Understanding John 1:1

[Colt]

Would you like to be specific about that, since you have made some sweeping statements here. In what way is the NWT contrived or false? Lets see why you said that....?

The New World Translation: Errors in the Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible


Bad Translations of the Jehovah’s Witness’ Bible, the New World Translation (NWT)
by Matt Slick | Dec 6, 2008 | Jehovah's Witnesses, World Religions | 0 comments

The following are some of the many bad “translations” offered by the Watchtower Bible Tract Society’s translation of the Bible known as the New World Translation (NWT). Because the Jehovah’s Witness organization denies the deity of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they have altered the text of God’s word to reflect their presuppositions.

I have cited the NASB Bible, a very accurate translation, and compared it with the NWT. I also underlined the important changes so you can more easily see them.

1. Genesis 1:1-2 (NASB), “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.”
   1. NWT: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.
   2. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society deny that the Holy Spirit is alive, the third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of “…the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters,” to say “…and God’s active force was moving over the surface of the waters.”
   3. The Holy Spirit is not God’s active force. The Holy Spirit speaks. An active force does not speak.
      1. Acts 8:29, “Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
      2. Acts 13:2, “While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
2. Zechariah 12:10 (NASB), “And I [God] will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”
   1. NWT: “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced, and they will wail over him as they would wail over an only son; and they will grieve bitterly over him as they would grieve over a firstborn son.
   2. The Jehovah’s Witnesses change the word “me” to “the one” so that it says in their Bible, “…they will look upon the one whom they have pierced…” Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems, so they changed it.
3. John 1:1 (NASB), “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
   1. NWT: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
   2. The Watchtower mistranslates the verse as “a god.”
   3. Again, because the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny God in flesh for the Scriptures (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9), they must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah’s Witness version in the New World Translation says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
   4. Notice that “a god” is their so-called translation. But this is problematic since it would imply polytheism. I asked Jehovah’s Witnesses if they believe Jesus was a god. When they say yes, then I bring up the error of their polytheism.
4. John 14:10 (NASB), “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.”
   1. NWT: “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 I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.”
   2. This is another obvious alteration in the New World Translation. In their attempt to avoid the deity of Christ, they scour the Bible and alter any verses that would suggest that Jesus is divine.
5. Colossians 1:15-17 (NASB), “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
   1. NWT: “He is the image of the invisible God,m the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist.”
   2. The word “other” is inserted four times in the NWT. It is not in the original Greek, nor is it implied.
   3. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah’s Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word “other” to show that Jesus was before all “other” things that were created, implying that He is also created.
   4. There are two Greek words for “other”: heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed the Bible to make it fit their aberrant theology.
6. Hebrews 1:6 (NASB), “And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘and let all the angels of God worship him.’”
   1. NWT: “But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: ‘And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.’”
   2. In this verse, they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as “obeisance.” Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect, even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9.
   3. See the articles https://carm.org/heb-16-let-angels-do-obeisance-him and https://carm.org/new-world-translation-and-proskuneo-worship
7. Hebrews 1:8 (NASB), “But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom.'”
   1. NWT: “But about the Son, he says: ‘God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.'”
   2. This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'” Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t agree with that, they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as “…God is your throne…” The problem with the Jehovah’s Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as “…Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.” To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too!

Conclusion on the New World Translation
The NWT translation is a bad translation. It has changed the text to suit its own theological bias in many places. It misrepresents the person and work of Christ as well as the personhood of the Holy Spirit. The New World translation should be avoided.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Would you like to be specific about that, since you have made some sweeping statements here. In what way is the NWT contrived or false? Lets see why you said that....?

We can start with addressing my original post, that John 1:1 in the NWT is against countless statements in both testaments as to Jesus's Godship and the unity of the Godhead. And when I see something like John 1:1 where EVERY other Bible translation, liberal and secular or conservative and devout, takes a different translation approach than the NWT for John 1:1 . . .

 

[cataway]

We can start with addressing my original post, that John 1:1 in the NWT is against countless statements in both testaments as to Jesus's Godship and the unity of the Godhead. And when I see something like John 1:1 where EVERY other Bible translation, liberal and secular or conservative and devout, takes a different translation approach than the NWT for John 1:1 . . .

mostly you don't like it because it shoots the trinity right in the derriere

 

[Deeje]

We can start with addressing my original post, that John 1:1 in the NWT is against countless statements in both testaments as to Jesus's Godship and the unity of the Godhead. And when I see something like John 1:1 where EVERY other Bible translation, liberal and secular or conservative and devout, takes a different translation approach than the NWT for John 1:1 . . .

