New World Translation

[NSMinistries]

Does anyone have a copy of the New World Translation they are willing to part with?

[NonTrinitarian]

Does anyone have a copy of the New World Translation they are willing to part with?
Go to your local Kingdom Hall and ask for one. They'll give it to you for free.

[NSMinistries]

Go to your local Kingdom Hall and ask for one. They'll give it to you for free.
Tried that. They want to make three appointments for me to come in and talk with them before they'll give one up.

[NonTrinitarian]

Tried that. They want to make three appointments for me to come in and talk with them before they'll give one up.
What? We hand out to people in the ministry. Every once in awhile we offer the book "The Bible-God's Word or Man's?" and the NWT in the door to door ministry. You should be able to go to the KH, walk right up to the literature counter and ask for a Bible. They don't charge you. You don't have to show any ID or anything else.

[NSMinistries]

What? We hand out to people in the ministry. Every once in awhile we offer the book "The Bible-God's Word or Man's?" and the NWT in the door to door ministry. You should be able to go to the KH, walk right up to the literature counter and ask for a Bible. They don't charge you. You don't have to show any ID or anything else.
I might try sending in a friend next time. They gave me a few tracts but wanted to have a couple of sit downs before they would give away the Bible. :nsm:

[NSMinistries]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19833

I'm just trying to get more info for my customers at work. We don't have much except what is on the web sites. I thought it might be of more help.

[Ric]

Does anyone have a copy of the New World Translation they are willing to part with?

I was able to get one and I have gone through the NWT with a fine tooth comb, it is so scary how the WT&TS has perverted the Scriptures to uphold their false teachings! :eek:

[NonTrinitarian]

I was able to get one and I have gone through the NWT with a fine tooth comb, it is so scary how the WT&TS has perverted the Scriptures to uphold their false teachings! :eek:
such as?

[Ric]

such as?

Way to many to list! But in the New World Translarion the Watchtower has changed almost all verses in Scripture that refer to the deity of Christ. Here are a few:

John 1:1
John 14:14
John 8:58
Colossians 1:15-20
Colossians 2:9

[NonTrinitarian]

Way to many to list! But in the New World Translarion the Watchtower has changed almost all verses in Scripture that refer to the deity of Christ. Here are a few:

John 1:1
John 14:14
John 8:58
Colossians 1:15-20
Colossians 2:9
John 1:1- How is this a mistranslation? Are you saying it's grammatically incorrect or theologically incorrect? Maybe your Bible translates it in a way to give a deity to Christ that God's Word does not.

John 14:14- Hmm. Awful lot of Bibles translate like the NWt at this verse. Are you saying JW's are on their translation committees too?

John 8:58- Same comment as John 14:14

Colossians 1:15-20- Do you mean specifically verses 16 and 18 where the term "other" is inserted? I would have left it out if I was translating the verse. It's not needed as it's implied.

Colossians 2:9- I suppose you would prefer this translation: "For in Christ the Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate." Would you object to the next verse being translated this way? "and by your union with him, you also are filled with it."

Or maybe you prefer this translation: "For in Christ there is all of God in a human body. So you have everything when you have Christ, and you are filled with God through your union with Christ."

Kind of reminds me of Eph 3:19
"That you might be filled with all the fullness of God"-King James
"and so be filled to the full with God himself."-TCNT
"that you may be filled up with the fullness of God."- NASB
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."-NIV
"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself."-The Living Bible

[Ric]

John 1:1- How is this a mistranslation? Are you saying it's grammatically incorrect or theologically incorrect? Maybe your Bible translates it in a way to give a deity to Christ that God's Word does not.

John 14:14- Hmm. Awful lot of Bibles translate like the NWt at this verse. Are you saying JW's are on their translation committees too?

John 8:58- Same comment as John 14:14

Colossians 1:15-20- Do you mean specifically verses 16 and 18 where the term "other" is inserted? I would have left it out if I was translating the verse. It's not needed as it's implied.

Colossians 2:9- I suppose you would prefer this translation: "For in Christ the Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate." Would you object to the next verse being translated this way? "and by your union with him, you also are filled with it."

Or maybe you prefer this translation: "For in Christ there is all of God in a human body. So you have everything when you have Christ, and you are filled with God through your union with Christ."

Kind of reminds me of Eph 3:19
"That you might be filled with all the fullness of God"-King James
"and so be filled to the full with God himself."-TCNT
"that you may be filled up with the fullness of God."- NASB
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."-NIV
"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself."-The Living Bible


I'm not going to get into a debate with you on this topic, I was just posting a few of the known mistranslation carefully and purposely done by the WT&TS.

If I had the time I would debate this with you, but be forewarned if you did you would need to be very knowledgeable in Koine Greek!

[NonTrinitarian]

If I had the time I would debate this with you, but be forewarned if you did you would need to be very knowledgeable in Koine Greek!
Your attempt to intimidate people is not very effective in this regard. Be forewarned that there are many Bible translations that translate a number of verses like the NWT. They don't translate every verse like the NWT but nearly every Bible I've seen translates at least one of the verses in question like the NWT. And these Bibles were no doubt translated by people who have more acronyms behind their names and credentials in the greek language than you do. So you won't be arguing with me on a verse. You'll be arguing against all the translations and scholars that translate like the NWT.

[Ric]

Your attempt to intimidate people is not very effective in this regard. Be forewarned that there are many Bible translations that translate a number of verses like the NWT. They don't translate every verse like the NWT but nearly every Bible I've seen translates at least one of the verses in question like the NWT. And these Bibles were no doubt translated by people who have more acronyms behind their names and credentials in the greek language than you do. So you won't be arguing with me on a verse. You'll be arguing against all the translations and scholars that translate like the NWT.

Trust me, there is no attempt to intimidate you or anyone on these boards from me. Stating a fact is not considered intimidation.

I know about most translations of Scripture and their translators, but what is funny is that I know nothing about the translators of the New World Translation (except for a certain court case) !

[NonTrinitarian]

I know about most translations of Scripture and their translators, but what is funny is that I know nothing about the translators of the New World Translation
Which is really irrelevant to the discussion, isn't it? How does knowing WHO translated the NWT have a bearing on a verse? If I show 10 other translations that are similar to the NWT on a particular verse, does the fact that you don't know who translated the NWT have a bearing on it? Does it null and void the ten other translations? Should we write to the other translations and tell them that since they translate it like the NWT, and we don't know who translated the NWT, their translation must be wrong?

[Ric]

Which is really irrelevant to the discussion, isn't it? How does knowing WHO translated the NWT have a bearing on a verse? If I show 10 other translations that are similar to the NWT on a particular verse, does the fact that you don't know who translated the NWT have a bearing on it? Does it null and void the ten other translations? Should we write to the other translations and tell them that since they translate it like the NWT, and we don't know who translated the NWT, their translation must be wrong?

This is exactly why I'm not going to get into this here, for without those people with all of those acronyms behind their names who "translated" the NWT are not known, how can we say that the NWT is ligament?

It has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the NWT is a prostituted translation of Scripture, so there is no need for me to prove it too.

This ends this nice little chat on this thread! :bye:

[twohumble]

Which is really irrelevant to the discussion, isn't it? How does knowing WHO translated the NWT have a bearing on a verse? If I show 10 other translations that are similar to the NWT on a particular verse, does the fact that you don't know who translated the NWT have a bearing on it? Does it null and void the ten other translations? Should we write to the other translations and tell them that since they translate it like the NWT, and we don't know who translated the NWT, their translation must be wrong?
Reliability of the translation means EVERYTHING to scripture. For you, and all JW's that I know, to deny this, is admission of the weak position you cling too. The highest education any of the 5 men attributed to your translation have is 2 or 3 years at U of Cincinnati. When asked to translate aramaic, and/or Hebrew under oath in the trial mentioned by Ric, he admitted that he could not. The deception runs deep in the JW organization, and this is just the tip.

In regard to your other translations, you will find that they always reveal their scholars, and have been under tremendous critisism from lingustic experts, and NONE of these so called translations are accepted by any mainstream Christian scholarship.

[NonTrinitarian]

Reliability of the translation means EVERYTHING to scripture. For you, and all JW's that I know, to deny this, is admission of the weak position you cling too. The highest education any of the 5 men attributed to your translation have is 2 or 3 years at U of Cincinnati. When asked to translate aramaic, and/or Hebrew under oath in the trial mentioned by Ric, he admitted that he could not. The deception runs deep in the JW organization, and this is just the tip.

In regard to your other translations, you will find that they always reveal their scholars, and have been under tremendous critisism from lingustic experts, and NONE of these so called translations are accepted by any mainstream Christian scholarship.
I'm not getting into the credentials of the NWT committee because I really don't know who translated the NWT and neither do you. Just because you read something off an anti-JW site doesn't make it true. However, let me point something out of which you are apparently grossly unaware. There are a number of verses that people attack the NWT on. The following Bibles translate at least one or more of these verses similar to the NWT. And for eah verse in question, there are usually quite a few of these that go with the NWT. So let's compare your comment of "NONE of these so called translations are accepted by any mainstream Christian scholarship" to the following list:

King James Version
The Living Bible
New International Version
New Revised Standard Version
The New American Bible
Today's English Version
The Bible in Living English
The New English Bible
New American Standard Bible
The New Testament in Modern English
The Twentieth Century New Testament
The Bible: An American Translation
The Simple English Bible
Contemporary English Version
Good News for the World Version
The Emphasized Bible
New Living Translation Bible
The Jerusalem Bible
The New Jerusalem Bible
The Holy Bible in Modern English
The Riverside New Testament
Revised Standard Version
American Standard Version
The Berkley Version

Tell me, do you use a Bible other than the ones mentioned here? Are you telling me that NONE of these Bibles are recognized by scholars. I'm willing to bet 90% of the people here at TWeb don't have a Bible other than one of these versions. And yet each one of these translates at least one argumented verse the same as the NWT, most of them do several.

[twohumble]

I'm not getting into the credentials of the NWT committee because I really don't know who translated the NWT and neither do you. Just because you read something off an anti-JW site doesn't make it true. However, let me point something out of which you are apparently grossly unaware. There are a number of verses that people attack the NWT on. The following Bibles translate at least one or more of these verses similar to the NWT. And for eah verse in question, there are usually quite a few of these that go with the NWT. So let's compare your comment of "NONE of these so called translations are accepted by any mainstream Christian scholarship" to the following list:

King James Version
The Living Bible
New International Version
New Revised Standard Version
The New American Bible
Today's English Version
The Bible in Living English
The New English Bible
New American Standard Bible
The New Testament in Modern English
The Twentieth Century New Testament
The Bible: An American Translation
The Simple English Bible
Contemporary English Version
Good News for the World Version
The Emphasized Bible
New Living Translation Bible
The Jerusalem Bible
The New Jerusalem Bible
The Holy Bible in Modern English
The Riverside New Testament
Revised Standard Version
American Standard Version
The Berkley Version

Tell me, do you use a Bible other than the ones mentioned here? Are you telling me that NONE of these Bibles are recognized by scholars. I'm willing to bet 90% of the people here at TWeb don't have a Bible other than one of these versions. And yet each one of these translates at least one argumented verse the same as the NWT, most of them do several.

This is a classic strawman agrument,as you have tried to switch the focus of this discussion. First, each of those translations has a group of scholars who are answerable to any and all choices of translation, many errors, specifically in the KJ version have been corrected through modern scholarship in the form of the NKJV. Your translation is held above questions since your 'scholars' are invisible. Don't you find that funny?

Secondly, lets just pick a particular verse, like John 1:1. Which of that laundry list of versions agrees with the NWT? I know for sure that the most do not...but tell me which one does, so I can look it up. Or, tell us which version agrees with what disputed verses? Or are you going to move the goal posts in this discussion off of the specific verses brought up in this thread?

[NonTrinitarian]

This is a classic strawman agrument,as you have tried to switch the focus of this discussion. First, each of those translations has a group of scholars who are answerable to any and all choices of translation, many errors, specifically in the KJ version have been corrected through modern scholarship in the form of the NKJV. Your translation is held above questions since your 'scholars' are invisible. Don't you find that funny?

Secondly, lets just pick a particular verse, like John 1:1. Which of that laundry list of versions agrees with the NWT? I know for sure that the most do not...but tell me which one does, so I can look it up. Or, tell us which version agrees with what disputed verses? Or are you going to move the goal posts in this discussion off of the specific verses brought up in this thread?
It's not a strawman, it's a fact that these bibles translate verses similar to the NWT. YOUR the one that said NONE of these Bibles were respected by Scholars. You're attacking the NWT for it's translation of different verses. All I'm saying is for a particular verse, go attack the other translations as well. As far as John 1:1, it probably has the least support. Translations that go different from the traditional way are
The Bible: An American Translation, The New English Bible and Today's English Version.

Other verses that have a number of bibles similar to the NWT are
John 8:58
Acts 20:28
Titus 2:13
Romans 9:5
2 Peter 1:1
1 Tim 3:16
Hebrew 1:6
Hebrews 1:8
1 John 5:7
Phil 2:5,6
And a whole slew of verses where people supposedly "worship" Jesus

Now, you tell which translations are wrong in the NWT and I'll tell you which other Bibles are wrong too. The goal post isn't moving, you just can't kick the ball through. Because when you condemn the NWT in a particular verse, you end up condemning a number of other Bibles too. John 1:1 being, for the most part, the exception.

[twohumble]

It's not a strawman, it's a fact that these bibles translate verses similar to the NWT. YOUR the one that said NONE of these Bibles were respected by Scholars. You're attacking the NWT for it's translation of different verses. All I'm saying is for a particular verse, go attack the other translations as well. As far as John 1:1, it probably has the least support. Translations that go different from the traditional way are
The Bible: An American Translation, The New English Bible and Today's English Version.

Other verses that have a number of bibles similar to the NWT are
John 8:58
Acts 20:28
Titus 2:13
Romans 9:5
2 Peter 1:1
1 Tim 3:16
Hebrew 1:6
Hebrews 1:8
1 John 5:7
Phil 2:5,6
And a whole slew of verses where people supposedly "worship" Jesus

Now, you tell which translations are wrong in the NWT and I'll tell you which other Bibles are wrong too. The goal post isn't moving, you just can't kick the ball through. Because when you condemn the NWT in a particular verse, you end up condemning a number of other Bibles too. John 1:1 being, for the most part, the exception.

You name many verses, and again, change the goal. Specifically, what version of bold mainstream scholarship, has John 1:1 translated like the NWT?

For that matter, the verses you mentioned that are translated similar to the NWT by the 3 versions you mentioned, is another red herring. I cannot even find these versions on Biblegateway.com, and have no idea how they translate these verses, and you have only said they are similar...which of course means absolutely nothing at all. NWT is similar to all translations, if by similar, you mean only one or two words are changed, added, or deleted. This is a far cry from proving your point.

[NonTrinitarian]

You name many verses, and again, change the goal. Specifically, what version of bold mainstream scholarship, has John 1:1 translated like the NWT?

For that matter, the verses you mentioned that are translated similar to the NWT by the 3 versions you mentioned, is another red herring. I cannot even find these versions on Biblegateway.com, and have no idea how they translate these verses, and you have only said they are similar...which of course means absolutely nothing at all. NWT is similar to all translations, if by similar, you mean only one or two words are changed, added, or deleted. This is a far cry from proving your point.Next time focus on what I write, ok?
This is what I said regarding John 1:1: And I'm going to bold the important parts since you seem to have missed them.

"As far as John 1:1, it probably has the least support. Translations that go different from the traditional way are:The Bible: An American Translation, The New English Bible and Today's English Version."

Now, if you can't find those three translations, whose fault is that? It isn't my fault you don't have an adequate library of Bibles. And please tell me WHERE in that sentence I said any of these Bibles translate similar to the NWT at John 1:1.

Additionally I said this:
"Because when you condemn the NWT in a particular verse, you end up condemning a number of other Bibles too. John 1:1 being, for the most part, the exception."

Now, is it not obvious I excluded John 1:1 from this point?

Now, let's get back to the real discussion. You made the claim of the bad translations in the NWT due to a lack of scholarly credentials supplied by the translation committee. Let's see it.

List the scriptures other than John 1:1, which does not have much support from other translations and of which I NEVER CLAIMED DID, that you think are bad translations. Then I will tell you all of the other bibles that also were apparently translated by bafoons. I'm trying to make this a meaningful discussion and you keep putting words in my mouth and avoiding the discussion.

[twohumble]

Next time focus on what I write, ok?
This is what I said regarding John 1:1: And I'm going to bold the important parts since you seem to have missed them.

"As far as John 1:1, it probably has the least support. Translations that go different from the traditional way are:The Bible: An American Translation, The New English Bible and Today's English Version."
Has the least support? Ya, none. In regard to your assertion that these three editions are "not traditional" who cares? What does that have to do with this? Unorthodox translations are not new, and most have been discarded. If these three change the meaning, rather than just the interpretive style, then no wonder they are obscure, and even biblegateway.com does not list them.

Now, if you can't find those three translations, whose fault is that? It isn't my fault you don't have an adequate library of Bibles. And please tell me WHERE in that sentence I said any of these Bibles translate similar to the NWT at John 1:1.
Who's fault? Well, probably no ones, it seems that they are not common translations and hence, not worth debating. In regard to your question above, the answer is no where, which is particularly interesting, since I asked you to deal with that verse.

Additionally I said this:
"Because when you condemn the NWT in a particular verse, you end up condemning a number of other Bibles too. John 1:1 being, for the most part, the exception."
Maybe so, but then again, poor scholarship in translation, or old scholarship, should be condemned. So, your point is?


Now, let's get back to the real discussion. You made the claim of the bad translations in the NWT due to a lack of scholarly credentials supplied by the translation committee. Let's see it.

List the scriptures other than John 1:1, which does not have much support from other translations and of which I NEVER CLAIMED DID, that you think are bad translations. Then I will tell you all of the other bibles that also were apparently translated by bafoons. I'm trying to make this a meaningful discussion and you keep putting words in my mouth and avoiding the discussion.

That list was provided earlier by another poster, just scroll back a bit, and address those passages.

[NonTrinitarian]

Has the least support? Ya, none. In regard to your assertion that these three editions are "not traditional" who cares? What does that have to do with this? Unorthodox translations are not new, and most have been discarded. If these three change the meaning, rather than just the interpretive style, then no wonder they are obscure, and even biblegateway.com does not list them...

That list was provided earlier by another poster, just scroll back a bit, and address those passages.
Wow, talking about backing out of a conversation. You're the one that made the attack on the NWT, incorrectly accused me of saying mainstream English Bibles support John 1:1 and called into question the translators of the NWT. Then when I call you on it, you apparently hope you can dodge the subject and I'll just go away.

YOU pick your verses and I'll show you what other Bibles you need to throw away along with the NWT. Third time I've asked. Either stand your ground or drop it.

To the other readers, the whole point of me pressing this is to demonstrate that there are many different Bibles, most translated by Trinitarians, who do not translate a number of Trinitarian proof texts like Trinitarians wish they were. And these translators have knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew language with the same letters behind their name. So...if you can label these people with degrees as bafoons then what difference would it make if we showed you the credentials of the NWT?

[twohumble]

Wow, talking about backing out of a conversation. You're the one that made the attack on the NWT, incorrectly accused me of saying mainstream English Bibles support John 1:1 and called into question the translators of the NWT. Then when I call you on it, you apparently hope you can dodge the subject and I'll just go away.

YOU pick your verses and I'll show you what other Bibles you need to throw away along with the NWT. Third time I've asked. Either stand your ground or drop it.

To the other readers, the whole point of me pressing this is to demonstrate that there are many different Bibles, most translated by Trinitarians, who do not translate a number of Trinitarian proof texts like Trinitarians wish they were. And these translators have knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew language with the same letters behind their name. So...if you can label these people with degrees as bafoons then what difference would it make if we showed you the credentials of the NWT?

I don't believe anyone has labeled them baffoons. Instead, many have translators did not have the benefit of the variety of extant manuscripts that some of the later scholars have had, and modern ability it better than older ability from a scholastic standpoint. So, older versions have been revised, and older versions have been put out of print. They are all open to critisism based on their translational methods, and if they translators are dead, newer versions are put out, with the scholars available for critique. Your NWT is not accepted in any scholarly realm that I am aware of. It is a translation that has universal critisism, not just from trinitarians, but from linguistic scholars in aramaic and hebrew. Most interestingly, it had no "scholars" to defend its position, since its translators were and are woefully inadequete to the task.

Lastly, you have made a statement of affirmation, namely, other translations would need to be thrown out if the same verses translated in similar fashion are compared to the NWT. If this is so, back it up or retract it. It is not up to me to come up with the verses you say exist. That is up to the one who postulates it, namely, YOU. FYI, this is also not the first time I have asked you to substantiate your claim. I started with John 1:1, which you have totally backed away from...but the ball is still in your court to show an example.

[NonTrinitarian]

I don't believe anyone has labeled them baffoons. Instead, many have translators did not have the benefit of the variety of extant manuscripts that some of the later scholars have had, and modern ability it better than older ability from a scholastic standpoint. So, older versions have been revised, and older versions have been put out of print. They are all open to critisism based on their translational methods, and if they translators are dead, newer versions are put out, with the scholars available for critique. Buzz: Wrong answer. Many of these translations that are the same as the NWT are the NEWER translations with all the available manuscripts to benefit from.

Lastly, you have made a statement of affirmation, namely, other translations would need to be thrown out if the same verses translated in similar fashion are compared to the NWT. If this is so, back it up or retract it. It is not up to me to come up with the verses you say exist. That is up to the one who postulates it, namely, YOU. FYI, this is also not the first time I have asked you to substantiate your claim. I started with John 1:1, which you have totally backed away from...but the ball is still in your court to show an example.I'm not retracting anything. Since for the third time you won't specify any other verse than John 1:1, I'm done talking about it. You appear to be scared to start naming verses. Perhaps it's because I'll start showing other bibles you will also need to stick your nose up.

BTW-How is John 1:1 wrong? Is it grammatically wrong or theologically wrong? And if it's not grammatically wrong, then how does the linguistic qualifications of the translator come into play?

[twohumble]

Buzz: Wrong answer. Many of these translations that are the same as the NWT are the NEWER translations with all the available manuscripts to benefit from.

I'm not retracting anything. Since for the third time you won't specify any other verse than John 1:1, I'm done talking about it. You appear to be scared to start naming verses. Perhaps it's because I'll start showing other bibles you will also need to stick your nose up.

BTW-How is John 1:1 wrong? Is it grammatically wrong or theologically wrong? And if it's not grammatically wrong, then how does the linguistic qualifications of the translator come into play?
You again, have asserted a postive. You say "many of these translations that are the same....". Prove your assertion or retract it. Maybe its your assertions that will be stuffed in your nose, rather than just verses. You seem very willing to spout assertions, but have done nothing to back them up.

John 1:1 is both gramatically, and theologically wrong. The gramatical error causes the theological one...however I suspect that the gramatical error was purposeful in order to hold up a prior theological supposition that is overturned with proper exegisis, and translation.

[NonTrinitarian]

You again, have asserted a postive. You say "many of these translations that are the same....". Prove your assertion or retract it. Maybe its your assertions that will be stuffed in your nose, rather than just verses. You seem very willing to spout assertions, but have done nothing to back them up.I'll take this as an implicit statement from you that you don't want to make a stand on this. The NWT stands as an acceptable translation until you prove otherwise. Start listing scriptures or else I'll have to assume you're scared what you'll find out.

John 1:1 is both gramatically, and theologically wrong. The gramatical error causes the theological one...however I suspect that the gramatical error was purposeful in order to hold up a prior theological supposition that is overturned with proper exegisis, and translation.
"the Word was a god" is grammatically incorrect huh? Let's see what people say who have a little more knowledge on the subject than you.

"Although it has to be acknowledged that [theos hn ho logos] could be translated The Word was a god, there is no doubt whatever, according to the rules of Greek grammar, that the phrase can also mean The Word was(the)God."-Introduction to New Testament Greek Using John's Gospel, 1999 Hodder and Stoughton publishers, "Lesson 3," p.23. Italics his.Murray J. Harris:

"According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered "the Word was a god."-Jesus As God, 1992, pp.60."If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language,[theos en ho logos]might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement, in that sense["signifying one of a class of beings regarded as divine"-Dodd, ibed).....The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977
"As to the translation of John 1:1,"and the Word was a god" is grammatically possible but not grammatically favoured."-Robert H. Gundry of Westmont College, Ca, USA"As to John 1:1 the translation "a god" is possible, but in the context* clearly not what is intended. "Divine" is better, but John clearly wants to say Jesus was theos°..."-D.Moody Smith Jnr, George Washington Ivey Professor of N.T.
Note that they
1.) admit that grammatically it can be as the NWT
2.) their reason for not liking the NWT is not due to grammar but due to their theological beliefs.

So unless you start proving these men wrong, you have nothing.

[twohumble]

Here are a few passages you can start with...I will get to your 'gramatically correct' assertions regarding John 1:1 soon....

New Testament Passages

Matthew 1:23-"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

John 1:1-3, 14-"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

"The late New Testament Greek scholar Colwell formulated a rule which clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case theos meaning 'God') never takes an article when it precedes the verb ('was') as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for theos (God), and to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek, since theos is a predicate nominative of 'was' in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, 'Word' (logos). Christ, then, if He is the Word "made flesh" (Jn. 1:14), can be no one else except God, unless the Greek text, and consequently God's Word, be denied." [2]

John 1:18-"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 20:27-28-"Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

Romans 9:6-"Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen" (NKJV).

Philippians 2:5-8-"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

"'Who was in the form of God' are his [the Apostle Paul's] words: and they are words than which no others could be chosen which would more explicitly or with more directness assert the deity of...Jesus Christ.... Let us remember that the phraseology which Paul here employs was the popular usage of his day, though first given general vogue by the Aristotelian philosophy: and that it was accordingly the most natural language for strongly asserting the deity of Christ which could suggest itself to him.... 'Form,' in a word, is equivalent to our phrase 'specific character.'... With God...the 'form' is that body of qualities which distinguish Him from all other spiritual beings, which constitute Him God, and without which He would not be God. What Paul asserts, then, when he says that Christ Jesus existed in the 'form of God,' is that He had all those characterizing qualities which make God God, the presence of which constitutes God, and in the absence of which God does not exist. He who is 'in the form of God' is God."

Colossians 1:15-16-"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible...."

[NonTrinitarian]

This thread is not about the Trinity, it's about the NWT. So this post does not really belong here. But, it's not my thread and so I'll just reply on this subject until the Moderator steps in.

Here are a few passages you can start with...I will get to your 'gramatically correct' assertions regarding John 1:1 soon....

