The Trinity

[Mark2020]

did you know that some manuscripts have the first part of the sentence as “the congregation of the Lord,” in the margin as alternative to “the congregation of God.” When the text reads that way the issue is gone and we can fully understand that it was with the Lords own blood. Moffats translation reads "congregation of the Lord'

The manuscripts are the codex Alexandrinus, codex Ephraemi, Bezae Codices and the Philoxenian Herclean Syriac.

I guess its about time I used my codices.

I checked Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both have "God", and both are 4th century.

Alexandrinus, Ephraemi and Bezae are 5th century codices.
Philoxenian, Herclean Syriac: 6th-7th century.


I don't think these really count against the Textus Receptus and Westcott/Hort, both have "God"

 

[Pegg]

I guess its about time I used my codices.

I checked Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both have "God", and both are 4th century.

Alexandrinus, Ephraemi and Bezae are 5th century codices.
Philoxenian, Herclean Syriac: 6th-7th century.


I don't think these really count against the Textus Receptus and Westcott/Hort, both have "God"

but it does leave room for doubt and that is why it is no point being dogmatic

The best test of accuracy is whether the verse fits with the rest of the scriptures without contradicting them ... unfortunately in this case, the rendering 'Gods blood' does in fact contradict other verses.

 

[Mark2020]

but it does leave room for doubt and that is why it is no point being dogmatic
The best test of accuracy is whether the verse fits with the rest of the scriptures without contradicting them ... unfortunately in this case, the rendering 'Gods blood' does in fact contradict other verses.

As I said, this is contradiction based upon a certain understanding of the bible. And it was dealt with by a little word twist in the end of the verse. That was my point from the beginning.

 

[Mark2020]

The point is that if the NWT used "Lord" instead of "God", that would have been fine. But as I said they used "God" and twisted the end of the verse.

 

[Pegg]

The point is that if the NWT used "Lord" instead of "God", that would have been fine. But as I said they used "God" and twisted the end of the verse.

no because the congregation is both the congregation of God the Father and of Jesus the Son.

So it is not incorrect to have either. But the part of the verse which states that that the blood was given as the sacrifice, that can only relate to Jesus....God the Father has never appeared in the flesh and even Jesus said that was the case when he said at John 1:17 "no man has seen God at any time"

So to translate that verse as 'Gods blood' is the contradiction. God is a spirit and does not have the blood of flesh. I know you believe that Jesus is God, but no other verses say that God gave his own blood...they all say that God gave us Jesus blood., the only begotten son as a sacrifice...not himself.

 

[Mark2020]

no because the congregation is both the congregation of God the Father and of Jesus the Son. ...

Well, I understand your point of view. But the contradiction you see is doctrine-base.

 

[Mark2020]

I'll try to put it in a different way:
If they acknowledge that "his own blood" is the usual translation, why didn't they go with it?
Because they used "God".
Had they used "Lord" instead of "God", it wouldn't have contradicted their doctrine and they would have surely gone with the "usual translation"
This is what I mean, they choose the translation based on their doctrine.

 

[Pegg]

I'll try to put it in a different way:
If they acknowledge that "his own blood" is the usual translation, why didn't they go with it?

the NWT did go with that. Whenever you see a word in square brackets in the NWT, it indicates a word added by the translators to clarify the context. We dont read and think it is part of the original wording in the manuscript...we know its a translators addition. So they did go with what is written in the original which is "with the blood of his own"

And because the context of the greek shows 'his own' can mean his own 'kin' or 'relative' as it is in John 13:1 Now, because he knew before the festival of the passover that his hour had come for him to move out of this world to the Father, Jesus, having loved his own that were in the world, loved them to the end
By adding the [Son] it allows the reader to see the context. God did not give his own blood because no man has seen God at any time, nor has God taken on human form in order to have blood. So its silly to try and read this scripture that God the Father came to give his blood. Jesus never referred to himself as God the Father...only as the Son.

Because they used "God".
Had they used "Lord" instead of "God", it wouldn't have contradicted their doctrine and they would have surely gone with the "usual translation"
This is what I mean, they choose the translation based on their doctrine.

The verse reads:
Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

the 'God' in this verse is not Jesus....it is God the Father.

The context shows that the congregation belongs to God. The head of the congregation is Jesus because he is the mediator between God and mankind. But it is primarily Gods congregation....it always has been (ie, consider the nation of Isreal, it was Gods congregation only) and always will be so the writer is speaking of the congregation as belonging to God.


God the Father purchased the congregation with the blood of his son. Notice in Revelation how God and Jesus are both separate....the first person mentioned is God the Father, then Jesus is mentioned thereafter...