Don’t you think it helps to acknowledge the fact that Bible translation was undertaken by Christendom’s scholars who already had a bias towards the trinity when translating John 1:1?

Reading that verse in Greek however, is a whole different story.
In scripture, there is no such thing as a "godhead". That is a trinitarian concept that is not found anywhere in the Jewish scriptures...remembering that Jesus was Jewish and blasphemy was a capital crime.

The concept was read into Christian scripture by implication and inference, not through any direct statement. It was an adoption from pagan ideas, fused with Christianity in the very early centuries. It became part of the furniture, in fact the foundational belief of Christianity itself...but it was never taught by Christ in any way.

There are two “gods” in John 1:1 because of what the Greek term “theos” actually means. A “god” (theos) in Greek simply means “a mighty one” but not any god in particular unless they were named. (The Greeks were polytheistic and all their gods had names) But a problem arose when the God of Israel had a name that no one was allowed to utter, (despite the fact that they were instructed to keep God’s name throughout their generations forever. Exodus 3:15) At no time did God tell his people to stop speaking his name.

In order to differentiate Yahweh (“Jehovah” in English. Psalm 83:18 KJV) from all other gods was to use the definite article (the) So in John 1:1 it says literally...
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (The) God, and the Word was god.”
There was no indefinite article "a" or "an" but these are put into the appropriate verses so that the English translation makes sense....which is why the NWT reads the way it does.

If “the name” had still been in use, then John 1:1 would read.....

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh and the Word was a god.”

Verse 14 says....
“So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.”

So it was the Word who became flesh, not Yahweh.

What’s in a name?? Everything!

I am surprised actually that one who identifies as practicing “Messianic Jewish Christianity”.....would even use that terminology....? Usually Messianic Jews shy away from association with “Christianity” to emphasize their “Jewish” roots.
And from your post, it appears that you are a trinitarian to boot.....

How does a Jew not see the trinity as a blasphemy? If Jesus had ever claimed to be God, he would have been breaking the First Commandment. The one immortal God of Israel could never become a mere human and then die by the hand of his enemies. It isn't possible to kill God. So if Jesus didn't really die, the redemption price was not paid, and we are all still doomed to sin and death.

There is so much more to translation than conveying mere words...its their deeper meaning and nuances that needs explaining. We now have so much better resources to aid in that process. No one should be left to decipher words that can convey a different meaning in another language through outdated translations. This is where a Concordance is your friend.

 

[Deeje]

There is a lot to address, so I will break this up....

The following are some of the many bad “translations” offered by the Watchtower Bible Tract Society’s translation of the Bible known as the New World Translation (NWT).

In who's opinion? Matt Slick? One of Christendom's apologetics promoters? No bias at all there....?
Asking a trinitarian about JW's rendering of scripture would be tantamount to asking the Jews if Jesus had the correct version of scripture when he quoted it to them....

Because the Jehovah’s Witness organization denies the deity of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they have altered the text of God’s word to reflect their presuppositions.

I'm sorry but we don't deny it at all...it was never true in the first place so there is no denial. We have just taken out all the false interpretations and rendered scripture so that it aligns with the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, as they were written and understood by their original audience in their original languages. What scripture did Jesus use to preach about God's Kingdom? The Jews to whom he preached exclusively, knew what he meant but he put a new slant on their understanding by making a spiritual application to something they had been taught was literal. It was actually both.

Genesis 1:1-2 (NASB), “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.”

1. NWT: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.
2. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society deny that the Holy Spirit is alive, the third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of “…the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters,” to say “…and God’s active force was moving over the surface of the waters.”
3. The Holy Spirit is not God’s active force. The Holy Spirit speaks. An active force does not speak.
   1. Acts 8:29, “Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
   2. Acts 13:2, “While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

While the consensus of the religious teaching of Christendom today may ascribe divinity to God’s holy spirit, such was not always the case. Note, for example, the words of Neander, of whom McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia states: “Universally conceded to be by far the greatest of ecclesiastical historians.” Though himself a trinitarian, he wrote: “In A.D. 380, great indistinctness prevailed among the different parties respecting this dogma so that a contemporary could say, ‘Some of our theologians regard the holy spirit simply as a mode of divine operation; others as a creature of God; others as God himself; others again, say that they know not which of the opinions to accept from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon the subject.’”
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957525?q=the+holy+spirit&p=par

Zechariah 12:10 (NASB), “And I [God] will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”

1. NWT: “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced, and they will wail over him as they would wail over an only son; and they will grieve bitterly over him as they would grieve over a firstborn son.
2. The Jehovah’s Witnesses change the word “me” to “the one” so that it says in their Bible, “…they will look upon the one whom they have pierced…” Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems, so they changed it.