"The late New Testament Greek scholar Colwell formulated a rule which clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case theos meaning 'God') never takes an article when it precedes the verb ('was') as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for theos (God), and to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek, since theos is a predicate nominative of 'was' in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, 'Word' (logos). Christ, then, if He is the Word "made flesh" (Jn. 1:14), can be no one else except God, unless the Greek text, and consequently God's Word, be denied." [2]Uhh, welcome to the 21st century where most TRINITARIAN scholars admit Colwell's rule has no bearing at John 1:1. And of course, this one quote is flatly contradicted by the quotes I provided, and of which I NAMED the source and the scholar.

Now, here are a few passages you might want to consider.

What do the accounts in Matthew say about Jesus? Here are just some of the verses showing he is not God. I could include more but believe the point is made with these.

Matthew 3:17

Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved." I believe the people hearing this would think the voice was God’s and Jesus was His Son. I do not think they thought this was 1/3 of God speaking about another 1/3 of God.

Matthew 4:1

Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil Trinitarians today have a nifty explanation on how the "human" side of Jesus was tempted but the God side wasn’t. I don’t think people in Jesus’ day could have used that explanation.

Matthew 4:3

Also, the Tempter came and said to him: "If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread Satan calls Jesus God’s Son, not God.

Matthew 4:6-7

and said to him: "If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone.’" Jesus said to him: "Again it is written, ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’" Again, Jesus is God’s Son and Satan speaks of God as someone other than Jesus. Jesus also speaks of God as someone other than himself.

Matthew 4:9-10

and he said to him: "All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me." Then Jesus said to him: "Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service. I don’t think God could be tempted into worshipping Satan. Maybe his "human" side could be tempted to making food out of rocks due to hunger but that doesn’t explain this one. Jesus again speaks of God as someone different than himself.

Matthew 8:27

So the men became amazed and said: "What sort of person is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?" The disciples apparently didn’t believe he was God up until this point.

Matthew 8:29

And, look! they screamed, saying: "What have we to do with you, Son of God? Did you come here to torment us before the appointed time?" Demons refer to Jesus as God’s son. I think when people heard this they thought Jesus was God’s Son, not God.

Matthew 9:8

At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear, and they glorified God, who gave such authority to men. The honest-hearted crowd thought Jesus could forgive sins because God, someone other than Jesus, gave Jesus that authority.

Matthew 11:2-3

But John, having heard in jail about the works of the Christ, sent by means of his own disciples and said to him: "Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one? John apparently didn’t think Jesus was God. He was wondering if he was even the Messiah.

Matthew 12:18

Look! My servant whom I chose, my beloved, whom my soul approved! I will put my spirit upon him, and what justice is he will make clear to the nations This prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus. When people heard this prophecy applied to Jesus, did it make them think he was God or someone other than God? To me it is clear Jesus is God’s servant.

Matthew 12:32

For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come I think this would have caused people to think Jesus is someone below God in importance.

Matthew 14:33

Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: "You are really God’s Son." The apostles finally, after half-way through Matthew, understand Jesus is actually who the demons claimed he was. God’s Son. If they thought he was actually God, why not just say "you really are God?" Was there a rule somewhere that said ‘God in the flesh shall only be referred to as the Son of God’?

Matthew 16:14-16

They said: "Some say John the Baptist, others E·li´jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them: "You, though, who do you say I am?" In answer Simon Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. It’s obvious that the majority of people did NOT believe Jesus was God. Even the apostles did not say he was God. They said he was His Son.

Matthew 17:5-6

While he was yet speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and, look! a voice out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him." At hearing this the disciples fell upon their faces and became very much afraid. The disciples had been with Jesus (God according to Trinitarians) for several years. Yet when they hear this voice from heaven, they fall in fear of being in the shear presence of someone who was obviously God. Would you not say they gave supremacy to the voice in heaven who said Jesus was His Son?

Matthew 20:23

He said to them: "You will indeed drink my cup, but this sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father. The disciples no doubt associated Jesus’ Father as God, someone of much higher authority that Jesus. Wouldn’t you have if you were there?

Matthew 21:9-11

As for the crowds, those going ahead of him and those following kept crying out: "Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!" Now when he entered into Jerusalem, the whole city was set in commotion, saying: "Who is this?" The crowds kept telling: "This is the prophet Jesus, from Naz´a·reth of Gal´i·lee!" Again, these people did not think Jesus was God. How could people who lived with Jesus and actually heard him speak come to a conclusion far different than Trinitarians today? They didn’t think he was Jehovah but that he came in Jehovah’s name. They called him a prophet, as did the apostle Peter in the book of Acts.

Matthew 22:31-32

As regards the resurrection of the dead, did you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living." Jesus distinguished himself from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Would you think he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after hearing this?

Matthew 22:43-45

He said to them: "How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet"’? If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?" Quoting Psalm 110:1, Jesus clearly distinguishes himself from Jehovah.

Matthew 24:36

Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father Would you think Jesus was the Almighty, equal to the Father, if you were standing there hearing him say this?

Matthew 26:63

But Jesus kept silent. So the high priest said to him: "By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!" Even the religious leaders apparently didn’t believe Jesus was actually claiming to be God as they put him under oath by God. They accused him of being God’s Son. And Jesus confirmed their accusation.

Matthew 27:40

and saying: "O you would-be thrower-down of the temple and builder of it in three days, save yourself! If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake!" No accusations of being God, only His Son.

Matthew 27:43

He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’ Jesus put trust in himself as God? These people understood him to claim to be someone other than God.

Matthew 27:46

About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: "E´li, E´li, la´ma sa·bach·tha´ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? What would you have thought if you heard this man crying out to his "God"? Would you have thought he was God?

Matthew 27:54

But the army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: "Certainly this was God’s Son." And he was right.

Now what does Mark say?

Mark 1:24

saying: "What have we to do with you, Jesus you Naz•a•rene´? Did you come to destroy us? I know exactly who you are, the Holy One of God."These demons said Jesus was the Holy One of God, not God Himself.

Mark 3:11-12

Even the unclean spirits, whenever they would behold him, would prostrate themselves before him and cry out, saying: "You are the Son of God."Same as above. All references to his being God’s Son, someone separate from God.

Mark 4:41

But they felt an unusual fear, and they would say to one another: "Who really is this, because even the wind and the sea obey him?"Even at this point (which chronologically appears to have happened after John 5:18 where the religious leaders thought Jesus was claiming equality with God) the apostles still do not think Jesus is God. Interestingly, this happened AFTER Jesus forgave a man of his sins. I guess the apostles drew different conclusions from the Pharisees. Perhaps they, like the crowd in general, thought God had given that authority to a man.

Mark 5:7

and, when he had cried out with a loud voice, he said: "What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I put you under oath by God not to torment me."Jesus is not said to be the Most High God. He is said to be His Son and is put under oath, not by himself but by God, someone different from Jesus.

Mark 10:18

Jesus said to him: "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God."Trinitarians come up with various explanations on this verse but imagine if you were sitting there and heard this. Would you not draw the conclusion that Jesus is someone other than God? Up until now in Mark we haven’t seen anything about Jesus being God so why would we come up with any other explanation than that Jesus is obviously not God?

Mark 10:40

"However, this sitting down at my right or at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared."Would this cause his apostles to think Jesus was God or someone under God?

Mark 11:9-10

And those going in front and those coming behind kept crying out: "Save, we pray! Blessed is he that comes in the LORD’s name! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Save, we pray, in the heights above."These people blessing Jesus didn’t say he was the LORD (YHWH), they said he came in the LORD’s name. They certainly appreciated he was the Messiah as they mentioned the Davidic covenant but it doesn’t appear they thought he was YHWH.

Mark 12:26-27

But concerning the dead, that they are raised up, did you not read in the book of Moses, in the account about the thornbush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob’? He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living. You are much mistaken."Jesus speaks of God as someone other than himself. He did not say ‘I am God of the living.’

Mark 12:28-34

Now one of the scribes that had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: "Which commandment is first of all?" Jesus answered: "The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’ The scribe said to him: "Teacher, you well said in line with truth, ‘He is One, and there is no other than He’; and this loving him with one’s whole heart and with one’s whole understanding and with one’s whole strength and this loving one’s neighbor as oneself is worth far more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." At this Jesus, discerning he had answered intelligently, said to him: "You are not far from the kingdom of God."Note that this man is speaking about God as if He is someone other than Jesus. This man doesn’t even hint that he thinks Jesus is God and Jesus, rather than correcting him and saying "I am God", tells him he is not far off from the kingdom of God.

Mark 12:36-37

By the holy spirit David himself said, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet."’ David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ but how does it come that he is his son?"Jesus directly references a Psalm that shows that YHWH is speaking to him (Jesus). Jesus does not say he is YHWH, only that YHWH is talking to him. Would this cause you think Jesus is YHWH if you were listening to this?

Mark 13:32

"Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the FatherAnd note that I am not referencing this verse to argue that Jesus is not the Father. I know Trinitarians don’t believe Jesus is the Father. The point drawn from this verse is that Jesus is someone less than the Father, who the disciples did believe was God. This verse doesn’t just tell people in Jesus’ day that he isn’t the Father (because I don’t think anyone ever thought he was claiming to be the Father), it is telling them he isn’t God. And they couldn’t quote Phil 2:5,6 to try and explain WHY Jesus didn’t know these things. They would have just thought that he was less than God.

Mark 14:35-36

And going a little way forward he proceeded to fall on the ground and began praying that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him. And he went on to say: "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup from me. Yet not what I want, but what you want."Did they think 1/3 of God was having a difference of will with 1/3 of God? Probably not.

Mark 14:61-62

But he kept silent and made no reply at all. Again the high priest began to question him and said to him: "Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?" Then Jesus said: "I am; and you persons will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven."Even the religious leaders understood Jesus’ claim to be, not the Blessed One, but the Blessed One’s Son.

Mark 15:34

And at the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice: "E´li, E´li, la´ma sa•bach•tha´ni?" which means, when translated: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"Pretty obvious what people would have thought when they heard this.

Mark 15:39

Now, when the army officer that was standing by with him in view saw he had expired under these circumstances, he said: "Certainly this man was God’s Son."Ditto

Mark 16:19

So, then, the Lord Jesus, after having spoken to them, was taken up to heaven and sat down at the right hand of GodNot God, but at God’s right hand. Note God’s right hand, not just the Father’s right hand.

Now what does Luke say?

Luke 1:32

This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father,If God is going to "give" Mary’s son something, would she think that her son WAS God? She probably understood her child was going to be a "son" in the same manner the Israelite kings were, especially since the Davidic kingdom was mentioned. My guess is Mary, at this point, didn’t even realize Jesus was actually God’s Son, let alone God.

Luke 1:35

In answer the angel said to her: "Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son."Ditto to above

Luke 2:40

And the young child continued growing and getting strong, being filled with wisdom, and God’s favor continued upon him.Luke speaks of Jesus as someone distinct, not just from ‘God the Father’, but God, period.

Luke 2:49

But he said to them: "Why did you have to go looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in the [house] of my Father?"The temple was known by all to be Jehovah’s house. Jesus didn’t say it was his house, he said it was his father’s house, showing that his father was Jehovah.

Luke 2:52

And Jesus went on progressing in wisdom and in physical growth and in favor with God and menAgain, Jesus is spoken of as being someone other than God. It amazes me how quickly Trinitarians brush this off.

Luke 3:22

and the holy spirit in bodily shape like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: "You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you."Those who heard this would have likely drawn the conclusion Jesus is God’s Son, not God.

Luke 4:18-19

Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, to preach Jehovah’s acceptable yearJesus reads this prophecy in regards to himself. Those hearing it would never draw the conclusion from this that Jesus IS Jehovah. They would think that Jehovah sent Jesus.

Luke 4:41

Demons also would come out of many, crying out and saying: "You are the Son of God." But, rebuking them, he would not permit them to speak, because they knew him to be the Christ.Demons always accused Jesus of being God’s Son, not God

Luke 4:43

But he said to them: "Also to other cities I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth.Jesus said he was sent. Who is greater? The one sent or the one doing the sending?

Luke 5:17

In the course of one of the days he was teaching, and Pharisees and teachers of the law who had come out of every village of Gal´i·lee and Ju·de´a and Jerusalem were sitting there; and the LORD’s power was there for him to do healingApparently Luke didn’t think Jesus could heal people because he was God. He thought he could heal people because he was using God’s power.

Luke 6:12

In the progress of these days he went out into the mountain to pray, and he continued the whole night in prayer to GodThis would cause unbiased persons to include Jesus is not God.

Luke 7:15-16

And the dead man sat up and started to speak, and he gave him to his mother. Now fear seized them all, and they began to glorify God, saying: "A great prophet has been raised up among us," and, "God has turned his attention to his people."These people express faith in Jesus but their faith does not profess him as God.

Luke 7:19

So John summoned a certain two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord to say: "Are you the Coming One or are we to expect a different one?"John didn’t think Jesus was God.

Luke 8:25

Then he said to them: "Where is your faith?" But struck with fear, they marveled, saying to one another: "Who really is this, for he orders even the winds and the water, and they obey him?"The apostles, at least up until now, didn’t think Jesus was God.

Luke 8:28

At the sight of Jesus he cried aloud and fell down before him, and with a loud voice he said: "What have I to do with you, Jesus Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me."Already discussed

Luke 9:18-20

Later, while he was praying alone, the disciples came together to him, and he questioned them, saying: "Who are the crowds saying that I am?" In reply they said: "John the Baptist; but others, E·li´jah, and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has risen." Then he said to them: "You, though, who do you say I am?" Peter said in reply: "The Christ of God."Apparently no one thought Jesus was God or even claimed to be God. Peter said Jesus was the Christ (meaning annointed) of God. Thus, Peter’s faith is that Jesus is the one God annointed as king, not God Himself.

Luke 9:35

And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him."Already discussed

Luke 18:19

Jesus said to him: "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God."Already discussed

Luke 13:35

Look! Your house is abandoned to you. I tell you, you will by no means see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name.’"Jesus told the people they would have to recognize him, not as Jehovah, but as one coming in Jehovah’s name.

Luke 19:38

saying: "Blessed is the One coming as the King in Jehovah’s name! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest places!"These people do bless Jesus, just as he said they would have to at Luke 13:35. No one is calling him God or Jehovah.

Luke 20:41-44

In turn he said to them: "How is it they say that the Christ is David’s son? For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ David, therefore, calls him ‘Lord’; so how is he his son?"Jesus directly shows he is someone other than Jehovah

Luke 22:42

saying: "Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place."Already discussed

Luke 22:68-69

Moreover, if I questioned you, you would not answer at all. However, from now on the Son of man will be sitting at the powerful right hand of God."Jesus shows he is someone who sits next to God in authority, not God Himself.

Luke 22:70-71

At this they all said: "Are you, therefore, the Son of God?" He said to them: "You yourselves are saying that I am." They said: "Why do we need further witness? For we ourselves have heard [it] out of his own mouth."Already discussed

Luke 23:35

And the people stood looking on. But the rulers were sneering, saying: "Others he saved; let him save himself, if this one is the Christ of God, the Chosen One."Already discussed

Luke 24:19-21

And he said to them: "What things?" They said to him: "The things concerning Jesus the Naz·a·rene´, who became a prophet powerful in work and word before God and all the people; and how our chief priests and rulers handed him over to the sentence of death and impaled him. But we were hoping that this [man] was the one destined to deliver Israel."This is interesting because these are two disciples apparently faithful enough that Jesus decided to appear to them after his resurrection. Does it sound like they thought he was God? How could those so close to Jesus appear to not know he is God if in fact he is?

Now, you answer these and I will answer yours. Agreed? Since I can’t post back to back, hurry up and reply so I can post the scriptures in John that show Jesus is not God. The book of John has the most evidence of any book in the Bible that Jesus is not God.

And believe me, you don't even want to see how many verses the rest of the NT have that I need you to answer.

[Shellyjean]

Way to many to list! But in the New World Translarion the Watchtower has changed almost all verses in Scripture that refer to the deity of Christ. Here are a few:

John 1:1
John 14:14
John 8:58
Colossians 1:15-20
Colossians 2:9

Coincidence? I think not!

[dizzle]

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[One Bad Pig]

Tell me, do you use a Bible other than the ones mentioned here?

Yup. New King James Version, New English Translation. :teeth:

Seriously, though, no one is saying that the NWT is completely wrong. As far as I recall, it follows the Greek rather woodenly until there's a theological reason not to; then extra words suddenly appear.

Just because the NWT is similar in some verses to your list of translations does not mean that the NWT is as good as any one of those on the list. I much prefer the NASV to the NRSV (I have both), even though they may occasionally agree word for word.

[NonTrinitarian]

Yup. New King James Version, New English Translation. :teeth:

Seriously, though, no one is saying that the NWT is completely wrong. As far as I recall, it follows the Greek rather woodenly until there's a theological reason not to; then extra words suddenly appear.

Just because the NWT is similar in some verses to your list of translations does not mean that the NWT is as good as any one of those on the list. I much prefer the NASV to the NRSV (I have both), even though they may occasionally agree word for word.
And I have many translations too. I prefer the rendering of different Bibles in different verses because they come across clearer. But in this discussion, the point is about the verses in question. For instance, many people attack the NWT because of Romans 9:5. Yet note these other Bibles that read the same way (as in NOT calling Jesus God):

The New American Bible
A New Translation of the Bible-by James Moffat
New English Bible (I assume this is the same as what you have)
Today's Englsih Version
Contemporary English Version
Revised Standard Version
New Living Translation footnote

All of these Bibles, accept for Moffat's, are found at nearly any bookstore.

Now, in listing these I am not saying "See, here's proof the NWT is right." These could all be wrong too. And I'm sure many Trinitarians would say they are, though they should note that the translators of these were Trinitarians too, at least most of them were. But these translators have the credentials that people are looking for from the NWT committee.

So, here are similar translations. Do their credentials automatically convince you the translation is correct? No, because people with the same credentials choose the other way to translate it. Thus, it's not the GRAMMAR that is in question here. It's not the knowledge of the GREEK that determines the translation. Read Murray Harris' "Jesus As God" for instance. The translation is often based on the translator's opinion as to who is being references. All Bible translations are effected by the theology of the translators.

[One Bad Pig]

And I have many translations too. I prefer the rendering of different Bibles in different verses because they come across clearer. But in this discussion, the point is about the verses in question. For instance, many people attack the NWT because of Romans 9:5.
I don't have a copy of the NWT, so you'd need to post the verse for me to compare it with other translations. However, the difference here is strictly a matter of puncuation, as far as I can tell. Since punctuation was not originally in the text, I'm not going to use it to argue one way or the other. I wonder how the NWT deals with Col. 2:9?

Yet note these other Bibles that read the same way (as in NOT calling Jesus God):

The New American Bible
A New Translation of the Bible-by James Moffat
New English Bible (I assume this is the same as what you have)
Nope. NET. Look for it at http://www.bible.org/

Today's Englsih Version
Contemporary English Version
Revised Standard Version
New Living Translation footnote
I'm not sure why you included the footnote; it just highlights the ambiguity of your position.


So, here are similar translations. Do their credentials automatically convince you the translation is correct? No, because people with the same credentials choose the other way to translate it. Thus, it's not the GRAMMAR that is in question here. It's not the knowledge of the GREEK that determines the translation. Read Murray Harris' "Jesus As God" for instance. The translation is often based on the translator's opinion as to who is being references. All Bible translations are effected by the theology of the translators.

Yes, the theology of the translators will affect translation somewhat. An interlinear translation (or footnotes showing the literal translation where it is deviated from for clarity) will tend to expose that. However, if the translators cannot adequately demonstrate their knowledge of the language being translated from (a charge to which you have done no more than dodge in reply), then word choice will be based almost exclusively on theology.

[NonTrinitarian]

I don't have a copy of the NWT, so you'd need to post the verse for me to compare it with other translations. However, the difference here is strictly a matter of puncuation, as far as I can tell. Since punctuation was not originally in the text, I'm not going to use it to argue one way or the other.
We agree. To me there are a number of verses that can go "either way", as the many Bible translations testify. Thus it's shakey evidence.






I'm not sure why you included the footnote; it just highlights the ambiguity of your position.
No, it actually highlights my position, which is to demonstrate the ambiguity of the verse. My position is that many of these verses are ambiguous and the many different translations of the verse testify to that. In the same way, some of these Bibles that translate like the NWT have in their footnotes the Trinitarian alternative. This too highlights the ambiguity. It comes down to interpretation rather than translation, and thus, the scholastic credentials are seldom a true issue. It's a strawman.

Yes, the theology of the translators will affect translation somewhat. An interlinear translation (or footnotes showing the literal translation where it is deviated from for clarity) will tend to expose that. However, if the translators cannot adequately demonstrate their knowledge of the language being translated from (a charge to which you have done no more than dodge in reply), then word choice will be based almost exclusively on theology.
And I can't answer the charge on their credentials because I don't know their credentials. All I can do is say "look, here are people with the scholastic credentials who agree with the NWT."

I wonder how the NWT deals with Col. 2:9?
"Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."

[One Bad Pig]

No, it actually highlights my position, which is to demonstrate the ambiguity of the verse. My position is that many of these verses are ambiguous and the many different translations of the verse testify to that. In the same way, some of these Bibles that translate like the NWT have in their footnotes the Trinitarian alternative. This too highlights the ambiguity. It comes down to interpretation rather than translation, and thus, the scholastic credentials are seldom a true issue. It's a strawman.
Credentials provide credibility; they demonstrate that someone has the requisite knowledge to do the job properly. I'm not going to trust Joe the plumber to design a dam properly; the fact that he is ignorant of how to calculate material properties is just going to provide an exclamation point to my rejection. In the same way, I'm not going to trust someone to properly translate anything from an ancient language if they don't have the proper credentials; the fact that they cannot demonstrate a proficiency in the original language is, again, just going to provide an exclamation point to my rejection.

And I can't answer the charge on their credentials because I don't know their credentials. All I can do is say "look, here are people with the scholastic credentials who agree with the NWT."
Just because Joe happens to get some details correct doesn't mean I'll accept his design.

[Colossians 2:9 NWT]
"Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."
A valiant effort to obfuscate the deity of Jesus. I can still see it there, though. If he's got all the divine qualities, how is he not deity himself?

[NonTrinitarian]

In the same way, I'm not going to trust someone to properly translate anything from an ancient language if they don't have the proper credentials; the fact that they cannot demonstrate a proficiency in the original language is, again, just going to provide an exclamation point to my rejection. The NWT is their demonstration of their abilities. Prove them wrong. To do so requires you to prove a number of other Bibles wrong. Unless you can show where they are grammatically wrong, on what basis do you attack their abilities in Greek?

regarding Col 2:9, you said

A valiant effort to obfuscate the deity of Jesus. I can still see it there, though. If he's got all the divine qualities, how is he not deity himself?How about you read the next verse?

"10When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything."-The Message Bible

"10And you [1 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=493669#footnote_874045182_1)] are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--and reach full spiritual stature]." The Amplified Bible

"And by your union with him, you also are filled with it."-Twentieth Century New Testament

So, whatever it is in verse 9 that dwells in Christ, dwells in us too. If it makes him God, what does it make us?
You also might want to check out Eph 3:19

"That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God"- King james

"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"- New American Standard Bible

"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."- New International Version

"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself."- The Living Bible

Now imagine this: If a verse existed that said of Jesus, "He was filled up with all the fullness of God" or "Jesus was filled up with God Himself", don't you think Trinitarians would point to that and say "See, this verse says Jesus is God!" You know they would.

So what do they say about Eph 3:19?

[One Bad Pig]

The NWT is their demonstration of their abilities. Prove them wrong. To do so requires you to prove a number of other Bibles wrong. Unless you can show where they are grammatically wrong, on what basis do you attack their abilities in Greek?
Your defensiveness on this issue is telling. I don't care if you can find places where other translations agree with the NWT; anyone can pick read a bunch of translations and then pick and choose verse by verse what most agrees with his theology. That's not a translation, that's bias. Find some credentialed scholars who will agree with the NWT explicitly and I'll moderate my stance.

regarding Col 2:9, you said
A valiant effort to obfuscate the deity of Jesus. I can still see it there, though. If he's got all the divine qualities, how is he not deity himself?
How about you read the next verse?
"and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority.[NRSV]" works. Even the commentary states that the divine nature (not just the divine attributes) dwells in Christ, and it's about as liberal a commentary as you'll find.

"10When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything."-The Message Bible

"10And you are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--and reach full spiritual stature]." The Amplified Bible

"And by your union with him, you also are filled with it."-Twentieth Century New Testament

So, whatever it is in verse 9 that dwells in Christ, dwells in us too. If it makes him God, what does it make us?
The Message and The Amplified Bible are very loose translations, and as such are heavily influenced by the translators' theology. I've never heard of the Twentieth Century NT.

You also might want to check out Eph 3:19

"That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God"- King james

"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"- New American Standard Bible

"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."- New International Version

"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself."- The Living Bible

Now imagine this: If a verse existed that said of Jesus, "He was filled up with all the fullness of God" or "Jesus was filled up with God Himself", don't you think Trinitarians would point to that and say "See, this verse says Jesus is God!" You know they would.
I do? Nope. As Christians, we are all filled up with God Himself (the Holy Spirit).

So what do they say about Eph 3:19?


John Gill
"That ye might be filled with all the fulness of God;"
this is the last petition, and is to be understood, not of a full comprehension of the divine Being, nor of a communication of his divine perfections, nor of having in them the fulness of grace, which it has pleased God should dwell in Christ; but either of that fulness of good things, which they may receive from God in this life; as to be filled with a sense of the love and grace of God; with satisfying views of interest in the righteousness of Christ; with the Spirit, and the gifts and graces thereof; with full provisions of food for their souls; with spiritual peace, joy, and comfort; with knowledge of divine things, of God in Christ, of Christ, of the Gospel, and of the will of God; and with all the fruits or righteousness, or good works springing from grace; or else of that fulness which they shall receive hereafter, even complete holiness, perfection of knowledge, fulness of joy and peace, entire conformity to God and Christ, and everlasting communion with them.

Geneva Study Bible
"that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. " -- So that we have abundantly in us whatever things are required to make us perfect with God.

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
filled with--rather, as Greek, "filled even unto all the fulness of God" (this is the grand goal), that is, filled, each according to your capacity, with the divine wisdom, knowledge, and love; "even as God is full," and as Christ who dwells in your hearts, hath "all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily"
This commentary refers back to Col. 2:9, showing that we have the potential to be filled with God's wisdom, knowledge, and love just like Christ is already filled with the complete attributes of God. The fullness of God is not equivalent to the fullness of the Godhead, which is where your example breaks down.

For more commentaries, visit http://www.crosswalk.com/

[NonTrinitarian]

Your defensiveness on this issue is telling. I don't care if you can find places where other translations agree with the NWT; anyone can pick read a bunch of translations and then pick and choose verse by verse what most agrees with his theology. That's not a translation, that's bias. Find some credentialed scholars who will agree with the NWT explicitly and I'll moderate my stance. If by "explicitly" you mean a scholar who agrees with EVERY verse, I cannot. But then, if scholars agreed with the rendering of every verse in a Bible, we'd only have one translation. Each of the Bibles I listed earlier have scholars who agree with at least one verse in the NWT in regards to the Trinity.

