Jesus is not God....part 2

[Ben57]

Hi,
Back again already


May I ask, what you are trying to say by those 2 texts - John 1:13 and Matt. 1:23.?

From Matt. I gather that you are refering to the name Emanual and its meaning. Am I correct? Are you trying to say that because Imanual means "God with us." you are implying that means Jesus must be God?

But I am not sure exactly what it is you are saying by John 1:13. PLEASE, if you are going to quote a text, give some reason for using it so that others do not have to second guess what you are thinking. 1) It saves confution and 2) it save those that want to respnd spending unneccesary time prepraring an answer that does not get to the point.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I'm referring to the usage of 'theos' in passages other than John 1:1 that clearly refer to capital letter God as opposed to generic deity.

I edited this post. I was reading when I wrote it and it might've seemed garbled as a result.

 

[Ben57]

OK Thank you

BTW what time zone are you in I am in South Aistralia and it is now 4:55 pm. Generally when i talk on forums I do not get instant replies. I find this fasinating.

Must go Wife is calling for Dinner (yes we do have an early tea with 4 Kids)

I'm referring to the usage of 'theos' in other passages that John 1:1 that clearly refer to capital letter God as opposed to generic deity.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I'm in America and its 3 AM. LOL If that blows my mind what right do I have discussing God?

There's no rush to reply. I stop by whenever I get a chance just to see if there's anything new. See you later.

 

[Ben57]

This is a long reply


The point has been raised about the legitimate use of the lower case ‘g’ for the word god in the second part of John 1:1. as in the JW’s NWT. Does this mean that there is more than one god or that John was a heretic if that is what is he meant? Those are good questions and deserve an answer, so I will attempt to answer those points as clearly as possible. I am aware that what I say will possible raise more questions so please do not be afraid to ask.



First I want to explore the use of the word ‘god’ in the Christian Greek Scriptures. I find it interesting when one looks into various lexicons that show how many times the word is used and the forms that it takes. For example in the ASV the word God appears 1343 times, in the following forms God 1320, god 13, godly 3, misc 7; . The New American Standard uses the word in the following ways divinely (1), God (1267), god (6), God’s (27), God-fearing (1), godly (3), gods (8), Lord (1) which is a total 1314 times. The point of this is to show that translators use their “discretion” in rendering common words into English in different places.



Second, I want to show what the word God meant to the people that wrote the Bible. Now the writers of the ‘New Testament’ may have written in the common language of the time Greek, they were Hebrews and spoke Hebrew in its various dialects, so I am going to examine the term God as it appeared in the ‘Old Testament’ to show how the apostles would have understood the word. Please take note the first two paragraphs as it gives the meaning of the word god. This is a portion of an article on the word God



Among the Hebrew words that are translated "God" is ´El, The New Strongs Concordance links EL (reference number 410) with ELOHEEM (Ref. Nu. 430) and ELOAH (Ref. Nu. 433). The base word El meaning "strength" and or "mighty one”…… The plural form, ´e·lim', is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 ("gods"). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: "Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh' ´E·lim']?" That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim' by the singular form The·os' in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.



The Hebrew word ´elo·him' (gods) appears to be from a root meaning "be strong." ´Elo·him' is the plural of ´eloh'ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him' is used in the Scriptures with reference to YHWH himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.



When applying to the God of the Hebrews, ´Elo·him' is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence not to more then one. (Ge 1:1)



…..At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ´elo·him', as is confirmed by Paul's quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh' ha·´Elo·him', "sons of God" (KJ); "sons of the true God" (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: "(individual) divine beings, gods." And page 51 says: "the (single) gods," and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ´elo·him' is rendered "angels" (LXX); "godlike ones" (NW).



The word ´elo·him' is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply "gods." (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.-1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 ("goddess" Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).



At Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him' is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen The Almighty God YHWH. Similarly Moses was told that he .was to serve as "God" to Aaron and to Pharaoh.-Ex 4:16



In many places in the Scriptures ´Elo·him' is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·´Elo·him', F. Zorell says: "In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . 'Jahve is the [one true] God' De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc."-Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.



The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ´El and ´Elo·him' in the Septuagint translation and the word for "God" or "god" in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·os'.





