Where does the NWT Bible Falsify?

[TiggerII]

jj50 (#9) just continues hateful ranting without any helpful substance.

#5 comment:
"Let's not disregard John 1:1. While John 1:1c does not use the definite article before θεός, neither does John 1:1b use it before θεόν...."

John 1:1b DOES use the article (ton) before theon.

I've explained many times how other cases other than the nominative (theos) sometimes take the article and sometimes don't. They are not certain enough to used as reliable examples in a study which depends on article use/non-use in the writings of John. The same goes for examples used by most trinitarians (including Colwell and Harner) which include prepositional and genitive modifiers. (See my links in post #20 above.)


Calm #8:

Hebrews 1:8 is in the nwt a fake too.

"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'" The New World Translation.

In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways:

"God is your throne forever and ever . . .
and
"Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever . . . "

First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says,

"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB).


..............................

Literally the original NT Greek manuscripts read for Heb. 1:8: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”

The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, Byington’s, and the New World Translation’s renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).

Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the famous trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ...’ in either case it is applicable to the mediatorial throne only.”

Ps. 45 Quoted in Heb. 1:8

Psalm 45 is celebrating an Israelite king’s marriage, and the psalmist applies the words of Ps. 45:6, 7 literally to an ancient Israelite king. In fact, the trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Ps. 45:1, “Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.”

So, according to this trinitarian Bible, the words of Ps. 45:6, although figuratively referring to Jesus, were literally applied to an ancient Israelite king (probably King Solomon, it says).

So if Ps. 45:6 is properly translated, “your throne, O God ...” then that ancient Israelite King (Solomon?) was also literally called “O God” (or “O god”?). In fact, the highly trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, explains in a footnote for this verse:

“The Hebrew king was called ... ‘God,’ not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient
pagans, but as meaning ‘godlike’ or ‘taking the place of God’.”

The RSV renders it as “Your Divine throne” and a footnote provides this alternate reading: “Or ‘your throne is a throne of God.’”

The NEB says: “Your throne is like God’s throne.”

The Holy Scriptures (JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.”

The Bible in Living English (Byington) says: “God is your throne.”

The Good News Bible (GNB), a very trinitarian paraphrase Bible, renders it: “The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever.”

The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.”

And the NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.”

We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:

“45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.’” - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible.

In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by perhaps the greatest scholar of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.”

Obviously, then, the charge sometimes made that the NWT is “not being honest or scholarly” with its rendering of Heb. 1:8 is simply untrue, and it certainly may be honestly translated “God is your throne forever.”

Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators (above) that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated as it is in the NWT makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid!

Even famed Southern Baptist New Testament Greek scholar and staunch trinitarian Dr. A. T. Robertson admits:

“It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [‘your throne, O God’] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: ‘God is thy throne’ or ‘Thy throne is God.’ Either makes good sense.” - p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

So, if the NWT is 'falsifying' Heb. 1:8, it has a lot of respected Trinitarian company!!


#14 SA Huguenot needs to read more carefully (the subject of this discussion and the Awake! article he copied).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"In the beginning (origin) was the Word and the Word was with God (face to face -toward) and the word was God."

Actually in the Greek manuscripts, there is no "the" there, between 'in' and 'beginning'.
Some words have to be added, to give the context clarity.

Same in being "with" God, and then being that God. John would not have written something so ambiguous, if he had meant Jesus was God. Because he further states, "No one has ever seen God."

So then we should ask, which rendering fits the context?

John 1:1c

Highly acclaimed scholar and Catholic priest (aTrinitarian) John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

John 8:58-59.

If the Jews thought that Jesus was here claiming to be God, why wasn't he accused of that during the Sanhedrin trial? (They were looking for anything, even false witnesses, the accounts inform us.) Surely they would have used this incident. But no one ever accused him of claiming to be God, only the son of God.

You are mistaken.

