W
Waynec
Guest
Me too. If you tried to explain the above to a Witness they would not listen to you or believe you. I would love to hear what Logically has to say.
- Status
M
McCartney
Guest
I have two very good atheist friends. They never discuss religion with me.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
My take on the JW sect? They claim to follow the “clear and simple truth the Bible actually teaches,” but when you examine things you see that they just don’t want to listen to what they read…even in their own New World Translation (quoted below).
Acts 10:19-20
As Peter was still pondering over the vision, the spirit said: “Look! Three men are asking for you. So get up, go downstairs and go with them, not doubting at all, because I have sent them."
Who is this “holy spirit” that talks to Peter and sends men to him?
Acts 13:2
As they were ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Set aside for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
Who is this “holy spirit” who gave this instruction?
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now Jehovah is the Spirit, and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.
Yes, “Jehovah is the Spirit,” and they even capitalize “Spirit” just as we do when we write “Holy Spirit”!
Is God supposed to make sense to the human mind or transcend it? Does God have to be limited to what we can logically conceive or can’t God be greater?
And is the Truth of the Trinity really “not found” in the Bible? Look above!
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
The JWs use God’s Name only when it suits their purpose, and this I find inexcusable. (So if Logically does sense “anger,” it is because I am angry over how they abuse the Divine Name.)
To illustrate, their New World Translation claims that it went to great pains to restore the Name of God in each place they feel it belongs—even in the New Testament (even though no Greek manuscripts of ancient quotes of the New Testament have the Tetragrammaton in them).
Their latest revision of the NWT claims they even examined pre-Masoretic texts to ensure that they restored the Name every place it has been dropped.
Well, they missed two spots–
Psalm 102 and Hebrews 1.
The Trinity teaching that Jesus is Jehovah is very clear at Hebrew 1:10-12. According to their New World Translation version we read that this Psalm is fulfilled in Christ:
At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.
This is a quote from Psalm 102 (in the Masoretic Text), which is numbered as Psalm 101 in the Greek Septuagint (LXX).
Psalm 102 is a prayer to Jehovah. Notice, again from the NWT:
O Jehovah, hear my prayer…
I said: “O my God,
Do not do away with me in the middle of my life,
You whose years span all generations.
Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you will remain;
Just like a garment they will all wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.
But you are the same, and your years will never end."
On that alone, the fact that Hebrews attributes a prayer to Jehovah to the person of Jesus Christ is enough to equate the two persons as being the same God. The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue, “no.”
Of interest, Hebrew translations of the New Testament place the Tetragrammaton at Hebrews 1:10. One of the Hebrew versions that the NWT uses to support their insertions of the Name into the New Testament is called J8 by them. While they use J8 as a reference in other places to say: “See, Hebrew versions of the New Testament put the Tetragrammaton in the text,” they ignore it here. (Below, at the bottom is picture of J8 where the Name of God appears at Hebrews 1:10.)
Where the NWT reads “O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,” J8 says: “Jehovah, you laid the foundations of the earth.”
The reading of J8 comes from a pre-masoretic text, older than the LXX, where the Sopherim rendered the verse in the original Hebrew to read as J8 and the LXX (and Hebrews 1:8) does. Recent scholarship now suggests that the Masorets may have removed the Divine Name in this instance as it now appears in Psalm 102:25. The pre-masoretic reading of Psalm 102:25 was likely what is reflected in the LXX, namely:
Long ago, Jehovah, you laid the foundations of the earth.
While the NWT claims to have restored the name in the Hebrew and Christian Greek texts, for some reason they skip Psalm 102 and Hebrews 1.
To be honest there is often scanty to no support for their reasons of “restoring” the Name where they do. However, even if one considers this data as circumstantial, it is a lot more than they generally have.
Wouldn’t this be a marveolous chance to restore the Divine Name? There is evidence suggesting it occurs in these places.
But if they did, then the texts would support the Trinity teaching that Jesus and Jehovah are the same God.
They don’t explain why they don’t “restore” the Name to Hebrews or Psalm 102. The general rank-and-file aren’t even told what I just explained to you here.
And why not?
Because the leadership is dishonest with themselves and makes the JW read the faulty NWT as the “most correct” translation.
It seems as if they are trying to avoid making the connection that textual data supports, don’t you think?