Now I wish to show the meaning given to the Greek word God as per the Online Bible Greek Lexicon



2316 yeov theos theh’-os



of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with the definite article) the supreme Divinity;



1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity

2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity

2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity

2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3) spoken of the only and true God

3a) refers to the things of God

3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

4a) God’s representative or vice-regent

4a1) of magistrates and judges



Now back to John 1:1. The original word for word English translation of John looks like this



In Beginning was the Word and the Word was toward (with) The God and god was the word



Using the original meaning of the word (it was shown to mean “mighty one”) lets put it into John 1:1



In beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE mighty one (God) and mighty one (god) was the Word

The term mighty one does not put the Word in the same category as THE mighty one.”.



Lets put it in a none theological setting, using the grammar of the original Greek.



In beginning was the worker and the worker was with the Builder and builder was the worker. In this example, I would think that it is easy to see that the worker was also a builder but not The Builder. The second word builder with the lower case ‘b’ is describing a quality if the worker, it is telling us something about this one and not identity. Whereas, the first use of the word Builder, with the capital ‘B’, is identifying the one that the worker is with.



But if we are to use that as an analogy, does that not make Jesus as secondary ‘god’ and as the Bible says there is only ONE God, does that not make Jesus a false ‘god’?



Simply put NO. First it is telling us something about Jesus, a quality, not identity. Now go back and read the way that the word ‘god’ is used in the ‘Old Testament’ and in the New. Remember this passage…



“…At Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him' is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for The Almighty God YHWH. Similarly Moses was told that he .was to serve as "God" to Aaron and to Pharaoh.-Ex 4:16…”



Also remember the way the lexicon says that the word god was used..



4a) God’s representative or vice-regent

4a1) of magistrates and judges





So to call the word “a god” or a “mighty one” does not make the word a false god but a god in the capacity as a representative of, and spokesmen for The God, hence his title “the Word.



This goes back and has a direct bearing on the issue of whether Jesus was worshiped in a religious way. The evidence shows Jesus was give due honor and respect as Gods “vice-regent”, or Word or as “a god in the capacity as a representative of, and spokesmen” ofThe God Almighty, the father and God of Jesus (John 20:17), but was never worshiped in a religious way



I hope I have explained the JW view here clearly. I have not made myself clear please ask.

 

[Mus Zibii]

LOL I think I'm more confused now than I was before. First off, if 'theos' is suppose to denote 'divinity' then why the misleading translation of 'a god'? Some mislaid instance of literalism gone horribly wrong? My guess would be that it was only after the translation and interpretation was challenged did the meaning change in Watchtower apologetics. But that's a guess. Moreover, how does the meaning change if 'the word was first with God (or is this rendered divinity as well?) and then became divinity'?

I'd be willing to concede that the KJV assumption that 'theos' without a definite article remains the same might not be best related form of the phrase in English, if it were not for the post-hoc interpretation from Watchtower. Its again a matter of context. In John one there are six uses of 'theos' without a definite article, only one challenged as not referring to God, in comparison to seven instances that have the definite article. Almost equally divided instances of 'theos' just in John 1. One would think John 1:3-4 would wipe away all uncertainity of the author's intended muse.

On context: from the JW point of view where its a given that Jesus wasn't God, this word, 'theos' in John 1:1 should naturally swing toward their preferred conception. To the trinity believing Christian (who I have my own beef with) who looks first to the numerous other instances (including the unambiguous John 20:28) that seem to identify the dual nature of Christ, it would seem more appropriate to number this usage of 'theos' with the other 'theos' that refer to God and yet still lack a definite article.

 

[Ben57]

LOL I think I'm more confused now than I was before. First off, if 'theos' is suppose to denote 'divinity' .

The word theos is not limited to divinity as the Hebrews word for God meant "mighty one" and the Greek word is also used of men in possitions of authority, so we must get past they English idea of limmiting it to diety.

....then why the misleading translation of 'a god'? Some mislaid instance of literalism gone horribly wrong? My guess would be that it was only after the translation and interpretation was challenged did the meaning change in Watchtower apologetics. But that's a guess. Moreover, how does the meaning change if 'the word was first with God (or is this rendered divinity as well?) and then became divinity'?

The Translation "a god" is a grammatical one not a theological one. The translation with out the 'a god' but 'God' is a theological translation of the text. May i ask a question? What is more important translating the Bible as close to the original as we can or translating it with preconcived theological intent? Should we be able to read what the auther wrote or what some translator feels the author might of meant?

The context also demands the translation 'a god'

... In John one there are six uses of 'theos' without a definite article, only one challenged as not referring to God, in comparison to seven instances that have the definite article.