As far as Col 2:9, let me break it down for you a little more. Verse 9 says "because in him is dwelling all the fullness of the divinity (theotetos)". Now, however you want to translate that word, Godhead, divine qualities or chicken noodle soup is irrelevent. The reason is because verse 10 says "and you are in him filled". So whatever it is that fills the Christ fills us too.

If it doesn't make us God, it doesn't make him God.

[Ric]

Coincidence? I think not!
Right on target! :thumb:

[twohumble]

nontrinitarian...here is a few OT passages for your review.

Old Testament Passages

Isaiah 7:14-"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Immanuel literally means "God with us").

Isaiah 9:6-"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end...."

Jeremiah 23:5-6-"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Christ's name in Hebrew is YHWH Tsidkenu, Jehovah Our Righteousness.

Malachi 3:1-2-"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap." God's temple is Christ's temple. Christ comes as an all-powerful judge.

Psalm 45:1, 6-7-"I speak of the things which I have made touching the king.... Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee...." The Hebrew word translated "anointed" is the verb form of the noun "Messiah."

By the by, you claim the title "Son of God" is one we share? The why did the rulers get so upset that He called Himself by that title? No, we are adopted sons...Christ is the real McCoy ...and the understanding of begetting is that he is made from the same 'stuff'...just like your 'stuff' is what makes up your children, Gods 'stuff' makes up Christ. Hence, He is devine. The analogy of the Sonship is clear...like begets like. Jesus comes from the Father, and hence, is of the same 'stuff'....

Next 'by the by'....there is only ONE God...not God, and gods....your NWT mistakes the distaste the writers of both the OT and NT had for 'gods', and make the distiction that these are purely false 'gods' or are beings that are far more powerful than man, hence are seen as 'gods'....but we know that there is only one, and therefore, there is no 'mighty god' and 'almighty God' since there is only one God, they are one and the same God!! You fall into a pretty big trap when you start to call Jesus a mighty god, and not the almighty God...since you claim there can be only one God period (which I agree with of course)

[NonTrinitarian]

nontrinitarian...here is a few OT passages for your review.

Old Testament Passages

Isaiah 7:14-"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Immanuel literally means "God with us").

Isaiah 9:6-"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end...."

Jeremiah 23:5-6-"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Christ's name in Hebrew is YHWH Tsidkenu, Jehovah Our Righteousness.

Malachi 3:1-2-"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap." God's temple is Christ's temple. Christ comes as an all-powerful judge.

Psalm 45:1, 6-7-"I speak of the things which I have made touching the king.... Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee...." The Hebrew word translated "anointed" is the verb form of the noun "Messiah."

By the by, you claim the title "Son of God" is one we share? The why did the rulers get so upset that He called Himself by that title? No, we are adopted sons...Christ is the real McCoy ...and the understanding of begetting is that he is made from the same 'stuff'...just like your 'stuff' is what makes up your children, Gods 'stuff' makes up Christ. Hence, He is devine. The analogy of the Sonship is clear...like begets like. Jesus comes from the Father, and hence, is of the same 'stuff'....

Next 'by the by'....there is only ONE God...not God, and gods....your NWT mistakes the distaste the writers of both the OT and NT had for 'gods', and make the distiction that these are purely false 'gods' or are beings that are far more powerful than man, hence are seen as 'gods'....but we know that there is only one, and therefore, there is no 'mighty god' and 'almighty God' since there is only one God, they are one and the same God!! You fall into a pretty big trap when you start to call Jesus a mighty god, and not the almighty God...since you claim there can be only one God period (which I agree with of course)
Eh, I put over a hundred verses just from the Gospels that I want you to answer first. You answer those (a few posts up), and I'll answer these. BTW, several of these have already been answered by myself here at TWeb. You can search to find them.

[One Bad Pig]

If by "explicitly" you mean a scholar who agrees with EVERY verse, I cannot. But then, if scholars agreed with the rendering of every verse in a Bible, we'd only have one translation. Each of the Bibles I listed earlier have scholars who agree with at least one verse in the NWT in regards to the Trinity.
I'll settle for a credentialed scholar who prefers the NWT over all other translations, then.

As far as Col 2:9, let me break it down for you a little more. Verse 9 says "because in him is dwelling all the fullness of the divinity (theotetos)". Now, however you want to translate that word, Godhead, divine qualities or chicken noodle soup is irrelevent. The reason is because verse 10 says "and you are in him filled". So whatever it is that fills the Christ fills us too.

If it doesn't make us God, it doesn't make him God.
You're basing your beliefs on an interpretation, and assuming that the two phrases are synonymous. They are not. We are filled with God (v. 10), but we are not fully God (v. 9).

[NonTrinitarian]

I'll settle for a credentialed scholar who prefers the NWT over all other translations, then.
Dr. Jason Beduhn

You're basing your beliefs on an interpretation, and assuming that the two phrases are synonymous. They are not. We are filled with God (v. 10), but we are not fully God (v. 9).
Your merely asserting they are not synominous is not convincing. I believe they are part of the same thing, first noting that the fullness dwells in Christ and then dwells in us. Furthermore, note Col 1:19-
"For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him[Christ]". Was Paul saying all the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God [Note: a separate person from Christ] to have His fullness dwell in Christ. The New English Bible says it was "by God's own choice" that his fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him, we se all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it pleased God to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God.

And of course, again, Eph 3:19 says we are filled up with the fullness of God. So if Christ is filled up with the fullness of God and we are filled up with the fullness of God, neither of us are God.

[twohumble]

Eh, I put over a hundred verses just from the Gospels that I want you to answer first. You answer those (a few posts up), and I'll answer these. BTW, several of these have already been answered by myself here at TWeb. You can search to find them.
I am interested in our discussion, not one you had with others. Your assertion about John 1:1 was very well rebutted on another thread...look it up.

I have answered the majority of your verses that dealth with "Son of God" issues, in my post. I am not at all interested in researching your posts on Tweb...thanks for the offer, but no.

Your verses are old and been there done that with them. Nothing new, and nothing insighful about them...very well explained in other posts. You can look them up.

[NonTrinitarian]

I am interested in our discussion, not one you had with others. Your assertion about John 1:1 was very well rebutted on another thread...look it up.

I have answered the majority of your verses that dealth with "Son of God" issues, in my post. I am not at all interested in researching your posts on Tweb...thanks for the offer, but no.

Your verses are old and been there done that with them. Nothing new, and nothing insighful about them...very well explained in other posts. You can look them up.
Typical response. You don't mind me answering your questions but when I throw in a hundred or so scriptures you bow out. Keep turning your head from the evidence and maybe it will all go away.

And the only thing I asserted about John 1:1 was that it was grammatically possible to render it as "a god", to which I have a number of Trinitarian scholars that agree with me. Now where was that rebutted at?

[One Bad Pig]

Dr. Jason Beduhn
Okay. I'm not sure he's such a good example, though. He's apparently willing to gloss over some errors as irrelevant (http://www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm), and the NWT best supports his contentions that Jesus was a mythical figure.

Your merely asserting they are not synominous is not convincing. I believe they are part of the same thing, first noting that the fullness dwells in Christ and then dwells in us. Furthermore, note Col 1:19-
"For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him[Christ]". Was Paul saying all the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God [Note: a separate person from Christ] to have His fullness dwell in Christ. The New English Bible says it was "by God's own choice" that his fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him, we se all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it pleased God to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God.

Note carefully the wordings; "For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him" vice "we are filled in Christ". See the difference?

Since you never got around to posting your proofs from John, I'll make some observations starting with 1:1.

Granting the NWT translation of "the Word was a god", let's run with it and see what happens. Also in v. 1, the Word was with God in the beginning. Now we have a Word that 1) was a god, and 2) was with God in the beginning.

v. 3: "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being."
This 'god' created everything. Compare with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth".

v. 6: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." (NRSV)
Note that it explicitly says that John was a man.

v. 14: "The Word became flesh and lived among us..."
Okay, so this god became flesh; he pre-existed before he was born.

v. 34, 49, etc.; this 'god' is the "Son of God".

So, you have either 1)Jesus as a wholly separate, distinct deity who has coexisted eternally with God, created as God, and is the Son of God, which goes against all the evidence of the OT, or you have 2) Jesus as God the Son, ontologically equivalent but functionally subordinate to God the Father along with God the Holy Spirit, which is classic Trinitarianism. Either way, Jesus Christ is deity.

[NonTrinitarian]

OBP said, I'll settle for a credentialed scholar who prefers the NWT over all other translations, then.I replied with Dr. Jason Beduhn



OBP said,

Okay. I'm not sure he's such a good example, though. He's apparently willing to gloss over some errors as irrelevant, and the NWT best supports his contentions that Jesus was a mythical figure. You said you wanted "a" scholar. I gave you one. I don’t care if he is an atheist who believes aliens from outer space will carry him away to another planet or if he likes wearing women’s underwear. At issue is the language and grammar of the NWT, and an atheist who wears women’s underwear and believes in little green men (not that he does) can know Greek as well as anyone else. In fact, since Dr. Beduhn doesn’t appear to have a theological concern in the matter, he is probably more suited for an unbiased review of the grammar than say a Baptist theologian who has a dog in the fight and strong motives for preserving the Trinity.



Regarding Col 2:9, I said

Your merely asserting they are not synominous is not convincing. I believe they are part of the same thing, first noting that the fullness dwells in Christ and then dwells in us. Furthermore, note Col 1:19-

"For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him[Christ]". Was Paul saying all the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God [Note: a separate person from Christ] to have His fullness dwell in Christ. The New English Bible says it was "by God's own choice" that his fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him, we se all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it pleased God to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God.

OBP replied,

Note carefully the wordings; "For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him" vice "we are filled in Christ". See the difference? God was "pleased" or "chose" to have his fullness in Christ. I take it you are wanting to hang on to the word "All" in the phrase "all his fullness" as if it somehow supported your argument that this proves Jesus is God. Mere assertion on your part doesn’t make it so. As Col 2:10 shows, whatever fills Christ fills us as well. If "ALL" is your argument for Christ’s fullness making him God and not us, what do you say of Eph 3:19?

"and to know this love that surpasses knowledge--that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God"

OBP said

Since you never got around to posting your proofs from John, I'll make some observations starting with 1:1.I never got around to it but I can. If I did, would you answer the 80 some verses in John that differentiate Jesus from God? If so, I’ll answer the 11 or so verses in John that you say means Jesus is God.

OBP said,

Granting the NWT translation of "the Word was a god", let's run with it and see what happens. So are in agreement that we can leave the grammar alone and realize that either translation is grammatically possible?

Also in v. 1, the Word was with God in the beginning. Now we have a Word that 1) was a god, and 2) was with God in the beginning.

v. 3: "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being."

This 'god' created everything. Compare with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth".

v. 6: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." (NRSV)

Note that it explicitly says that John was a man.

v. 14: "The Word became flesh and lived among us..."

Okay, so this god became flesh; he pre-existed before he was born.

v. 34, 49, etc.; this 'god' is the "Son of God".

So, you have either 1)Jesus as a wholly separate, distinct deity who has coexisted eternally with God, created as God, and is the Son of God, which goes against all the evidence of the OT, or you have 2) Jesus as God the Son, ontologically equivalent but functionally subordinate to God the Father along with God the Holy Spirit, which is classic Trinitarianism. Either way, Jesus Christ is deity.
Was anyone else besides Jesus and God "in the beginning" when the earth was created at Gen 1:1?
Would it be incorrect to say that Jesus healed people when he was on the earth?
Is anyone else in the Bible called "god"?
I need to know your answers to these questions to move forward.

[One Bad Pig]

You said you wanted "a" scholar. I gave you one. I don’t care if he is an atheist who believes aliens from outer space will carry him away to another planet or if he likes wearing women’s underwear. At issue is the language and grammar of the NWT, and an atheist who wears women’s underwear and believes in little green men (not that he does) can know Greek as well as anyone else. In fact, since Dr. Beduhn doesn’t appear to have a theological concern in the matter, he is probably more suited for an unbiased review of the grammar than say a Baptist theologian who has a dog in the fight and strong motives for preserving the Trinity.
...and someone who doesn't believe in a historical Jesus isn't going to be biased towards a translation that makes his case easier? :noid: Right.


God was "pleased" or "chose" to have his fullness in Christ. I take it you are wanting to hang on to the word "All" in the phrase "all his fullness" as if it somehow supported your argument that this proves Jesus is God. Mere assertion on your part doesn’t make it so. As Col 2:10 shows, whatever fills Christ fills us as well. If "ALL" is your argument for Christ’s fullness making him God and not us, what do you say of Eph 3:19?
I already covered this in post #38.

I never got around to it but I can. If I did, would you answer the 80 some verses in John that differentiate Jesus from God? If so, I’ll answer the 11 or so verses in John that you say means Jesus is God.
The problem is that I would probably agree with you in many of those cases. Jesus is functionally distinguished from God the Father. I'd be interested in what 11 verses or so that you think I'll use.

So are in agreement that we can leave the grammar alone and realize that either translation is grammatically possible?
No, I'm just not sure what the NWT gets you.

Was anyone else besides Jesus and God "in the beginning" when the earth was created at Gen 1:1?
Not explicitly, no. However, the Spirit is mentioned in v. 2.

Would it be incorrect to say that Jesus healed people when he was on the earth?
No.

Is anyone else in the Bible called "god"?
As in elohim? Yes. That's the word also translated as "angels". Angels refused to allow people to worship them, however. Show me where Jesus rebuked someone for worshipping Him.

[NonTrinitarian]

NT
You said you wanted "a" scholar. I gave you one. I don’t care if he is an atheist who believes aliens from outer space will carry him away to another planet or if he likes wearing women’s underwear. At issue is the language and grammar of the NWT, and an atheist who wears women’s underwear and believes in little green men (not that he does) can know Greek as well as anyone else. In fact, since Dr. Beduhn doesn’t appear to have a theological concern in the matter, he is probably more suited for an unbiased review of the grammar than say a Baptist theologian who has a dog in the fight and strong motives for preserving the Trinity.


OBP-
...and someone who doesn't believe in a historical Jesus isn't going to be biased towards a translation that makes his case easier? Right. Well, let’s see. Beduhn doesn’t dispute the many other verses in the NWT that testify to a historical Jesus. He doesn’t dispute the verses that show Jesus being called "son of God" or where he performs miracles, etc. etc. etc. So you tell me… The end result is you asked for a scholar and I gave you one. Now you’re crying about it. Actually, far more convincing than Beduhn is the significant number of TRINITARIAN scholars that support the various verses in the NWT, as the many Bibles I listed demonstrate. So now you have 1.) Trinitarian scholars who support certain verses in the NWT and 2.) A scholar who feels the NWT as a whole is a very good translation. So move on…



NT-I never got around to it but I can. If I did, would you answer the 80 some verses in John that differentiate Jesus from God? If so, I’ll answer the 11 or so verses in John that you say means Jesus is God.



OBP-
The problem is that I would probably agree with you in many of those cases. Jesus is functionally distinguished from God the Father. I'd be interested in what 11 verses or so that you think I'll use. And the problem with that is these verses don’t distinguish Jesus from "God the Father". They distinguish him from "God". You read into the text what does not appear. When people heard Jesus say: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality", they didn’t already have the Trinitarian doctrine defined and say ‘Oh, well he’s is still God even though he speaks of God as someone other than himself. He only means "God the Father", not "God"’

I would assume you would use the following verses:
1:1; 1:3; 1:23; 2:19; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 10:33; 14:9; 16:30; 20:28 primarily, though there are some others that are quite a stretch that I’ve seen used before.
NT-
So are in agreement that we can leave the grammar alone and realize that either translation is grammatically possible?


OBP-
No, I'm just not sure what the NWT gets you.Doesn’t matter for now where it gets us. Can you provide proof that the scholars I quoted above are wrong when they say "a god" is grammatically possible? If not, move on.



NT-
Was anyone else besides Jesus and God "in the beginning" when the earth was created at Gen 1:1?


OBP-
Not explicitly, no. However, the Spirit is mentioned in v. 2.The thousands of angels who watched and praised God as he created the earth will be surprised to hear that. Or are you not aware of that verse?

NT-
Would it be incorrect to say that Jesus healed people when he was on the earth?


OBP-
No. Good. I wouldn’t either. But note what the scriptures say:

"One day as he (Jesus) was teaching…and the power of the Lord was present for him (Jesus) to heal the sick." –Luke 5:17

"namely, Jesus,…how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God was with him."-Acts 10:38

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly shown by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst."- Acts 2:22

These verses say Jesus healed people, but then, the scriptures say Elisha, Elijah, Peter and Paul healed people too. But did they, including Jesus, really heal the people? No. These three verses show that really it was God, spoken of as someone other than Jesus, who actually had the power to heal. These verses don’t seem to think Jesus had the power to heal the people, they say it was God’s power that Jesus was allowed to use. So the scriptures can say Jesus did the healing but in reality it was God. Now why do you think I bring this point out?



NT-
Is anyone else in the Bible called "god"?

OBP-
As in elohim? Yes. That's the word also translated as "angels". Angels refused to allow people to worship them, however. Show me where Jesus rebuked someone for worshipping Him. No, not elohim. I mean, sure, people were called elohim (not just angels), but I am asking if anyone was called theos besides God or Jesus in a positive sense (IE, not as a false god).

And I don’t know of any verses that say people worshipped Jesus. I know of Bible translations that translate proskyneo as "worship" when it is directed to Jesus, but then again, I know many Bible translations, listed above, that do not. So you’ll have to take that up with the Trinitarian scholars who opted to not translate proskyneo as "worship".

[twohumble]

Non trinitarian wrote
Good. I wouldn’t either. But note what the scriptures say:

"One day as he (Jesus) was teaching…and the power of the Lord was present for him (Jesus) to heal the sick." –Luke 5:17

"namely, Jesus,…how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God was with him."-Acts 10:38

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly shown by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst."- Acts 2:22

These verses say Jesus healed people, but then, the scriptures say Elisha, Elijah, Peter and Paul healed people too. But did they, including Jesus, really heal the people? No. These three verses show that really it was God, spoken of as someone other than Jesus, who actually had the power to heal. These verses don’t seem to think Jesus had the power to heal the people, they say it was God’s power that Jesus was allowed to use. So the scriptures can say Jesus did the healing but in reality it was God. Now why do you think I bring this point out?

This demonstrates one of the huge areas that lead to your misunderstanding of who and what Jesus is. Jesus voluntarily shed His God mantle, and became man. As such, He did not have access, directly, to His omnipotence. All miracles were therefore done, through the Godhead, or through the father, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. However, if you will notice, after the resurrection, Christ performed many signs and miracles that were not "through the Father". Why? When resurrected, he once again had access to all of His power and omnipotence. This is the reason, as fully human (voluntarily) he was "inferior" to the Father. This was a voluntary state that He chose as a necessary step on the ultimate goal to achieve salvation for the His chosen people. The inferiority was self imposed, and not a reflection of His lack of 'divinity'. This also explains all of your verses that suggest Christ is inferior to the Father. He is voluntarily submissive to the Father, but co-equal with Him.

[NonTrinitarian]

Non trinitarian wrote


This demonstrates one of the huge areas that lead to your misunderstanding of who and what Jesus is. Jesus voluntarily shed His God mantle, and became man. As such, He did not have access, directly, to His omnipotence. All miracles were therefore done, through the Godhead, or through the father, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. However, if you will notice, after the resurrection, Christ performed many signs and miracles that were not "through the Father". Why? When resurrected, he once again had access to all of His power and omnipotence. This is the reason, as fully human (voluntarily) he was "inferior" to the Father. This was a voluntary state that He chose as a necessary step on the ultimate goal to achieve salvation for the His chosen people. The inferiority was self imposed, and not a reflection of His lack of 'divinity'. This also explains all of your verses that suggest Christ is inferior to the Father. He is voluntarily submissive to the Father, but co-equal with Him.
There is no misunderstanding. I understand the Trinity doctrine very well. I use this example to 1.) demonstrate that the people who walked with Christ did not think he was God because he performed miracles (they couldn't refer to the Trinity doctrine to explain these away like you just did) and 2.) that even though there are other verses that say Jesus healed people, without mentioning that he actually had to rely on God for the ability to do the healing, other verses clearly show he did not heal these people on his own ability. God was the true healer, not Jesus.

Now I ask you: even though there are verses that show Jesus was involved in the creation process, are there other versus that show that Jesus was not the source of the power that did the creation and thus was not the true Creator, just as he was not the true healer? Are there verses that show that God worked through Jesus to create just as He worked through Jesus to heal?

[twohumble]

There is no misunderstanding. I understand the Trinity doctrine very well. I use this example to 1.) demonstrate that the people who walked with Christ did not think he was God because he performed miracles (they couldn't refer to the Trinity doctrine to explain these away like you just did) and 2.) that even though there are other verses that say Jesus healed people, without mentioning that he actually had to rely on God for the ability to do the healing, other verses clearly show he did not heal these people on his own ability. God was the true healer, not Jesus.

Now I ask you: even though there are verses that show Jesus was involved in the creation process, are there other versus that show that Jesus was not the source of the power that did the creation and thus was not the true Creator, just as he was not the true healer? Are there verses that show that God worked through Jesus to create just as He worked through Jesus to heal?
The people who walked with Jesus eventually got that He was God, and those that heard his claims crucified Him because of His claims to be God. The people of His day clearly knew what His claims were, thats why he was condemned to die. In regard to your point 2. above, the fact that Christ healed through the Father is explained in my post, did you read it? Jesus voluntarily shed the 'God mantle' to be fully human, therefore, He did all things through the Father until He was resurrected....notice after the resurrection how Jesus did not invoke the Father, but performed miraculous things on His own.

Even now, Christ resides in a glorified body, and will return in that form to judge and conquer Satan, then make a new universe and world....notice I said 'make a new'...he will not restore the old one...but make a new one.

[NonTrinitarian]

The people who walked with Jesus eventually got that He was God, and those that heard his claims crucified Him because of His claims to be God. The people of His day clearly knew what His claims were, thats why he was condemned to die.
Uh, no. Jesus was condemend to die because he claimed to be the son of God.

So the people thought Jesus was God huh? Here are some verses to consider. Why don't you tell me when they figured out he was God.

John 1:49

Na·than´a·el answered him: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of

Israel."

Nathanael calls Jesus the Son of God as soon as he meets him. Later he wonders how Jesus can perform miracles such as calming a storm while they were at sea. It’s obvious Nathanael did not mean Jesus was Almighty God when he called him the Son of God in this account. The title was closely linked to another title Nathanael called Jesus, the King of Israel. It’s important for Trinitarians to realize that what they mean by calling Jesus the Son of God is NOT what was meant by those who called Jesus the Son of God in the 1st century.

John 2:16

And he said to those selling the doves: "Take these things away from

here! Stop making the house of my Father a house of merchandise!"" The house was known as YHWH’s house. Would these people think Jesus was claiming to be YHWH or His Son?

John 3:2

This one came to him in the night and said to him: "Rabbi, we know that

you as a teacher have come from God; for no one can perform these signs that

you perform unless God is with him.." I think it’s obvious that Nicodemus didn’t think Jesus was God. He merely thought God was "with him."

John 3:16

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order

that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have

everlasting life.

God, not just the Father, but GOD is spoken of as someone other than Jesus.

John 3:34-35

For the one whom God sent forth speaks the sayings of God, for he does

not give the spirit by measure. The Father loves the Son and has given

all things into his hand Ditto

John 4:20-24

Our forefathers worshiped in this mountain; but you people say that in

Jerusalem is the place where persons ought to worship." Jesus said to

her: "Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain

nor in Jerusalem will you people worship the Father. you worship what you

do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the

Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true

worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the

Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and

those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth." Do you think this woman walked away from this conversation thinking Jesus is God? Jesus said the Jews worshipped what they knew (implying they were worshipping correctly). They didn’t worship a Triune being.

John 4:25-26

The woman said to him: "I know that Mes·si´ah is coming, who is called

Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly."

Jesus said to her: "I who am speaking to you am he."

This woman didn’t believe the Messiah would be God either. She thought he would clear things up. Jesus identified himself as the Messiah and she believed. She didn’t fall down and worship him or act surprised as if Almighty God was standing in front of her. She did not leave Jesus thinking he was God.

John 4:34

Jesus said to them: "My food is for me to do the will of him that sent me

and to finish his work." This would have caused people to think Jesus was someone less than God.

John 5:19

Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: "Most truly I say to

you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what

he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things

the Son also does in like manner."

The Jews accuse Jesus of trying to make himself equal to God and this is his response. It’s obvious Jesus was not claiming equality with God.

John 5:30

cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and

the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will,

but the will of him that sent me. This too would have caused people to think Jesus is less than God. Note that they couldn’t go to a book on the Trinity and read a 300 page dissertation on how Jesus had two natures in him, functional subordination, or all of the other theories used to explain why this doesn’t really mean Jesus is less than God.

John 6:29

In answer Jesus said to them: "This is the work of God, that you exercise

faith in him whom that One sent forth."

Jesus again describes himself as someone other than, not just the Father, but God.

John 6:45

It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by Jehovah.’

Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me.

Jesus distinguishes himself from Jehovah by showing that learning from the Father is learning from Jehovah. Then they can come to Jesus.

John 7:16-18

Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: "What I teach is not mine, but

belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will

know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own

originality. He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own

glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true,

and there is no unrighteousness in him."

Imagine the people standing there hearing this. Are they thinking that Jesus is God when they hear this? Would the words "What I teach is not min" and "teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality" cause you to think this man was claiming to be God. These people are NOT drawing the conclusion that this man is God.



John 7:28-29

Therefore Jesus cried out as he was teaching in the temple and said: "You

both know me and know where I am from. Also, I have not come of my own

initiative, but he that sent me is real, and you do not know him. I know

him, because I am a representative from him, and that One sent me forth

Jesus claimed to be a representative from God, not God Himself.

John 7:31

Still, many of the crowd put faith in him; and they commenced saying: "When

the Christ arrives, he will not perform more signs than this man has

performed, will he?"



These people were putting faith in Jesus. Does it sound like they think he is God? Or does it even sound like they had expectations of the Messiah being God?

John 8:26-27

I have many things to speak concerning you and to pass judgment upon. As

a matter of fact, he that sent me is true, and the very things I heard from

him I am speaking in the world." They did not grasp that he was talking

to them about the Father. Jesus again says the things he is teaching are not his own but from the Father. All there would immediately conclude the Father is the superior.

John 8:28-30

Therefore Jesus said: "When once you have lifted up the Son of man, then

You will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative;

but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent

me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the

things pleasing to him." As he was speaking these things, many put faith

in him. Does God do nothing of his own initiative? People were putting faith in Jesus at this point. But faith in what? That he IS Almighty God?