To illustrate, their New World Translation claims that it went to great pains to restore the Name of God in each place they feel it belongs—even in the New Testament (even though no Greek manuscripts of ancient quotes of the New Testament have the Tetragrammaton in them).
Their latest revision of the NWT claims they even examined pre-Masoretic texts to ensure that they restored the Name every place it has been dropped.
Well, they missed two spots–
Psalm 102 and Hebrews 1.
The Trinity teaching that Jesus is Jehovah is very clear at Hebrew 1:10-12. According to their New World Translation version we read that this Psalm is fulfilled in Christ:
At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.
This is a quote from Psalm 102 (in the Masoretic Text), which is numbered as Psalm 101 in the Greek Septuagint (LXX).
Psalm 102 is a prayer to Jehovah. Notice, again from the NWT:
O Jehovah, hear my prayer…
I said: “O my God,
Do not do away with me in the middle of my life,
You whose years span all generations.
Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you will remain;
Just like a garment they will all wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.
But you are the same, and your years will never end."
On that alone, the fact that Hebrews attributes a prayer to Jehovah to the person of Jesus Christ is enough to equate the two persons as being the same God. The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue, “no.”
Of interest, Hebrew translations of the New Testament place the Tetragrammaton at Hebrews 1:10. One of the Hebrew versions that the NWT uses to support their insertions of the Name into the New Testament is called J8 by them. While they use J8 as a reference in other places to say: “See, Hebrew versions of the New Testament put the Tetragrammaton in the text,” they ignore it here. (Below, at the bottom is picture of J8 where the Name of God appears at Hebrews 1:10.)
Where the NWT reads “O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,” J8 says: “Jehovah, you laid the foundations of the earth.”
The reading of J8 comes from a pre-masoretic text, older than the LXX, where the Sopherim rendered the verse in the original Hebrew to read as J8 and the LXX (and Hebrews 1:8) does. Recent scholarship now suggests that the Masorets may have removed the Divine Name in this instance as it now appears in Psalm 102:25. The pre-masoretic reading of Psalm 102:25 was likely what is reflected in the LXX, namely:
Long ago, Jehovah, you laid the foundations of the earth.
While the NWT claims to have restored the name in the Hebrew and Christian Greek texts, for some reason they skip Psalm 102 and Hebrews 1.
To be honest there is often scanty to no support for their reasons of “restoring” the Name where they do. However, even if one considers this data as circumstantial, it is a lot more than they generally have.
Wouldn’t this be a marveolous chance to restore the Divine Name? There is evidence suggesting it occurs in these places.
But if they did, then the texts would support the Trinity teaching that Jesus and Jehovah are the same God.
They don’t explain why they don’t “restore” the Name to Hebrews or Psalm 102. The general rank-and-file aren’t even told what I just explained to you here.
And why not?
Because the leadership is dishonest with themselves and makes the JW read the faulty NWT as the “most correct” translation.
It seems as if they are trying to avoid making the connection that textual data supports, don’t you think?
D
Dorothy
Guest
We can judge that their beliefs are erroneous. We cannot judge that they are going to lose their salvation.
A
andrewstx
Guest
But the Divine Name of G-D is not Jehovah at all. It is a nonsense word derived from combining the vowels and consonants from two completely different Hebrew words.
Of course the JWs will never cede that word. It has become “holy tradition” with them. But really I never understood ‘name worship’ at all. Is it not more important to worship G-D than a name?
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
After reading or hearing this information I’ve just posted, some JWs may protest by saying:
But Jesus calls the Father “my God” in Scripture! This proves that Jesus is inferior to God. The Father never refers to the Son as "God."
Jesus indeed refers to the Father as “my God” at places like Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, and Revelation 3:12.
But the Father also refers to the Son as God.
Back to Hebrews chapter 1 and using the New World Translation. If you note the author is stating things God has said to angels and contrasting these with what God has said to his Son. Verse 8 is an example of this, introducing two Hebrew texts with the words: “But about the Son, he [God] says…”
Note what God says to the Son in verse 10:
“At the beginning, O** Lord**, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.”
Notice that God addresses Jesus as “Lord.”
If you note my previous post (#321) where evidence shows that this is a quote from Psalm 102, a prayer to Jehovah, and that evidence exists to show that the word “Lord” has been substituted by some Hebrew translations with YHWH, we have here an example where God is calling the Son by the name “Jehovah.”