Sorry, but how does that point to Jesus being God? The one whom they pierced is clearly Jesus. The NWT links that expression in Zechariah to John 19:34, 37. Duh......Why would that present a problem for us? What nit-picking nonsense.

John 1:1 (NASB), “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

1. NWT: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
2. The Watchtower mistranslates the verse as “a god.”
3. Again, because the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny God in flesh for the Scriptures (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9), they must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah’s Witness version in the New World Translation says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

See my response to @BilliardsBall...John 1:1 isn't saying what most people assume. Not once in all of scripture did Jesus ever claim to be "God". Was he a "mighty one" with divine authority, making him fit the definition of that Greek term "theos"? We believe so. Didn't Jesus say that God himself called the judges in Israel "gods" because of their divine authority? (John 10:34-36)

 

[Deeje]

John 1:1 (NASB), “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

1. NWT: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
2. The Watchtower mistranslates the verse as “a god.”
3. Again, because the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny God in flesh for the Scriptures (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9), they must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah’s Witness version in the New World Translation says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
4. Notice that “a god” is their so-called translation. But this is problematic since it would imply polytheism. I asked Jehovah’s Witnesses if they believe Jesus was a god. When they say yes, then I bring up the error of their polytheism.

Hitting John 1:1 again? We don't deny that Jesus is God because he never once said he was. That is a plain scriptural truth, not a denial.
Understanding Greek allows one to peer a little deeper into that verse instead of taking it at face value.
All we have to do to understand John 1:1 is to turn to verse 18...what does that say?

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

Now consider this.....
The KJV renders that verse...
"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Which verse is true to the original Greek? In verse 18 of the KJV, the word translated "Son" is "theos" (god) so the NASB has the correct rendering but you can see that the KJV has altered it.
This then creates a problem for trinitarians because if Jesus was God, then how could he have been seen by thousands of people, even after his resurrection? If "no man has seen God at any time" Jesus wasn't God.

And if Jesus is "the only begotten god" (which is the correct rendering of that verse) how can God be an "only begotten" (monogenes which means an "only child"). There are many "sons of God" but there are none like this "firstborn" who was "in the beginning with God". (Colossians 1:15-17) He was "before all things" because he was used as the agency "through" whom God created.

John 14:10 (NASB), “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.”

1. NWT: “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 I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.”
2. This is another obvious alteration in the New World Translation. In their attempt to avoid the deity of Christ, they scour the Bible and alter any verses that would suggest that Jesus is divine.

There is no need to scour because the Bible simply does not support the notion that Jesus was God or even that he needed to be. Find me one verse where Jesus says that he is the Almighty....? He can be the equivalent of the Greek "theos" without being "ho theos".

The Hebrew word Shad·daiʹ and the Greek word Pan·to·kraʹtor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Exodus 6:3; Revelation 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.

What about John 10:30..."I and the Father are one.”...? Is that an admission of Jesus claiming to be God? If so where is there mention of the third party?
John 17:22 clears up the meaning of John 10:30....
"The glory which You have given Me I also have given to them, so that they may be one, just as We are one".
This is a oneness of purpose and a unity of spirit as Jesus says that this extends to his disciples as well....are they part of the trinity too?

Scripture explains scripture.

When Jesus called his Father "the only true God", he did not include himself or the holy spirit. (John 17:3) In fact in the majority of verses used to indicate or infer a trinity, the holy spirit is invariably missing.

When the apostle Paul spoke about offerings to false gods, he said..."that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (1 Corinthians 8:4-6 NASB)

Were the apostles convinced that Jesus was God? I don't see any indication of this. No holy spirit is mentioned here either.

Colossians 1:15-17 (NASB), “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

1. NWT: “He is the image of the invisible God,m the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist.”
2. The word “other” is inserted four times in the NWT. It is not in the original Greek, nor is it implied.
3. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah’s Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word “other” to show that Jesus was before all “other” things that were created, implying that He is also created.
4. There are two Greek words for “other”: heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed the Bible to make it fit their aberrant theology.