John 8:40

But now you are seeking to kill me, a man that has told you the truth

that I heard from God. Jesus claims to be "a man that has told you the truth that [he] heard from God." Does it sound like he is claiming to be God?

John 8:42

Jesus said to them: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for from

God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at

all, but that One sent me forth."

Jesus doesn’t claim to be the God of the Jews. He claims to have been sent forth from the their God.

John 8:54

Jesus answered: "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my

Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God."





Jesus again doesn’t claim to be the God of the Jews. He said their God is his Father. These accounts in John 8 show that Jesus was not claiming to be God in verse 58.

John 9:16

Therefore some of the Pharisees began to say: "This is not a man from God,

because he does not observe the Sabbath" Again, no one is claiming Jesus is God or that he is even claiming to be God. Only that he claims to be sent from God.

John 9:31-33

We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing

and does his will, he listens to this one. From of old it has never been

heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. If this [man] were

not from God, he could do nothing at all. A man who personally experienced a healing by Jesus did not think he was God. He repeatedly speaks of God as someone other than Jesus and I doubt he meant ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Father’.



John 10:32

Jesus replied to them: "I displayed to you many fine works from the Father.

For which of those works are you stoning me?" Jesus attributes his miracles to his Father, not to himself. Just as any prophet of old would have done.

John 10:34-36

Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: "You are gods"

’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet

the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father

sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I

am God’s Son?"

Jesus acknowledges that God did give the title "god" to human kings. Then he asks what their problem is since he is claiming to be God’s Son. Were not Israelite Kings called God’s sons too?

John 11:22

And yet at present I know that as many things as you ask God for, God

will give you Here is a close friend of Jesus. She obviously had a lot of faith in him. Do you think she thought Jesus was Almighty God? Or did she understand the Trinity and that 1/3 of God n the flesh would need to relinquish some of his God abilities and so that 1/3 of God would need to ask another 1/3 of God for help in performing a miracle?

John 11:27

She said to him: "Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son

of God, the One coming into the world."

And she was correct.



John 11:41-42

Therefore they took the stone away. Now Jesus raised his eyes heavenward

and said: "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. True, I knew that

you always hear me; but on account of the crowd standing around I spoke, in

order that they might believe that you sent me forth." Those who heard this would not have drown the conclusion that this man was Almighty God.

John 12:13

took the branches of palm trees and went out to meet him. And they began

to shout: "Save, we pray you! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name,

even the king of Israel." The King of Israel was references as a son of God. These people were not hailing Jesus as God. They were hailing him as coming on behalf of God and as their Messiah King.



John 12:49-50

because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who

sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak.

Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life. Therefore the

things I speak, just as the Father has told me [them], so I speak [them]." This too would cause people to think Jesus is not Almighty God but one who does what God tells him to do.

John 13:16

Most truly I say to you, A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one

that is sent forth greater than the one that sent him 36 times in the Gospels Jesus said he was sent by God. The connection is obvious.

John 13:31-32

Hence when he had gone out, Jesus said: "Now the Son of man is glorified,

and God is glorified in connection with him. And God will himself glorify

him, and he will glorify him immediately Jesus again speaks of himself as someone other than God.

John 14:1

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God, exercise faith

also in me Jesus told this to his apostles the night before he died. He again speaks of himself as someone other than God.



John 14:10

Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in

union with me? The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own

originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works

Jesus continues to lead them to a conclusion of God being someone who tells Jesus what to do and say.

John 14:28

You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming [back] to you.

If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father,

because the Father is greater than I am.

Reflect on the above verses and what Jesus said here. It’s obvious the conclusion they would have drawn.



John 15:10

If you observe my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I

have observed the commandments of the Father and remain in his love. Jesus obeys his Father and remains in his love.

John 17:3

This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true

God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ

Jesus calls his Father the ONLY True God, and separates himself from the only true God. Others have tried, ineffectively in my opinion, to argue this away since Jude refers to Jesus as our only lord. They argue, this doesn’t mean the Father is not our Lord too so Jesus’ words at John 17:3 doesn’t mean Jesus isn’t our true God too. But the instances are not the same.

Paul tells Timothy that Jesus alone has immortality. This doesn’t mean that the Father doesn’t have immortality. What you have to look at is the context. Paul was comparing Jesus to human kings and thus, from THAT perspective, Jesus is the one who alone has immortality. So context is VERY important. Furthermore, Peter said God has appointed Jesus as Lord of the congregation. (see Acts 2:36) Thus, God has relinquished that authority to His Son. See Ephesian 4:5,6 where Paul says there is one God and one Lord and also 1 Cor 8:6. From the standpoint of the Christian congregation, Jesus is our one Lord because God put him in that position. Additionally, note that in John 17:3 Jesus not only says his Father is the only true God, but he then separates or distinguishes himself from the only true God.

John 17:7-8

They have now come to know that all the things you gave me are from you;

because the sayings that you gave me I have given to them, and they have

received them and have certainly come to know that I came out as your

representative, and they have believed that you sent me forth.

Again, Jesus shows that he is not the only true God but that he is His representative whom He sent forth. The great wisdom Jesus gave to men came from God, not himself.

John 19:7

The Jews answered him: "We have a law, and according to the law he ought to

die, because he made himself God’s son."
This goes back to Nathanael’s comment when he first met Jesus. He called Jesus the "Son of God" and the "king of Israel." The religious leaders knew a claim to be the Son of God was a claim to being the King of Israel. This is why the charge against him to Pilate was his claiming to be a king. Jesus’ saying he was the Son of God was a claim to be the King of Israel. That’s why Pilate asked, ‘are you a king?’ (see John 18:33-38 and John 19:12-15) Understand, no one thought Jesus’ saying he was the Son of God was his way of saying he WAS God. The people who called him "Son of God" recognized him as their king. Trinitarians use the term "son of God" in a totally different way from the Jews of this time. (Go back and compare John 1:49; 11:27; 10:34-36; 12:13 with 19:7)



John 20:17

Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the

Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending

to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God"

Jesus shows his God is our God.



John 20:31

But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the

Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by

means of his name.

Do you believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the king of God’s Kingdom? I know you do. Just understand what the term Son of God meant to these people. None of them used it to mean 1/3 of God who came to the earth and had to relinquish his authority and came under functional subordination but was ontologically equal with God. People who were close to Jesus repeatedly referred to him as someone other than God. That has to have an effect on you.

And yes, I did read your explanation (of course you ignored my question about whether there are any verses that show Jesus was not the creator, just as he was not the healer). Did you read mine? I am telling you right now that the people who heard Jesus say all the things above were not able to explain them away the way you did with your preconceived belief in the Trinity. Thus, when they heard Jesus say he was someone other than God, they had no basis for assuming he meant anything other than God. And if you think they did, show the evidence.

[twohumble]

I'll take this as an implicit statement from you that you don't want to make a stand on this. The NWT stands as an acceptable translation until you prove otherwise. Start listing scriptures or else I'll have to assume you're scared what you'll find out.


"the Word was a god" is grammatically incorrect huh? Let's see what people say who have a little more knowledge on the subject than you.



Note that they
1.) admit that grammatically it can be as the NWT
2.) their reason for not liking the NWT is not due to grammar but due to their theological beliefs.

So unless you start proving these men wrong, you have nothing.

I was hoping our Greek scholars would address this, but I will give it a brief shot.

I am not familiar with all of the authorities you quoted in this post, but, I am familiar with the JW's list of supposed authors that have been used to support their contention about John 1:1 in their JW publications. Here are a few that I have seen mentioned by JW's in the past:

1. Dr. Julius R. Mantey- 'A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament'
2. Dr. Philip B. Harner's- Author of "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns" in 'Journal of Biblical Literature'
3. Dr. John L. McKenszie- 'Dictionary of the Bible'
4. Johannes Greber-occultist and author of 'Comminication with the Spirit World of God'.......Watchtower has since discovered Grebers occult nature and has disavowed citing him as a reference since 1961

What is interesting is the fact that in review of the men the Watchtower have used in printed material to support their claim, all three of the above mentioned scholars expressly deny agreeing with the NWT interp of John 1:1

Mantey went so far as to claim the Watchtower misquoted him, Mantey continued on to say "....ninety nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the bible are in disagreement with the Jehovahs Witnesses...."

[NonTrinitarian]

I was hoping our Greek scholars would address this, but I will give it a brief shot.

I am not familiar with all of the authorities you quoted in this post, but, I am familiar with the JW's list of supposed authors that have been used to support their contention about John 1:1 in their JW publications. Here are a few that I have seen mentioned by JW's in the past:

1. Dr. Julius R. Mantey- 'A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament'
2. Dr. Philip B. Harner's- Author of "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns" in 'Journal of Biblical Literature'
3. Dr. John L. McKenszie- 'Dictionary of the Bible'
4. Johannes Greber-occultist and author of 'Comminication with the Spirit World of God'.......Watchtower has since discovered Grebers occult nature and has disavowed citing him as a reference since 1961

What is interesting is the fact that in review of the men the Watchtower have used in printed material to support their claim, all three of the above mentioned scholars expressly deny agreeing with the NWT interp of John 1:1

Mantey went so far as to claim the Watchtower misquoted him, Mantey continued on to say "....ninety nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the bible are in disagreement with the Jehovahs Witnesses...."
This isn't an argument. Show me modern scholars who apply colwell's rule to John 1:1 or argue that "a god" is grammatically incorrect. I can't help it if you're not familiar with certain scholars:

Here's one of them:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801021952/qid=1080684543/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-1821390-7211004?v=glance&s=books

This is Dr. Murray Harris, author of a number of books, including this one where he tries to prove Jesus is God.

Furthermore, I will dig up some other quotes when I get a chance. I know Robert Bowman recognizes "a god" is grammatically correct, even though he thinks it's theologically wrong. I believe Dr. Robert Morey recognizes the same thing but I'll have to look to verify. Surely you've heard of these two Trinitarians and anti-JW's. Additionally, Phillip Harner, whom you mentioned, does believe Colwell's rule is not applicable at John 1:1, he just disagrees with us on the translation based on his theology, not grammar. But we don't quote Harner in an attempt to say "See, Harner agrees that the translation should be "a god"" We quote him to show that, according to his research, "a god" is grammatically possible and that Colwell's rule is inapplicable at John 1:1. No, Harner doesn't like that translation but it's because of his personal belief that Jesus is God. He didn't argue against it because it was grammatically incorrect.

[truthman]

Regardless of the significant amount of debate regarding the New World Translation and its authenticity, has anyone considered why the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publishes a great amount of book and then lets them exit publication and go out of print, never to be seen again except for used bookstores and people's personal libraries.

Personally, one might think that errors have been found in these earlier books and so they were taken out of publication.

Many of these are:
"Babylon the Great Has Fallen!" God's Kingdom Rules!
"The Day of Vengeance" ~ Studies in the Scriptures ~ Series IV
Commentary on the Letter of James
Holy Spirit ~ The Force Behind the Coming New Order!
Is the Bible Really the Word of God?
Is This Life All There Is?
Let God Be True
Let Your Name Be Sanctified
Life Does Have a Purpose
Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God
Life ~ How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?
Revelation ~ Its Grand Climax at Hand!
Things In Which It Is Impossible For God To Lie
True Peace and Security ~ From What Source?
True Peace and Security ~ How Can You Find It?
You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth
You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World
Your Will Be Done On Earth

Now, nontrinitarian, I'm sure you don't own all of these, do you?

truthman

[One Bad Pig]

:ahem: How clever of you , non-trin, to appeal to John 10:32, 34-36 to argue that Jesus was not inferring himself to be God, when verse 33 explicitly states that very fact.:argh:

[NonTrinitarian]

Regardless of the significant amount of debate regarding the New World Translation and its authenticity, has anyone considered why the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publishes a great amount of book and then lets them exit publication and go out of print, never to be seen again except for used bookstores and people's personal libraries.

Personally, one might think that errors have been found in these earlier books and so they were taken out of publication.

Many of these are:
"Babylon the Great Has Fallen!" God's Kingdom Rules!
"The Day of Vengeance" ~ Studies in the Scriptures ~ Series IV
Commentary on the Letter of James
Holy Spirit ~ The Force Behind the Coming New Order!
Is the Bible Really the Word of God?
Is This Life All There Is?
Let God Be True
Let Your Name Be Sanctified
Life Does Have a Purpose
Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God
Life ~ How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?
Revelation ~ Its Grand Climax at Hand!
Things In Which It Is Impossible For God To Lie
True Peace and Security ~ From What Source?
True Peace and Security ~ How Can You Find It?
You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth
You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World
Your Will Be Done On Earth

Now, nontrinitarian, I'm sure you don't own all of these, do you?

truthman I have a few of them but not all.

[NonTrinitarian]

:ahem: How clever of you , non-trin, to appeal to John 10:32, 34-36 to argue that Jesus was not inferring himself to be God, when verse 33 explicitly states that very fact.:argh:
Wow. Could the reading comprehension really be that bad? Tell me OBP, is Jesus the one speaking verse 33 (and thus inferring he is God) or are the religious leaders? WHERE IN VERSE 33 DOES JESUS "explicitly states that very fact?"

Man, the extent some people will go to to make their point. If only part of what they did was actually READ the verse they are referring to! And what was Jesus' reply to their accusation in verse 34?

"Yes, I am God"

or

'If God can call these men "gods", and the scriptures cannot be nullified, why do you condemn me because I said I was God's Son?'

They accused Jesus of trying to make himself God and Jesus replies that other men are called "gods" by Almighty God and if THEY can be called "god", why do they condemn him for saying he is God's Son? Jesus was not affirming their charge, he was denying it.

You're right, I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall.

[truthman]

NonTrinitarian, it surely was convenient of you to ignore this statement made by myself Personally, one might think that errors have been found in these earlier books and so they were taken out of publication.

In fact, at watchtower.org, they only have the following:

KNOWLEDGE THAT LEADS TO EVERLASTING LIFE
THE SECRET OF FAMILY HAPPINESS
IS THERE A CREATOR WHO CARES ABOUT YOU?
QUESTIONS YOUNG PEOPLE ASK—ANSWERS THAT WORK
THE BIBLE—GOD'S WORD OR MAN'S?
THE GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED
PAY ATTENTION TO DANIEL'S PROPHECY!
MANKIND'S SEARCH FOR GOD
MY BOOK OF BIBLE STORIES
WHAT DOES GOD REQUIRE OF US?
HOW CAN BLOOD SAVE YOUR LIFE?
SHOULD YOU BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY?
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES—WHO ARE THEY? WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE?
THE WATCHTOWER
AWAKE! (http://www.watchtower.org/publications/publications_available.htm)

So, NonTrinitarian, did the truth change?

truthman

[One Bad Pig]

Wow. Could the reading comprehension really be that bad? Tell me OBP, is Jesus the one speaking verse 33 (and thus inferring he is God) or are the religious leaders? WHERE IN VERSE 33 DOES JESUS "explicitly states that very fact?"
:duh: He doesn't. He's not speaking in v. 33. However, he is claiming equivalence with the Father in v. 30.

'If God can call these men "gods", and the scriptures cannot be nullified, why do you condemn me because I said I was God's Son?'

They accused Jesus of trying to make himself God and Jesus replies that other men are called "gods" by Almighty God and if THEY can be called "god", why do they condemn him for saying he is God's Son? Jesus was not affirming their charge, he was denying it.
On the contrary. They were condemning him for saying he was God's Son, because they understood that to mean he said he was God. Otherwise, they would've said "God's Son" in v. 33.

[NonTrinitarian]

:duh: He doesn't. He's not speaking in v. 33. However, he is claiming equivalence with the Father in v. 30.

On the contrary. They were condemning him for saying he was God's Son, because they understood that to mean he said he was God. Otherwise, they would've said "God's Son" in v. 33.
OBP, open your Bible to John 10. Note the conversation. It was only AFTER Jesus said "I and my Father are one" that they accused him. Now, does saying that he is one with God make him God?

What does it make us at John 17:11, 21-23? Isn't it obvious that Jesus meant one as in being in agreement or in union? Is this what he meant by being one in John 10:30? I'll let John 10:38 answer that. And let's just ignore Jesus' reply to their accusation in verses 34-36.

As far as being the "son of God", what do you think Nathaniel meant at John 1:49? Was he calling Jesus "Almighty God" when he called him that?

.

[NonTrinitarian]

NonTrinitarian, it surely was convenient of you to ignore this statement made by myselfIt just wasn't a very enlightening statement. You are apparently ignorant of JW doctrine. Anyone that had a clue to JW beliefs would know they probably had some errors in them. I guess you thought this would cause me to turn around and become a Baptist and change my name to "Trinitarian".

And I guess that's why the Baptists, Methodist, yada yada yada, all printed one book a 100 years ago and have not printed any newer ones. Oh wait, they have written new books. Hmm, so what were you saying?

In fact, at watchtower.org, they only have the following:

KNOWLEDGE THAT LEADS TO EVERLASTING LIFE
THE SECRET OF FAMILY HAPPINESS
IS THERE A CREATOR WHO CARES ABOUT YOU?
QUESTIONS YOUNG PEOPLE ASK—ANSWERS THAT WORK
THE BIBLE—GOD'S WORD OR MAN'S?
THE GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED
PAY ATTENTION TO DANIEL'S PROPHECY!
MANKIND'S SEARCH FOR GOD
MY BOOK OF BIBLE STORIES
WHAT DOES GOD REQUIRE OF US?
HOW CAN BLOOD SAVE YOUR LIFE?
SHOULD YOU BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY?
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES—WHO ARE THEY? WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE?
THE WATCHTOWER
AWAKE! (http://www.watchtower.org/publications/publications_available.htm)

What! You've got to be kidding me. The nerve of those people to not have every book ever published downloaded on their website! Actually, there are a few other's that are missing as well. Like "Draw Close to Jehovah" and "United in Worship of the Only True God", as well as several others. These were just published and yet they're not on the website. Hmm. I think you're on to something.


So, NonTrinitarian, did the truth change?No, we had an incorrect understanding of the truth. How many years did the apostle Peter incorrectly think he could not eat pig? How many disciples thought John would never die? How many Gentiles got circumcised unnecessarily and for how long? And BTW, what religion are you? Perhaps it has changed as well.

[truthman]

Basically, your evangelists don't go out into the world unless they've got the 'latest' Watchtower publications with them. These books are written by unnamed authors and give off an air of Godly authority. Almost as if to say "This book contains new revelation from God".

In fact, what would happen if there was a Jehovah's Witness evangelizing by using a Watchtower book that came out back in 1945?

99% of books in the Protestant and Catholic traditions are written by individuals, not by entire 'religions'. These individuals come forward publicly with their thoughts and in many cases are contacted about their beliefs.

truthman

[twohumble]

It just wasn't a very enlightening statement. You are apparently ignorant of JW doctrine. Anyone that had a clue to JW beliefs would know they probably had some errors in them. I guess you thought this would cause me to turn around and become a Baptist and change my name to "Trinitarian".

And I guess that's why the Baptists, Methodist, yada yada yada, all printed one book a 100 years ago and have not printed any newer ones. Oh wait, they have written new books. Hmm, so what were you saying?

[/b]
What! You've got to be kidding me. The nerve of those people to not have every book ever published downloaded on their website! Actually, there are a few other's that are missing as well. Like "Draw Close to Jehovah" and "United in Worship of the Only True God", as well as several others. These were just published and yet they're not on the website. Hmm. I think you're on to something.

No, we had an incorrect understanding of the truth. How many years did the apostle Peter incorrectly think he could not eat pig? How many disciples thought John would never die? How many Gentiles got circumcised unnecessarily and for how long? And BTW, what religion are you? Perhaps it has changed as well.
There is no such parallel between JW and a protestant religion. Your watchtower has claimed 'word of God' revelation, which cannot change, and cannot be wrong. They have retracted and changed many teachings, that were supposed 'revelations from God' and published with that dogma in mind. This is pure and simple blasphemy. The watchtower is no more the spokesman for God than is any other religion of man..they all have their faults, yours is just claiming it doesn't, which makes it even a bigger lie.

[NonTrinitarian]

There is no such parallel between JW and a protestant religion. Your watchtower has claimed 'word of God' revelation, which cannot change, and cannot be wrong. They have retracted and changed many teachings, that were supposed 'revelations from God' and published with that dogma in mind. This is pure and simple blasphemy. The watchtower is no more the spokesman for God than is any other religion of man..they all have their faults, yours is just claiming it doesn't, which makes it even a bigger lie.
You're the one spreading lies. JW's do not claim to be inspired prophets who get revelations from God. Does not your church believe it is led by Holy Spirit? Do you not say Jesus is the head of your church? So do we. Does that mean we have a red phone we can pick up and talk to God? No. We do believe we are the true religion but then again, so do many churches. And we state over and over in our publications that we do have misunderstandings on what God's Word says. The facts bear out who is lying.

[One Bad Pig]

I would assume you would use the following verses:
1:1; 1:3;
Yes.

1:23;
Not by itself, no.

2:19;
Yes. I readily admit that men have been raised people from the dead (through the agency of the Holy Spirit); if you can prove that a mere man can raise himself from the dead, and that angels can die, you'll have a case.

5:18;
Sure. The Jews realized that Jesus calling God his Father made him equal with God. Furthermore, in vv. 21-22 (and 6:44), Jesus grants eternal life; who but God can do that?

8:58;
Yes. The Greek is gramatically incorrect if it is understood to be a verb; translated correctly, Jesus is affirming His deity. Otherwise, the Jews wouldn't have gotten mad at him.

10:30; 10:33;
Actually, I'd use the whole exchange; vv. 30-39. Since I've already started to answer that, I'll copy your latest response into here.

OBP, open your Bible to John 10. Note the conversation. It was only AFTER Jesus said "I and my Father are one" that they accused him. Now, does saying that he is one with God make him God?

What does it make us at John 17:11, 21-23? Isn't it obvious that Jesus meant one as in being in agreement or in union? Is this what he meant by being one in John 10:30? I'll let John 10:38 answer that. And let's just ignore Jesus' reply to their accusation in verses 34-36.
Let's go over the whole exhange, shall we?
v. 30: Jesus equates Himself and the Father (YHWH).
v. 31: The Jews prepare to stone Him.
v. 32: Jesus asks why.
v. 33: The Jews say, "Because you're calling yourself God(Theos)".
vv. 34-36: Jesus says, "God called men theos; why should you be offended that I call myself the Son of Theos?"
vv. 37-38: Jesus says, "Watch what I do; if I'm not doing what My Father(YHWH) would do, then don't believe me. Otherwise, know that I am united integrally with the Father(YHWH).
v. 39: The Jews still want to kill him; he slips away.

Note that the Jews complained that Jesus was calling Himself God; Jesus asked them why they were offended that he called Himself the Son of God. Unless one or the other groups is being misrepresented, the terms are interchangeable.

As for John 17:11, we (the body of believers) are to be as integrally related as Jesus and the Father. In John 17:21-13, this is reaffirmed; we are also united in Christ, but note that this is not a reciprocal unity.

14:9;
Actually, vv. 7-9. Looking on Jesus is equivalent to looking on the Father; at some level, they must be equivalent.

16:30;
No. Just because He came from God doesn't make Him God.

20:28
Sure. It's one of the most obvious.

Here are a few more that I'd consider:
1:12 -- He gives people the right to become children of God. Who else but God can dictate who His children are?
4:10 -- He offers the Samaritan woman the gift of God. Wouldn't that be God's prerogative?
4:42 -- He is the Savior of the world. Who but God could save fallen man? A man certainly couldn't.
11:25 -- He grants eternal life.
12:41 -- Referring to Isaiah 6:1-5 (describing YHWH on His throne), equating Jesus with YHWH.
12:45 -- Equivalent to the Father.
15:23-4 -- ditto. See also 16:3, 16:15, 17:10-11, 17:21-22.
And that's just one Gospel.


Doesn’t matter for now where it gets us. Can you provide proof that the scholars I quoted above are wrong when they say "a god" is grammatically possible? If not, move on.
It may be possible, but is it right? What is the attestation of the oldest translations (Old Syraic, Old Latin)?

The thousands of angels who watched and praised God as he created the earth will be surprised to hear that. Or are you not aware of that verse?

It rings a bell. Could you be helpful and give me the reference?

Good. I wouldn’t either. But note what the scriptures say:

"One day as he (Jesus) was teaching…and the power of the Lord was present for him (Jesus) to heal the sick." –Luke 5:17

"namely, Jesus,…how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God was with him."-Acts 10:38

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly shown by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst."- Acts 2:22

These verses say Jesus healed people, but then, the scriptures say Elisha, Elijah, Peter and Paul healed people too. But did they, including Jesus, really heal the people? No. These three verses show that really it was God, spoken of as someone other than Jesus, who actually had the power to heal. These verses don’t seem to think Jesus had the power to heal the people, they say it was God’s power that Jesus was allowed to use. So the scriptures can say Jesus did the healing but in reality it was God. Now why do you think I bring this point out?
And I believe that Jesus voluntarily gave up all aspects of deity except what the Father allowed him to retain (Philippians 2:5-11)


No, not elohim. I mean, sure, people were called elohim (not just angels), but I am asking if anyone was called theos besides God or Jesus in a positive sense (IE, not as a false god).
Are not elohim and theos equivalent? Ps. 82:6

And I don’t know of any verses that say people worshipped Jesus. I know of Bible translations that translate proskyneo as "worship" when it is directed to Jesus, but then again, I know many Bible translations, listed above, that do not. So you’ll have to take that up with the Trinitarian scholars who opted to not translate proskyneo as "worship".
How else is it translated?

[/size][/QUOTE]

[twohumble]

One Bad Pig says:
And I believe that Jesus voluntarily gave up all aspects of deity except what the Father allowed him to retain (Philippians 2:5-11)
I agree with what you have said in essence, but there is an underlying issue regarding the "Father allowing Him". This may imply to a non-believer, that somehow the Father is in essence greater than Jesus, and this is not the case. Jesus gives willing submission to the Fathers will, not forced submission, as this might imply to some.

[NonTrinitarian]

OBP:

Each of the verses you listed will require their own thread so I will on address what we’ve already talked about in this thread. Though actually none of this belongs in this thread.



Let's go over the whole exhange, shall we?
v. 30: Jesus equates Himself and the Father (YHWH).
v. 31: The Jews prepare to stone Him.
v. 32: Jesus asks why.
v. 33: The Jews say, "Because you're calling yourself God(Theos)".
vv. 34-36: Jesus says, "God called men theos; why should you be offended that I call myself the Son of Theos?"
vv. 37-38: Jesus says, "Watch what I do; if I'm not doing what My Father(YHWH) would do, then don't believe me. Otherwise, know that I am united integrally with the Father(YHWH).
v. 39: The Jews still want to kill him; he slips away.