Even if one were to reject the use of the Divine Name here, God is still calling the Son by the title “Lord.” Who would God address as Lord? If God is God, no one could be his Lord, could they?
Of course not. And the same can be said of the times Jesus refers to the Father as “my God” in the Scripture texts noted above.
Both the Father and the Son refer to one another with the expressions “my God,” “Lord,” even “YHWH”–not because one is greater than the other, but because they are equals.
And while the New World Translation offers a different rendition of the Greek text at Hebrews 1:8…
But about the Son, he [God] says: “God is your throne forever and ever…"
It is usually rendered:
But of the Son, he [God] says, “Your throne, O God, stand forever and ever.”
The reason for the difference? It is a play on words. It can equally be rendered both ways.
πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος
This literally reads in Greek:
Unto but the Son [he says] The throne of you the God is to the age of the age
So it can be read “your throne, God, is forever and ever” and “your throne is God forever and ever.”
Both are totally correct, and in fact, the verse is purposefully written this way so people can see that there is a double meaning–one in reference to the earthly king when the David dynasty ruled Jerusalem (when Psalm 45–which is being quoted here–was written), and one to Christ, who in the next verse is said to be the Lord who created the universe.
Even if one doesn’t want to admit to the play on words in verse 8, by reading Hebrews 1:10 one cannot correctly claim that the Father never refers to the Son as God. The use of names for God by both are a demonstration that they are equals.
But Jesus calls the Father “my God” in Scripture! This proves that Jesus is inferior to God. The Father never refers to the Son as "God."
Jesus indeed refers to the Father as “my God” at places like Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, and Revelation 3:12.
But the Father also refers to the Son as God.
Back to Hebrews chapter 1 and using the New World Translation. If you note the author is stating things God has said to angels and contrasting these with what God has said to his Son. Verse 8 is an example of this, introducing two Hebrew texts with the words: “But about the Son, he [God] says…”
Note what God says to the Son in verse 10:
“At the beginning, O** Lord**, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.”
Notice that God addresses Jesus as “Lord.”
If you note my previous post (#321) where evidence shows that this is a quote from Psalm 102, a prayer to Jehovah, and that evidence exists to show that the word “Lord” has been substituted by some Hebrew translations with YHWH, we have here an example where God is calling the Son by the name “Jehovah.”
Even if one were to reject the use of the Divine Name here, God is still calling the Son by the title “Lord.” Who would God address as Lord? If God is God, no one could be his Lord, could they?
Of course not. And the same can be said of the times Jesus refers to the Father as “my God” in the Scripture texts noted above.
Both the Father and the Son refer to one another with the expressions “my God,” “Lord,” even “YHWH”–not because one is greater than the other, but because they are equals.
And while the New World Translation offers a different rendition of the Greek text at Hebrews 1:8…
But about the Son, he [God] says: “God is your throne forever and ever…"
It is usually rendered:
But of the Son, he [God] says, “Your throne, O God, stand forever and ever.”
The reason for the difference? It is a play on words. It can equally be rendered both ways.
πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος
This literally reads in Greek:
Unto but the Son [he says] The throne of you the God is to the age of the age
So it can be read “your throne, God, is forever and ever” and “your throne is God forever and ever.”
Both are totally correct, and in fact, the verse is purposefully written this way so people can see that there is a double meaning–one in reference to the earthly king when the David dynasty ruled Jerusalem (when Psalm 45–which is being quoted here–was written), and one to Christ, who in the next verse is said to be the Lord who created the universe.
Even if one doesn’t want to admit to the play on words in verse 8, by reading Hebrews 1:10 one cannot correctly claim that the Father never refers to the Son as God. The use of names for God by both are a demonstration that they are equals.
W
Waynec
Guest
This is great thanks.
My friend will say that the title lord refers to any one with means and not necessarily God. Like the lord of the vineyard. Any one who has people under them. Very frustrating.
M
Maxime_Indigent
Guest
I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it was actually a Spanish Dominican monk named Raymundus Martini who came up with the name Jehovah, from the names Yahweh and Adonai.
So Jehovah’s Witnesses kinda owe Catholics a thank you.
So Jehovah’s Witnesses kinda owe Catholics a thank you.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
1. If your friend says that, then have them read the context, stressing that God is calling the Son by the title "Lord."
For example,** to which** one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”
Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.” And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.”