It means the same whether "other" is included or not. Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation".....the very first of God's creations. It reaffirms that in Revelation 3:12 where Jesus was referred to as "the beginning of God's creation".

Jesus had a beginning and he was "before all things" being the very first and only direct creation of God....this is what "monogenes" means....a unique only son. He was used by his Father as the agency "through" whom creation came into being. And as the "Logos", has been "with God" from the beginning....but not before the beginning. Until God decided to become a Father, there was no son...there was no one but God himself.

Jehovah has always been the God of Jesus.......even after his return to heaven, Jesus still referred to his Father as "my God". (Revelation 3:12).....now can one part of God worship another equal part of himself? How can God pray to himself, and ask for God's will to be done instead of his own? How can the son not know what the Father knows if both are God?
The trinity is IMO blasphemous, illogical, unscriptural, nonsense.

 

[Deeje]

Hebrews 1:6 (NASB), “And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘and let all the angels of God worship him.’”

1. NWT: “But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: ‘And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.’”
2. In this verse, they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as “obeisance.” Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect, even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9.
3. See the articles https://carm.org/heb-16-let-angels-do-obeisance-him and https://carm.org/new-world-translation-and-proskuneo-worship

Context determines the rendering of the Greek "pro·sky·neʹo" because it literally means to prostrate oneself before a superior figure, be that God or Jesus or even a person with divine authority...it denotes the action of bowing before someone.

In the British legal system, the judge used to be addressed as "Your Worship" based on the meaning of this Greek word. In the US the judge is addressed as "Your Honor" because it means the same thing. Jesus accepted obeisance, but never worship. That, he said was to be given to God "alone". (Luke 4:5-8)

The magi who visited the child Jesus did not give him "worship" but bowed to him in respect as the future "King of the Jews".

Hebrews 1:8 (NASB), “But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom.'”

1. NWT: “But about the Son, he says: ‘God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.'”
2. This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'” Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t agree with that, they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as “…God is your throne…” The problem with the Jehovah’s Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as “…Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.” To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too!

First, note the context. In many translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 reads, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him.

Secondly, as noted, Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6-7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God and neither did the writer of Hebrews think that Jesus was Almighty God.

The New World Translation and a number of other translations render Hebrews 1:8 as, “God is your throne.” (See An American Translation, Moffatt; also the marginal reading in American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version and The New English Bible.) This makes it clear that the “Son,” Jesus Christ, has a God who is higher than he is, and agrees with Jesus statement at Revelation 3:12, that his Father is still his God.

Conclusion on the New World Translation
The NWT translation is a bad translation. It has changed the text to suit its own theological bias in many places. It misrepresents the person and work of Christ as well as the personhood of the Holy Spirit. The New World translation should be avoided.

People can make up their own minds about the authenticity of their chosen translation....but only the NWT renders the original languages as they were intended to be understood by the writers, not contradicting other scripture to back up a doctrine that only came into acceptance over 300 years after Jesus died. When Jesus walked the earth there was no trinity...there still isn't. It is the greatest blasphemy ever committed in the name of Christianity......why do you think so "few" are on the road to life? (Matthew 7:12-14) There is a stinging rebuke and rejection coming, so we will see who passes muster at the final judgement. (Matthew 7:21-23)

 

[Colt]

There is a lot to address, so I will break this up....


In who's opinion? Matt Slick? One of Christendom's apologetics promoters? No bias at all there....?
Asking a trinitarian about JW's rendering of scripture would be tantamount to asking the Jews if Jesus had the correct version of scripture when he quoted it to them....



I'm sorry but we don't deny it at all...it was never true in the first place so there is no denial. We have just taken out all the false interpretations and rendered scripture so that it aligns with the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, as they were written and understood by their original audience in their original languages. What scripture did Jesus use to preach about God's Kingdom? The Jews to whom he preached exclusively, knew what he meant but he put a new slant on their understanding by making a spiritual application to something they had been taught was literal. It was actually both.