Note that the Jews complained that Jesus was calling Himself God; Jesus asked them why they were offended that he called Himself the Son of God. Unless one or the other groups is being misrepresented, the terms are interchangeable. No. That argument ignores the many other versus where people call Jesus "son of God" without ever meaning "God". I referenced just one of them at John 1:49. I know you don’t believe Nathanael was calling Jesus "Almighty God" in that verse.

Actually, the definite article does not appear in front of theos in verse 33 so it could be translated (grammatically at least) as "a god". But besides that, the Jews accused Jesus of trying to make himself either "God" or "a god" because he said "I and the Father are one." They misinterpreted what Jesus meant which is why Jesus had to reply that he did NOT claim to be God, he claimed to be God’s Son (not directly but by calling God his Father). Look at verse 34. It is an IF/THEN statement. ‘IF these men can be called gods, THEN why can I not be called God’s Son?’ In other words, he was trying to show them that he did NOT make the claim they said he was making.

If Jesus was trying to reaffirm that they did understand him correctly, he would not have resorted to Ps 82 and his IF/THEN clause. And he would not have said "Son of God", he would have said "God", because that’s what they accused him of saying. God and Son of God are not interchangeable. Jesus was not affirming their accusation, he was denying it and telling them ‘Hey, I didn’t claim to be God, I am claiming to be God’s Son.’

If Jesus was trying to prove he was God, Ps 82 was a terrible scripture to use. How in the world can pointing out that the Bible calls men "gods" prove that he is Almighty God? It’s like saying, "Hey, if these people can be called "gods", why are you mad at me for claiming to be Almighty God?" It’s a ridiculous argument! Note that in Ps 82, after calling these men "gods", they are called "sons of the Most High." Interesting that Jesus refers to this Psalm and then makes his claim of being the "Son of God."


As for John 17:11, we (the body of believers) are to be as integrally related as Jesus and the Father. In John 17:21-13, this is reaffirmed; we are also united in Christ, but note that this is not a reciprocal unity.Which is my whole point. It denotes unity and nothing else. This is what Jesus was trying to get the confused religious leaders to understand, as noted in verse 38.



Are not elohim and theos equivalent? Ps. 82:6 I made that distinction because you said angels were called elohim and I wanted to be sure you knew men were also called theos. I thought by specifically saying elohim you were implying a difference versus theos. I just misunderstood. My bad.




How else is it (proskyneo) translated? "Bow down"

"Fall before"

"obeisance"

"reverence"

"homage"

See Revelation 3:9 in just about any Bible for how it is translated when directed to Christians.

Angels at creation: See Job 38:4-8

[twohumble]

You're the one spreading lies. JW's do not claim to be inspired prophets who get revelations from God. Does not your church believe it is led by Holy Spirit? Do you not say Jesus is the head of your church? So do we. Does that mean we have a red phone we can pick up and talk to God? No. We do believe we are the true religion but then again, so do many churches. And we state over and over in our publications that we do have misunderstandings on what God's Word says. The facts bear out who is lying.
quotes from the Watchtower
-"we must recognize not only Jehovah God as our Father but his organization as our mother"

-"The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is the greatest corporation in the world, because from the time of its organization until now the Lord has used it as His channel through which to make known the glad tidings."

-"Is not the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society the one and only channel which th Lord has used in dispensing his truth continually since the beginning of the harvest period?"

-"Jehovah's organization has a visible part on earth which represents the Lord and is under his direct supervision."

-"We must not lose sight of the fact that God is directing his organization."

- "Jehovah's organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or active force."

We see from these, and the claims of the JW's that their organization is the "faithful and discreet slave" have claimed direct divine authority and supervision of teaching...and as such if it were true, why has such direct supervision allowed so many mistakes and changes in position?

Could it be that this is another example of the braiwashing that takes place within this cult? It consistently tells its members not to think for themselves, not to read any liturature outside of their instruction, and in fact, its members are not supposed to 'think for themselves' at all. The Watch Tower society will do all of their thinking for them. This is a halmark of a cult, and a brainwashing if ever I have heard it, and that is the lye of lies.

[NonTrinitarian]

quotes from the Watchtower
-"we must recognize not only Jehovah God as our Father but his organization as our mother"

-"The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is the greatest corporation in the world, because from the time of its organization until now the Lord has used it as His channel through which to make known the glad tidings."

-"Is not the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society the one and only channel which th Lord has used in dispensing his truth continually since the beginning of the harvest period?"

-"Jehovah's organization has a visible part on earth which represents the Lord and is under his direct supervision."

-"We must not lose sight of the fact that God is directing his organization."

- "Jehovah's organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or active force."

We see from these, and the claims of the JW's that their organization is the "faithful and discreet slave" have claimed direct divine authority and supervision of teaching...and as such if it were true, why has such direct supervision allowed so many mistakes and changes in position?
I agree with everyone of those statements. Do you not believe God has an organization (Church) through which he has appointed his Son as head? He was directing the Christian congregation in the first century and yet for over three years they were circumcising people and forbidding the eating of meat. Why? Was Jesus slacking? We don't claim (and none of those quotes state) that we have direct inspiration like the apostles did. Surely you believe your church is directed by God. If not, I feel for you. But it's still made up of imperfect humans. Do you agree with every teaching of your church? Few people I know do, yet they won't say God is not directing them.


Could it be that this is another example of the braiwashing that takes place within this cult? It consistently tells its members not to think for themselves, not to read any liturature outside of their instruction, and in fact, its members are not supposed to 'think for themselves' at all. The Watch Tower society will do all of their thinking for them. This is a halmark of a cult, and a brainwashing if ever I have heard it, and that is the lye of lies.
Since you like producing quotes, show me
1.) Where we are not to think for ourselves
2.) Cannot read any literature outside of JW lit (BTW, that has to be THE stupidest claim you've made to date with me. If you have all of these WTs, why don't you open just about anyone of them up and note where the writers quote different Bible commentaries, religious books, etc.)

To all reading this, I'm calling TWOHUMBLE out. I say to his face he is a liar and unless he produces evidence that says we cannot read anything but JW literature, I see no reason to discuss anything else with him. He merely acts like his Father. (JOhn 8:44)

[One Bad Pig]

OBP:

Each of the verses you listed will require their own thread so I will on address what we’ve already talked about in this thread.
:eh: If you say so.

Though actually none of this belongs in this thread.
You're right. This thread's been well and truly hijacked. I think it's all Ric's fault. :whip:

No. That argument ignores the many other versus where people call Jesus "son of God" without ever meaning "God". I referenced just one of them at John 1:49. I know you don’t believe Nathanael was calling Jesus "Almighty God" in that verse.
Maybe you don't know be well enough. :smile: You don't see that Jesus was demonstrating his omniscience there? How do you know they didn't mean "God" when they said "son of God"? Your theological presuppositions?

Actually, the definite article does not appear in front of theos in verse 33 so it could be translated (grammatically at least) as "a god". But besides that, the Jews accused Jesus of trying to make himself either "God" or "a god" because he said "I and the Father are one." They misinterpreted what Jesus meant which is why Jesus had to reply that he did NOT claim to be God, he claimed to be God’s Son (not directly but by calling God his Father). Look at verse 34. It is an IF/THEN statement. ‘IF these men can be called gods, THEN why can I not be called God’s Son?’ In other words, he was trying to show them that he did NOT make the claim they said he was making.

If Jesus was trying to prove he was God, Ps 82 was a terrible scripture to use. How in the world can pointing out that the Bible calls men "gods" prove that he is Almighty God? It’s like saying, "Hey, if these people can be called "gods", why are you mad at me for claiming to be Almighty God?" It’s a ridiculous argument! Note that in Ps 82, after calling these men "gods", they are called "sons of the Most High." Interesting that Jesus refers to this Psalm and then makes his claim of being the "Son of God."
Actually, he made the claim when he referred to the Father. His restatement of what they said reaffirms it.

Which is my whole point. It denotes unity and nothing else. This is what Jesus was trying to get the confused religious leaders to understand, as noted in verse 38.
They weren't confused. They knew exactly what he was claiming; that's why they were so mad. The unity he spoke of with the Father was an all-encompassing unity that implied equality. "the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

I made that distinction because you said angels were called elohim and I wanted to be sure you knew men were also called theos. I thought by specifically saying elohim you were implying a difference versus theos. I just misunderstood. My bad.
That's okay. I was just being careful; in the LXX and NT, theos is used for both elohim and YHWH.

Who was the "angel of YHWH" in the OT?
[alternative renderings for "worship"]
"Bow down"

"Fall before"

"obeisance"

"reverence"

"homage"

See Revelation 3:9 in just about any Bible for how it is translated when directed to Christians.
Those all look rather like synonyms for "worship", including the usage in Revelation. I was going to use the "only Jesus allows himself to be worshipped in the NT" argument, but then I read Luke 24:5, which tends to take the force out of the argument.

Angels at creation: See Job 38:4-8

Thanks. That passage is rather inconclusive, though. It is poetic, and if taken literally, contradicts the order of creation in Genesis 1. The angels could have been created before everything else, or after everything else, or somewhere in between. They were certainly created before the fall of Satan, which was itself before the temptation of Eve. Beyond that I will not speculate.

[One Bad Pig]

One Bad Pig says:

I agree with what you have said in essence, but there is an underlying issue regarding the "Father allowing Him". This may imply to a non-believer, that somehow the Father is in essence greater than Jesus, and this is not the case. Jesus gives willing submission to the Fathers will, not forced submission, as this might imply to some.
True. It's not always easy to grasp that Jesus is ontologically equivalent yet functionally subordinate to the Father.

Twohumble, your approach in this thread bears little resemblance to your screen name. Instead of denouncing JWs as a cult and making blanket claims about how they behave and what they believe, ask non-trinitarian to back up JW doctrine with exegesis. For that matter, ask him what JW doctrine is on various issues; that way people who are following along but don't know much about JWs can learn something. It's a lot less confrontational, and he'll be less likely to dismiss what you say out of hand.

[twohumble]

Since you like producing quotes, show me
1.) Where we are not to think for ourselves
2.) Cannot read any literature outside of JW lit (BTW, that has to be THE stupidest claim you've made to date with me. If you have all of these WTs, why don't you open just about anyone of them up and note where the writers quote different Bible commentaries, religious books, etc.)

To all reading this, I'm calling TWOHUMBLE out. I say to his face he is a liar and unless he produces evidence that says we cannot read anything but JW literature, I see no reason to discuss anything else with him. He merely acts like his Father. (JOhn 8:44)
Will you refrain from entering into judgement on another persons salvation? I would scold you for deeming to judge another but I will let scripture do that. Here are the quotes with references:

- "Avoid independent thinking...questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization."
The Watchtower, 15, January 1983, p. 14

-"Fight against independent thinking."
ibid, p 27

There are others that are less direct, but mean the same...now..on to the 'no reading other stuff'

In regard to reading other literature, as I re-read the information, I find that the warning is just against 'apostate' lituratere, and upon further scrutiny, that is defined as puplications by 'ex-JW's'...so, I am incorrect in my original assertion, and apologize for the misconception...it is corrected, and is certainly NOT a lie, but a mistake. So, I was only half right.

You really need to work on this anger thing ....I have not directed any attack toward you, but only the heresy of your religion.

To One Bad Pig:

Your criticism is noted, and acknowledged. My apology in this arena as well.

To Non-Trinitarian:

Assuming you have accepted my apology for the mistake, I would like to table a question. Why does your organization claim God should only be refered to as Jehovah?

[NonTrinitarian]

You're right. This thread's been well and truly hijacked. I think it's all Ric's fault. That’s funny!



NT-No. That argument ignores the many other versus where people call Jesus "son of God" without ever meaning "God". I referenced just one of them at John 1:49. I know you don’t believe Nathanael was calling Jesus "Almighty God" in that verse.



Maybe you don't know be well enough. You don't see that Jesus was demonstrating his omniscience there? How do you know they didn't mean "God" when they said "son of God"? Your theological presuppositions?If Nathaneil was convinced Jesus was God based on that miracle, the skeptics are right about the gullibility of the apostles. But besides that, that particular miracle was not any more phenomenal than others in the OT. And later we see Nathanael wonder how Jesus can control the storm, asking "Who really is this man that he can control the weather?" So obviously he was not thinking Jesus was Almighty God at that point in time. Additionally, we already discussed the scriptures that show the apostles thought it was God’s Power, not Jesus’, that enabled Jesus to perform any miracle. So I think it’s pretty safe to assume Nathanael was not meaning Jesus was Almighty God when he called him the son of God. The kings of Israel were said to be sons of God and you’ll note after Nathanael called Jesus the son of God, he followed it with the title, King of Israel. My experience has been that most Trinitarians believe the apostles came to think Jesus was God over a period of time, not from a single incident. Especially when they first met him.

They weren't confused. They knew exactly what he was claiming; that's why they were so mad. The unity he spoke of with the Father was an all-encompassing unity that implied equality. "the Father is in me, and I in the Father." They were confused quite often on many subjects.

Who was the "angel of YHWH" in the OT?An angelic messenger from God, possibly even Jesus but not sure.

[alternative renderings for "worship"]

"Bow down"

"Fall before"

"obeisance"

"reverence"

"homage"



Those all look rather like synonyms for "worship", including the usage in Revelation. I was going to use the "only Jesus allows himself to be worshipped in the NT" argument, but then I read Luke 24:5, which tends to take the force out of the argument.If they are synonymous with worship then we have a bunch of scriptures of people "worshipping" David, Abraham, etc. I'm confused on Luke 24:5. Are you thinking these girls are worshipping the angel?

[NonTrinitarian]

Will you refrain from entering into judgement on another persons salvation? I would scold you for deeming to judge another but I will let scripture do that. Here are the quotes with references:

- "Avoid independent thinking...questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization."
The Watchtower, 15, January 1983, p. 14

-"Fight against independent thinking."
ibid, p 27

There are others that are less direct, but mean the same...now..on to the 'no reading other stuff'
And you merely misinterpret the meaning behind it. By this they mean to work in harmony with God's Organization, not independently from it. It's okay to have doubts or be uncertain on a doctrine, but do we go around to others questioning it, trying to cause division in the congregation? For instance, there was a question of circumcision in the 1st century. Some people REALLY believed you must be circumcised. But when the decision was made by the counsel in Jerusalem, the brothers accepted it. They didn't independently go out and say 'Well I still think it's right to circumcise.' Actually, some did in the congregation in Galatia. And Paul condemend them for doing such.

We all think independently but we must recognize that the Church is in charge of doctrine. True independent thinking (as in refusing to ever admit that maybe we DON'T know all the answers) brings up a million different ideas. Thus, the gist of the quotes is to realize that even though we may not understand all teachings, we should have seen enough to recognize this is Christ's Church and humbly accept the few doctrines we may not understand.


In regard to reading other literature, as I re-read the information, I find that the warning is just against 'apostate' lituratere, and upon further scrutiny, that is defined as puplications by 'ex-JW's'...so, I am incorrect in my original assertion, and apologize for the misconception...it is corrected, and is certainly NOT a lie, but a mistake. So, I was only half right.Apology accepted.


You really need to work on this anger thing ....I have not directed any attack toward you, but only the heresy of your religion.My worship is my life. Attacking my faith is attacking me.


Assuming you have accepted my apology for the mistake, I would like to table a question. Why does your organization claim God should only be refered to as Jehovah?
Forgave and forgotten. We don't claim God should only be referred to as Jehovah. Actually, we know that Jehovah is not how the name was pronounced. We don't know how it was pronounced. I start all of my prayers with "My heavenly Father" and also refer to God by many other titles. Why did you think we could only call him by Jehovah?

[One Bad Pig]

If Nathaneil was convinced Jesus was God based on that miracle, the skeptics are right about the gullibility of the apostles. But besides that, that particular miracle was not any more phenomenal than others in the OT. And later we see Nathanael wonder how Jesus can control the storm, asking "Who really is this man that he can control the weather?" So obviously he was not thinking Jesus was Almighty God at that point in time.
These were people with doubts and fears, just like us. Peter boldly saying that Jesus was the Christ didn't prevent him from denying Him later.

Additionally, we already discussed the scriptures that show the apostles thought it was God’s Power, not Jesus’, that enabled Jesus to perform any miracle.
And the apostles got quite a bit wrong, didn't they? Once in a while they had a flash of insight, but they caused Jesus grief more often than not.

The kings of Israel were said to be sons of God and you’ll note after Nathanael called Jesus the son of God, he followed it with the title, King of Israel.
Who would the eternal King of Israel be but God?

[The Angel of the LORD]
An angelic messenger from God, possibly even Jesus but not sure.
Genesis 24:7
The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house and from the land of my birth, and who spoke to me and who swore to me, saying, ' To your descendants I will give this land,' He will send His angel before you, and you will take a wife for my son from there.[NASB]
2 Sam 24:16
When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, "It is enough! Now relax your hand!" And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.[NASB]
Zech 1:12
Then the angel of the LORD said, "O LORD of hosts, how long will You have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been indignant these seventy years?"
The above three verses seem to clearly distinguish between "the angel of the LORD" and "the LORD".
Exodus 3:2-4, 6
The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. So Moses said, "I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up." When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called out to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."
He said also, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.[NASB]
It looks like they might be separate here as well, though it's not as easy a case to make.
Exodus 3:14-15
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.[NASB]
You still might try to separate the two, though it's getting more difficult to make your case.
Exodus 4:1-2a
Then Moses said, "What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, 'The LORD has not appeared to you.'" The LORD said to him...[NASB]
Now, explicitly, YHWH has appeared to Moses as the angel of YHWH.

Who led Israel out of Egypt? The angel of the LORD (Num. 20:16, Judges 2:1) or the LORD (Exodus 16:6, 16:32, Lev 19:36, Num 15:41, etc.)?

If they are synonymous with worship then we have a bunch of scriptures of people "worshipping" David, Abraham, etc. I'm confused on Luke 24:5. Are you thinking these girls are worshipping the angel?
Now that I've looked it up here (http://www.blueletterbible.com/), I see that it's a different Greek word. My point was that words are seldom precisely equivalent between two languages, and may be translated differently on occasion as context gives a different nuance to their meaning.

[twohumble]

My worship is my life. Attacking my faith is attacking me.
Ah, but, attacking your faith, is not the same as judging you to be a son of the evil one, as you surely implied of me..but ....I forgive that as well, even though you have not asked for forgiveness for such a transgression.


We don't claim God should only be referred to as Jehovah. Actually, we know that Jehovah is not how the name was pronounced. We don't know how it was pronounced. I start all of my prayers with "My heavenly Father" and also refer to God by many other titles. Why did you think we could only call him by Jehovah?
Ok, I can accept that, but, how do you explain the NWT's insertion of the word "Jehovah" into the NT in areas where there is absolutely no evidence of this in any of the extant manuscripts available. It seems that the NWT indiscriminently inserts this name into areas where it suits them such as Romans 10:13 and even OT Ezekiel 39:6, where there is clear evidence other terms are used for God instead of Jehovah, or YHWH?

[NonTrinitarian]

Exodus 4:1-2a
Then Moses said, "What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, 'The LORD has not appeared to you.'" The LORD said to him...[NASB]

Now, explicitly, YHWH has appeared to Moses as the angel of YHWH.

Who led Israel out of Egypt? The angel of the LORD (Num. 20:16, Judges 2:1) or the LORD (Exodus 16:6, 16:32, Lev 19:36, Num 15:41, etc.)?
The angel is Jehovah's representative. Angels at times speak as if they are Jehovah because they relate God's Word. What would you do if I showed you scriptures where a person in one sentence calls an angel "Jehovah" but then in the next sentence calls him an angel (Not angel of YHWH)? What if I showed you two accounts in the Gospels of the same situation, one account says a person was speaking for himself and in the parallel account we find out actually it was the servant of the person who was speaking in behalf of his master and the Master wasn't even there? We would not think the servant is the Master even though he spoke as if he was, would we?

Now that I've looked it up here (http://www.blueletterbible.com/), I see that it's a different Greek word. My point was that words are seldom precisely equivalent between two languages, and may be translated differently on occasion as context gives a different nuance to their meaning.
I fully agree with you!

[One Bad Pig]

The angel is Jehovah's representative. Angels at times speak as if they are Jehovah because they relate God's Word. What would you do if I showed you scriptures where a person in one sentence calls an angel "Jehovah" but then in the next sentence calls him an angel (Not angel of YHWH)? What if I showed you two accounts in the Gospels of the same situation, one account says a person was speaking for himself and in the parallel account we find out actually it was the servant of the person who was speaking in behalf of his master and the Master wasn't even there? We would not think the servant is the Master even though he spoke as if he was, would we?

I found the two Gospel accounts (Matt 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10). If a messenger is used to relay a message, mention of the messenger is generally optional. However,w hen God uses a messenger to relay his message, the message is prefaced with, "Thus says the LORD" (or a variant thereof, depending on translation). Would Moses have reacted the way he did in Ex. 3:6 if he was conversing with a messenger? Woulld Manoah have acted the way he did in Judges 13:22? Your other allusion is too vague. I'd appreciate it if you backed up your allusions with direct references.

I fully agree with you!
:woohoo: We agree on something!

[NonTrinitarian]

I found the two Gospel accounts (Matt 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10). If a messenger is used to relay a message, mention of the messenger is generally optional. However,w hen God uses a messenger to relay his message, the message is prefaced with, "Thus says the LORD" (or a variant thereof, depending on translation). Would Moses have reacted the way he did in Ex. 3:6 if he was conversing with a messenger? Woulld Manoah have acted the way he did in Judges 13:22? Your other allusion is too vague. I'd appreciate it if you backed up your allusions with direct references.
OBP, too busy today to talk but look these up and tell me what they mean to you.

Acts 7:53
Ga 3:19
Heb 2:2 and compare with verse 3

I don't really feel I have the obligation to try to prove the "angel of Jehovah" is simply Jehovah's angel rather than Jehovah himself. Seems like the burden of proof should be on you.

Also note that in Gen 18 and 19 three angels appear to Abraham and Lot. Two leave and the third one is still called Jehovah. Then the two that left are called Jehovah by Lot but then later simply called "angels". If we take each one of these angels to be Jehovah then we had the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all on the earth at the same time and each one called an angel. The burden of proof for such an explanation would be on your hands because the text clearly call them angels. But, gotta go. Talk later.

[One Bad Pig]

OBP, too busy today to talk but look these up and tell me what they mean to you.

Acts 7:53
Ga 3:19
Heb 2:2 and compare with verse 3

All four my reference Bibles pointed to Deut. 33:2, two of them specifically to the LXX. The Bible I have that generally supplies alternate renderings doesn't have this one. However, I did find out from the NET that first-century Jews believed that God Himself appears to no one. Whether that belief is true or not, I don't know. However, Heb. 2:3 once again separates Jesus from the angels and elevates him above them.

I don't really feel I have the obligation to try to prove the "angel of Jehovah" is simply Jehovah's angel rather than Jehovah himself. Seems like the burden of proof should be on you.
I've been supplying proofs, and answering your counter questions.

Also note that in Gen 18 and 19 three angels appear to Abraham and Lot. Two leave and the third one is still called Jehovah. Then the two that left are called Jehovah by Lot but then later simply called "angels". If we take each one of these angels to be Jehovah then we had the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all on the earth at the same time and each one called an angel. The burden of proof for such an explanation would be on your hands because the text clearly call them angels. But, gotta go. Talk later.
Okay, I've read Gen 18 and 19. I disagree with your assertions, however. In Gen. 18:2, it states that three men (not elohim) appear to Abraham. Later (18:22, 19:1), it becomes evident that one of these beings is YHWH, and the other two are angels. I gather from your second sentence that you are referring to 19:4, but that's really not a correct exegisis of the passage. Lot is repeating the message of the angels (v. 13) to his sons-in-law. He never refers to them as YHWH, but elohim (plural).

[NonTrinitarian]

All four my reference Bibles pointed to Deut. 33:2, two of them specifically to the LXX. The Bible I have that generally supplies alternate renderings doesn't have this one. However, I did find out from the NET that first-century Jews believed that God Himself appears to no one. Whether that belief is true or not, I don't know. In the NWT Acts 7:53 references Acts 7:38. I get the impression that Stephen did not think the angel was God.

However, Heb. 2:3 once again separates Jesus from the angels and elevates him above them.Agreed



NT-

Also note that in Gen 18 and 19 three angels appear to Abraham and Lot. Two leave and the third one is still called Jehovah. Then the two that left are called Jehovah by Lot but then later simply called "angels". If we take each one of these angels to be Jehovah then we had the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all on the earth at the same time and each one called an angel. The burden of proof for such an explanation would be on your hands because the text clearly call them angels. But, gotta go. Talk later.

OBP-

Okay, I've read Gen 18 and 19. I disagree with your assertions, however. In Gen. 18:2, it states that three men (not elohim) appear to Abraham. Later (18:22, 19:1), it becomes evident that one of these beings is YHWH, and the other two are angels. I gather from your second sentence that you are referring to 19:4, but that's really not a correct exegisis of the passage. Lot is repeating the message of the angels (v. 13) to his sons-in-law. He never refers to them as YHWH, but elohim (plural). Gen 18:3-5-bowing to the three men he said "Jehovah, if now I have found favor…" At this they said: "Alright, you may do as you have spoken."

Gen 19:1- "Now the two angels arrived at Sodom by evening…"

Gen 19:18- "Then Lot said to them: "Not that, please, Jehovah!…"

These angels are spoken of as Jehovah because they are His representatives. Lot was not blaspheming by calling them Jehovah because they came in God's place.

This thread is going all over the place. We probably need to pick a topic and start a new thread.

[twohumble]

Agreed
This refers to Hebrews 2, where Jesus is elevated above angels. You agreed with OBP? How then, do you hypothesis Jesus is an incarnation of the arch angel Michael?

This thread is going all over the place. We probably need to pick a topic and start a new thread.


Well, this seems to still relate to the NWT's view of these issues, so I am not sure a new thread is needed. But either way is fine. I am just curious how the NWT's (or the watchtowers) view of Jesus as Michael is scripturally substantiated?

You all also left off on the 'every knee bow down' route regarding Jesus, and whether he is 'worshiped', Non-Trinitarian, I am curious how you differentiate from a definition standpoint bowing too someone and worshiping them? Especially in light of the fact that JW's won't even sing 'happy birthday' in some fear that it may be 'worshipping' another than God? How do you scripturally decide what is worship, and what is not?

[NonTrinitarian]

TH-
This refers to Hebrews 2, where Jesus is elevated above angels. You agreed with OBP? How then, do you hypothesis Jesus is an incarnation of the arch angel Michael?There are non-Trinitarians (not JW’s) who don’t believe Jesus even had a pre-human existence. They believe he was a man, though sinless, who was elevated above all other men. They still believe he was a man though and have no problem saying he is elevated above men. That’s what elevated means. To be lifted up. So if Jesus was an angel, granting you don’t think so, but if he was, why do you think I would have a problem saying Jesus was elevated above the angels? How does that mean he could not have been an angel himself? Do not the scriptures speak of men being elevated above other men? So cannot an angel be elevated above other angels?