Revelation 1:4 ...May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from “The One who is and who was and who is coming,”(God the Father) and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ,...To him that loves us and that loosed us from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

 

[javajo]

ah...the brackets game...spades anyone?

 

[Mark2020]

the NWT did go with that...

Again, not just "clarify the context" but "point the context" to the doctrine of the translator.

And because the context of the greek shows...

I have discussed the Greek of this verse conclusively in the light of the Greek of the NT. No need to repeat that again.

the 'God' in this verse is not Jesus....it is God the Father...

My point is not the meaning of the verse, but mistranslating part of it. I already explained that. I think my claim about the choice of translation still stands.

As I said, I only mentioned this to try to show you where the mistranslation lies. The one I gave is the "usual" even by the acknowledgment of the NWT reference bible. To choose another translation over the "usual" one is doctrine-based.
This is the idea I am trying to convey, since you accused the other translation of being biased. There are a lot of such issues with the NWT. One of them, as I said, is switching "worship" with "do obeisance". Not to mention John 1:1...

 

[Pegg]

Again, not just "clarify the context" but "point the context" to the doctrine of the translator.


I have discussed the Greek of this verse conclusively in the light of the Greek of the NT. No need to repeat that again.


My point is not the meaning of the verse, but mistranslating part of it. I already explained that. I think my claim about the choice of translation still stands.

As I said, I only mentioned this to try to show you where the mistranslation lies. The one I gave is the "usual" even by the acknowledgment of the NWT reference bible. To choose another translation over the "usual" one is doctrine-based.
This is the idea I am trying to convey, since you accused the other translation of being biased. There are a lot of such issues with the NWT. One of them, as I said, is switching "worship" with "do obeisance". Not to mention John 1:1...

well im going to agree to disagree with you because even though you know the verse can be rendered either way, you accuse the NWT of some bias. And when i point out that the 'usual' rendering contradicts the scriptures, you dont seem to mind that it contradicts the scriptures.

I dont believe God contradicts himself, so if one verse contradicts another, then it is the translators who are mistaken, not God.

 

[javajo]

An honest study of the NWT would show it was written to support a certain position and is much different than other English translations. They changed it to conform to their theology instead of changing their theology to conform to the Word of God. It is soooo obvious to the honest student.

 

[Jethro]

One name? Then why doesn't the tetragrammaton [YHWH] ever apply to Jesus?

God [YHWH] nor Jesus are ever called an 'it' as God's holy spirit is called as 'it' and 'itself' at Romans [8 vs 16 and 26] besides Numbers [11 vs16,17 and 25]

In the OT, the tetragrammation (YHWH-Yahweh) does apply to Jesus, as well as the title Lord (Adonai) when He was in His pre-incarnate glorious state. Read Isaiah 6:1-8 and then John 12:41.

 

[Mark2020]

well im going to agree to disagree ...with you because even though you know the verse can be rendered either way...

I think I showed that given the Greek grammar and word usage of the NT there's no support to "of his own son", nothing to support that whatsoever, while there is a lot of support to "his own blood".

And when i point out that the 'usual' rendering contradicts the scriptures, you dont seem to mind that it contradicts the scriptures.

Christians who believe that Jesus is God will have no problem in using the "usual translation" which has a lot of linguistic support ["his own blood"]
Those who don't believe so had to use a very unusual and unsupported translation (even adding a word) so that the meaning doesn't contradict their beliefs.
I hope you can see that only the second group see such contradiction, so it's doctrine-based.
I don't think I could put it clearer than that.

 

[Shermana]

An honest study of the NWT would show it was written to support a certain position and is much different than other English translations. They changed it to conform to their theology instead of changing their theology to conform to the Word of God. It is soooo obvious to the honest student.

Once again, and I think I've mentioned this before to you, the JW's were not the first people to write it as "A god", it was written this way in versions that are almost as old as the King James in the 17th century, the Church didn't like them back then either. Even Jesuits made (unauthorized) versions with "A god". And it was also in many footnotes. Modern Independent Scholarly versions in the early 1800-s to the 1930s, long before the NWT, were using it as well. The idea that the JW's invented this concept I believe is a deliberately pushed myth by the "Establishment" trying to sweep over this fact.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14780372/Non-trinitarian-Translations-of-John-11



The honest student would recognize this, but...Christians are not known necessarily for honesty. I think that sites like CARM push this myth that the JW's invented this rendition of the verse, I don't believe they aren't aware of its earlier uses, and I believe they are deliberately pushing the lie that the JW's are the first to use it to get out of any discussion of its uses in the 17th-19th century in scholarly academic circles.