The “he” speaking “about the Son” is God, right? The first point to stress is that God calls the Son the “Lord” who “laid the foundations of the earth,” of whom “the heavens are the works of your hands.” The author says these are God’s words addressed to the Son.
2. Remind your friend that the author of Hebrews is saying that God addresses his Son with the words of Psalm 102, a prayer to “Jehovah,” addressing the Son as YHWH in Hebrew and Kyrios (Lord) in Greek. Take your friend to Psalm 102, and note specifically verses 1 and 24-26.
O Jehovah, hear my prayer…
I said: “O my God,
Do not do away with me in the middle of my life,
You whose years span all generations.
Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you will remain;
Just like a garment they will all wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.
But you are the same, and your years will never end."
Is Psalm 102 addressed to anyone else but Jehovah? Who inspired the words of Psalm 102? Does this not make the author of Psalm 102 Jehovah and the words of the Psalm the words of God? That’s what the author of Hebrews says, that even though this was originally a prayer of a human being, it was actually God’s own inspired words to his Son, the Savior and Creator of the universe.
3. It cannot be the same as “lord of the vineyard” because the “Lord” of Psalm 102 is “Jehovah.” Which “Lord” can we apply these words of Psalm 102?
Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you will remain;
Just like a garment they will all wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.
But you are the same, and your years will never end.
We just established that this is a prayer to Jehovah, right?
Therefore, if the author of Hebrews claims these are God’s words to the Son and not to angels, what is God calling the Son? Note the Psalm 102 again, that the words of the Father to the Son are “O Jehovah…O my God…you laid the foundations of the earth.”
If the inspired text of Hebrews says that the words of Psalm 102, where Jehovah is called the one who founded the earth and created the heavens, are actually the words of God to the Son, is it correct to say that God is calling Jesus “Lord” in the sense of a mortal who owns a patch of land?
Try this approach. It should be most helpful if your friend is open to it.
But you must accept, as I mentioned before on my original take on the JWs, that they are not likely to accept these truths. They want to be right, but they won’t do this at the expense of accepting that their current views are wrong.
W
Waynec
Guest
Thanks. I printed this out so it will be easier for me to read and STUDY.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
And here is THE NAIL in the JW’s Anti-Trinity Coffin
Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
GOD WAS THE WORD
A predicate noun is a noun that acts like an adjective, or in simpler terms, a predicate noun is a word that describes the subject using another noun.
To illustrate:
Martha is a teacher.
Both “Martha” and “teacher” are nouns. But the word “teacher” is a noun used to describe something about the subject “Martha.”
“Martha” is the person (and subject of the sentence) and “teacher” is a word used to describe something that Martha is.
Here is another example:
Jesus was a carpenter.
“Jesus” is a noun and the subject, and another noun, “carpenter,” is used to describe something about Jesus. The word “carpenter” is acting like an adjective does. Adjectives are words that describe things.
But when we use a noun (which is a person, place, or thing) as an adjective to describe another noun, the descriptive noun is called a “predicate noun.” Got it?
Now go back and look at my two examples. Did you notice that the predicate nouns all follow a state-of-being verb (such as “was” or “is”)? That’s how you can usually identify a predicate noun in an English sentence. A predicate noun usually follows another noun and a verb, usually a verb like “is” or “was.”
The cool thing about this is that koine Greek, the language of the New Testament, does a similar thing at John 1:1, just in reverse. In Greek the predicate (descriptive) noun comes before the verb and the subject:
**Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
GOD WAS THE WORD
**
Let’s learn something about how predicate nouns operate by returning to our example:
Martha is a teacher.
Does Martha merely have the traits of a teacher or is she a teacher?
Both! “Martha is a teacher.” Because she teaches, she has the traits of a teacher, and what Martha does in teaching makes Martha an actual teacher.
Remember the saying: “If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck!”
It’s the same with the expression:
**…and the Word **was God.
“Word” is our subject noun, “was” is the state-of-being verb, and the word “God" that follows (recall that in the Greek it is the reverse order) it is a predicate noun—a noun that acts like an adjective.
Now, like the other uses of predicate nouns, does this mean that the Word has only the qualities of God, that he is merely divine? Or does it mean that the Word is God himself?
Again, the answer is BOTH!
John is saying that Jesus is “divine.” He is also saying that he is God.
Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed are correct because the text is using the second use of “theos” as a predicate noun. John is saying the the Word has the same characteristics and qualities that God possesses. These translators merely choose to emphasize this in their choice of words.
But what these translations do and what Logically claims about them is at odds.
Logically and the Witnesses are incorrect when they say that a predicate noun is limited to describing a quality here, that the Word only has the “quality” of God, but cannot be anything more.
Excuse me, but that’s not how predicate nouns work, neither in koine Greek nor English!
Tyler is my friend.
Does Tyler merely have the quality of someone who is my friend or is he also actually my friend? He is both. Just like John 1:1 states:
The Word was God.
Does the Word merely have the quality of God, like the Witnesses say, limiting the Word to be only “a god”? No. That’s not the way predicate nouns work. You would have to invent a new language if you wanted predicate nouns to be limited to the way the JWs claim they are. (You will also get a failing grade in grammar class if you stick to this claim too!)
The reason some Bible translations use these other expressions is because the second appearance of the word Θεός is a predicate noun.
Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
GOD WAS THE WORD
A predicate noun is a noun that acts like an adjective, or in simpler terms, a predicate noun is a word that describes the subject using another noun.
To illustrate:
Martha is a teacher.
Both “Martha” and “teacher” are nouns. But the word “teacher” is a noun used to describe something about the subject “Martha.”
“Martha” is the person (and subject of the sentence) and “teacher” is a word used to describe something that Martha is.
Here is another example:
Jesus was a carpenter.
“Jesus” is a noun and the subject, and another noun, “carpenter,” is used to describe something about Jesus. The word “carpenter” is acting like an adjective does. Adjectives are words that describe things.
But when we use a noun (which is a person, place, or thing) as an adjective to describe another noun, the descriptive noun is called a “predicate noun.” Got it?
Now go back and look at my two examples. Did you notice that the predicate nouns all follow a state-of-being verb (such as “was” or “is”)? That’s how you can usually identify a predicate noun in an English sentence. A predicate noun usually follows another noun and a verb, usually a verb like “is” or “was.”
The cool thing about this is that koine Greek, the language of the New Testament, does a similar thing at John 1:1, just in reverse. In Greek the predicate (descriptive) noun comes before the verb and the subject:
**Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
GOD WAS THE WORD
**
Let’s learn something about how predicate nouns operate by returning to our example:
Martha is a teacher.
Does Martha merely have the traits of a teacher or is she a teacher?
Both! “Martha is a teacher.” Because she teaches, she has the traits of a teacher, and what Martha does in teaching makes Martha an actual teacher.
Remember the saying: “If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck!”
It’s the same with the expression:
**…and the Word **was God.
“Word” is our subject noun, “was” is the state-of-being verb, and the word “God" that follows (recall that in the Greek it is the reverse order) it is a predicate noun—a noun that acts like an adjective.
Now, like the other uses of predicate nouns, does this mean that the Word has only the qualities of God, that he is merely divine? Or does it mean that the Word is God himself?
Again, the answer is BOTH!
John is saying that Jesus is “divine.” He is also saying that he is God.
Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed are correct because the text is using the second use of “theos” as a predicate noun. John is saying the the Word has the same characteristics and qualities that God possesses. These translators merely choose to emphasize this in their choice of words.
But what these translations do and what Logically claims about them is at odds.
Logically and the Witnesses are incorrect when they say that a predicate noun is limited to describing a quality here, that the Word only has the “quality” of God, but cannot be anything more.
Excuse me, but that’s not how predicate nouns work, neither in koine Greek nor English!
Tyler is my friend.
Does Tyler merely have the quality of someone who is my friend or is he also actually my friend? He is both. Just like John 1:1 states:
The Word was God.
Does the Word merely have the quality of God, like the Witnesses say, limiting the Word to be only “a god”? No. That’s not the way predicate nouns work. You would have to invent a new language if you wanted predicate nouns to be limited to the way the JWs claim they are. (You will also get a failing grade in grammar class if you stick to this claim too!)
W
Waynec
Guest
Boy am I burning up my printer here. Another bible lesson from Delson.
Even I can understand this.
Thanks Delson.
N
nickybr38
Guest
I’m just popping in to say that Delson makes me want to learn Greek. IN fact, think I might sign up for classes right now. Thanks Delson. If we’re going to study Scripture, we should study it in as true a form as possible as opposed to someone else’s translation because you just never know who has what agenda.