I am just curious how the NWT's (or the watchtowers) view of Jesus as Michael is scripturally substantiated? Well, first thing you have to do is realize Jesus is not God. After setting that aside, then these scriptures seem to suggest Jesus is Michael. Of course, if you believe Jesus is God, there’s no way you would think these verses are saying he is Michael:

Term "archangel" applied to both Michael and Jesus: Jude 9, 1 Thess 4:16

Have authority over angels: Rev 12:7, 2 Thess 1:7

Defeat Satan: Rev 12:7, Gen 3:15

Seen leading heavenly army: Rev 12:7, Rev 19:9-21

Said to stand up as a king: Dan 12:1, Dan 7:14

Unprecedented time of distress when becomes king: Dan 12:1, Matt 24:21

Some would escape if found in book of life: Dn 12:1, Matt 24:22, Rev 3:15

Resurrection would occur when takes action as king: Dan 12:2, John 5:28,29, 1 Thess 4:15-16

Judgement following resurrection: Dan 12:2, John 5:28,29

Knowledge and insight would come when king: Dan 12:3, Matt 13:43

Both called Princes: Dan 12:1, Isaiah 9:6

You all also left off on the 'every knee bow down' route regarding Jesus, and whether he is 'worshiped', Non-Trinitarian, I am curious how you differentiate from a definition standpoint bowing too someone and worshiping them? Especially in light of the fact that JW's won't even sing 'happy birthday' in some fear that it may be 'worshipping' another than God? How do you scripturally decide what is worship, and what is not?Good question: Firstly, we note that we cannot go by the word for worship itself, as this same word is applied to many different men. Additionally, does someone bowing down before someone else mean he is worshipping that person? There are many instances where people bow down before another person, demonstrating their subjection and reverence. So bowing down before someone cannot, in itself, define worship. Singing praises doesn’t define worship since the there are several instances were people sing praises to the King of Israel.

So worship, as I understand it, is a heartfelt expression of adoration paid to God. It’s a recognition of who He is and a total devotion to Him. So I can bow down and show homage to a King, but it is not the same heartfelt homage and recognition that I would give Jehovah. The strength of the adoration and meaning put into it is what makes one "worship" and the other "reverence" or "obeisance."

BTW, I have not forgotten your question regarding the 237 instances of Jehovah in the NT of the NWT. Before we discuss that, how do you feel about the other Bibles mistranslating it nearly 7000 times in the OT? Which is worse, to add to God’s word or take away?

[One Bad Pig]

[size=2]In the NWT Acts 7:53 references Acts 7:38. I get the impression that Stephen did not think the angel was God.
And I don't get the impression that Stephen was infallible.

Gen 18:3-5-bowing to the three men he said "Jehovah, if now I have found favor…" At this they said: "Alright, you may do as you have spoken."
:hrm: The divine name is not used in this verse. However, the vowel pointers associated with the word are, indicating the scribes thought God was being referenced. I suppose I can let this one slide.

Gen 19:1- "Now the two angels arrived at Sodom by evening…"
No problems there.

Gen 19:18- "Then Lot said to them: "Not that, please, Jehovah!…"
This, however, I can't in good conscience let slide. The divine name is not used in this verse. The noun/verb agreement is unusual, but the vowel pointers used in the word this time are not indicitive of addressing deity. It would appear that your oh-so-literal translation fudges on occasion.

This thread is going all over the place. We probably need to pick a topic and start a new thread.

:shrug: Whatever. I don't know if I'd continue the discussion in another thread or not. I'm not out to argue with JW's or anything. Something in this thread caught my eye enough to make me respond, and your responses thus far have kept me from dropping it.

[NonTrinitarian]

Regarding the Divine name in Gen 19:18

This, however, I can't in good conscience let slide. The divine name is not used in this verse. The noun/verb agreement is unusual, but the vowel pointers used in the word this time are not indicitive of addressing deity. It would appear that your oh-so-literal translation fudges on occasion.
There's no fudging. You're just not familiar with all of the facts, which is okay. There are 134 instances where the Jewish Sopherim (scribes) replaced YHWH with Anhonai. The NWT restored the Divine Name where it originally appeared. (Reference: Introduction to the Massoretico-Critial Edition of the Hebrew Bible", C.D. Ginsburg, KTAV Publishing House, New York, 1966) As this work points out, the EARLIEST editions of the test available have the divine name in them. The newer texts do not, which shows a change took place between the oldest and the newer ones, either by accident or intentionally. Thus, your Bible or whatever you are looking at may be referencing the newer text rather than the oldest text available.

BTW, I appreciate the demeanor you have displayed in this discussion. It has been a pleasure.

[One Bad Pig]

Regarding the Divine name in Gen 19:18

There's no fudging. You're just not familiar with all of the facts, which is okay. There are 134 instances where the Jewish Sopherim (scribes) replaced YHWH with Anhonai. The NWT restored the Divine Name where it originally appeared. (Reference: Introduction to the Massoretico-Critial Edition of the Hebrew Bible", C.D. Ginsburg, KTAV Publishing House, New York, 1966) As this work points out, the EARLIEST editions of the test available have the divine name in them. The newer texts do not, which shows a change took place between the oldest and the newer ones, either by accident or intentionally. Thus, your Bible or whatever you are looking at may be referencing the newer text rather than the oldest text available.
I've found this work online, and I'll take a look at it when I have time. It was first published, however, in 1897. A significant number of old manuscripts have been found since then (chiefly the Dead Sea Scrolls). How do they compare?

BTW, I appreciate the demeanor you have displayed in this discussion. It has been a pleasure.
Thanks. I do my best to debate in a civil manner, as I know better than to claim infallibility.

[NonTrinitarian]

I've found this work online, and I'll take a look at it when I have time. It was first published, however, in 1897. A significant number of old manuscripts have been found since then (chiefly the Dead Sea Scrolls). How do they compare?
I don't know how they compare. I would think it would read the same. Otherwise we have an instance where it wasn't there, then it was, then it wasn't. Not that it couldn't happen but seems unlikely. Plus this edition was published in the 60's so one would hope they would have updated it if the facts had changed.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't know how they compare. I would think it would read the same. Otherwise we have an instance where it wasn't there, then it was, then it wasn't. Not that it couldn't happen but seems unlikely. Plus this edition was published in the 60's so one would hope they would have updated it if the facts had changed.
From the looks of it, it was merely republished as is. I'm agnostic on how accurate the book is, as it doesn't seem to have been used when translating, even when the oldest sources are sought.

[Oliver Cromwell]

Wow, talking about backing out of a conversation. You're the one that made the attack on the NWT, incorrectly accused me of saying mainstream English Bibles support John 1:1 and called into question the translators of the NWT. Then when I call you on it, you apparently hope you can dodge the subject and I'll just go away.

YOU pick your verses and I'll show you what other Bibles you need to throw away along with the NWT. Third time I've asked. Either stand your ground or drop it.

To the other readers, the whole point of me pressing this is to demonstrate that there are many different Bibles, most translated by Trinitarians, who do not translate a number of Trinitarian proof texts like Trinitarians wish they were. And these translators have knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew language with the same letters behind their name. So...if you can label these people with degrees as bafoons then what difference would it make if we showed you the credentials of the NWT?
I know I'm jumping into this midstream and the conversation seems to have shifted in an erratic manner a number of times but I am curious about the logic of your rhetoric.

If I have followed the opening dialogue correctly, this discussion developed in the following manner:

It was pointed out that the translators of the New World Translation were never publicly identified by the publishers of the NWT (i.e., it was published anonymously), and that the few translators who did participate in this version were later shown to have had little or no knowledge of the original biblical languages and no academic credentials in any linguistic field. This was noted in order to impugn the credibility of the New World Translation since the failure to publish the names and credentials of the translators has led to allegations of linguistic incompetence and systematic theological bias in the translation - an allegation that you seem to find embarrassing and/or damaging to it's credibility.



You didn’t publicly refute this allegation by providing any contrary evidence which would contradict this claim (an observation I will pass over to examine the more substantive following point) – instead your response seems to focus upon the fact that there are quite a few similarities in translation between many of the "Trinitarian" Bible translations and the NWT (in other words, you allege that the NWT mirrors a large number of other Bible translations at many points). Your conclusion seems to be that since there is so much agreement between the NWT and these other translations, the NWT must have at least as much credibility as the aforementioned versions regardless of who translated it and what academic credentials they possessed (or didn't). In this way you hope to surmount the challenge that has been brought against the credibility of the NWT (i.e., by noting the lack of academic credentials and linguistic training of its translators).

Now analyzing this from a purely logical standpoint - the logic is simply non sequitur. There is, strictly speaking, no logical correlation between the alleged similarity of translation (b/w the NWT and other “Trinitarian” translations) and the credibility of the NWT. In other words, even if you could produce firm and indisputable statistical evidence demonstrating the overwhelming similarity in translation between the NWT and other translations (which, of course, you have not provided such empirical data) you would still need to demonstrate the necessary correlation between this observation and the credibility (or lack thereof) of the NWT. If there is a logical relationship, could you show me, vis-à-vis an explicitly tight syllogism (i.e., state your premises and the necessary conclusions), the logical correlation between the similarity of translations and the credibility of the NWT?

Now let me be explicit – I’m not looking for additional rhetorical argument – I’m looking for a tight logical syllogism utilizing the canons of logic where you demonstrate the necessity of the conclusion that the similarity of translation of the NWT with other “Trinitarian” translations (a premise you may need to demonstrate with firm statistical evidence) necessitates (at least) an equal claim to credibility with those translations.

There are a few additional points you have made from posts in this thread that I hope to analyze from a logical perspective as well and which I will address shortly.

Regards,

Oliver Cromwell

[NonTrinitarian]

I know I'm jumping into this midstream and the conversation seems to have shifted in an erratic manner a number of times but I am curious about the logic of your rhetoric.

If I have followed the opening dialogue correctly, this discussion developed in the following manner:

It was pointed out that the translators of the New World Translation were never publicly identified by the publishers of the NWT (i.e., it was published anonymously), and that the few translators who did participate in this version were later shown to have had little or no knowledge of the original biblical languages and no academic credentials in any linguistic field. This was noted in order to impugn the credibility of the New World Translation since the failure to publish the names and credentials of the translators has led to allegations of linguistic incompetence and systematic theological bias in the translation - an allegation that you seem to find embarrassing and/or damaging to it's credibility.



You didn’t publicly refute this allegation by providing any contrary evidence which would contradict this claim (an observation I will pass over to examine the more substantive following point) – instead your response seems to focus upon the fact that there are quite a few similarities in translation between many of the "Trinitarian" Bible translations and the NWT (in other words, you allege that the NWT mirrors a large number of other Bible translations at many points). Your conclusion seems to be that since there is so much agreement between the NWT and these other translations, the NWT must have at least as much credibility as the aforementioned versions regardless of who translated it and what academic credentials they possessed (or didn't). In this way you hope to surmount the challenge that has been brought against the credibility of the NWT (i.e., by noting the lack of academic credentials and linguistic training of its translators).

Now analyzing this from a purely logical standpoint - the logic is simply non sequitur. There is, strictly speaking, no logical correlation between the alleged similarity of translation (b/w the NWT and other “Trinitarian” translations) and the credibility of the NWT. In other words, even if you could produce firm and indisputable statistical evidence demonstrating the overwhelming similarity in translation between the NWT and other translations (which, of course, you have not provided such empirical data) you would still need to demonstrate the necessary correlation between this observation and the credibility (or lack thereof) of the NWT. If there is a logical relationship, could you show me, vis-à-vis an explicitly tight syllogism (i.e., state your premises and the necessary conclusions), the logical correlation between the similarity of translations and the credibility of the NWT?

Now let me be explicit – I’m not looking for additional rhetorical argument – I’m looking for a tight logical syllogism utilizing the canons of logic where you demonstrate the necessity of the conclusion that the similarity of translation of the NWT with other “Trinitarian” translations (a premise you may need to demonstrate with firm statistical evidence) necessitates (at least) an equal claim to credibility with those translations.

There are a few additional points you have made from posts in this thread that I hope to analyze from a logical perspective as well and which I will address shortly.

Regards,

Oliver Cromwell
Does having a Phd behind one's name all of a sudden make one's translation acceptable? No. I even provided a scholar with a Phd who believes the NWT is one of the best translations out there and it still hasn't satisfied anyone. People with Phds argue with each other all the time! So what good would providing the credentials of the NWT committee do? You would attack it anyway. That's why I said we must look at the translation itself.

We can pick a verse that you don't like, I can provide credentials of scholars with Phds who translated it the same way as the NWT and you would just say those scholars are wrong. So WHY should I, even if I knew their credentials, provide them to you. It wouldn't change your viewpoint any.

Use your "logic" to show me where having a Phd automatically proves somone is right. The facts speak otherwise. People with the same scholarly credentials disagree with each other. The only thing left is to look at the text itself and how different Phds translate them. So far your logic isn't very logical.

[Oliver Cromwell]

Does having a Phd behind one's name all of a sudden make one's translation acceptable? .



I don't want to get too much off track here, so let me preface my reply with this important point - In response to my challenge that I raised in the previous post - I'm hoping that you will either 1) demonstrate the logical relationship between the similarities in the NWT and other "Trinitarian" translations and the credibility of the NWT, or that 2) you will acknowledge your previous rhetoric in this regard as irrelevant since no correlation exists.



You can certainly pursue other avenues of rhetoric to surmount the serious challenge that has been raised against the credibility of the New World Translation (as you are attempting to do in your reply), but let's make explicit that the logic of your previous attempt is faulty.



Now shifting the dialogue from my as yet unanswered challenge and in answer to your question, however, - translating a document in which there is a considerable historical, cultural, and linguistic distance between the original and receptor/target languages is an exceedingly complex matter that is best not undertaken by amateurs with no demonstrated linguistic competence or credentials. I suppose amateurs relying on previous English translations, an interlinear, and critical commentaries could produce a translation that isn't totally inept - but scholars would have a right and duty to question such a naive and simplistic product - and indeed they have - the New World Translation isn't a translation that's taken seriously in the academy. I am not aware of one graduate school in the world where the New World Translation is the version of choice for an English translation of the Old and New Testaments. This is why a diverse body of scholars with linguistic experience and training (as reflected most especially, but not solely, by their academic credentials) is the most satisfactory body to produce a credible contemporary translation. Therefore the simple answer to your question is - do experience in linguistics and concomitant academic credentials make a translation infallible- no. Do they make it acceptable, as you asked - invariably the answer is yes - more acceptable and credible than those works produced by amateurs without such credentials or experience in any event.



In considerable contrast to the NWT, the mainline translations are the products of ecumenical bodies of scholars who rely on the best currents of historical, cultural, linguistic, and textual scholarship and who have experience translating not merely canonical works, but other works of the ANE as well (such as the cuneiform works of antiquity as well as others). Incidentally, they don't publish their works in secrecy - they are forthright with regard to the members who comprise the translating body so the entire world can scrutinize the qualifications of the individuals who have undertaken the exceedingly complex task of translating ancient texts.



No. I even provided a scholar with a Phd who believes the NWT is one of the best translations out there and it still hasn't satisfied anyone. People with Phds argue with each other all the time! So what good would providing the credentials of the NWT committee do? You would attack it anyway. That's why I said we must look at the translation itself.



Yes you did, and the post where you cited this individual was one of the additional posts with a claim that contains more logically suspect material that I was hoping to address. In this post, you made the following statement:



You said you wanted "a" scholar. I gave you one. I don’t care if he is an atheist who believes aliens from outer space will carry him away to another planet or if he likes wearing women’s underwear. At issue is the language and grammar of the NWT, and an atheist who wears women’s underwear and believes in little green men (not that he does) can know Greek as well as anyone else. In fact, since Dr. Beduhn doesn’t appear to have a theological concern in the matter, he is probably more suited for an unbiased review of the grammar than say a Baptist theologian who has a dog in the fight and strong motives for preserving the Trinity.



This statement is epistemologically naive and sounds suspiciously like the claims of a thorough faring modernist. I hope that you aren't actually claiming that 1) either secular or religious non-Trinitarians are without "theological concerns" and therefore "more objective" than the rest of us who are hopelessly blinded by our own assumptions. Do religious or secular non-Trinitarians indeed have a motive for denying the Trinity - or are they the first value-free and unbiased interpreters of reality?; or 2) an interpreters presuppositions are irrelevant when assessing his/her perspective. Are you prepared to defend either of the above propositions as your statements above seem to necessitate?



We can pick a verse that you don't like, I can provide credentials of scholars with Phds who translated it the same way as the NWT and you would just say those scholars are wrong. So WHY should I, even if I knew their credentials, provide them to you. It wouldn't change your viewpoint any.



This again gets back to the heart of my challenge. There isn't a logical correlation between the similarity of the NWT to other translations at numerous points and its credibility. If there is a correlation it would be very simple for you to demonstrate it by a tight syllogism as I've asked.



Use your "logic" to show me where having a Phd automatically proves someone is right. The facts speak otherwise. People with the same scholarly credentials disagree with each other. The only thing left is to look at the text itself and how different Phds translate them. So far your logic isn't very logical..



I'm certainly not claiming that "having a Phd (sic) automatically proves someone is right" as you allege. To begin with, you seem to be confusing a necessary criterion with a sufficient criterion. Because translating a document of antiquity is an exceedingly complex matter, linguistic competence is a necessary criterion (although it may not, in and of itself, be a sufficient criterion) to establish credibility. This raises the important question of demonstrating linguistic competence. A credentialed degree is one way (and probably the best) of demonstrating linguistic competence - because one’s competence must be objectively and thoroughly demonstrated before his/her peers in order to receive the degree (for my PhD work I have had to pass preliminary written exams to demonstrate proficiency in Greek, Hebrew, Systematics, and History, in addition to complete rigorous research at the doctoral level, pass oral comprehensive exams, and successfully defend a dissertation before other credentialed members of the academy). This is why our society places a premium on education, especially with regard to those we are willing to entrust complex matters to.



On the other hand, merely producing a translation that mirrors other translations at certain points is not a satisfactory demonstration of linguistic competence for obvious reasons, but most especially because it is not necessary to thoroughly and objectively demonstrate an intricate knowledge of culture, linguistics, history, or even the original languages. For example, one can have absolutely no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic (to say nothing of the culture and history of the Old and New Testaments) and yet pick up an interlinear, basic Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic grammars and produce a “translation” – but that certainly wouldn’t demonstrate linguistic competence. Alternatively, a person could similarly have no knowledge of any of the languages and merely rely on previous English translations to produce a new “translation” as well. Or a person could rely on a combination of both of the above, or other scenarios that I haven’t even begun to conceive of to produce a “translation.” In any event, it should be obvious that merely producing a translation fails to publicly demonstrate linguistic competence. The fact that the NWT was published in secrecy raises even more suspicions about the linguistic competence and experience of the translators – and rightly so.



Second, contemporary Bible Translations that are taken seriously in the academy are produced by a diverse and ecumenical body of credentialed scholars - not merely one "Phd." The diversity and great number of scholars involved in each translation helps to establish a greater degree of credibility than would attain if the translation was merely the work of one individual or from one particular theological perspective. Additionally, scholars rely on the history of translation in order to demonstrate continuity with the past body of scholars who have preceded them and which also contributes to a greater degree of credibility.



Regards,



Oliver Cromwell

[NonTrinitarian]

In as few words as possible, tell me what you want?

[Oliver Cromwell]

In as few words as possible, tell me what you want?
1) I'm looking for you to acknowledge the faulty nature of your earlier response to the challenge to the credibility of the NWT; and

2) A demonstration that you understand the reason that the NWT is not regarded as a serious and credible translation; and

3) interaction with the points made in the posts above would be nice :-)

Regards,

Cromwell

[twohumble]

1) I'm looking for you to acknowledge the faulty nature of your earlier response to the challenge to the credibility of the NWT; and

2) A demonstration that you understand the reason that the NWT is not regarded as a serious and credible translation; and

3) interaction with the points made in the posts above would be nice :-)

Regards,

Cromwell
WOW...moving mountains, I know we can...but we better start praying really hard!

[NonTrinitarian]

1) I'm looking for you to acknowledge the faulty nature of your earlier response to the challenge to the credibility of the NWT; and

There is no faulty nature. As I clearly demonstrated that knowing the credentials of a translator in no way verifies the correctness of a translation. But I’ll give you an opportunity to prove me wrong in a minute. Here's your logic:

1.) The NWT doesn't list their credentials so apparenlty they don't have any
2.) Since people who don't like the beliefs of JW's don't approve of the NWT, it must be a faulty translation.
3.) Just because the NWT's translations agree with a number of reputable Bibles from people you do consider qualified doesn't mean the NWT's translation is good.


Now tell me how that fits into good logic

2) A demonstration that you understand the reason that the NWT is not regarded as a serious and credible translation; Because Trinitarians don’t like it.

3) interaction with the points made in the posts above would be nice No legitimate points were made.



Here, I’ll give you a chance to make your argument. Which of the following translations of Titus 2:13 are obviously from people not qualified to translate? From people who are ignorant in Greek?



“of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,”

“of the Great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus”

“of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus”

“of the Great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus”

“of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed”

“of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus”

“of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus.”

“of the great God and of Jesus Christ our Saviour”

“of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,”

“of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”

“of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ”

“of the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”



There, it should be so obvious which ones were from people with limited education. So which ones do we chalk up as coming from uneducated persons and why? Don’t be shy now. Obviously half of these Bibles are from people who don’t know much about Greek. So which ones are not legitimate translations? This is your opportunity to prove that the translators of the NWT don’t have a clue on Greek. Don’t blow it.

[Oliver Cromwell]

There is no faulty nature. As I clearly demonstrated that knowing the credentials of a translator in no way verifies the correctness of a translation. But I’ll give you an opportunity to prove me wrong in a minute. Here's your logic:



1.) The NWT doesn't list their credentials so apparenlty they don't have any.



Let's review - The challenge was made to the credibility of the NWT due to the charge of linguistic incompetence which allegedly is a result of the absence of credentialed scholars who participated in its production. Rather than provide contrary evidence which would refute this charge, you have attempted to establish its credibility in a different fashion. You are hoping to deflect the charge of linguistic incompetence by demonstrating that the NWT follows the translation of other contemporary translations (which were produced by credentialed scholars) at various points. As I have repeatedly pointed out in my previous posts, however, this fact alone cannot establish the linguistic competence of the "translators" of the NWT since it is possible to produce an English "translation" with little or no knowledge of the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic (to say nothing of the history and culture) that closely mirrors other credible translations. You could easily refute this allegation of mine by demonstrating the necessary logical relationship between the similarities you are appealing to and the consequent credibility of each translation.



It should also be a rather simple matter for you to address this challenge of linguistic incompetence by simply listing the scholars who participated in the translation of the NWT and detailing their respective experience in translating works of antiquity. Then you’ll end this challenge to the credibility of the NWT in a rather decisive fashion. Apart from this though, I can understand the embarrassment that is naturally concomitant to attempting to defend a translation that has been hidden in secrecy with regard to the credentials and experience of its "translators" - and so your rhetoric makes sense at a psychological (if not logical) level.





2.) Since people who don't like the beliefs of JW's don't approve of the NWT, it must be a faulty translation.



I don’t recall using this type of logic to address anything you’ve said. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that you will search in vain to find the source of this premise in any of my previous posts to you.





3.) Just because the NWT's translations agree with a number of reputable Bibles from people you do consider qualified doesn't mean the NWT's translation is good.



Well this is close to what I’m saying, but not precisely how I would state it – the fact that there is alleged similarity (and I have yet to see you produce any sort of firm statistical evidence comparing the NWT with any contemporary translation btw) between the NWT and other credible translations does nothing to establish the linguistic competence or credibility of the NWT since it could overwhelming agree with these translations and still be produced by amateurs with no knowledge of the original languages or the discipline of linguistics (e.g., it could have been copied from prior credible English translations – it could rely heavily on the published work of other scholars – it could be translated by simple use of an interlinear and basic grammar, etc.).





Now tell me how that fits into good logic



Because Trinitarians don’t like it.



I'm not sure who you're refuting here – I never made this claim. That straw man did fall impressively when you huffed and puffed though :teeth:





No legitimate points were made.



A cavalier dismissal if there ever was one. Assertions are easy enough to make I suppose. The difficulty arises when one calls your bluff and challenges you to establish warrant for strong claims like this. Let me throw down the gauntlet – substantiate this statement by demonstrating how the points I made were illegitimate. I understand that you think they were illegitimate – now please show me why they are so. And anticipating an absence of serious interaction with my points - Shall I interpret your continued failure to demonstrate the illegitimacy of them as a sign of your inability to do so?





Here, I’ll give you a chance to make your argument. Which of the following translations of Titus 2:13 are obviously from people not qualified to translate? From people who are ignorant in Greek?





“of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,”



“of the Great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus”



“of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus”



“of the Great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus”



“of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed”



“of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus”



“of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus.”



“of the great God and of Jesus Christ our Saviour”



“of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,”



“of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”



“of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ”



“of the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”



There, it should be so obvious which ones were from people with limited education. So which ones do we chalk up as coming from uneducated persons and why? Don’t be shy now. Obviously half of these Bibles are from people who don’t know much about Greek. So which ones are not legitimate translations? This is your opportunity to prove that the translators of the NWT don’t have a clue on Greek. Don’t blow it.



Before we lose sight of the point that makes your utilization of this data suspect, let’s review my challenge to you once again. I have demonstrated (and you have yet to conclusively refute) that the similarity in translation between credible Bible translations and the NWT doesn’t necessarily lend credibility to the NWT. This is the point I have been making from the very beginning. If it does – just answer this question - In what logical way is credibility transferred to the NWT due to the similarity between its translation of a particular verse and the translation of a scholarly produced translation? This is where you should easily be able to logically establish your point – state your premises and the necessary conclusions – End of argument – case closed.

Regards,

Cromwell

[NonTrinitarian]

Let's review - The challenge was made to the credibility of the NWT due to the charge of linguistic incompetence which allegedly is a result of the absence of credentialed scholars who participated in its production.

Alas, your first faulty logic, which I already addressed. Not providing credentials is not logical proof of a lack of credentials. If it is, show me what logic class teaches that.

rather than provide contrary evidence which would refute this charge, you have attempted to establish its credibility in a different fashion. You are hoping to deflect the charge of linguistic incompetence by demonstrating that the NWT follows the translation of other contemporary translations (which were produced by credentialed scholars) at various points…. It should also be a rather simple matter for you to address this challenge of linguistic incompetence by simply listing the scholars who participated in the translation of the NWT and detailing their respective experience in translating works of antiquity. Then you’ll end this challenge to the credibility of the NWT in a rather decisive fashion. Apart from this though, I can understand the embarrassment that is naturally concomitant to attempting to defend a translation that has been hidden in secrecy with regard to the credentials and experience of its "translators" - and so your rhetoric makes sense at a psychological (if not logical) level.

