firedragon
Veteran Member
I think that's a whole other discussion mate.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
John 1:1 - The JW's NWT vs TNIV/KJV, the age old question
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
I think that's a whole other discussion mate.
firedragon
Veteran Member
As a translation this sounds like the most reasonable. Whose translation is this? Goodspeed?
cataway
Well-Known Member
firedragon
Veteran Member
Peace.
Roguish
Member
Mine. I don't claim a copyright though.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Great.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
@savagewind
I apologize for the delay in getting back to your last question to me.
He doesn't; JWs do, but not consistently. "John" wrote:
I apologize for the delay in getting back to your last question to me.
- (a) Whether or not Jesus' disciple, John, was the author of the book is up for debate. Some say the disciple wrote it himself; others say he may have originally dictated or written the words in Hebrew or Aramaic and someone else literate in Greek translated John's words into Greek. That's an issue which I mention but won't discuss.
- (b) The book doesn't mention Jesus until John 1:29. Verses 1 through 18 form what I believe is "the Prologue" of the book, in which "John" introduces the concept of "the Word" (historically understood to be a reference to Jesus) and describes the Word's relationship to God (i.e. the One whom we mainstream Christians believe was and is God the Father).
- (c) John 1:1 makes three claims:
- The Word has been around since "the beginning";
- The Word has, throughout its existence, been "προς τον θεον", "with the god" (i.e. translated as "God" with a capital G.)
- Trinitarian Christians believe that "τον θεον"/"the god"/"God" refers to God the Father.
- Non-trinitarian JWs believe that "τον θεον"/"the god"/"God" refers to Jehovah God.
- I'm not sure what Mormons believe "τον θεον"/"the god"/"God", in John 1:1 refers to.
- The Word has, throughout its existence, been "θεος" (i.e. _od without the definite article "the").
- Each of the claims has raised questions, evoked responses, and generated debate and dispute since at least the 3rd century, if not before then. Your question to me involves only one of the claims: the last one. Contrary to anything any human being tells you, there is no final, indisputable opinion regarding the correct way to translate "θεος" without a definite article. That is why I personally believe that asking about John 1:1 should be banned here in RF.
- Consider:
- JWs will tell you that the only correct, godly way to translate "θεος" is this way:
- and if you don't translate "θεος" as "a god", you're pagan satanist scum of the earth and you're not going to be among "the Anointed" who go to heaven and you're not going to be among "the Great Crowd" who will live on earth forever after Jehovah remodels it. JWs won't tell you that you're going to hell, though, because they don't believe in hell.
- What will Mormons tell you? I don't rightly know. A recent Mormon visitor in this thread has gone to remarkable lengths to say that "θεος" in the last claim can only be translated "a god". Which is kind of odd, IMO, because if you go to the Latter-Day-Saints (Mormon) website, and look up their official English-language translation of John 1:1, you'll find this at John 1
- Go figure.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
@Clear that was a nice one.
Quite insightful, I must say. The writers certainly knew what they were writing, in the language they spoke.
It brings to my mind, when we read a sentence in a different language, how the wording is quite different.
For example, in many African tongues, certain articles are left out, or merged into the noun that follows, and the sentence is significantly shortened.
Same with Chinese, and thousands of other languages, i am sure.
If one were to compare this song (I'll post it shortly. Having browser issues) in English, one would see an example of this.
Hence, we can appreciate the use... a divine one / being.
Very Good.
Quite insightful, I must say. The writers certainly knew what they were writing, in the language they spoke.
It brings to my mind, when we read a sentence in a different language, how the wording is quite different.
For example, in many African tongues, certain articles are left out, or merged into the noun that follows, and the sentence is significantly shortened.
Same with Chinese, and thousands of other languages, i am sure.
If one were to compare this song (I'll post it shortly. Having browser issues) in English, one would see an example of this.
Hence, we can appreciate the use... a divine one / being.
Very Good.
Angels are divine. ALL in heaven are divine. Pre-human heavenly Jesus was sent from heaven to earth by his God.
God had No beginning according to Psalms 90:2 (God was before any beginning )
So, pre-human Jesus was Not from everlasting, but was "in" the beginning, and Not ' before' the beginning as his God was 'before' the beginning.
Iymus
Active Member
Based of what has been said and is said; The Word specifically is not God and has not been God; but was God because of a specific reason. Without knowing the specific reason it seems confusing and even contradictory however The Word is not literally the God of Abraham but is his possession
What I can say is that if The Word is specifically the God of Abraham and his descendants; I have found no English translation in which John 1:1 is translated correctly to substantiate that.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Difference Between Has Been and Was | Difference Between
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thus, how would you translate theos en ho logos?
Iymus
Active Member
at this point in the game I prefer to let you guys translate it and I analyze the end product for consistency and coherency
What I can tell you is that God is God and has been God; never was.
Since The Word was God "according to scholars and English translations"; The Word has not been God therefore not is.
What I can also tell you is that no scholar has tranlated John 1:1 to "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word has been God."
-------------------------------
is seems to be G2076
was seems to be G2258
-----------------
If I am mistaken then it seems God changed; if instead of is and has been; he was
which seems problematic concerning consistency with precepts
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats the whole debate.
Iymus
Active Member
There is no debate in the English language to my knowledge. No version of John 1:1 has been correctly translated into English to substantiate The Word literally being God; since he is not or has not been God.
The one who is and has been God is the one who the word was with in the beginning.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
God never was God only is or has been
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I am addressing it. I am saying the interpretation of "a god" is out of context with the rest of the Bible and the interpretation of "God" is in context.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe there is absolutely no scripture that says He is not except in the deluded minds of brainwashed people.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe God speaks English quite well and better than everyone else.
firedragon
Veteran Member
What context Muffled? Theological context is not relevant to this verse. Unless of course you can give other examples of Theos en ho logos and provide a linguistic analysis of other passages which is the only context that is relevant to this verse. Its simple language that's in the question.
But, the writer of scripture did not know any English.
cataway
Well-Known Member
you, your self are making him a god . you would ,if not corrected , supplant him above his own confession's.