M
Miserissima
Guest
I think not…obviously, in light of the schooling in Greek we all just received.
The knowledge that you claim was withheld was actually preserved and passed on by institutions of learning, funded and administrated by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The WTBS should be ashamed of falsifying scripture and its interpretation and translation.
One simply cannot extol the ignorance of the early Christians by citing Acts 4:13 without acknowledging it was they who understood the collected writings of the time in more of a proper context than we do, then to go on accusing the Church of withholding information while preserving it – and then not even correctly interpreting simple Greek nouns consistently just to serve an agenda. Pshaw and for shame.
L
Logically
Guest
Your question was with regard to my statement "other translations also render John 1:1 “a god”, too many to list.
it is a popular excuse that JW’s changed the Bible to support their belief, and no other scholars agree with the way they translate it.
Wikepedia is where I looked it up. The WT gives only a handful of examples and doesn’t focus on only this one verse when discussing the identity of Jesus- (While I find often Trinitarians do
)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1
Under John 1:1 they explain the delema better than I, then list a bunch of “non-traditional” renderings.
I count 9 translations that say: “was a god” ,
3 say: “was divine”
and a handful of other variations like: “the same as God”, or “what God was, the Word was”
and then it says: “For a complete list of 70 non traditional translations of John 1:1 see this reference…”
But who cares?
Is anyone going to bother reading them all and try to keep score?All it shows is that the verse is not as easily translated into English as we might think, -
and JW’s didn’t just change it to suit their beliefs. There are others, may of them trinitarians who agree. (infact as you are probably aware, JW’s are far more likely to change their beliefs to suit the Bible than the other way around)
What is more, even if John 1:1 says: “…and the Word was God.” it still doesn’t teach the Trinity. (Which is what this topic started as)
We could argue this one backwards and forwards until Armageddon, and still - there is no trinity taught here!
There are only two characters mentioned. God and the Word.
Regardless of what way we translate the verse, there are some confusing issues we have to turn to the entire context of the Bible to help us understand.
I am still waiting for something that teaches the trinity. This is Collaborating evidence at best. Where is the direct evidence if the Trinity is the central doctrine of Chrisitanity?
Also, if JW’s wanted to take out references to Jesus being called Good in the Bible, they would have tampered with John20:28 where Thomas said: “My Lord and my God!”
I was going to quote our reasoning book on that one, but what’s the point.
At John 1:1 Trinitarians are desperate to hold on to a favourite. And if that favourite is the best they have to teach that God is three people in one, then the Trinity doctrine is based on very little indeed.
L
Logically
Guest
I over heard something interesting while I was talking to myself.
may I share?
We all recognise figures of speech don’t we. If I said “don’t beat around the bush” or “he has his head in the sand” or “it’s raining cats and dogs” – you would all recognise a figure of speech and not take it literally.
“How can clouds hold cats and dogs!” would not be any ones reply. (if it was, we would write the poor fellow off as an idiot)
And the Bible contains many figures of speech too.
The name Jehovah is called “a fortress” in Psalms.
We are told “watch out for wolves in sheeps clothing” – figures of speech.
Where Jesus said “a man and his wife will become one flesh” or when he prayed for his followers “to be one” – No one takes this literally.
No one is trying to understand how multiple people are infact supposed to morph into one.
But here is the weird bit:
When Jesus says: “I and the Father are one” – suddenly the ability to recognise a figure of speech is gone!
Or when he said: “if you have seen me you have seen the Father." - Again, no figure of speech allowed. it must be totally literal!
Despite a thousand examples of Jesus and his Father being mentioned in a context that shows they are separate people, (don’t ask me to list them, you know I will
)
Do you see my point?
Titles and descriptions of Jesus shows a similar lack of logic. Jesus is referred to in numerous ways in the Bible. He is called “the son of man”, “the Stone the builders rejected”, “the lamb of God” “the Word”…
– and no one looses sleep trying to nut out how Jesus is also a rock, or a sheep or a single syllable in a language. We all know these are figures of speech. Simple.
At John 1:1 “The Word” is an acceptable figure of speech for a spokesman or a messenger .
But in the same sentence - “a god” is not allowed to be a figure of speech for a mighty spirit creature!