I already stated in this thread that I don’t know the credentials of the NWT committee. Neither do you. Your logical fallacy is assuming if you don’t know and I don’t know then obviously they didn’t have any.

As I have repeatedly pointed out in my previous posts, however, this fact alone cannot establish the linguistic competence of the "translators" of the NWT since it is possible to produce an English "translation" with little or no knowledge of the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic (to say nothing of the history and culture) that closely mirrors other credible translations. You could easily refute this allegation of mine by demonstrating the necessary logical relationship between the similarities you are appealing to and the consequent credibility of each translation.

I’m not here to discuss the credentials of the NWT committee because none of us know them. So if that’s what you want, you might as well go away because I can’t give them to you. I am here to discuss the competency of the NWT though and thus far you have provided no evidence of it being a faulty translation. Let me put it this way:

Let’s assume there are ten versions of the Bible you feel are THE best. An uneducated man in Greek goes through and writes a verse from each translation in rotation, IE.-Genesis 1:1 from one Bible, 1:2 from another, 1:3 from the next and so on, then repeats again at 1:11. Has this man demonstrated his competency in translation? No. Is there anything there that would tell other scholars that the person who did this is incompetent? There might be if the man used two versions that disagreed with how a set of verses should be translated and he used these two versions back to back. Then it may have one sentence arguing with the next. But if the man, when he came across a situation like that, altered his rotation so there was no disagreements from one verse to the next, on what charge do you say the man’s version is faulty? O what basis would the scholars question his translation? If he lied and said “I have a doctorate in Greek” they would probably have no reason to question him. After all, his Bible version reads similar to the 10 best versions out there. What logic says ten rights make a wrong? How are you going to prove this man’s version is wrong and full of errors?

Let’s get back to the NWT because that’s what I’m discussing, not the NWT Committee’s credentials. Demonstrate to me that the NWT is faulty and well have something to talk about. You’re hung up on the credentials of the committee and won’t directly bring out a problem with the NWT. My guess is you don’t even have one. So lay out your evidence for a faulty translation and we can discuss it. Otherwise we have nothing to talk about.



of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,”
“of the Great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus”
“of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus”
“of the Great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus”
“of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed”
“of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus”
“of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus.”
“of the great God and of Jesus Christ our Saviour”
“of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,”
“of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”
“of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ”
“of the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”

Before we lose sight of the point that makes your utilization of this data suspect, let’s review my challenge to you once again. I have demonstrated (and you have yet to conclusively refute) that the similarity in translation between credible Bible translations and the NWT doesn’t necessarily lend credibility to the NWT. This is the point I have been making from the very beginning. If it does – just answer this question - In what logical way is credibility transferred to the NWT due to the similarity between its translation of a particular verse and the translation of a scholarly produced translation? This is where you should easily be able to logically establish your point – state your premises and the necessary conclusions – End of argument – case closed.

No one has lost sight of the point, you’re just avoiding it and misstating the argument. Show me in what way the NWT is not a credible translation. Apparently someone with a doctorate degree saying it is a good translation isn’t enough to convince you so why would me listing the credentials of a few more suffice you? What is it? One doctorate isn’t good enough but three is? Or do you need four? Ten? No amount of credentials will quiet you. So put out your faults with the NWT or admit there aren’t any. And we will take your “faults” and compare them and see how many other Bibles we can label as incompetent.


Take the verses above from Titus. Who is going to read those and then read the NWT at Titus 2:13 and say “Oh man, the JW’s are idiots in Greek. This translation is terrible. Sure, it reads just like eight other Bibles I have but this is still garbage. Yes, I know there are many scholars whom I respect who say Titus 2:13 can be translated this way but since I don’t know the credentials of the NWT Committee, this translation of Titus 2:13 is terrible.”

The harmony of the NWT with many different versions shows it is a competent translation. The 7,000 mistranslations in the other versions where they don’t translate God’s Name in the Hebrew marks the NWT as a superior version. Prove it wrong

[Oliver Cromwell]

I began this thread by analyzing, purely from a logical point of view, the faulty nature of your rhetoric - a charge that you have repeatedly failed to address. In fact, rather than provide a positive logical syllogism which proves your earlier claims – you have chosen to attempt to call into question my own use of logic, which is a curious rhetorical tactic to say the least. Surely you can appreciate that my own logic (or lack thereof) really has no relationship to the logic of your rhetoric. If in fact I have made illogical statements (and I must confess I have yet to see a direct quote of mine used to substantiate this claim) the only thing this would prove is that we’re both illogical because you still have failed to provide the logical rational for how and why similarity in translation at certain points between credible Bible translations and the NWT provides credibility to the NWT. You just keep repeating the claim, as if somehow saying it over and over will establish it as true. I think we can leave to the reader of this exchange what conclusion should be drawn from your failure to provide a logical rational for how similarity in translation between the NWT to credible Bible translations establishes the credibility of the NWT.



Now lest we lose sight of the original point – let’s (once again) review - The credibility of the NWT has seriously been called into question due to the fact that it was published anonymously. Later revelations called into question the academic credentials (i.e., the lack thereof) and linguistic competence of the translators. Now whether you believe these allegations or not, the fact remains that suspicions remain strong that the NWT is the work of amateurs without linguistic competence or academic credentials if for no other reason than its anonymous and secretive publication. The way you have approached this dialogue leads me to believe that you also suspect that the translators were amateurs with no linguistic competence or credentials (although I also suspect that even if we learned that the NWT was translated by the producers of Sesame Street, this fact would be irrelevant to you).



Therefore, my whole point in entering this dialogue was to demonstrate that the logic you have been using to establish the credibility of the NWT (in absence of an ability to appeal to the credentials and experience of the translators) is faulty. Therefore, you need to find some other route to establish the credibility of this translation in light of the absence of an explicit knowledge of the competency of its translators and the failure of your current method.



Finally, your concluding statement from your last post illustrates how you have attempted to overcome the challenge to the credibility of the NWT:



The harmony of the NWT with many different versions shows it is a competent translation. The 7,000 mistranslations in the other versions where they don’t translate God’s Name in the Hebrew marks the NWT as a superior version. Prove it wrong



Once again you’ve simply claimed that the alleged harmony of the NWT with credible translations somehow confers credibility to the NWT and yet the task still remains for you to logically prove this claim. Show me why this proves the NWT is a credible translation. As I’ve said previously - rank amateurs with no linguistic competence could produce a “translation” of the Old and New Testaments merely by relying on previous English translations, an interlinear, and the critical work of real scholars and yet this wouldn’t represent a serious or credible translation.



With regard to the common Jehovah's Witness rhetorical tactic of switching the subject (to the issue of God’s covenant name in this instance) to deflect attention away from your inability to interact with these points – I usually find that this rhetorical tactic (inadvertently) signals an inability to continue to pursue the current topic of discussion. Let’s stick with the point I originally raised and which you have thus far failed to address. Logic – you provide it, I'll listen.


Regards,

Cromwell

PS: Do you plan on addressing the points from my previous posts that you earlier just dismissed or shall I take your continued silence in this regard as an embarrassed admission of an inability to do so?

[twohumble]

Nontrinitarian:

I have a question. If one of the members of your scholarly panel of translators were to admit , under oath, that he had no expertise in Hebrew, or NT Greek, would you then acknowledge the faulty nature of the entire puplication?

The premise is as follows: Scholarship is necessary to accurately represent ancient liturature into modern english, hence, lack of scholarship will result in a lack of a credible or reliable translation, or transliteration. This is the syllogism that is, and was the origination of this thread. I think Oliver is pointing out that you have only used "case" studies (as we say in the medical field) rather than any real statistical study of the different interpretations as it relates to your claims. By so doing, you have switched the focus, or used strawman tactics in dealing with the reliability issues surrounding your translation.

As always, just an opinion.

[NonTrinitarian]

Mr. Cromwell,
I believe I have demonstrated quite convincingly for all who have read this that I am ready to discuss the NWT. I can't discuss the committee because I don't have any informatoin to discuss about them. I have asked you over and over to demonstrate that the NWT is a poor translation. You have yet to provide any evidence other than retyping the same stuff over and over about logic and asking me to prove that the NWT is better (which you think the only way to do is by giving the credentials of the committee). Apparenlty even a few quotes from Non-JW scholars who praise the NWT is not enough. Your mind is apparently already made up and yet you have offered no example of poor grammatical errors in the NWT. I am certainly willing to discuss the NWT, are you?

Bring on the examples that demonstrate that it is a terrible translation or drop the subject. Repeating yourself is not very convincing.

[Oliver Cromwell]

Mr. Cromwell,
I believe I have demonstrated quite convincingly for all who have read this that I am ready to discuss the NWT. I can't discuss the committee because I don't have any informatoin to discuss about them. I have asked you over and over to demonstrate that the NWT is a poor translation. You have yet to provide any evidence other than retyping the same stuff over and over about logic and asking me to prove that the NWT is better (which you think the only way to do is by giving the credentials of the committee). Apparenlty even a few quotes from Non-JW scholars who praise the NWT is not enough. Your mind is apparently already made up and yet you have offered no example of poor grammatical errors in the NWT. I am certainly willing to discuss the NWT, are you?

Bring on the examples that demonstrate that it is a terrible translation or drop the subject. Repeating yourself is not very convincing.
No, I'm not interested in debating the worthiness of the NWT - I will leave that to others more patient than I with the usual Arian rhetoric. That's not why I made my original post here - go back and re-read my first post. I entered this dialogue with the hopes of disabusing you of the logical fallacy you were utilizing in your attempt to surmount the challenge to the credibility of the NWT. This hope was apparently too ambitious to say the least.



You are right in your observation that my mind is made up – The NWT is a non-credible translation with extreme and systematic theological (Arian) bias. And your mind is made up as well, you are certain that it's a superior English translation, and you would continue to believe this even if you one day discovered that Bert, Ernie, and the cookie monster were the translators. Isn't that right?





Regards,



Cromwell

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrinitarian:

I have a question. If one of the members of your scholarly panel of translators were to admit , under oath, that he had no expertise in Hebrew, or NT Greek, would you then acknowledge the faulty nature of the entire puplication?

The premise is as follows: Scholarship is necessary to accurately represent ancient liturature into modern english, hence, lack of scholarship will result in a lack of a credible or reliable translation, or transliteration. This is the syllogism that is, and was the origination of this thread. I think Oliver is pointing out that you have only used "case" studies (as we say in the medical field) rather than any real statistical study of the different interpretations as it relates to your claims. By so doing, you have switched the focus, or used strawman tactics in dealing with the reliability issues surrounding your translation.

As always, just an opinion.

Twohumble,

I know what Oliver is saying. But as I already said for the gazillionth time, I don’t know the credentials. So if that’s what it takes to discuss the credibility of the NWT, let’s just close this thread up right now and go home! If I present quotes from credited scholars who praise the NWT, will this suffice? Apparently not for Oliver. So what else do you want me to do? Oliver has a standard that I don’t accept. I look at the NWT itself and compare it to other Bibles to see how good it is. There are many translations out there and they cannot all be right since they disagree with each other. So how does having scholarly credentials prove a translation is correct? It doesn’t. Otherwise explain why the NIV and the NAB translate Titus 2:13 totally different from each other. So we can either discuss the NWT or I will move on to another thread. Oliver has yet to demonstrate any significant errors in the NWT. I don’t even think Oliver has a NWT.



On to your other point, no. Why would I say the NWT is faulty because one person said he can't speak Hebrew? WHo says he was even on the NWT committee? I am familiar with F.W. Franz and this point. Here is the trial:

Cross: You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?

Franz: I do not speak Hebrew

Cross: You do not?

Franz: No

Cross: Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?

Franz: Which?

Cross: That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis?

Franz: You mean here?

Cross: Yes

Franz: No. I won’t attempt to do that.



I assume this is what you are referring to? Firstly, you make the assumption that Franz was on the NWT committee. Second, it assumes no one else on the committee could translate it either. Third, this doesn’t have anything to do with the Greek language. Now why would Franz not attempt to translate the English into Hebrew? (Note, this is very different from translating Hebrew into English. I am learning Chinese and I can go from Chinese to English much easier than from English to Chinese.) Note the following quote from the book “Handbook of Biblical Hebrew” by William Sanford LaSor-

“All learning is in context. The context, however, is not artificial, composed perchance by one who does not use the language naturally, but rather it is the actual language of those who used it as their mother-tongue. For this reason, I refuse to ask the students to compose sentences in Hebrew. To do so is to impress errors on the student’s mind. And, frankly, most of us who teach biblical Hebrew do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it.” (page 3, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978)

And keeping in mind Franz’ earlier testimony that he could read and follow the Hebrew Bible with his admission that he could not speak it, we can understand his refusal for trying to convert English into Hebrew. He may not have even known how the language sounds and would have been unable to speak it to the court in the first place. And of course, the quote from this university Hebrew professor demonstrates that even most teachers of biblical Hebrew could not do what Franz was asked to do. So this whole trial thing is bogus.

[twohumble]

Twohumble,

I know what Oliver is saying. But as I already said for the gazillionth time, I don’t know the credentials. So if that’s what it takes to discuss the credibility of the NWT, let’s just close this thread up right now and go home! If I present quotes from credited scholars who praise the NWT, will this suffice? Apparently not for Oliver. So what else do you want me to do? Oliver has a standard that I don’t accept. I look at the NWT itself and compare it to other Bibles to see how good it is. There are many translations out there and they cannot all be right since they disagree with each other. So how does having scholarly credentials prove a translation is correct? It doesn’t. Otherwise explain why the NIV and the NAB translate Titus 2:13 totally different from each other. So we can either discuss the NWT or I will move on to another thread. Oliver has yet to demonstrate any significant errors in the NWT. I don’t even think Oliver has a NWT.



On to your other point, no. Why would I say the NWT is faulty because one person said he can't speak Hebrew? WHo says he was even on the NWT committee? I am familiar with F.W. Franz and this point. Here is the trial:

Cross: You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?

Franz: I do not speak Hebrew

Cross: You do not?

Franz: No

Cross: Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?

Franz: Which?

Cross: That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis?

Franz: You mean here?

Cross: Yes

Franz: No. I won’t attempt to do that.



I assume this is what you are referring to? Firstly, you make the assumption that Franz was on the NWT committee. Second, it assumes no one else on the committee could translate it either. Third, this doesn’t have anything to do with the Greek language. Now why would Franz not attempt to translate the English into Hebrew? (Note, this is very different from translating Hebrew into English. I am learning Chinese and I can go from Chinese to English much easier than from English to Chinese.) Note the following quote from the book “Handbook of Biblical Hebrew” by William Sanford LaSor-

“All learning is in context. The context, however, is not artificial, composed perchance by one who does not use the language naturally, but rather it is the actual language of those who used it as their mother-tongue. For this reason, I refuse to ask the students to compose sentences in Hebrew. To do so is to impress errors on the student’s mind. And, frankly, most of us who teach biblical Hebrew do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it.” (page 3, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978)

And keeping in mind Franz’ earlier testimony that he could read and follow the Hebrew Bible with his admission that he could not speak it, we can understand his refusal for trying to convert English into Hebrew. He may not have even known how the language sounds and would have been unable to speak it to the court in the first place. And of course, the quote from this university Hebrew professor demonstrates that even most teachers of biblical Hebrew could not do what Franz was asked to do. So this whole trial thing is bogus.
Not quite accurate, but at least you agree that the member is incapable of simple translations. He was asked to simply translate it, and not speak it to the court, and would not. He could have simply transliterated it or paraphrased it for the court, yet he refused. He did not say "I will not attempt that" he said "NO", when asked if he could translate it. You have again moved the goal posts.

This man did not even graduate university, he dropped out. When he was a fresh, and soph, no courses in Greek or Hebrew were taken. Yet, this man was one of 5 men, and he was the MOST learned of the bunch. The names were accidentally made public, and Franz was the most learned they had on their translation committee. The number of scholars which are top in their field who disagree with the NWT is astounding. They not only disagree, they call it adjuctives such as "pernicious, dishonest,erroneous, reprehensible, a diliberate distortion of the truth, and intellectually dishonest". I am not sure you can sluff these type of critisisms off to the "trinitarian" bias, but I am sure that is where you will try to go with this.

I only ask that you consider the obvious implication of the fact that The Watchtower veils this, and does not address it. Remember, darkness hates light, and it seems that fits here, since to shine the light on this translation puts in real question its history.

[One Bad Pig]

Bring on the examples that demonstrate that it is a terrible translation or drop the subject. Repeating yourself is not very convincing.
Non-Trin,

Mr. Cromwell is not trying to prove that the NWT is a terrible translation. Rather, he wants you (as a self-appointed defender of the NWT) to prove that the NWT is an excellent translation, regardless of how it compares to other translations. When a translation is published, those who publish it have the responsibility of proving its merit -- not everyone else in the field.

[NonTrinitarian]

Not quite accurate, but at least you agree that the member is incapable of simple translations. He was asked to simply translate it, and not speak it to the court, and would not. He could have simply transliterated it or paraphrased it for the court, yet he refused. He did not say "I will not attempt that" he said "NO", when asked if he could translate it. You have again moved the goal posts.
Twohumble, you are a victim of bad information on at least two points so I can only assume you continue to be a victim on the others as well, Where did you get your information on Franz' testimony? Ron Rhodes? Walter Martin? My information came from the following:

Douglas Welsh v The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, M.P.C., as representing the Minister of Labour and National Service, cross-examination of Frederick William Franz, p. 102 (Scotland, 1953) as reproduced in the book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended.

I introduced three errors in the cited source. Can you find them?

Note also the following excerpt from Greg Stafford:
"To the question, "Can you translate that [Gen 2:4] into Hebrew?" Rhodes [as in Ron Rhodes] has Franz saying simply, "No." But that is not all he said. His complete answer was, "No. I won't attempt to do that." (Stafford then references the above cited reference, pages 102 and 103, par. F.) By emphasizing the last portion of his answer (which Rhodes ommitted) we would like to point out that Franz did not say that he could not translate the English of Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, but that he would not attempt to do so. Why would he refuse to do so? Perhaps the answer to this questio will be better understood after we consider the following comments from William Sanford LaSor."

I then reproduced LaSor's comments above which clearly state that this university professor in Hebrew believed few teachers of biblical Hebrew can easily translate from English into Hebrew and he would not even ask his students to do such. (Which you didn't address BTW. So what proof are you offering to refute it?)

This man did not even graduate university, he dropped out. When he was a fresh, and soph, no courses in Greek or Hebrew were taken.
The bad information train continues to roll. Franz had two years of Greek at the University of Cincinnati before dropping out to become a full-time preacher.

Yet, this man was one of 5 men, and he was the MOST learned of the bunch. The names were accidentally made public, and Franz was the most learned they had on their translation committee. The number of scholars which are top in their field who disagree with the NWT is astounding. They not only disagree, they call it adjuctives such as "pernicious, dishonest,erroneous, reprehensible, a diliberate distortion of the truth, and intellectually dishonest". I am not sure you can sluff these type of critisisms off to the "trinitarian" bias, but I am sure that is where you will try to go with this.
Hmm. You are already 0-2 on incorrect information, which leads me to believe you also struck out on who the NWT committee consisted of. I also have quotes from Scholars who say of the NWT

“I have just completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, [U.S.A.] . . . This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students…Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your ‘New World Bible Translation Committee’ has done its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your ‘New World Translation’ is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today.”- Dr. Jason BeDuhn

“I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”—Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation.

“The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson, in The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7.

“The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963.



“The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed—a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966.

“This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. . . . After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary text. . . . The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate. . . . In sum, when a Witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to bring him in and place an order.”—From a review of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, by Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska, appearing in The Classical Journal, April–May 1974.

But I’m sure you’ll say the Watchtower made up these quotes. Not that I really care. I already know you’re wrong on the first two points. So where DID you get your version of the Trial?



OBP said



Non-Trin,

Mr. Cromwell is not trying to prove that the NWT is a terrible translation. Rather, he wants you (as a self-appointed defender of the NWT) to prove that the NWT is an excellent translation, regardless of how it compares to other translations. When a translation is published, those who publish it have the responsibility of proving its merit -- not everyone else in the field. Actually OBP, he is. Since Cromwell doesn't know the credentials of the NWT, he assumes it is bad. I’ll let the quotes above answer that. And of course, it should be pretty straight forward that if it is reading the same as “good translations” then it’s wording is good. Now if anyone has specific issues we can discuss them.

[twohumble]

Twohumble, you are a victim of bad information on at least two points so I can only assume you continue to be a victim on the others as well, Where did you get your information on Franz' testimony? Ron Rhodes? Walter Martin? My information came from the following:

Douglas Welsh v The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, M.P.C., as representing the Minister of Labour and National Service, cross-examination of Frederick William Franz, p. 102 (Scotland, 1953) as reproduced in the book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended.

I introduced three errors in the cited source. Can you find them?

Note also the following excerpt from Greg Stafford:
"To the question, "Can you translate that [Gen 2:4] into Hebrew?" Rhodes [as in Ron Rhodes] has Franz saying simply, "No." But that is not all he said. His complete answer was, "No. I won't attempt to do that." (Stafford then references the above cited reference, pages 102 and 103, par. F.) By emphasizing the last portion of his answer (which Rhodes ommitted) we would like to point out that Franz did not say that he could not translate the English of Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, but that he would not attempt to do so. Why would he refuse to do so? Perhaps the answer to this questio will be better understood after we consider the following comments from William Sanford LaSor."

We have learned a few things from your response for sure: first and foremost, you are not as ignorant of the history of the translation committee as you have pretended in prior posts. We have also learned, that even if we disagree on whether some minimal exposure to Greek, may or may not have occured, it falls woefully short of anything remotely like "authoritative scholarship" that would be required to undertake the lead role in translation of ancient documents of both OT Hebrew, and ancient Aramaic, and even 2 years exposure to modern Greek would not in any way begin to qualify someone for the role Franz undertook.

We also can agree that there seems to be a rather large disparity in critiques of the NWT, and that in itself is odd. You don't seem to see this degree of swing in the comments regarding other translations. It must make you wonder the reason. I would wonder if the NWT has any mainstream scholarship that hails it as scholarly. I make no pretense to be a scholar in this area, so Ric, or Oliver should comment regarding this.

I then reproduced LaSor's comments above which clearly state that this university professor in Hebrew believed few teachers of biblical Hebrew can easily translate from English into Hebrew and he would not even ask his students to do such. (Which you didn't address BTW. So what proof are you offering to refute it?)
This is a strawman argument that is very imaginative on the part of the Watchtower. The fact is, he was not asked to speak Hebrew or compose a Hebrew sentence. He was asked to translate from one to the other in a translation or transliteration method. Even a Latin 101 course requires you to do this. The quote from the Hebrew prof. was interesting for sure, but not at all on point. Read your bold areas again...it said the prof admitted most were not fluent enough to speak, compose (free thought composition, which significantly differs from translation), or write (which again, in context refers to free thought composition). You will note that the prof did not say "I don't have my students translate ideas from one language to the other, as this would be ludicrous since this is the main thrust of learning the language. It would be like saying my chem prof really didn't want us to mix the chemicals, just stare at them.


The bad information train continues to roll. Franz had two years of Greek at the University of Cincinnati before dropping out to become a full-time preacher.

Addressed above, our sources disagree, and unless one of us has the transcripts, its a mute point. However, your admission of knowing him, and his background if very telling. The admission that a 2 yr drop out is on your translation committee is also revealing.

Hmm. You are already 0-2 on incorrect information, which leads me to believe you also struck out on who the NWT committee consisted of. I also have quotes from Scholars who say of the NWT
You dispute the copy of the transcript I quoted, which in essence, is minor, and you admit your translator is a drop out, and you call this a strike out? Regarding your scholars that hail your NWT, I will first note that the date of publication of these quotes is quite old, and may have something to do with the thought that the NWT is "good"..since modern scholarship has illuminated many errors of earlier works...I am sure that is true with the NWT too. Again, not my area so I will leave it to others.



But I’m sure you’ll say the Watchtower made up these quotes. Not that I really care. I already know you’re wrong on the first two points. So where DID you get your version of the Trial?

my source is not specifically from Rhodes, but it is the same source he used:
Erich and Jean Grieshaber: Expose' of Jehovah's Witnesses p.100 1982



Now if anyone has specific issues we can discuss them.

I have MANY specifics...gave you a few, you refused to answer, and insisted I answer yours first. Are you willing to defend the NWT's position? If so, I will be glad to give you specifics.

[NonTrinitarian]

Twohumble-
I never played ignorant on anything. Show me where I did or I'll chalk this as yet one more instance where you put your foot in your mouth. I don't know who was on the committee so If I had Franz' whole life memorized it wouldn't matter. Furthermore, I have continued to provide further information from scholars, even a modern one, praising the NWT. As far as the negative ones, it is all too obvious it stems from their dislike for JW's rather than scholarship. For instance, most of the attacks on the NWT are on specific verses which we then turn around and show that even there Bibles translate like. The hypocrisy is very telling on these critics.

Yes, let's discuss specifics. I already addressed John 1:1 and Col 2:9. But before we begin, I would like to know what your response will be when I show other accepted Bibles and how they translate like the NWT.

Furthermore, you are a little too cocky with your information. Take the instance above where you said I 'moved the goal post' and implied I lied about Franz' testimony. A little more humbleness on your part would probably have caused you to say 'My information says Franz just said "no". Why the disparity?' A little humilty can save you some embarassment.

[twohumble]

Twohumble-
I never played ignorant on anything. Show me where I did or I'll chalk this as yet one more instance where you put your foot in your mouth. I don't know who was on the committee so If I had Franz' whole life memorized it wouldn't matter. Furthermore, I have continued to provide further information from scholars, even a modern one, praising the NWT. As far as the negative ones, it is all too obvious it stems from their dislike for JW's rather than scholarship. For instance, most of the attacks on the NWT are on specific verses which we then turn around and show that even there Bibles translate like. The hypocrisy is very telling on these critics.

Yes, let's discuss specifics. I already addressed John 1:1 and Col 2:9. But before we begin, I would like to know what your response will be when I show other accepted Bibles and how they translate like the NWT.

Furthermore, you are a little too cocky with your information. Take the instance above where you said I 'moved the goal post' and implied I lied about Franz' testimony. A little more humbleness on your part would probably have caused you to say 'My information says Franz just said "no". Why the disparity?' A little humilty can save you some embarassment.

Your glaring omission in this response to my points is telling. You misused the quote from LaSor, you clearly were familiar with Franz and his relation to the translation committee. You also were intimately knowledgable of Franzs' woefully inept training. Yet, you make no response to this? Instead, you attack me and talk about my lack of humility?

In regard to my response to other translations that may, or may not agree with the NWT, I would defer that to the linguistic experts, and their take on it. However, I would agree with Oliver when he states, this has no bearing on the validity of the NWT.

