A Letter From A JW

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Jim Ward, Mar 28, 2004.

  1. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Note from JMW... if any of you can be of help in responding to this it would be greatly appreciated. THANKS. Jim)


    Dear Ms. Rachel Pace and Friend,

    I found some more information to whet your intellectual appetite, this time with more scriptures. In the first article below, it talks about John 1:1, and how in the original manuscript it us the Greek word "theos," which, as you'll discover, is called an "anarthrous noun," and means "god." "Anarthrous" means that it is not preceded by the definite article "the." Or as in Greek it did not originally say "ho theos." It is good to keep in mind 1 Corinthians 8:5 when studying John 1:1.

    In the second and third texts which I've provided below, it talks about William Tyndale boldly trying to incorporate God's name into the Bible. In the paragraph with "Iehovah," it not only talks about Tyndale working on certain verses, but also talks about the shortened form of God's name as can be found in the cited scriptures in the second text.

    The third text taken from the Divine Name brochure, is something i sent last time, and does include scriptural references when talking of Tyndale.

    Enjoy...

    6A Jesus-A Godlike One; Divine

    Joh 1:1-"and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)"

    Gr., ??? ???? ?? ? ????? (kai the·os´ en ho lo´gos)

    1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An
    Improved Version, Upon the
    Basis of Archbishop Newcome's
    New Translation: With a
    Corrected Text, London.

    1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,
    interlinear reading), by
    Benjamin Wilson, New York and
    London.

    1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible-An American
    Translation, by J. M. P.
    Smith and E. J. Goodspeed,
    Chicago.

    1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the
    Christian Greek Scriptures,
    Brooklyn.

    1975 "and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach
    kind) was the Word" Johannes, by Siegfried
    Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.

    1978 "and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach
    the Logos" Johannes,by Johannes
    Schneider,Berlin.

    1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach
    Johannes,by Jürgen Becker,
    Würzburg, Germany.

    These translations use such words as "a god," "divine" or "godlike" because
    the Greek word ???? (the·os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before
    the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous
    the·os´. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated
    here by the Greek expression ? ????, that is, the·os´ preceded by the
    definite article ho. This is an articular the·os´. Careful translators
    recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity,
    a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the
    verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the
    Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was
    the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the
    Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God
    himself.

    In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate
    noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44;
    9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite
    article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or
    characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted
    before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the
    indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous ???? in the
    predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm
    the correctness of this rendering.

    In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John
    1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia,
    1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1,
    "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative
    in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is
    no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his
    article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force
    of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as
    definite."

    Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where
    various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns
    occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the
    indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:

    Scripture Text

    New World Translation

    King James Version

    An American Translation

    New International Version

    Revised Standard Version

    Today's English Version

    Mark

    6:49 an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost

    11:32 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a
    prophet

    John

    4:19 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet

    6:70 a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil

    8:44 a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a
    murderer

    8:44 a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar

    9:17 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet

    10:1 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief

    10:13 a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a
    hired man

    10:33 a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man

    12:6 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief

    1A The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures

    Heb., ???? (YHWH)

    "Jehovah" (Heb., ????, YHWH), God's personal name, first occurs in Ge 2:4.
    The divine name is a verb, the causative form, the imperfect state, of the
    Hebrew verb ??? (ha·wah´, "to become"). Therefore, the divine name means "He
    Causes to Become." This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive
    action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises, the One who
    always brings his purposes to realization. See Ge 2:4 ftn, "Jehovah"; App
    3C. Compare Ex 3:14 ftn.

    The greatest indignity that modern translators render to the Divine Author
    of the Holy Scriptures is the removal or the concealing of his peculiar
    personal name. Actually his name occurs in the Hebrew text 6,828 times as
    ???? (YHWH or JHVH), generally referred to as the Tetragrammaton (literally
    meaning "having four letters"). By using the name "Jehovah," we have held
    closely to the original-language texts and have not followed the practice of
    substituting titles such as "Lord," "the Lord," "Adonai" or "God" for the
    divine name, the Tetragrammaton.

