Apologetics - Universal Reconciliation > Word Studies

revelation 1:6 , about Jesus ?

<< < (2/13) > >>

jaareshiah:

--- Quote from: ded2daworld on October 28, 2012, 07:32:52 AM ---IN the beginning was the word and the word was with God and was God.
Pretty clear unless you read the jehovah witness biased translation.

--- End quote ---

The New World Translation is accurate at John 1:1, reading: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." This has been confirmed with a ancient manuscript from Egypt. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus' earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language.

Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: "Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses."

The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect.

The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: "The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English."

Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word "god" in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads:

In        the beginning        existed        the Word
         and        the Word        existed        with
           the God        and          a god        was
  the Word

(SAHIDIC COPTIC TEXT; P. CHESTER BEATTY-813; WITH INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION, located at Dublin, Ireland) Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John's words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.

CHB:
Yes, there is God the Father and God the Son. The Son came from the Father but he wasn't the Father.

CHB

ded2daworld:
jaareshiah,
all bible scholars agree the New world translation is biased toward their own doctrine.
IMO it's stupid to say that Jesus is A god But not THE God since the bible is very clear there is one God.
Jesus did stuff only God can do:
1. Forgive sins
2. Accept worship from others
3. Give sight to the blind
4. Resurrect the dead
5. Not correct THomas when he fell to his knees in front of Jesus and called out "My Lord and MY GOD.
6 Told discip[les to pray to him and ask him(Jesus) for anything they wanted
7. Was One with the Father
8. He knew the future
9. he knew what others were thinking
10. Nature(ther wind and waves) obeyed him
11. Walked on water and enabled Peter to also
12. Jesus said that only jesus and the Father had life unto themself(life was not imparted to them)
13. Was the imageof the invisible God and the pattern when God said, "Let us make man in our image"
14. In Genesis it says Jacob wrestled with a man When Jacob told Joseph, Jacob said it was God almighty.
15. Jesus said that if you had seen him, you had seen the (invisible) Father.and others I can't think of off the top of my head.
Concerning mighty and almighty - that's straight out of the JW handbook on what to say when going door to door since the Godhood of Jesus is the first thing to come up.

Isaiah 9:6 - "For unto us a child is born, a son is given, and the government shall be on his shoulders and he will be called wonderful, counselor, mighty, God, everlasting, Father, the prince of peace.
Jesus and the Father are both God. Jesus is willingly subordinate to the Father though they never disagree on anything anyway.
My earthly Father and I are both men but I am willingly subordinate to my Father. It doesn't mean we are not equal or that we both aren't men.

jaareshiah:

--- Quote from: ded2daworld on October 28, 2012, 10:20:23 PM ---jaareshiah,
all bible scholars agree the New world translation is biased toward their own doctrine.
IMO it's stupid to say that Jesus is A god But not THE God since the bible is very clear there is one God.
Jesus did stuff only God can do:
1. Forgive sins
2. Accept worship from others
3. Give sight to the blind
4. Resurrect the dead
5. Not correct THomas when he fell to his knees in front of Jesus and called out "My Lord and MY GOD.
6 Told discip[les to pray to him and ask him(Jesus) for anything they wanted
7. Was One with the Father
8. He knew the future
9. he knew what others were thinking
10. Nature(ther wind and waves) obeyed him
11. Walked on water and enabled Peter to also
12. Jesus said that only jesus and the Father had life unto themself(life was not imparted to them)
13. Was the imageof the invisible God and the pattern when God said, "Let us make man in our image"
14. In Genesis it says Jacob wrestled with a man When Jacob told Joseph, Jacob said it was God almighty.
15. Jesus said that if you had seen him, you had seen the (invisible) Father.and others I can't think of off the top of my head.
Concerning mighty and almighty - that's straight out of the JW handbook on what to say when going door to door since the Godhood of Jesus is the first thing to come up.

Isaiah 9:6 - "For unto us a child is born, a son is given, and the government shall be on his shoulders and he will be called wonderful, counselor, mighty, God, everlasting, Father, the prince of peace.
Jesus and the Father are both God. Jesus is willingly subordinate to the Father though they never disagree on anything anyway.
My earthly Father and I are both men but I am willingly subordinate to my Father. It doesn't mean we are not equal or that we both aren't men.

--- End quote ---

If it is "stupid to say that Jesus is A god", then why did those who wrote down this Scripture in Sahidic Coptic some 1700 years ago then translate it as "a god ", even possibly before the Codex Vaticanus and Siniaticus of the 4th century C.E. ? The translators from Greek to Sahidic Coptic were well aware of what John wrote and meant and accordingly translated John 1:1 as "a god" instead of "God".

It has since been translated as "God" due to the 4th century acceptance of the trinity. Prior to this, the trinity doctrine did not exist. So, there has since been a forcing of  "a square pag in around hole" because the trinity doctrine was now accepted, from the end of the 4th century onward, by Catholicism, with the Creed of Athanasius "unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century."(The New Encyclopedia Britannica)

Most never give consideration to the fact that John used the definite article "the" (Greek ho) before the 1st and 3rd times with the Greek word theos (making it properly read "the God") at John 1:1, 2, but did not with the 2nd use of theos, thus making the word "god" here indefinite or "a god".

To read otherwise, shows a lack of serious Bible study, but rather a bias toward the trinity. For example, at Acts 12:22, the King James Bible renders the Greek word theos without the definite article as "a god" as well as at Acts 28:6.

The New World Translation has thus followed this proper rendering of "a god", rather than allowing the religious traditions of the churches to dictate what John wrote.

ded2daworld:
Jaareshiah,
I guess since you are a Jehovah Witness you haven't been told about the new world translation except from their side of it.
What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)

Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."

"Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)

Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)

the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version