedly tampered with and altered, but also lexicons and ancient language grammar books. And beware of the zealous heretics and others who have enough “knowledge” to be dangerous!
 
DaddyGirl said:
What does the other version say that is different??? Do you recall?
Click to expand...
The JW version says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god”
as opposed to all other Christian translations which say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

The JW bible was originally written by 3 (or 4) men who knew only a little (modern) Greek and Hebrew. They mostly copied from other translations. And over the years they have altered the translation to fit their doctrine. Whenever someone points out with their own bible something that refutes their own doctrine, they are likely to change it if the Watchtower Society catches wind of it.

For a History of the JWs, catholic.com/tracts/history-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses
and their beliefs: catholic.com/tracts/distinctive-beliefs-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses
 
bzkoss236 said:
Try these:

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-jehovahs-witness-new-testament
catholic.com/tracts/strategies-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses
catholic.com/tracts/stumpers-for-the-jehovahs-witnesses
catholic.com/tracts/more-stumpers-for-the-jehovahs-witnesses
Click to expand...
Thanks! I’ll sure to use those against Jehovah’s Witnesses. And the articles gave me some insight that I never had before.
DaddyGirl said:
What does the other version say that is different??? Do you recall?
Click to expand...
What bzkoss236 said. The NWT version of John 1:1 basically denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Though I am confused why they would do that and how they translated so differently from the more mainstream Christian translations.
 
Kanuckistani said:
.
What bzkoss236 said. The NWT version of John 1:1 basically denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Though I am confused why they would do that and how they translated so differently from the more mainstream Christian translations.
Click to expand...
Yes, they completely deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and also do not believe in the Trinity. I have a friend who is JW. Our discussions are often very frustrating. I pray the Holy Spirit can guide me in what to say to him.
 
It’s tough to deal with them because of the differences in bibles when relating to them. If you “catch” them with some doctrinal stuff…they say they will go research it…they will go and talk to their “superiors” about it and they will tell them to not talk to you anymore because u are leading them away (and sometimes may get someone with higher knowledge to come talk with you).

From my experience, they are very cult-ish. They offer their obedience to their “elders”. And if you are able to help open their minds (which is hard because of scriptural differences and what they’re taught about catholics)…than they are told to avoid you.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Like how the words that relate to the doctrine of the trinity may have been added/changed?
I was reading how when Catholic priest and theologian Desiderius Erasmus put together the first printed Greek New Testament in the early 1500’s, his first version did not contain the line from 1 John 5:7:

*“There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” *

…because it was not in any of the original Greek manuscripts that existed.
But then he was forced to put it in by outraged theologians who wanted it in there to support the doctrine, even though it may not have been authentically there.
And then the King James bible was based on that version, etc, etc, one thing leads to another…and so on, and so forth.

.
Click to expand...
Did you get this from the book “Misquoting Jesus”, because the guy doesn’t have all his facts straight.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Like how the words that relate to the doctrine of the trinity may have been added/changed?
I was reading how when Catholic priest and theologian Desiderius Erasmus put together the first printed Greek New Testament in the early 1500’s, his first version did not contain the line from 1 John 5:7:

"There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

…because it was not in any of the original Greek manuscripts that existed.
But then he was forced to put it in by outraged theologians who wanted it in there to support the doctrine, even though it may not have been authentically there.
And then the King James bible was based on that version, etc, etc, one thing leads to another…and so on, and so forth.

.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but my New American Bible (and others I’ve used) quote that verse from 1 John 5:7-8 as:

“So there are three that testify, The Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.”
 
DaddyGirl said:
Like how the words that relate to the doctrine of the trinity may have been added/changed?
I was reading how when Catholic priest and theologian Desiderius Erasmus put together the first printed Greek New Testament in the early 1500’s, his first version did not contain the line from 1 John 5:7:

*“There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” *

…because it was not in any of the original Greek manuscripts that existed.
But then he was forced to put it in by outraged theologians who wanted it in there to support the doctrine, even though it may not have been authentically there.
And then the King James bible was based on that version, etc, etc, one thing leads to another…and so on, and so forth.

.
Click to expand...
Greek manuscript evidence surely is lacking for that verse, and this is one of those cases where I determine which evidence I prefer, textual criticism which can change through one manuscript discovery, or what the Church has defined as inspired. Whether that was original, it has been approved, and whether it was original or not the doctrine of the Trinity is not effected by its omission.
 
How does Jesus’s command to baptize all nations “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19) make any sense except in the context of the Trinity or at least some heretical understanding of the Trinity?
 
The JW’s believe that when they die, if they are judged good enough to get to heaven that they will become gods and be given their own world to be god over. Hence they will be a god. ultimately leading to a never ending line of once were mortal men now gods with no original almighty god. This is why they are not Christians. because their jesus is no one but the son of a man who led a good life.

incidentally they also don’t recognise Judah as being Gods people only Israel. So the ot verse where God says he will bring the two together under one king they think it’s Israel and the modern JW’s .

That’s one of the supporting scriptures they gave me when I was questioning one a few years back.
 
Aussieman88 said:
The JW’s believe that when they die, if they are judged good enough to get to heaven that they will become gods and be given their own world to be god over. Hence they will be a god. ultimately leading to a never ending line of once were mortal men now gods with no original almighty god. This is why they are not Christians. because their jesus is no one but the son of a man who led a good life.

incidentally they also don’t recognise Judah as being Gods people only Israel. So the ot verse where God says he will bring the two together under one king they think it’s Israel and the modern JW’s .

That’s one of the supporting scriptures they gave me when I was questioning one a few years back.
Click to expand...
Actually, the first part about them becoming gods is a Mormon belief, not a JW belief. I’m not too sure about the other points you have.
 
Aussieman88 said:
The JW’s believe that when they die, if they are judged good enough to get to heaven that they will become gods and be given their own world to be god over. Hence they will be a god. ultimately leading to a never ending line of once were mortal men now gods with no original almighty god. This is why they are not Christians. because their jesus is no one but the son of a man who led a good life.

incidentally they also don’t recognise Judah as being Gods people only Israel. So the ot verse where God says he will bring the two together under one king they think it’s Israel and the modern JW’s .

That’s one of the supporting scriptures they gave me when I was questioning one a few years back.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 I know it's Nonsense,,, but I rather like the Idea of a Planet / Galaxy all to myself that I could be a God over..... but being a male...... unsupervised by my wife....
Would only end up being a mess… oh well , there goes another fantasy…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top