Let me illustrate with a general hypothetical from my own field. As a doctor who practices sports medicine, I can tell you that sprained ankles, of the inversion sprain nature, respond much better to early movement and not rest, as has been the standard of care for decades. You will probably have heard of R.I.C.E. which stands for rest, ice, compression, and elevation. You will go to many many doctors and emergency rooms today, and many 'sports doctors' or orthopedists, who will still tell you to "RICE" it. It is totalllywrong. So, in other words, just because you can tell me 10 other 'experts' agree with your NWT or 20, that in no way makes it true.

In regard to "saving myself some embarassment", you must assume I am embarassed? I am not in the least. On the other hand, your refusal to acknowledge the clandestine nature of the Watchtowers 'translation committee', and its lack of credentialled scholarship, is embarassing to say the least.

[NonTrinitarian]

Whatever. I guess enough of putting one's foot in one's mouth hardens one to such things. I see no purpose in going in further with this discussion with you because it can't go anywhere. No matter how many "experts" or Bible scholars I present to show a rendering in the NWT is good it will not suit you. You'll just say "Well, he's wrong, just as Doctors in my field are wrong."

And thus far you have in no way proven any errors or mistranslations. I've got about 7,000 right off the bat on every translation accept the New Jerusalem Bible as they don't translate God's Name. Any one else interested in a discussion?

[twohumble]

Whatever. I guess enough of putting one's foot in one's mouth hardens one to such things. I see no purpose in going in further with this discussion with you because it can't go anywhere. No matter how many "experts" or Bible scholars I present to show a rendering in the NWT is good it will not suit you. You'll just say "Well, he's wrong, just as Doctors in my field are wrong."

And thus far you have in no way proven any errors or mistranslations. I've got about 7,000 right off the bat on every translation accept the New Jerusalem Bible as they don't translate God's Name. Any one else interested in a discussion?
No offense, but I don't blame ya. You have taken a non-defensible position. Your head translator is a college drop out, and your use of the Hebrew professors quote totally out of context. This puts you in a position of surrendering this argument. Blaming me for being "hardend" is a good face saving way out.

[NonTrinitarian]

No offense, but I don't blame ya. You have taken a non-defensible position. Your head translator is a college drop out, and your use of the Hebrew professors quote totally out of context. This puts you in a position of surrendering this argument. Blaming me for being "hardend" is a good face saving way out.
The only comment I have is that I did not abuse the quote from the Hebrew professor. I wanted to let it slide because I was feeling sorry for you but since you keep pushing it, I'll have to call you out on it. Look up the word "compose" in the dictionary. If you know anything about translation, it IS composing. Check out an interlinear and note the difference between the word for word rendering and any translation you have. Translating is not just converting a word in one language to another (which is what interlinears do), it involves composing the words in the proper order for your langauge. The quote clearly shows composing (IE, Translating) from English to Hebrew is a very difficult task for a native English speaker. In the same way, go talk to someone who is just learning English and see how they compose their sentences from their langauge to English. They may have all the right words but it is not composed in the correct order. Example:
English: What did you do in Beijing yesterday?
Chinese: Ni zoutien xia Beijing zuo shema le
A word for word rendering is: You yesterday located Beijing do what have?
But the translation is: What did you do in Beijing yesterday?

I've been studying Chinese for sometime and I still can't compose my English into Chinese very well because I'm not used to the language structure. However, I can hear Chinese and compose it into English pretty good.

So Hebrew students should be able to compose Hebrew into English but for the most part are not qualifed to compose English into Hebrew, per the quote I used properly. And that was what Franz was asked to do. Translate ENGLISH into HEBREW, not Hebrew into English. If Franz tried to compose it he probably would have had to do it word for word and it would have sounded terrible to a Hebrew speaker. Then the attack would have been just as bad. But as we can see from our quote, few Hebrew professors would have been able to compose that verse from English into Hebrew. Again, lack of knowledge causes you to make one bad comment after another.

[twohumble]

Nontrin

I took Spanish for 3 years ...years ago.....I had a workbook that required both directions of translation. My son, and my daughter both now take AP classes in foreign languages in HS. Funny, even at the HS level they are asked to translate English sentences into their choosen languages. The context of the prof, was not to translate, but compose in original form. Clearly no one who really studies another language thinks they will not be asked to translate sentences. Come on, common sense dictates this if nothing else.

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin

I took Spanish for 3 years ...years ago.....I had a workbook that required both directions of translation. My son, and my daughter both now take AP classes in foreign languages in HS. Funny, even at the HS level they are asked to translate English sentences into their choosen languages. The context of the prof, was not to translate, but compose in original form. Clearly no one who really studies another language thinks they will not be asked to translate sentences. Come on, common sense dictates this if nothing else.
Then why don't you explain to all of us the difference between translate and compose. Again, note that the word-for-word renderings are NOT called translations. I think just about anyone who has studied a foreign language can appreciate the difference between rendering a sentence in a word-for-word manner and composing it into a legitimate sentence. But if you think differently, why don't you tell us the difference.

[twohumble]

Then why don't you explain to all of us the difference between translate and compose. Again, note that the word-for-word renderings are NOT called translations. I think just about anyone who has studied a foreign language can appreciate the difference between rendering a sentence in a word-for-word manner and composing it into a legitimate sentence. But if you think differently, why don't you tell us the difference.
to paraphrase a particular poster on this thread...I am done with this. Your argument does not pass the "snort" test. To imply a competent linguist cannot transliterate a sentence is absurd. There is no point in going further with this discussion.

[NonTrinitarian]

to paraphrase a particular poster on this thread...I am done with this. Your argument does not pass the "snort" test. To imply a competent linguist cannot transliterate a sentence is absurd. There is no point in going further with this discussion.
Suit yourself. But note the fact that there is a difference between transliterate and translate. Over and out.

[kelliholloran]

You can get one for free at your local "Kingdom Hall."

[bar Jonah]

If you still need a New Whirled Translation, NSM, I recommend you check out places like ARC stores, and other similar places. I occasionally go there and buy up the super-cheap used books for 50 cents to a dollar, just buying the heretical garbage and cult works like the New World Translation, Book of Mormon, New Age nonsense, and some of the worse Catholic junk, so I can take it home and rip it up and throw it away. (Burning them has become so passe...) A small cost to myself, and no one else will be misled by their lies, at least.

I almost always see the New World Translation and Book of Mormon there.

Oo, I just had another idea! Try the Grace Base bookstore, affiliated with Tweb! If I am not mistaken, he probably still has a couple copies of the Book of Mormon and New World Translation, and probably some other garbage translations like "Today's English Version" (TEV) and the Local Church cult's "Recovery Version."

[NSMinistries]

If you still need a New Whirled Translation, NSM, I recommend you check out places like ARC stores, and other similar places. I occasionally go there and buy up the super-cheap used books for 50 cents to a dollar, just buying the heretical garbage and cult works like the New World Translation, Book of Mormon, New Age nonsense, and some of the worse Catholic junk, so I can take it home and rip it up and throw it away. (Burning them has become so passe...) A small cost to myself, and no one else will be misled by their lies, at least.

I almost always see the New World Translation and Book of Mormon there.

Oo, I just had another idea! Try the Grace Base bookstore, affiliated with Tweb! If I am not mistaken, he probably still has a couple copies of the Book of Mormon and New World Translation, and probably some other garbage translations like "Today's English Version" (TEV) and the Local Church cult's "Recovery Version."
Ya I got mine throught the Grace Base a couple of months ago...

Yes and good plug...

Buy your books at the Grace Base...

[barryrob]

I'm not going to get into a debate with you on this topic, I was just posting a few of the known mistranslation carefully and purposely done by the WT&TS.

If I had the time I would debate this with you, but be forewarned if you did you would need to be very knowledgeable in Koine Greek!

HI
This is my first time here, but I think the following my be of intrest to you as they support the NWT:-



"prin 'Abraam genesqai egw eimi 'before Abraham came into existence, I existed."-Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 United Bible Societies p.158



"I am from before Abraham was born."-The New Testament by Richmond Lattimore



"I have existed before Abraham was born"-James Moffatt 1948 (Impression)



"I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."-The Original N. T. by Hugh J. Schonfield 1985



"Truly truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born."-The N. T. by Richmond Lattimore



"I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!"-Edger J. Goodspeed 1935 copyright



"Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’"-Chas. Williams’ The New Testament.



"He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been." -A. S. Lewis’ "The Four Gospels" According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest.



"‘Believe me,’ Jesus replied, ‘before Abraham was born I was already what I am.’"-The Twentieth Century New Testament.



"Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was."-G. M. Lamsa’s The Modern New Testament.



"Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was."-Jas. Murdock’s The Syriac New Testament.



"Jesus: ‘Before there was an Abraham, I was already there [war ich schon da]!’"-F. Pfaefflin’s Das Neue Testament (German).



"Jesus said to them: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [war ich].’"-C. Stage’s Das Neue Testament (German).



"Jesus answered: ‘In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [era yo].’"-Nácar Colunga’s Nuevo Testamento (Spanish).



"I have been" (haiithi) instead of in the imperfect form."-F. Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament and that by Salkinson-Ginsburg both have the verb in the perfect form.

"The absloute truth is that I was in existance before Abraham was ever born!"-The Living Bible.



"Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"-New Living Translation 1997



"Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly I tell you: before Abraham was born, I have already been."-The Unvarnished N.T. translated by Andy Gaus 1991



"Jesus said to them, "Mark my words and make no mistake: before Abraham himself was born, I already have being.""-'The Four Gospels' by Norman Marrow p.171



'The Companion Bible' has the following marginal note about the phrase "I am" on page 1540 as found in John 8:58, " 58 was = came into existence : i. e. was born. 1 am."

Christian
Love
barryrob

[barryrob]

If you have not got a copy by now please send me your address and I will post you a copy.

Christian Love
barryrob

[barryrob]

I was able to get one and I have gone through the NWT with a fine tooth comb, it is so scary how the WT&TS has perverted the Scriptures to uphold their false teachings! :eek:
Hi
Please give ma an example? I am a J.W..
Barryrob

[barryrob]

Hi
If the NWT is so poor in its rendering, why do so many other render it in a similar way:-

VARIOUS OTHER RENDERINGS OF JOHN 1:1 TAKEN OF THE W.W.W.






The following is a list of variant translations of John 1:1:



Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."



Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, "and was himself a divine person"



Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"



Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"



La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”



John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god



Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine



Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."



Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."



The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, Second Edition, 1947, “the Word was god”



New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"



Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"



International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]



Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"



Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"



Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"



Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God" Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"



Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”



Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"



Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]



J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"



International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 “In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity.”



Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] Divine Person."



Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"



Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"



Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"



Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" "At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order."



21st Century NT Free "and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal



George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"



Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"



James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"



Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"



Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"



Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature ...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."



William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"



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



Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine



Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was



Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was



J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"



Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"



Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."



Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"



Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"



Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"



Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]



Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"



Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"



Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"



Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"



Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"



Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"



Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]



Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"



Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"



Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]



William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."



John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"



Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"



Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"



Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"



Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'



Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript) "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."



Buzzard/Hunting “In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the Wisdom was God’s Wisdom” (Pro. 8:22-30)



Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1 “III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that “The Word was God”. There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like”


Barryrob

[barryrob]

Any translation at the end of the day should stand on its own merits, is that not so?
BarryRob

[One Bad Pig]

How, exactly, does this rule out a Trinitarian POV? The word "God" is not a proper name; it is a noun which means "Deity". Any way you slice it, John 1:1 portrays Jesus as divine. John 12:41 says that Isaiah saw Jesus, referring to Isaiah chapter 6. YHWH is clearly the referent there.

[bar Jonah]

Any translation at the end of the day should stand on its own merits, is that not so?
BarryRob
Which is why you just compared yours to a whole stack of has-been translations that almost no one takes seriously? :eh:

[barryrob]

This is exactly why I'm not going to get into this here, for without those people with all of those acronyms behind their names who "translated" the NWT are not known, how can we say that the NWT is ligament?

It has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the NWT is a prostituted translation of Scripture, so there is no need for me to prove it too.

This ends this nice little chat on this thread! :bye:
Is it not just dogmatism to make a statement such as the one you have just made with out offering some proof? Is it not dogma that causes problems?



BarryRob

[NonTrinitarian]

How, exactly, does this rule out a Trinitarian POV? The word "God" is not a proper name; it is a noun which means "Deity". Any way you slice it, John 1:1 portrays Jesus as divine. John 12:41 says that Isaiah saw Jesus, referring to Isaiah chapter 6. YHWH is clearly the referent there.
OBP, check out this thread in this forum on this subject. Would like to hear your comments on it.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30823

And you all be nice to Barry. He's new here.

[One Bad Pig]

Done.

[NonTrinitarian]

The NWT is available online at www.watchtower.org (http://www.watchtower.org)

[barryrob]

Which is why you just compared yours to a whole stack of has-been translations that almost no one takes seriously? :eh:
Any version of The Bible needs be respected and should be taken seriously as they have God's Words in them.

BarryRob

[barryrob]

There in no such thing as a "has been" translation of The Holy Bible, if that was the case how do you feel about the 1,000s of year old Hebrew & Greek Texts. I note disrespct in your comment for the Bible, unless you have a personl bias for a translation that supports your ideas?

[One Bad Pig]

Most translations stand or fall on their fidelity ( or lack thereof) to the original text. The NWT seems to be unique in that its proponents argue its merits by finding other translations that agree with it. :hrm: It's generally acknowledged that those who compiled the NWT were not credentialed translators. Could it be that the NWT was put together by people reading all the translations they could get their hands on, and picking and choosing the readings they most agreed with?

[NonTrinitarian]

Most translations stand or fall on their fidelity ( or lack thereof) to the original text. The NWT seems to be unique in that its proponents argue its merits by finding other translations that agree with it. :hrm: It's generally acknowledged that those who compiled the NWT were not credentialed translators. Could it be that the NWT was put together by people reading all the translations they could get their hands on, and picking and choosing the readings they most agreed with?OBP-I've had many discussions with you and I KNOW you are smarter than this idiotic statement. Yes, a translation stands on it fidelity to the Greek text. The problem is people say 'you can't translate it that way' or 'no one would support a translation like that.' So how are we supposed to combat that? Say 'yes you can and yes they do?' Like that would do a lot of good.

No, it's much more fun to let them rant and rave about how a particular translation is no good, then ask them what Bibles they use and then go get those Bibles and show them that they translate it the same way.

Ohh, oohh, and I love those people that say such and such Bible is the best translation and then watch their face when they disagree with a translation of the NWT, call us a bunch of goobers and find out their translation says the same thing. That's the BEST!:lmbo:

So yes, we enjoy showing you and everyone else that there are numerous scholars who agree with various renderings in the NWT. We just like to wait until you rant and rave about how bad a verse is translated before we do it.

[One Bad Pig]

Most translations stand or fall on their fidelity ( or lack thereof) to the original text. The NWT seems to be unique in that its proponents argue its merits by finding other translations that agree with it. It's generally acknowledged that those who compiled the NWT were not credentialed translators. Could it be that the NWT was put together by people reading all the translations they could get their hands on, and picking and choosing the readings they most agreed with?
OBP-I've had many discussions with you and I KNOW you are smarter than this idiotic statement.
What's idiotic about it? Sentence 2 is an observation of mine based on my interactions with JW's. Sentence 4 is a logical conclusion based on sentences 2 and 3.

Yes, a translation stands on it fidelity to the Greek text. The problem is people say 'you can't translate it that way' or 'no one would support a translation like that.' So how are we supposed to combat that? Say 'yes you can and yes they do?' Like that would do a lot of good.

No, it's much more fun to let them rant and rave about how a particular translation is no good, then ask them what Bibles they use and then go get those Bibles and show them that they translate it the same way.

Ohh, oohh, and I love those people that say such and such Bible is the best translation and then watch their face when they disagree with a translation of the NWT, call us a bunch of goobers and find out their translation says the same thing. That's the BEST!:lmbo:

So yes, we enjoy showing you and everyone else that there are numerous scholars who agree with various renderings in the NWT. We just like to wait until you rant and rave about how bad a verse is translated before we do it.
It can be entertaining to argue with uninformed people, yes. However, trouncing them doesn't mean much.

[barryrob]

What's idiotic about it? Sentence 2 is an observation of mine based on my interactions with JW's. Sentence 4 is a logical conclusion based on sentences 2 and 3.

It can be entertaining to argue with uninformed people, yes. However, trouncing them doesn't mean much.

That rather depends upon what you base what it means to be informed, remember this:-
Acts 4:13 Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. . . .

1 Corinthians 1:20-21 Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, . . .

Just a thought.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

That rather depends upon what you base what it means to be informed, remember this:-
Acts 4:13 Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. . . .

1 Corinthians 1:20-21 Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, . . .
Just a thought.
Barryrob

Uninformed and unlettered (unschooled) are two different things. The reason they were impressed with Peter and John were precisely because they WERE informed and yet just ordinary joes and not some Rabbi who had been schooled in scripture. And yet they spoke authoritatively and as informed men of scripture.

[barryrob]

Uninformed and unlettered (unschooled) are two different things. The reason they were impressed with Peter and John were precisely because they WERE informed and yet just ordinary joes and not some Rabbi who had been schooled in scripture. And yet they spoke authoritatively and as informed men of scripture.
Uninformed = Ignorant

Unlettered = Ignorant

[Sparko]

Unlettered is not ignorant. It just means unschooled. There are lots of bright people who never had a formal education. They may have as much knowledge as a college professor, but never have finished high school.

Uninformed does mean ignorant.

So Peter was unschooled (he was just an ordinary fisherman) but he was definately not ignorant. That was why they were impressed with them. How did such an ordinary fisherman come to know so much about scripture? They were impressed.

[barryrob]

Unlettered is not ignorant. It just means unschooled. There are lots of bright people who never had a formal education. They may have as much knowledge as a college professor, but never have finished high school.

Uninformed does mean ignorant.

So Peter was unschooled (he was just an ordinary fisherman) but he was definately not ignorant. That was why they were impressed with them. How did such an ordinary fisherman come to know so much about scripture? They were impressed.
"uninformed adj. not informed; ignorant."-Oxford Dic.

"ignorant adj. 1. lacking in knowledge or education; unenlightened. ..."-Collins Dic.

[One Bad Pig]

"uninformed adj. not informed; ignorant."-Oxford Dic.

"ignorant adj. 1. lacking in knowledge or education; unenlightened. ..."-Collins Dic.
"uninformed - un- + informed; not having or prepared with information or knowledge"- Webster's unabridged
"unlettered" - adj. 1. not educated; uneducated; untutored; ignorant. - Webster's unabridged
"ignorant adj. 1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned. ..." - Webster's unabridged
Note that "uninformed" and "unlettered" are synonyms of "ignorant" but not of each other. It is possible to be very well informed on a subject without having had any formal education (but not probable; hence the Jews' surprise in Acts 4:13).

[Oldmonk]

To be honest the NWT translation would make all JW's Polytheists and NOT monotheists as is the tradition of the Judo-Christian faith. To have "a God" who is NOT "THE God" goes against MANY verses in both testaments.





John 1:1- How is this a mistranslation? Are you saying it's grammatically incorrect or theologically incorrect? Maybe your Bible translates it in a way to give a deity to Christ that God's Word does not.

John 14:14- Hmm. Awful lot of Bibles translate like the NWt at this verse. Are you saying JW's are on their translation committees too?

John 8:58- Same comment as John 14:14

Colossians 1:15-20- Do you mean specifically verses 16 and 18 where the term "other" is inserted? I would have left it out if I was translating the verse. It's not needed as it's implied.

Colossians 2:9- I suppose you would prefer this translation: "For in Christ the Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate." Would you object to the next verse being translated this way? "and by your union with him, you also are filled with it."

Or maybe you prefer this translation: "For in Christ there is all of God in a human body. So you have everything when you have Christ, and you are filled with God through your union with Christ."

Kind of reminds me of Eph 3:19
"That you might be filled with all the fullness of God"-King James
"and so be filled to the full with God himself."-TCNT
"that you may be filled up with the fullness of God."- NASB
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."-NIV
"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself."-The Living Bible

[JAY-PC]

John 1:1 from 85 Translations

(ACV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(AKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ALT) In the beginning was the Word [or, the Expression of [divine] Logic], and the Word was with [or, in communion with] God, and the Word was God [or, was as to His essence God].
(AMP) IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([1]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [2]Himself.(1)
(AUV-NT) The Word [already] existed in the beginning [of time]. [Note: This is a reference to the preexistence of Jesus. See verse 14]. And the Word was with God and the Word was [what] God [was].
(ASV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(BBE) From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
(BB (1568)) In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.
(CEV) In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
(CJB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CLV) In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. "
(CENT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CPV-NT) (1-5) When time began, the Idea already was. The Idea was at home with God, and the Idea and God were one. This same Idea was at home with God when time began. Through him the universe was made, and apart from him not one thing came to be. In him was life, and the life was humanity’s light. And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness never quenched it.
(Coverdale) In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.
(Darby) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(DRB) In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(DRC) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(DRP (Gospels)) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Diaglott-NT) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
(EMTV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Geneva) In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
(GNB) In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GDBY_NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GSNT) In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
(GW) In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HCSB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HNV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(IAV NC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim :smile: .
(IGNT) εν 1722[IN "THE"] αρχη 746[BEGINNING] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD,] και 2532[AND] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] προς 4314 τον 3588[WITH] θεον 2316[GOD,] και 2532[AND] θεος 2316[GOD] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD.]
(ISV) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Phillips NT) 1-5 At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.
(JM-NT) Within a beginning there was The Word (The Thought; The Collection of Thoughts; The Idea; The Reason; The Discourse; The Communication; The Verbal Expression). And the Word (the thought; the expression) was (and continued being) facing, directed and moving toward (or: with) God. And the Word (the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. [or: Originally the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being projected toward God. And the Word, It was existing being God (idiomatically: And the Word was just what God was; And the Expression was an extension of Deity).]
(JST) In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
(KJ2000) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJVCNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJV-1611) In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJV21) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Lamsa NT) THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
(LB) ,2 Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.
(LITV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(LONT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Mace) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
(MKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Moffatt NT) THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.
(MNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God.
(MRC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(MSG) The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God,
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(NAB D) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NAS77) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NET.) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
(NIRV) In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NIV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NKJV) 1)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NLT) In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.
(NLV) The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.
(NRS) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NWT) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(Rev. Webster+) In1722 the beginning746 was2258 [5713] the Word3056, and2532 the Word3056 was2258 [5713] with4314 God2316, and2532 the Word3056 was2258 [5713] God2316.
(RKJV-NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(RYLT-NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
(RNT) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Rotherham) Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
(RSV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(tmb) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(TRC) In the beginning was that (the) word, and that (the) word was with god: and god was that word. (and the word was God.)
(TS98) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim. :smile:
(TCNT) In the Beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(WTNT) In the beginning was the word, and that word was with God: and God was that word.
(Tyndale) In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
(UPDV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(UPDV-2.09) In the beginning was the Speech, and the Speech was with God, and the Speech was God.
(VW-Edition) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WEB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Webster) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WENT) The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.
(Wesley's) In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WmsNT) In the beginning the Word existed; and the Word was face to face with God; yea, the Word was God Himself.
(WNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WORNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WycliffeNT) In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
(YLT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

If we are just listing Translations then the majority of scholars and translators say "the Word was God." Not "a god."

[Oldmonk]

John 1:1 from 85 Translations

(ACV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(AKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ALT) In the beginning was the Word [or, the Expression of [divine] Logic], and the Word was with [or, in communion with] God, and the Word was God [or, was as to His essence God].
(AMP) IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([1]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [2]Himself.(1)
(AUV-NT) The Word [already] existed in the beginning [of time]. [Note: This is a reference to the preexistence of Jesus. See verse 14]. And the Word was with God and the Word was [what] God [was].
(ASV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(BBE) From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
(BB (1568)) In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.
(CEV) In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
(CJB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CLV) In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. "
(CENT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(CPV-NT) (1-5) When time began, the Idea already was. The Idea was at home with God, and the Idea and God were one. This same Idea was at home with God when time began. Through him the universe was made, and apart from him not one thing came to be. In him was life, and the life was humanity’s light. And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness never quenched it.
(Coverdale) In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.
(Darby) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(DRB) In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(DRC) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(DRP (Gospels)) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Diaglott-NT) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
(EMTV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Geneva) In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
(GNB) In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GDBY_NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(GSNT) In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
(GW) In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HCSB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(HNV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(IAV NC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim :smile: .
(IGNT) εν 1722[IN "THE"] αρχη 746[BEGINNING] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD,] και 2532[AND] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] προς 4314 τον 3588[WITH] θεον 2316[GOD,] και 2532[AND] θεος 2316[GOD] ην 2258(5713)[WAS] ο 3588[THE] λογος 3056[WORD.]
(ISV) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Phillips NT) 1-5 At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.
(JM-NT) Within a beginning there was The Word (The Thought; The Collection of Thoughts; The Idea; The Reason; The Discourse; The Communication; The Verbal Expression). And the Word (the thought; the expression) was (and continued being) facing, directed and moving toward (or: with) God. And the Word (the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. [or: Originally the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being projected toward God. And the Word, It was existing being God (idiomatically: And the Word was just what God was; And the Expression was an extension of Deity).]
(JST) In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
(KJ2000) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJVCNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJV-1611) In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJV21) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Lamsa NT) THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word.
(LB) ,2 Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.
(LITV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(LONT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Mace) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
(MKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Moffatt NT) THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.
(MNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God.
(MRC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(MSG) The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God,
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(NAB D) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NAS77) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NET.) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
(NIRV) In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NIV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NKJV) 1)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NLT) In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.
(NLV) The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.
(NRS) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NWT) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(Rev. Webster+) In1722 the beginning746 was2258 [5713] the Word3056, and2532 the Word3056 was2258 [5713] with4314 God2316, and2532 the Word3056 was2258 [5713] God2316.
(RKJV-NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(RYLT-NT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
(RNT) IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Rotherham) Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
(RSV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(tmb) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(TRC) In the beginning was that (the) word, and that (the) word was with god: and god was that word. (and the word was God.)
(TS98) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim. :smile:
(TCNT) In the Beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(WTNT) In the beginning was the word, and that word was with God: and God was that word.
(Tyndale) In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
(UPDV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(UPDV-2.09) In the beginning was the Speech, and the Speech was with God, and the Speech was God.
(VW-Edition) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WEB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Webster) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WENT) The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.
(Wesley's) In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WmsNT) In the beginning the Word existed; and the Word was face to face with God; yea, the Word was God Himself.
(WNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WORNT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(WycliffeNT) In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
(YLT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

If we are just listing Translations then the majority of scholars and translators say "the Word was God." Not "a god."
Yep. Actually the Watchtower Society doesn't have any scholarship behind it but quotes {or on MANY occassions MISQUOTES } our scholars. Of course what they choose in their quotes {misquotes} supports their ideas. They have Quoted from Johannas Greeber on some occassions even though they had already condemned him as a spiritualist!!! Thus they link themselves to Spiritism:)