While the consensus of the religious teaching of Christendom today may ascribe divinity to God’s holy spirit, such was not always the case. Note, for example, the words of Neander, of whom McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia states: “Universally conceded to be by far the greatest of ecclesiastical historians.” Though himself a trinitarian, he wrote: “In A.D. 380, great indistinctness prevailed among the different parties respecting this dogma so that a contemporary could say, ‘Some of our theologians regard the holy spirit simply as a mode of divine operation; others as a creature of God; others as God himself; others again, say that they know not which of the opinions to accept from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon the subject.’”
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957525?q=the+holy+spirit&p=par


Sorry, but how does that point to Jesus being God? The one whom they pierced is clearly Jesus. The NWT links that expression in Zechariah to John 19:34, 37. Duh......Why would that present a problem for us? What nit-picking nonsense.



See my response to @BilliardsBall...John 1:1 isn't saying what most people assume. Not once in all of scripture did Jesus ever claim to be "God". Was he a "mighty one" with divine authority, making him fit the definition of that Greek term "theos"? We believe so. Didn't Jesus say that God himself called the judges in Israel "gods" because of their divine authority? (John 10:34-36)

Join the crowd, the Jews didn’t believe in him either.

 

[Colt]

Context determines the rendering of the Greek "pro·sky·neʹo" because it literally means to prostrate oneself before a superior figure, be that God or Jesus or even a person with divine authority...it denotes the action of bowing before someone.

In the British legal system, the judge used to be addressed as "Your Worship" based on the meaning of this Greek word. In the US the judge is addressed as "Your Honor" because it means the same thing. Jesus accepted obeisance, but never worship. That, he said was to be given to God "alone". (Luke 4:5-8)

The magi who visited the child Jesus did not give him "worship" but bowed to him in respect as the future "King of the Jews".



First, note the context. In many translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 reads, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him.

Secondly, as noted, Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6-7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God and neither did the writer of Hebrews think that Jesus was Almighty God.

The New World Translation and a number of other translations render Hebrews 1:8 as, “God is your throne.” (See An American Translation, Moffatt; also the marginal reading in American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version and The New English Bible.) This makes it clear that the “Son,” Jesus Christ, has a God who is higher than he is, and agrees with Jesus statement at Revelation 3:12, that his Father is still his God.



People can make up their own minds about the authenticity of their chosen translation....but only the NWT renders the original languages as they were intended to be understood by the writers, not contradicting other scripture to back up a doctrine that only came into acceptance over 300 years after Jesus died. When Jesus walked the earth there was no trinity...there still isn't. It is the greatest blasphemy ever committed in the name of Christianity......why do you think so "few" are on the road to life? (Matthew 7:12-14) There is a stinging rebuke and rejection coming, so we will see who passes muster at the final judgement. (Matthew 7:21-23)

According to the JW sect, it was Jesus who so often mislead people. You’ve rewritten the scripture to fit your unbelief. God has divine Sons who are also God. Believable but not necessarily understandable.

 

[Colt]

Hitting John 1:1 again? We don't deny that Jesus is God because he never once said he was. That is a plain scriptural truth, not a denial.
Understanding Greek allows one to peer a little deeper into that verse instead of taking it at face value.
All we have to do to understand John 1:1 is to turn to verse 18...what does that say?

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

Now consider this.....
The KJV renders that verse...
"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Which verse is true to the original Greek? In verse 18 of the KJV, the word translated "Son" is "theos" (god) so the NASB has the correct rendering but you can see that the KJV has altered it.
This then creates a problem for trinitarians because if Jesus was God, then how could he have been seen by thousands of people, even after his resurrection? If "no man has seen God at any time" Jesus wasn't God.

And if Jesus is "the only begotten god" (which is the correct rendering of that verse) how can God be an "only begotten" (monogenes which means an "only child"). There are many "sons of God" but there are none like this "firstborn" who was "in the beginning with God". (Colossians 1:15-17) He was "before all things" because he was used as the agency "through" whom God created.



There is no need to scour because the Bible simply does not support the notion that Jesus was God or even that he needed to be. Find me one verse where Jesus says that he is the Almighty....? He can be the equivalent of the Greek "theos" without being "ho theos".

The Hebrew word Shad·daiʹ and the Greek word Pan·to·kraʹtor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Exodus 6:3; Revelation 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.

What about John 10:30..."I and the Father are one.”...? Is that an admission of Jesus claiming to be God? If so where is there mention of the third party?
John 17:22 clears up the meaning of John 10:30....
"The glory which You have given Me I also have given to them, so that they may be one, just as We are one".
This is a oneness of purpose and a unity of spirit as Jesus says that this extends to his disciples as well....are they part of the trinity too?