    Today, apart from a few fragments of the early Greek Septuagint where the
    sacred name is preserved in Hebrew, only the Hebrew text has retained this
    most important name in its original form of four letters, ???? (YHWH), the
    exact pronunciation of which has not been preserved. Current circulating
    texts of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Syriac Peshitta (Sy) and Latin Vulgate
    (Vg) substitute the mere title "Lord" for God's unique name.-See App 1C.

    The text located in the U.S.S.R., namely, the Codex Leningrad B 19A, used
    for Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), vowel-points the Tetragrammaton to
    read Yehwah´, Yehwih´ and a number of times Yeho·wah´, as in Ge 3:14. The
    edition of the Hebrew text by Ginsburg (Gins.) vowel-points YHWH to read
    Yeho·wah´. While many translators favor the pronunciation "Yahweh," the New
    World Translation continues to use the form "Jehovah" because of people's
    familiarity with it for centuries. Moreover, it preserves, equally with
    other forms, the four letters of the divine name, YHWH or JHVH.-See ad under
    "Jehovah."

    The practice of substituting titles for the divine name that developed among
    the Jews was applied in later copies of the Greek Septuagint, the Latin
    Vulgate, and many other translations, ancient and modern. Therefore, A
    Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott (LS), p. 1013, states: "?
    ??????,=Hebr. Yahweh, LXX Ge. 11.5, al." Also, the Greek Lexicon of the
    Roman and Byzantine Periods, by E. A. Sophocles, Cambridge, U.S.A., and
    Leipzig, 1914, p. 699, says under ?????? (Ky´ri·os): "Lord, the
    representative of ????. Sept. passim [scattered throughout]." Moreover,
    Dictionnaire de la Bible, by F. Vigouroux, Paris, 1926, col. 223, says that
    "the Septuagint and the Vulgate contain ?????? and Dominus, 'Lord,' where
    the original contains Jehovah." Regarding the divine name, A Compendious
    Syriac Dictionary, edited by J. Payne Smith, Oxford, 1979 reprint, p. 298,
    says that Mar·ya´ "in the [Syriac] Peshita Version of the O. T. represents
    the Tetragrammaton."

    Jehovah's name was first restored to the English Bible by William Tyndale.
    In 1530 he published a translation of the first five books of the Bible into
    English. He included Jehovah's name once, in Ex 6:3. In a note in this
    edition Tyndale wrote: "Iehovah is God's name . . . Moreover, as oft as thou
    seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) it
    is in Hebrew Iehovah." From this the practice arose among translators to use
    Jehovah's name in just a few places, but to write "LORD" or "GOD" in most
    places where the Tetragrammaton occurs in Hebrew. This practice was adopted
    by the translators of the King James Version in 1611, where Jehovah's name
    occurs only four times, namely, in Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Isa 12:2; 26:4.

    Further, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Chicago (1980),
    p. 13, says: "To avoid the risk of taking God's name (YHWH) in vain, devout
    Jews began to substitute the word ´adona(y) for the proper name itself.
    Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they
    added the vowels e (in place of a for other reasons) and a to remind the
    reader to pronounce ´adona(y) regardless of the consonants. This feature
    occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. Most translations
    use all capital letters to make the title 'LORD.' Exceptions are the ASV
    [American Standard Version] and New World Translation which use 'Jehovah,'
    Amplified [Bible] which uses 'Lord,' and JB [The Jerusalem Bible] which uses
    'Yahweh.' . . . In those places where ´adona(y) yhwh occurs the latter word
    is pointed with the vowels from ´elohim, and the English renderings such as
    'Lord GOD' arose (e.g. Amos 7:1)."

    DIVINE NAME IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES (NW)

    The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests its importance to
    the Bible's author, whose name it is. The Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times
    in the Hebrew text (BHK and BHS). This is confirmed by the Theologisches
    Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Vol. I, edited by E. Jenni and C.
    Westermann, 3rd ed., Munich and Zurich, 1978, cols. 703, 704. The New World
    Translation renders the Tetragrammaton as "Jehovah" in all occurrences
    except Jg 19:18, where see ftn.