Yes there are instances where theos does not have the definate artical but the grammer and context demands the capital 'God'. The instances you mention, the theos there is definate (but do not require the definate article)so theos is a telling us identity in those instances. Where as in John 1:1 'a god' is describing a quality of the word not identity.

.... One would think John 1:3-4 would wipe away all uncertainity of the author's intended muse..

The context here in these verses are at utmost importance to the use of the 'a god', as the Word (a god) is the agents God uses to accomplish his purpose. This is seen by the use of the words with, through and without. All these words show a distinction of 2 individuals and the word through measn agency John 1:1-3 NJKV colored mine

1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 He was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.


If you want a break down of those words I will present them

On context: ..... it would seem more appropriate to number this usage of 'theos' with the other 'theos' that refer to God and yet still lack a definite article.

To present a theological biase to the the text one would say "the word was God". to present the text as intended by John we must say 'a god'.

A problem arises for trinitarians by saying "the word was God". That makes Jesus the full God. Think about it. if Jesus was "God" in that verse that negates the 'godhead' idea as that way of translationg that verse makes it a definate that Jesus was the supreem one. Now there are at least 2 versions of the Trinity that I have come accross. One is that Jesus is Fully God (not used much any more but you will find some that hold to that) and the other is that Jeus is the second person of the trinity. So most Trinitarians will acknowledge that John 1:1 is speaking of 2 individuals. How do you show 2 individuals if the word God is presented as Identity in both cases. You can not. The word 'godhead' is not used, and neither God nor the Word are said to be part of the 'godhead' in that verse. Trinitarians will tell me that Jesus shared the same nature as God. Well isnt that what the term 'a god' is doing, showing a quality of Jesus (if you believe that jesus is part of the Godhead, which I do not). John 1 clearly puts Jesus as a seperate enterty to God and the NWT clearly (using established rules of Greek garmmer) shows that.

 

[Mus Zibii]

The word theos is not limited to divinity as the Hebrews word for God meant "mighty one" and the Greek word is also used of men in possitions of authority, so we must get past they English idea of limmiting it to diety.

I honestly can't imagine the scholarly consensus on the Greek term 'theos' would side with that opnion. Especially, not in the case of John 1:1. Its not a matter of 'misunderstanding' among an English speaking audience, its the Greek rule. Its not 'limited' to deity, its defined as 'deity'. John 1:1 isn't a matter of misunderstanding, its a matter of Watchtower introducing an unknown article where an article is absent to change the meaning, thus creating a niagra of apparently 'mistranslated' verses in the OT and NT that JW's seems to have no problem with as they 'correct' only this one instance. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The Translation "a god" is a grammatical one not a theological one.

I find that wholly ridiculous and as I said before, one would be hard pressed to find a precedence for this outside of JW dogma. That theos (with logos there are two words in nominative form now) following 'theon' doesn't denote God, when followed in the first chapter of John immediately with an account of creation, as well as numerous other unambigious instances of the term, requires a tremendous leap of faith, and suspension of disbelief.

Should we be able to read what the auther wrote or what some translator feels the author might of meant?

Considering the numerous transparent instances where the JW bible alter verses and words for no other reason than support their doctrine, I agree completely. After all this debate over 'theos' how do JW defend their translation of the VERY ambigious word for 'Lord' into Jehovah EXCEPT when relating to Jesus? Why does it use it at all, when the tetragrammaton doesn't appear in the NT? Why is proskuneo (which we discussed before) translated as 'worship' when referring to everything except Jesus? What of Thomas calling Jesus 'theos' WITH the definitive article? The question of translation cuts both ways.

Why not use a literal translation rather than one provided by Watchtower?

Why not just transliterate the Greek?

en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

If you want a break down of those words I will present them

I honestly don't know how that would help. Its all so convoluted. And the closer I examine it through JW doctrine it just becomes more complicated. The root of theos (even outside the bible) refers to deity, the 'a god' theory claims to relate directly to God and yet entirely separate. As I've said before, it all smacks of post-hoc apologetics. By your explanation, the meaning never changes, its just alters the identity of God by name to the 'power' of God (and/or that Jesus spontaneously took on the form of a lesser 'mighty one' though there's no claim to this outside of Watchtower literature), only to have the first noun re-introduced without reason - and this interpretation is born of pure assumption (in the tradition of Watchtower translating 'ego eimi' as 'I am' everywhere except John 8:58 though by their own words the meaning stays the same).

We seem to just be repeating ourselves.