Scripture explains scripture.

When Jesus called his Father "the only true God", he did not include himself or the holy spirit. (John 17:3) In fact in the majority of verses used to indicate or infer a trinity, the holy spirit is invariably missing.

When the apostle Paul spoke about offerings to false gods, he said..."that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (1 Corinthians 8:4-6 NASB)

Were the apostles convinced that Jesus was God? I don't see any indication of this. No holy spirit is mentioned here either.



It means the same whether "other" is included or not. Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation".....the very first of God's creations. It reaffirms that in Revelation 3:12 where Jesus was referred to as "the beginning of God's creation".

Jesus had a beginning and he was "before all things" being the very first and only direct creation of God....this is what "monogenes" means....a unique only son. He was used by his Father as the agency "through" whom creation came into being. And as the "Logos", has been "with God" from the beginning....but not before the beginning. Until God decided to become a Father, there was no son...there was no one but God himself.

Jehovah has always been the God of Jesus.......even after his return to heaven, Jesus still referred to his Father as "my God". (Revelation 3:12).....now can one part of God worship another equal part of himself? How can God pray to himself, and ask for God's will to be done instead of his own? How can the son not know what the Father knows if both are God?
The trinity is IMO blasphemous, illogical, unscriptural, nonsense.

Being both human and divine in one miraculous personality, the Son of God incarnate spoke at times as human subject to the will of the Father and on other occasions by divine rite.

Due to the competition of other God concepts among surrounding cultures, the Jews had largely eradicated plural manifestation of the One God from Judaism. They were theologically unprepared for the revelation of Gods Son in the incarnate life of Jesus. Scant few believed in Jesus and those who did were from the ranks of the common men and women of his day.

Educated, closed minded religious elites rejected the Gospel and had Jesus killed.

 

[Deeje]

@cOLTER...how is any of that a response to what I posted?

You do a cut and paste from some apologist and I spend hours responding to his false statements and this is your reply? Seriously?

According to the JW sect, it was Jesus who so often mislead people. You’ve rewritten the scripture to fit your unbelief. God has divine Sons who are also God. Believable but not necessarily understandable.

I have a feeling that you know nothing about JW's apart from what the gossip mongers have spread....
Since when have we ever taught that Jesus often misled people?

You've got some pretty strange ideas yourself...

 

[Colt]

@cOLTER...how is any of that a response to what I posted?

You do a cut and paste from some apologist and I spend hours responding to his false statements and this is your reply? Seriously?



I have a feeling that you know nothing about JW's apart from what the gossip mongers have spread....
Since when have we ever taught that Jesus often misled people?

You've got some pretty strange ideas yourself...

I’ve known and debated a lot of JW’s over the years. I’ve heard your arguments before, JW’s dumb down an reinterpret those areas of scripture that they don’t want to hear. I could also spend hours replying but it will be a waste of time.

After Jesus returned on his own volition from the death of his body, the apostles were convinced of his Divine identity.

 

[cataway]

After Jesus returned on his own volition from the death of his body, the apostles were convinced of his Divine identity.

own volition?
Ecc 9. 5 " For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun."

like it or not Jesus was dead. the dead have no thoughts . decisions are no longer made . its lights out no one's home . Jesus died having hope in his God knowing his God could and would resurrect him from death from the grave . the dead have no volition .

 

[Colt]

own volition?
Ecc 9. 5 " For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun."

like it or not Jesus was dead. the dead have no thoughts . decisions are no longer made . its lights out no one's home . Jesus died having hope in his God knowing his God could and would resurrect him from death from the grave . the dead have no volition .

The Son of God didn’t die, only the mortal flesh he took on during the incarnate mission died. He said that he could and would return (on his own) after he was rejected and killed. He did, but even those who believed in him doubted until they saw with their own eyes. After a few weeks of meeting with believers he returned to his place in heaven (on his own).

 

[cataway]

The Son of God didn’t die, only the mortal flesh he took on during the incarnate mission died. He said that he could and would return (on his own) after he was rejected and killed. He did, but even those who believed in him doubted until they saw with their own eyes. After a few weeks of meeting with believers he returned to his place in heaven (on his own).

first you say ''The Son of God didn’t die,'' then 30 words and you say he was killed .

 

[Colt]

first you say ''The Son of God didn’t die,'' then 30 words and you say he was killed .

Reread, the mortal body that the Son took on as Jesus of Nazareth is what died, not the Son who came down from heaven.