    Based on the readings in LXX, we have restored the Tetragrammaton in three
    places and rendered it as "Jehovah," namely, in De 30:16; 2Sa 15:20 and 2Ch
    3:1, where the footnotes in BHK give ????.

    According to BHK and BHS footnotes, in Isa 34:16 and Zec 6:8 the divine name
    should be read instead of the first-person singular pronoun "my." We
    restored the divine name in these two places and rendered it as "Jehovah."

    For an explanation of the 141 additional restorations of the divine name,
    see App 1B.

    The name "Jehovah" occurs 6,973 times in the text of the Hebrew Scriptures
    of the New World Translation, including three combination names (Ge 22:14;
    Ex 17:15; Jg 6:24) and six occurrences in the superscriptions of the Psalms
    (7; 18 [3 times]; 36; 102). These nine occurrences are included in the 6,828
    times in BHK and BHS.

    "Jehovah" in H.S. of NW

    6,827 YHWH rendered "Jehovah"

    146 Added Restorations

    Total 6,973 "Jehovah" in Ge-Mal

    THE SHORTER FORM OF THE DIVINE NAME

    The shorter form of the divine name occurs 50 times in the Masoretic text as
    Yah, rendered "Jah." Following is a list of its occurrences: Ex 15:2; 17:16;
    Ps 68:4, 18; 77:11; 89:8; 94:7, 12; 102:18; 104:35; 105:45; 106:1, 48;
    111:1; 112:1; 113:1, 9; 115:17, 18, 18; 116:19; 117:2; 118:5, 5, 14, 17, 18,
    19; 122:4; 130:3; 135:1, 3, 4, 21; 146:1, 10; 147:1, 20; 148:1, 14; 149:1,
    9; 150:1, 6, 6; Ca 8:6; Isa 12:2; 26:4; 38:11, 11.

    For a consideration of the 237 occurrences of "Jehovah" in the New World
    Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, see App 1D.

    Divine Name Brochure

    God's Name and Bible Translators

    EARLY in the second century, after the last of the apostles had died, the
    falling away from the Christian faith foretold by Jesus and his followers
    began in earnest. Pagan philosophies and doctrines infiltrated the
    congregation; sects and divisions arose, and the original purity of faith
    was corrupted. And God's name ceased to be used.

    As this apostate Christianity spread, the need arose to translate the Bible
    from its original Hebrew and Greek into other languages. How did the
    translators render God's name in their translations? Usually, they used the
    equivalent of "Lord." A very influential version of that time was the Latin
    Vulgate, a translation of the Bible by Jerome into everyday Latin. Jerome
    rendered the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) by substituting Dominus, "Lord."

    Eventually, new languages, such as French, English and Spanish, began to
    emerge in Europe. However, the Catholic Church discouraged the translating
    of the Bible into these new languages. Thus, while Jews, using the Bible in
    the original Hebrew language, refused to pronounce God's name when they saw
    it, most "Christians" heard the Bible read in Latin translations that did
    not use the name.

    In time, God's name came back into use. In 1278 it appeared in Latin in the
    work Pugio fidei (Dagger of Faith), by Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk.
    Raymundus Martini used the spelling Yohoua. Soon after, in 1303, Porchetus
    de Salvaticis completed a work entitled Victoria Porcheti adversus impios
    Hebraeos (Porchetus' Victory Against the Ungodly Hebrews). In this he, too,
    mentioned God's name, spelling it variously Iohouah, Iohoua and Ihouah.
    Then, in 1518, Petrus Galatinus published a work entitled De arcanis
    catholicae veritatis (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth) in which he
    spells God's name Iehoua.

    The name first appeared in an English Bible in 1530, when William Tyndale
    published a translation of the first five books of the Bible. In this he
    included the name of God, usually spelled Iehouah, in several verses, and in
    a note in this edition he wrote: "Iehovah is God's name . . . Moreover as
    oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the
    printing) it is in Hebrew Iehovah." From this the practice arose of using
    Jehovah's name in just a few verses and writing "LORD" or "GOD" in most
    other places where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text.