The only question I've asked that I'm not sure I got an answer to, is why not correct the other instances of 'theos' that lack definitive article? I'm not sure there's any more info we can exchange here.

We could start on the alleged OT prophecy of Jesus as Jehovah next. Or maybe the burden of proof could be shifted to Watchtower, such as the claims of blood relating to all manner of moral and health ills, the numerous doomsday prophecies, etc.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I forgot to comment on Elohim in reference to angels and then my 'edit' option disappeared.

Ignoring the fact that by JW standards, the gospel authors refrained from using the greek word for angel, opting instead for 'theos' and thus implying that there's some unspoken distinguishing characteristic between the two... ignoring that, you have the very existence of multiple and unique references to 'messengers of god' negating the special attention JW give Jesus (apparently only because they have too). Also, nevermind that in no document anywhere, no reference, no nod, no nothing says that Greek speaking Christians (be they gentile or Jew) took 'theos' to denote this new Greek 'elohim'. Nevermind the distinctions of the messiah, nevermind prophethood....

You now don't have a god/man with a dual nature, you have an angel/man with a dual nature. I think that's a good example of Watchtower struggling to create a new dogma and only tangling itself up in the rope moreso. You'd think that during the era of the church fathers, among all the doctrines and theories this one would've been better defined. But then you have the controversial nature of Watchtower and its on again off again claim to unique divine influence.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I was thinking, if one were to ignore the nominative form (of logos coming second and possessing the only definite article in the statement), and claim its a transcription error in grammar, one could say that John 1:1 means to say 'and godly was the word' or 'and the word was godly'.

How would that fly, Ben? That'd conflict with both JW and trinitarians. A plus for me.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Ben's off so I'm talking to myself just now, but I have no life so I wanted to add some more observations.

First off, I'd never heard of Colwell's rule until this discussion. So, that's a lesson for me. It states as follows, 'definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article'. Like Ben said, those who embrace the conception of the trinity use Colwell to support their doctrine by asserting that a predicate noun must as a rule be definite. Though I had no idea who Colwell was, and I don't care much for the trinity, I agreed with this much as well. But this is not the rule. Its a poodle dog thing. Just because its a predicate noun and lacks an article doesn't make it definite. Mark one for Ben. But here it turns around.

I'm going to break my personal rule of quoting sources rather than coming to conclusions on my own. Daniel Wallace, a greek scholar, has suggested that 'theos' sans article should be looked at as qualitative, in relating the nature of God. I'm rather proud of myself because I considered that before reading about Wallace, see above post. For the article to be definite it would've made John's doctrine appear Sabellianistic (that Jesus was simply God, the end, no dual nature). To approach the verse assuming the trinity or a dual nature of Jesus, the singularity of God that would've been implied with 'theos' following a definite article would actually conflict. And the expression itself, without doctrine but simply to make logistical sense (there's an assumption even by JWs that the 'word being with god' and becoming 'a god' let alone 'god' is meant to be a pun if not a paradox) would've been grammarically incorrect. For John (author of John rather) to have expressed this statement any other way would've made no sense. Now I see where the phrase, 'its all greek' comes from. Its more complicated than it looks.

I'd love to post outside links to quotes (which explain the situation infinitely better than I have or ever could) from these authors (many of which have been quoted and misquoted by Watchtower to further their own doctrine) or copy and paste, but that'd be dishonest. But I gotta say, had it not been for this discussion I might have missed all of this. This is great. Learning is fun.

For the sake of debate I have to compound this new thought with the frustrating views Watchtower apparently pushes. Ben placed great emphasis on the ambiguity of 'elohim' and 'adonai' and found some misplaced parallel with 'theos'. But here is the tricky part that Watchtower invents that gets me. On one hand the JW Jesus was creature, which by Jew, Christian, Muslim or Pagan standards would run contrary to the divinity of 'elohim' or 'theos'. But then the spirit of Jesus is from Michael the archangel, so there's the divinity. But then all things were created by Michael, this great intermediary, through God so now you have a character with dual nature. But, no, Jesus was just a really grand human (remember Bruce?) and was somehow the first creation of Jehovah, so you're back to flesh again. Its a magnificent catch-all. I think I owe the trinity people a phonecall to apologize for ever thinking 'god is three in one' was ever complicated.

I truly feel I've killed this subject. If there's any other angle to consider it from I'd be much surprised.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Mus Zibii!