 

[Colt]

14“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

 

[TiggerII]

cOLTER wrote in post #81:

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses change the word “me” to “the one” so that it says in their Bible, “…they will look upon the one whom they have pierced…” Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems, so they changed it.”

Unfortunately for this trinitarian interpretation even many trinitarian translations disagree:

Zech. 12:10 - "...when they look upon him whom they have pierced" - RSV. Also in agreement with this rendering are NRSV; GNB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (ASV says in a footnote for "me" in Zech. 12:10: "According to some MSS. [manuscripts], `him'." Also see Rotherham footnote.)

(So it is the 'terrible' JW Bible alone which took out "to me" in this scripture!! Some of the Bibles above took out "me" long before the JW's NWT.)

Even the context tells us that the latter rendering is the correct one. Notice that after saying that they will look upon me (or him) God continues with "they shall mourn for HIM"! Notice how the KJV (and those following its tradition) contradicts itself here. The "me" in the first half simply does not agree with the "him" of the second half. Since there has never been any question about the accuracy of the word "him" in the second half, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must also properly be rendered as "him" (or "the one").

The testimony of the first Christian writers to come after the NT writers (the 'Ante-Nicene Fathers') confirms the non-trinitarian translation of Zechariah 12:10 ("him"). Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as "him whom they pierced"! This is specially significant because trinitarian scholars and historians claim these particular early Christians (including Origen who doesn't quote Zech. 12:10 at all in his existing writings) are the very ones who actually began the development of the trinity doctrine for Christendom! If any of the earliest Christian writers, then, would use a trinitarian interpretation here, it would certainly be these three. Since they do not do so, it must mean that the source for the `look upon me' translation originated even later than the time of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (early 3rd century A.D.)!

But most important of all is John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as "They shall look upon him [or `the one'] whom they pierced." So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: "They shall look upon him (not `me')." Therefore, Jehovah is speaking in Zech. 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!

 

[TiggerII]

cOLTER wrote in post #81:

1. NWT: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

2. The Watchtower mistranslates the verse as “a god.”

.........................................
See my posts #77 and #78 above.

Or, if you can, carefully examine my studies of John 1:1c:

Examining the Trinity

 

[TiggerII]

cOLTER wrote in post #81:

"4. John 14:10 (NASB), “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.”

"1. NWT: “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 I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.”

"2. This is another obvious alteration in the New World Translation. In their attempt to avoid the deity of Christ, they scour the Bible and alter any verses that would suggest that Jesus is divine."


The authoritative, trinitarian reference work, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says of some of the NT uses of the preposition ἐν (“in”) specifically as found in the phrase “in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ):

(a) Incorporative union: .... “those who are in union with Christ Jesus” (Ro. 8:1).... - p. 1192, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

And so it is that Jesus, in prayer to God, says: “As you, Father, are in [ἐν] me and I am in [ἐν] you, may they [Jesus’ followers]also be in [ἐν] us” - John 17:21, NRSV.

Since trinitarians generally want some mysterious, physical “oneness” with Jesus and the Father to indicate that they are both, somehow, God, they usually leave ἐν in this scripture as the more literal “in.” However, the fact that Jesus’ followers, too, are to be ἐν Jesus and ἐν the Father makes it reasonable that a simple unity of purpose or agreement is being described here - 'In union with."

Some examples from Bibles translated and published by trinitarians:

1 Th. 4:16 - “the dead in [en] Christ shall rise first.” - NASB.

“the dead in union with [en] Christ will rise” - CBW.

“those who have died believing in [en] Christ will rise” - TEV (Cf 4:14).

“those who belong to [en] Christ will come out of their graves” - NLV.

“the believers who are dead will be the first to rise” - Living Bible.

“first those who died in union with [en] Christ will rise” - AT

Ro. 8:1 - “There is...no condemnation for those who are in [en] Christ Jesus” - NASB.


“there is no ... for those who are in union with [en] Christ Jesus” - CBW.

“There is no ... for those who live in union with [en] Christ Jesus” - TEV.

“those who belong to [en] Christ will not suffer....” - NLV.

“those who belong to [en] Christ Jesus” - Living Bible.

“those who are united with [en] Christ Jesus” - REB.

“those who are in union with [en] Christ Jesus” - AT (Smith-Goodspeed)

So, it seems there are a number of trinitarian scholars who use "obvious alterations" in their translations.