 

[Mark2020]

Once again, ...

Doesn't really matter.

Why is the anarthrous theos in John 1:6,12,13,18a, Hebrews 11:16 and Philippians 2:13 translated in NWT as "God", while in John 1:1c translated "a god"?

And why is "ο θεος" in 2 Cor 4:4a translated "the god", though it has a definite article?

Or is it the choice of the translator?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14780372/Non-trinitarian-Translations-of-John-11

What the Scholars Really Said​

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Sc...0and%20NWT.htm

 

[Shermana]

And why is "ο θεος" in 2 Cor 4:4a translated "the god", though it has a definite article?

BEcause "The god of" is different than "The god". I'm assuming you absolutely disagree with the NLT translation of 2 Cor 4:4? And if you disagree, please explain why.

As for John 1:6, the word is "Theou", which apparently you don't seem to understand is "of the G-d". That's not an anarthrous Theos. Same with 1:12 and 1:13. John 1:18 should read, as many have used, "An only begotten god". Lower case g. You must admit that the word "god" in there is used as a singular indefinite concept. "An only". I know you'll disagree with this, but probably lack an explanation why.

Also, when you say "The Scholars", I listed many other scholars who agree with the JW, so, I hope you're aware there's scholars who agree with the JWs as well, many of them. Many translations were even written by them using "A god" before the NWT existed.

So I hope you understand the difference between Anarthrous Theos, "god of", and "Theou". Such differences may seem petty to the Trinitarian (along with words like "Tou" and "Midst of"), but they make quite the difference in actual context.

 

[Mark2020]

Because "The god of" is different than "The god".

This doesn't explain much...
Are you implying that the "of" is translated as the definite article before the noun?
I can't see one here:
(Matthew 1:1 [TR]) βιβλος γενεσεως ιησου..
(Matthew 1:1 [NWT]) The book of the history of Jesus..
(Matthew 2:21 [TR]) ... εις γην ισραηλ
(Matthew 2:21 [NWT]) ...into the land of Israel.

As for John 1:6, the word is "Theou", which apparently you don't seem to understand is "of the G-d". That's not an anarthrous Theos. Same with 1:12 and 1:13.

Are you implying that the genitive case means "the"?
Does this explain:
(Matthew 2:16 [NWT])...ascertained from the astrologers.
(Matthew 2:16 [TR]) ... ηκριβωσεν παρα των μαγων
(Matthew 9:38 [NWT]) Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest ...
(Matthew 9:38 [TR]) δεηθητε ουν του κυριου του θερισμου ...

John 1:18 should read...

I wrote John 1:18a
I mean this:
(John 1:18 [TR]) θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ..
(John 1:18 [NWT]) No man has seen God at any time;

Also, when you say "The Scholars", I listed many other scholars who agree with the JW, so, I hope you're aware there's scholars who agree with the JWs as well, many of them. Many translations were even written by them using "A god" before the NWT existed.

This is: What your scholars really said

Now, can you explain this:

(Nahum 1:2 [LXX]) θεος ζηλωτης και εκδικων κυριος
(Nahum 1:2 [NWT]) Jehovah is a God exacting exclusive devotion and taking vengeance
(Nahum 1:2 [HiSB]) אֵ֣ל קַנּ֤וֹא וְנֹקֵם֙ יְהוָ֔ה ..

YHVH is θεος? Anarthrous!!!

 

[Shermana]

Later Greek is different than Koine, they started using Anarthrous Theos for "God" after the 4th century around the time of the Sinaiticus version of the Septuagint. They also started using "Tou" for just "of" instead of "of the". You can see this with modern Greek grammar compared to Ancient. But not in the Gospel texts.

John 1:18a is "a god no man has seen". Obviously Moses saw G-d. Adam saw G-d. He even heard G-d moving in the Garden.


Matthew 1:1 can be easily read as "A book". Like "A post by Shermana". "A Warner Bros film".


Matthew 2:21 the best equivalent would be "Israel country" like "Now you're in farm country". (Or "Now you're in bat country") The word is the same as "region" but without articulation because its usually indefinite regardless.

As for "From the astrologers", the Greek grammar is "From of the astrologers" in such context. Clearly you can see that "Master of the harvest" uses it as "of the".

 

[Mark2020]

Later Greek is different than Koine, they started using Anarthrous Theos for "God" after the 4th century around the time of the Sinaiticus version of the Septuagint. They also started using "Tou" for just "of" instead of "of the".

John 1:18a is "a god no man has seen". Obviously Moses saw G-d.

That's the most desperate argument you've given for a while..., that is a day or two