    In 1611 what became the most widely used English translation, the Authorized
    Version, was published. In this, the name appeared four times in the main
    text. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4) "Jah," a poetic
    abbreviation of the name, appeared in Psalm 68:4. And the name appeared in
    full in place-names such as "Jehovah-jireh." (Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15;
    Judges 6:24) However, following the example of Tyndale, the translators in
    most instances substituted "LORD" or "GOD" for God's name. But if God's name
    could appear in four verses, why could it not appear in all the other
    thousands of verses that contain it in the original Hebrew?

    Something similar was happening in the German language. In 1534 Martin
    Luther published his complete translation of the Bible, which he based on
    the original languages. For some reason he did not include the name of God
    but used substitutes, such as HERR ("LORD"). However, he was aware of the
    divine name, since in a sermon on Jeremiah 23:1-8, which he delivered in
    1526, he said: "This name Jehovah, Lord, belongs exclusively to the true
    God."

    In 1543 Luther wrote with characteristic frankness: "That they [the Jews]
    now allege the name Jehovah to be unpronounceable, they do not know what
    they are talking about . . . If it can be written with pen and ink, why
    should it not be spoken, which is much better than being written with pen
    and ink? Why do they not also call it unwriteable, unreadable or
    unthinkable? All things considered, there is something foul." Nevertheless,
    Luther had not rectified matters in his translation of the Bible. In later
    years, however, other German Bibles did contain the name in the text of
    Exodus 6:3.

    In succeeding centuries, Bible translators went in one of two directions.
    Some avoided any use of God's name, while others used it extensively in the
    Hebrew Scriptures, either in the form Jehovah or in the form Yahweh. Let us
    consider two translations that avoided the name and see why, according to
    their translators, this was done.

    Why They Left It Out

    When J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed produced a modern translation
    of the Bible in 1935, readers found that LORD and GOD had been used in most
    places as a substitution for God's name. The reason was explained in a
    preface: "In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish tradition
    and substituted 'the Lord' for the name 'Yahweh' and the phrase 'the Lord
    God' for the phrase 'the Lord Yahweh.' In all cases where 'Lord' or 'God'
    represents an original 'Yahweh' small capitals are employed."

    Then, in an unusual reversal of the tradition of the Jews who read YHWH but
    pronounced it "Lord," the preface says: "Anyone, therefore, who desires to
    retain the flavor of the original text has but to read 'Yahweh' wherever he
    sees LORD or GOD"!

    On reading this, the question immediately comes to mind: If reading "Yahweh"
    instead of "LORD" retains the "flavor of the original text," why did the
    translators not use "Yahweh" in their translation? Why did they, in their
    own word, 'substitute' the word "LORD" for God's name and thus mask the
    flavor of the original text?

    The translators say that they were following orthodox Jewish tradition. Yet
    is that wise for a Christian? Remember, it was the Pharisees, the preservers
    of orthodox Jewish tradition, who rejected Jesus and were told by him: "You
    have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)
    Such substitution truly weakens the Word of God.

    In 1952 the Revised Standard Version of the Hebrew Scriptures was published
    in English, and this Bible, too, used substitutions for God's name. This was
    noteworthy because the original American Standard Version, of which this was
    a revision, used the name Jehovah all through the Hebrew Scriptures. Hence,
    the omission of the name was an outstanding departure. Why was it done?

    In the preface to the Revised Standard Version, we read: "For two reasons
    the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James
    Version [that is, omitting the name of God]: (1) the word 'Jehovah' does not
    accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the
    use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other
    gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism
    before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal
    faith of the Christian Church."

    Are these sound arguments? Well, as discussed earlier, the name Jesus does
    not accurately represent the original form of the name of God's Son used by
    his followers. Yet this did not persuade the Committee to avoid using that
    name and to use instead a title such as "Mediator" or "Christ." True, these
    titles are used, but in addition to the name Jesus, not instead of it.

    As to the argument that there are no other gods from whom the true God had
    to be differentiated, that is simply not true. There are millions of gods
    worshiped by mankind. The apostle Paul noted: "There are many 'gods.'" (1
    Corinthians 8:5; Philippians 3:19) Of course, there is only one true God, as
    Paul goes on to say. Hence, one great advantage of using the name of the
    true God is that it keeps him separate from all the false gods. Besides, if
    using the name of God is "entirely inappropriate," why does it appear almost
    7,000 times in the original Hebrew Scriptures?