Just curious, did you find anything about Melchizedek? I've been a bit occupied to look.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Not a thing. I still haven't found the actual interpolated chapters of Enoch that mention him. I was going to ask bananabrain what his view was, but... there's only so much material out there, I can't imagine any of it escaped notice.

 

[iBrian]

I'll be surprised isn't back - probably looking for back up on specific points raised. Either way, an interesting discussion.

 

[Ben57]

Hi,



From your comments, it seems that I have not been clear in explaining my self properly. I am going to have to explain in more detail the Greek Rules of grammar and the way it is used. I am also going to have to explain why the other occurrences of the word god in John chapter one do not require the indefinite article. You also seem to be stuck on the theos = diety when it does not just apply to diety but to “mighty ones” humans, angels, gods. I do not know how to get you past that. Understanding the original is vital to understanding the meaning. So I appologise if i seem to be labouring on the original Greek.



But for now I want to mention a few points

First the parts of speech in John 1:1

Below is a literal translation as it apperas in the Greek

In beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE GOD and god was the Word


The words (the Word) are in the nominative case .. expressing the doer.

The words (THE GOD) are in the Accusative case… expressing the Object. Note that in English we omit the word (THE) as it is not always needed when translating into English. The word (THE) being the definite article pointing to one particular object.

The word (god) is also in the Nominative case… referring back to (the Word). The word (god) here also differs from (THE GOD), because (god) is singular anarthrous predicate noun. Greek grammar says that when this type of noun comes before the verb (the word ‘was’…. god was the Word) then the anarthrous noun is qualative.

1O Nominative case of the word "The"….. Expressing the doer

2TonAccusative case of the word "The" …. Expressing the Object

3Qeon Accusative case of the word "God" …. Expressing the Object

4qeoz Nominative case of the word "God"….. Expressing the doer

5Lagos Nominative case of the word "Word"….. Expressing the doer

[QUOTE ]
I find that wholly ridiculous and as I said before, one would be hard pressed to find a precedence for this outside of JW dogma.[/QUOTE]


You seem be under the opinion that the NWT created the “and the Word was ‘a god’”

Just for interest, here is a list of other translations and the way they translate John 1:1. I sourced this list from a public forum in June 1998. These are from English and German Bibles

* 1768 and was himself a divine person ......... Harwood
*1808 and the word was a god .................. Newcome
* 1829 the Logos was a god ..................... Thompson
* 1864 and a god was the Word .................. Wilson (Int)
* 1939 the Word was divine ..................... Goodspeed
* 1947 the Word was god ........................ Torrey
* 1961 what God was,the Word was ............... New English
* 1972 the Logos was divine .................... Moffatt
* 1973 The Word was with God and shared his nature ....................... Translator's NT
* 1976 the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God ........... Barclay
* 1978 and godlike sort was the Logos .......... Schneider
* 1985 the Word was divine ..................... Schonfield
* 1989 what God was, the Word was .............. Revised English
* 1993 The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was ....... Scholars Version
* 1994 the Word was a divine Being ............. Madsen
* 1979 ein Gott war das Logos [a God/god was the Logos/logos] ......... Becker
* 1907 Das Wort war selbst go:ttlichen Wesens [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being] . Stage
* 1910 Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] .......... Bhmer
* 1919 Gott von Art war das Wort [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] .... Thimme
* 1920 Gott (von Art) war der Logos [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] .................... Baumgarten et.al
* 1926 ein Gott war der Gedanke [a God/god was the Thought/thought] ..... Holzmann
* 1938 selbst ein Gott war das Wort [itself a God/god was the Word/word] .... Rittelmeyer
* 1945 Ordet var av guddomsart [the Word was of divine kind] ........... Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology)
* 1949 war von go:ttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] ............... Pfa:fflin
* 1957 go:ttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] . Albrecht
* 1960 verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen [the word of the world was a divine being] ..... Smit
* 1961 Gott (= go:ttlichen Wesens) war das Wort [God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) .. Menge
* 1980 Gott (von Art) war der Logos [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] ... Haenchen
* 1982 r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich [He was with God and in all like God] ...... Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch
* 1984 divine (of the category divinity) was the Logos Haenchen .................... (tr. by R.Funk)
* 1987 ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word] ......................... Schultz





That is all for now. I have copied your last replies to my computer and will prepare a reply. In the mean time perhaps you might like to down load my web pages and read very carefully.
http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/hepburn/nwt.htm

 

[littlemissattitude]

Interesting thread. However, I would like to point out that all translation involves interpretation, and all interpretation involves subjective decisions on meaning by the person doing the translating. This is not just my feeling, but the opinion of every professor of Biblical literature I've ever had any contact with. These professors are not just scholars of the literature, but are to a man and a woman quite devout individuals (at least three of them are ordained ministers, besides being teachers at university).

