M
Matt_Guitar_Man
Guest
After reading and talking to Jehovahs Witnesses about their understanding of Gen 1:1 I then like to go to the New Testament Creation story Jn1:1-6. we all know that the problem here is the New World Translation of Jn1;1c ( and the Word was a god ) instead of and the Word was God.
At this point I find it more or less a waste of time to talk about the original greek, indefinet articals, predicates, support from Coptic translations and how the academic world views this translation. It just ends up going round and round in circles.
Instead I like to point out the difference with Gen 1:1 because now according to the NWT
it was not God who created the heavens and the earth but “a god” and I then ask the Missionary to please explain this to me. At this point one has to settle back make a cup of coffie and get ready for what becomes a long circutious journey of cross refrences etc.
at the end of this what usually happens is the JW publisher holds two diametricaly opposed positions at the same time i.e. God created the universe through a god. When I point out that the text does not support this we go round and round again.
Next I ask for the identifacation of this “a god”. more cross refrencing, etc until hey presto he is actualy Micheal the Arc Angel. once again I point out that the text does not support this.
Next I ask "if your point of view is true, is Micheal the Arc Angel who is “a god” true God or false god because the bible clearly points out that there is only one true GOD and many false gods.
Round we go again, keep the coffie brewing, as it is explained to me that the a god isnt realy a god but an angle.
At this point I point out to the Jehovahs Witness that if we take the two texts Gen1:1 and Jn1:1-6 and accept them the way they have been preserved for us through the church handed down from generation to generation, Farther to Son over the last 2000 years they are in perfect harmony almost sublime harmony they dont need any explination at all, one doese not need a book study to understand them, one doese not need extensive interpritation to grasp the true meaning, I then say that one could almost come to the conclusion because these two texts fit together so well like a hand in a glove that the inspired writter of Jn1:1 meant for it to be this way, that this was his true intention, that we the faithfull are ment to understand it like this, just the way it is written. and that John"s original intention was not for the faithfull to only be able to understand these passages through extensive cross refrencing and “book studies” etc.
At this stage the cognative dissonance kicks in and the logic of this simple argument along with the obviously effortless harmony of Gods word causes a very uneasy feeling.
At this point I find it more or less a waste of time to talk about the original greek, indefinet articals, predicates, support from Coptic translations and how the academic world views this translation. It just ends up going round and round in circles.
Instead I like to point out the difference with Gen 1:1 because now according to the NWT
it was not God who created the heavens and the earth but “a god” and I then ask the Missionary to please explain this to me. At this point one has to settle back make a cup of coffie and get ready for what becomes a long circutious journey of cross refrences etc.
at the end of this what usually happens is the JW publisher holds two diametricaly opposed positions at the same time i.e. God created the universe through a god. When I point out that the text does not support this we go round and round again.
Next I ask for the identifacation of this “a god”. more cross refrencing, etc until hey presto he is actualy Micheal the Arc Angel. once again I point out that the text does not support this.
Next I ask "if your point of view is true, is Micheal the Arc Angel who is “a god” true God or false god because the bible clearly points out that there is only one true GOD and many false gods.
Round we go again, keep the coffie brewing, as it is explained to me that the a god isnt realy a god but an angle.
At this point I point out to the Jehovahs Witness that if we take the two texts Gen1:1 and Jn1:1-6 and accept them the way they have been preserved for us through the church handed down from generation to generation, Farther to Son over the last 2000 years they are in perfect harmony almost sublime harmony they dont need any explination at all, one doese not need a book study to understand them, one doese not need extensive interpritation to grasp the true meaning, I then say that one could almost come to the conclusion because these two texts fit together so well like a hand in a glove that the inspired writter of Jn1:1 meant for it to be this way, that this was his true intention, that we the faithfull are ment to understand it like this, just the way it is written. and that John"s original intention was not for the faithfull to only be able to understand these passages through extensive cross refrencing and “book studies” etc.
At this stage the cognative dissonance kicks in and the logic of this simple argument along with the obviously effortless harmony of Gods word causes a very uneasy feeling.