    The truth is, many translators have not felt that the name, with its modern
    pronunciation, is out of place in the Bible. They have included it in their
    versions, and the result has always been a translation that gives more honor
    to the Bible's Author and hews more faithfully to the original text. Some
    widely used versions that include the name are the Valera translation
    (Spanish, published in 1602), the Almeida version (Portuguese, published in
    1681), the original Elberfelder version (German, published in 1871), as well
    as the American Standard Version (English, published in 1901). Some
    translations, notably The Jerusalem Bible, also consistently use God's name
    but with the spelling Yahweh.

    Read now the comments of some translators who included the name in their
    translations and compare their reasoning with that of those who omitted the
    name.

    Why Others Include the Name

    Here is the comment of the translators of the American Standard Version of
    1901: "[The translators] were brought to the unanimous conviction that a
    Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be
    uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of
    the Old Testament . . . This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15,
    and emphasized as such over and over in the original text of the Old
    Testament, designates God as the personal God, as the covenant God, the God
    of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people . . . This personal
    name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place
    in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim."

    Similarly, in the preface to the original German Elberfelder Bibel we read:
    "Jehova. We have retained this name of the Covenant God of Israel because
    the reader has been accustomed to it for years."

    Steven T. Byington, translator of The Bible in Living English, explains why
    he uses God's name: "The spelling and the pronunciation are not highly
    important. What is highly important is to keep it clear that this is a
    personal name. There are several texts that cannot be properly understood if
    we translate this name by a common noun like 'Lord,' or, much worse, by a
    substantivized adjective [for example, the Eternal]."

    The case of another translation, by J. B. Rotherham, is interesting. He used
    God's name in his translation but preferred the form Yahweh. However, in a
    later work, Studies in the Psalms, published in 1911, he returned to the
    form Jehovah. Why? He explains: "JEHOVAH.-The employment of this English
    form of the Memorial name (Exo. 3:18) in the present version of the Psalter
    does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as
    being Yahwéh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the
    desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of
    this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the
    Divine name intended."

    In Psalm 34:3 worshipers of Jehovah are exhorted: "O magnify Jehovah with
    me, you people, and let us exalt his name together." How can readers of
    Bible translations that omit God's name respond fully to that exhortation?
    Christians are happy that at least some translators have had the courage to
    include God's name in their renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures, and thus
    preserve what Smith and Goodspeed call the "flavor of the original text."

    However, most translations, even when they include God's name in the Hebrew
    Scriptures, omit it from the Christian Greek Scriptures, the "New
    Testament." What is the reason for this? Is there any justification for
    including God's name in this last portion of the Bible?
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Sounds like the person is trying to baffle someone with their many words. It was just a case of copy and paste to you.

    The JW’s like to quote A.T. Robertson (out of context that is). The following is what he wrote in Word Pictures in The New Testament about Jn. 1:1.

    In the beginning (en archêi). Archê is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in #Ge 1:1
    But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity.
    There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or
    it has come out of nothing.
    Was (ên). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse #14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in #8:58
    "before Abraham came (genesthai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence).
    The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legô, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in #Pr 8:23
    Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in
    #Joh 1:1,14; Re 19:13; 1Jo 1:1"concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in #Heb 4:12
    But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul #2Co 8:9; Php 2:6 f.; Col 1:17 and in
    #Heb 1:2 f. and in #Joh 17:5
    This term suits John's purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (sarx egeneto, verse) #14 and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.
    With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God.
    Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In #1Jo 2:1 we have a like use of pros: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (paraklêton echomen pros ton patera). See prosôpon pros prosôpon (face to face, #1Co 13:12 a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnôston tês pros allêlous sunêtheias, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in #Mr 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In #Joh 17:5
    John has para soi the more common idiom.
    And the Word was God (kai theos ên ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ên ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in #Joh 4:24
    pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in#1Jo 4:16
    ho theos agapê estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in #Joh 1:14
    ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    On page 1158 and 1159 of their interlinear dated 1969 they quoted Robertson from his book “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament”. The problem is that they take the quote right out of its context on pages 767 and 768 of Robertson’s book. They use a quote (out of context) from him to prove their point. But what he writes shows what John is actually writing about. Robertson proves the JW’s wrong.
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    When the JWs attempt to make their case on the grounds of "we have better greek scholarship than all of Christianity" they need to explain how that has happened. What exactly did they do to acquire that scholarship and to surpase all of Christianity in John 1:1?