 

[Mus Zibii]

Ben with all due respect you've been copying and pasting things that repeat themselves without addressing the rebuttal I've presented. I even found the sites that you copied directly from -before noticing you included the link - that are greatly dishonest in their approach. The reason those names were listed in the manner they are is to prevent examination of the scholarship. Indeed, most of those men aren't scholars at all but theologians who simply shared an adventist or other unorthodox view of Christianity. Moslems have done this to me in other discussions. A geocities site or equally generic webpage is not the most academic.

Again, I think we've both made our respective cases. Now what of the other verses? I'm eager to hear the apologetics on those as well.

The word (god) here also differs from (THE GOD), because (god) is singular anarthrous predicate noun.

Again, that is no reason to include the article that the NWT provides or to assume that deity in the context pertains to an otherwise unacknowledged entity. A anarthrous predicate noun isn't by default a weaker noun. Its doesn't demand a lower-case translation, it doesn't assume an unwritten indefinite article (which doesn't exist in Greek). Its so frustrating because there's NOTHING, nothing to excuse the interpretation of 'a god' or separate god in the context of the first chapter of John. I conceded (trying to meet you halfway) that it could simple have meant 'godliness', an indictment of the obviously flawed KJV, but that's as far as the translation can bend. Even then you have the irreconcilable issue that the author of John only used the anarthrous phrase where the noun would've been assumed by to be definite.

But no, let's assume 'theos' refers to Jesus as something less than God. Why assume that it means 'mighty man'? Why assume it negates Christ's divinity? The sole motive behind the revision by Watchtower.

You also seem to be stuck on the theos = diety when it does not just apply to diety but to “mighty ones” humans, angels, gods. I do not know how to get you past that.

LOL Well, if it were not for the numerous instances where theos without a definite article clearly refers to God or godliness I wouldn't have a problem with that. Simply because not all Kings are God, doesn't mean that when God is referred to as a King that the God in question is not 'the' God. Again, that approach is post-hoc (post hoc ergo propter hoc!), arriving with a conclusion, rather than arriving at a conclusion. That theos is mentioned amid usage of theos with the needed article indentifying it as 'big God' should prove in itself that 'theos' as 'mighty man' or 'lesser god' is an unrepresentitive example.

According to an article I read by a critic of Watchtower (I mention this because if its wrong I'd like to know - I haven't counted the instances myself) of the 1,343 that theos is used 282 appear without the article, and only 16 of those are translated as NWT demands John 1:1 be translated. In John 1 itself theos without the article is only translated accordingly twice by the NWT.

Like I said before, we've reached a stalemate and I don't know about you, but its getting tedious and I get sloppy when I'm frustrated. I know nothing else I can say about John 1:1.

How about Jesus on a stake? Or Jesus as Michael/perfect man? Some other topic. I totally got sucked into this discussion even though I don't have a doctrine of my own. LOL That Zioniz and Shannon took off leaving me to do the work.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Interesting thread. However, I would like to point out that all translation involves interpretation, and all interpretation involves subjective decisions on meaning by the person doing the translating.

Yup. I could point out instances where the Greek fails to a likely extent. That's the ultimate problem with venerating literal words, the meaning of which will inevitably become subjective.

 

[Ben57]

Hello littlemissattitude


I fully agree with you ALL bibles have some sort of theological bias in them. The hard part is finding the ones that have the least bias.

Interesting thread. However, I would like to point out that all translation involves interpretation, and all interpretation involves subjective decisions on meaning by the person doing the translating. This is not just my feeling, but the opinion of every professor of Biblical literature I've ever had any contact with. These professors are not just scholars of the literature, but are to a man and a woman quite devout individuals (at least three of them are ordained ministers, besides being teachers at university).

 

[Mus Zibii]

Hello littlemissattitude

I fully agree with you ALL bibles have some sort of theological bias in them. The hard part is finding the ones that have the least bias.

I was getting irritated over the discussion, so I went and read through Jerome's commentaries. Talk about perspective. Especially his exchanges with Augustine (no, not part of the commentaries, really). As far as disagreements go we're keeping good company, and being far more civil about it.