“No way!” the Trinitarian cries: “Either join our team and say “God” or you have to take it literally and confess you think there are two gods! No middle ground allowed. And don’t you dare try and say “godlike” or “divine”! - So back to “God was with God and is God.” Sure that doesn’t make sense, but being incomprehensible suits a trinity belief much better.”
JW’s conclusion harmonises logic and the Bible, but the dominant church council in the chaotic 4th century voted for a trinity, so you are stuck with it.
And even if they win the argument, or more likely the JW gives up banging his head against a brick wall (there is another figure of speech for you) - John 1:1 calling Jesus God would only be collaborating evidence for the Trinity at best. It only mentions two, not three.
may I share?
We all recognise figures of speech don’t we. If I said “don’t beat around the bush” or “he has his head in the sand” or “it’s raining cats and dogs” – you would all recognise a figure of speech and not take it literally.
“How can clouds hold cats and dogs!” would not be any ones reply. (if it was, we would write the poor fellow off as an idiot)
And the Bible contains many figures of speech too.
The name Jehovah is called “a fortress” in Psalms.
We are told “watch out for wolves in sheeps clothing” – figures of speech.
Where Jesus said “a man and his wife will become one flesh” or when he prayed for his followers “to be one” – No one takes this literally.
No one is trying to understand how multiple people are infact supposed to morph into one.
But here is the weird bit:
When Jesus says: “I and the Father are one” – suddenly the ability to recognise a figure of speech is gone!
Or when he said: “if you have seen me you have seen the Father." - Again, no figure of speech allowed. it must be totally literal!
Despite a thousand examples of Jesus and his Father being mentioned in a context that shows they are separate people, (don’t ask me to list them, you know I will
)- despite numerous visions in which prophets and apostles see God with Jesus standing separately at his right hand (incidentally, only ever two people in these visions, not three)
-despite Jesus praying to God and saying “the Father sent me” and “the Father is greater” and all the rest (don’t make me list them!) - despite all this suddenly people miss the figure of speech and insist Father and son are the same person!
(I should clarify that. When I say “people”" I mean ones who want to believe the Trinity)
Do you see my point?
Titles and descriptions of Jesus shows a similar lack of logic. Jesus is referred to in numerous ways in the Bible. He is called “the son of man”, “the Stone the builders rejected”, “the lamb of God” “the Word”…
– and no one looses sleep trying to nut out how Jesus is also a rock, or a sheep or a single syllable in a language. We all know these are figures of speech. Simple.
At John 1:1 “The Word” is an acceptable figure of speech for a spokesman or a messenger .
But in the same sentence - “a god” is not allowed to be a figure of speech for a mighty spirit creature!
“No way!” the Trinitarian cries: “Either join our team and say “God” or you have to take it literally and confess you think there are two gods! No middle ground allowed. And don’t you dare try and say “godlike” or “divine”! - So back to “God was with God and is God.” Sure that doesn’t make sense, but being incomprehensible suits a trinity belief much better.”
JW’s conclusion harmonises logic and the Bible, but the dominant church council in the chaotic 4th century voted for a trinity, so you are stuck with it.
And even if they win the argument, or more likely the JW gives up banging his head against a brick wall (there is another figure of speech for you) - John 1:1 calling Jesus God would only be collaborating evidence for the Trinity at best. It only mentions two, not three.
P
pacloc
Guest
Once again you sound like a child in your understanding of the Trinity. Please, pretty please look up the definition from the catechism or any early church father. You will see you are fighting against a made up version of the Holy Trinity that the watchtower has purposely misrepresented. THERE ARE 3 PERSONS NOT 1.
P
pacloc
Guest
Once again you sound like a child in your understanding of the Trinity. Please, pretty please look up the definition from the catechism or any early church father. You will see you are fighting against a made up version of the Holy Trinity that the watchtower has purposely misrepresented. THERE ARE 3 PERSONS NOT 1.
L
Logically
Guest
I looked up this one and tried to read through it.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm
Good grief. It is like someone is trying to overwhelm their reader with “double-speak”.
That convinces me the Trinity makes no sense, far better than anything the WT ever wrote.
(At least it honestly uses the word “mystery” alot.)
I think I found four scriptures quoted in the over 3000 word script.
Four.
I compared that to a 2100 word Wt article. It had 35 scriptures.
One scripture per 750 words in your catechism,
One scripture per 60 words in the WT.
That is an interesting ratio I will quote when people tell me to stop believing the WT and check what the Bible says.
- Status