    Secondly in John 1 the text ALSO says "No one has seen God at any time" -- notice that even the JW NWT does not insert the article "a" so that it says "No one has seen A God at time".

    Clearly the NWT knows that this is now allowed.

    All their ramblings notwithstanding - the fact that they know "Enough not to make that mistake" in John 1:18 belies their entire case over John 1:1.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    But "as if that were not enough".

    Ask your JW friend to explain Colossians 1:15-19.

    1. Ask them if "All the fullness of God" leaves "any part of God out".

    They will sputter and choke on that for a little while - but will manage to talk themselves passed it.

    2. Ask them if the text "by Him all things were created" means that Christ actually created the "Heavens and the earth and the springs of water".

    They will admit that Christ did.

    -- Ask them to read Rev 14:7 and tell you what the Bible says we are to DO to the one who "Made the Heavens and the Earth and the springs of water"

    Checkmate.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    They constantly cite these examples, but what is the difference between those things and theos. You can have many of those thigs, but there can only be one God. And "though there are those that are called gods...there is TO US, only ONE God..."(1 Cor.8:6). So scripture never recognized anything that can truly be called "a god" that is divine. That's the way to push all of those complex Greek grammatical debates aside. Context demands no article at all.
     
  6. Russ Kelly

    Russ Kelly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    The JWs are really confused.
    If (as they say) God created Jesus and Jesus created the universe, then Jesus is the Creator God. Their theology admits that there are TWO Gods: God the Father and God the Creator of teh Universe.

    By the way, the JW Bible adds "almost" to the texts in Colossians that are so dificult for them.
     
  7. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's too bad that the Jehovah's Witnesses put so much effort into a cult, that will surely damn not only their souls but all those who join there group and belief system.

    Any one who does not believe that Jesus is God will walk within the boundless lengths of Hell for all eternity, no matter how obedient they are to their organization, or how religious they might appraise themselves as being.

    I John 4:2 & 9. Verse nine says,

    'In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because tht God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. [I John 4:9 & John 1:12 & John 3:16]

    Drs. Wuest and Robertson, the Christian Greek scholars explain that Jesus is the God in John 1:1-3, and no merely a god, or some other lesser being.
     
  8. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last I knew - the Watchtower printed about 1/2 million copies of the KJV each year. If you want to discuss Scripture with them - "make" them use a copy of the KJV - by telling them that it must be a good translation - as they print 1/2 million copies/year!
     
  9. tamborine lady

    tamborine lady
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    That's right Todd. They do use the KJV on occasion and so if you insist that they just put all their books away, and just use KJV, then you'll have a level playing field.

    Jim, another word of caution, don't try to use the NIV because it is really close in a lot of places to the NWT that they use.

    Another tip is, that they won't pray with you UNLESS you pray"our Father God Jehovah". So if you ask them to pray, and they refuse, just say that you pray to Jehovah also, and bow your head and begin. They will bow their head and listen, because you are speaking to Jehovah! That way you can ask God to reveal --- or whatever you want to pray!!

    God be with you.

    Working for Him,

    Tam
     
  10. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric B,

    I read your Scriptural reference. That is a good one that I had forgotten. Another verse for JW's is the second to the last verse in the Book of Matthew.

    As Christians we are to 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'

    As you said in effect, this does not take a knowledge of the original language. A person either believes in this one God or he does not believe in Him.

    Ray
     
  11. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I have even used their own interlinear to show how they are not consistent in their own made up rules of grammar and translation. Again a case of convenient theology and dishonesty.
     

Share This Page

Loading...