 

[TiggerII]

Trinitarian scholar Robert H. Countess wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in the NWT:

"...the translation, ‘the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus,’ interpolates the preposition ‘of’ before ‘our Savior.’ This addition to the text implies that the happy hope and manifestation of glory will be an event in which two personages will be seen, God and Christ Jesus." - p. 69.

The implication that the NWT has dishonestly added “of” to “our Savior” in Titus 2:13 is absolute devious deception! Every New Testament language scholar (from beginning novice to expert) knows that genitive nouns (like “Savior” at Titus 2:13) literally include “of” in their meaning! Yes, the genitive soteros in Titus 2:13 literally means “of savior” whether the translator decides to include it in his translation or not! It is no different from the genitives “God” (theou), “Christ” (christou), or “lord” (kuriou) which literally mean “of God,” “of Christ,” and “of lord.”


For example, although theou is sometimes translated “God” at Eph. 5:5, the following trinitarian Bibles render it more literally as “of God”: “In the kingdom of Christ [literally “the Christ”] and of God” - KJV; also NIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; NEB; REB; MLB; NAB (both 1970 and 1991 editions); GNB (& TEV); MKJV; Webster; Weymouth; and Phillips translations. (Obviously “Sharp’s Rule” doesn’t work here for these respected trinitarian translations.)

And although kuriou is sometimes translated “Lord” at 2 Thess. 1:12, the following trinitarian Bibles render it literally as “of Lord”: “tender mercy of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” - Living Bible; also MLB; GNB; NAB (1970 ed.); Douay Version; Darby; Webster; and Weymouth translations; and Barclay’s Daily Study Bible. (Obviously “Sharp’s Rule” also doesn’t work here for these respected trinitarian translators.)

And although christou is sometimes translated “Christ” at 1 Tim 5:21, the following trinitarian Bibles render it literally as “of Christ”: “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus” - Revised Standard Version; also NRSV; NASB; MLB; GNB (& TEV); and Weymouth’s translation.

This criticism of the NWT by Countess is false and inexcusable!

 

[Scheherazade]

John 1:1b DOES use the article (ton) before theon.

Not sure how I missed that, but was that really the only error you could find in what I said?

Highly acclaimed scholar and Catholic priest (aTrinitarian) John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

The New World Translation, What the Scholars Really Said

If the Jews thought that Jesus was here claiming to be God, why wasn't he accused of that during the Sanhedrin trial? (They were looking for anything, even false witnesses, the accounts inform us.) Surely they would have used this incident. But no one ever accused him of claiming to be God, only the son of God.

This is just silly. If they didn't think he was claiming equality with God, then why did they try to stone him to death? He very clearly claims to be the "I Am" of the Old Testament, that is, "Jehovah," but of course, the NWT translates this incorrectly, too, as "I have been." Moreover, in claiming to be the Son of God, he was in fact claiming to be God. The Jews understood this well, hence why they accused him of uttering blasphemy in saying this (Matthew 26:62-66).

 

[TiggerII]

Scheherazade, the rest of your post #5 is equally incorrect - looks like a cut-and-paste I've seen in the past. If you really have any intention of understanding why I know that John 1:1c was intended to say "... a god," examine closely my studies (links in post #20). Otherwise you are just another copyist, like calm, without any real understanding.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

. If they didn't think he was claiming equality with God, then why did they try to stone him to death?

Because in answering their question, he was claiming to be over 1800 years old. That’s why.

He said “I am” in verse 24...they didn’t do anything to him.
Again, explaining it the way you support, does not fit the context!

If what was meant was as you support, Jesus would have said, “I am the I Am”.

 

[Scheherazade]

Scheherazade, the rest of your post #5 is equally incorrect - looks like a cut-and-paste I've seen in the past. If you really have any intention of understanding why I know that John 1:1c was intended to say "... a god," examine closely my studies (links in post #20). Otherwise you are just another copyist, like calm, without any real understanding.

I didn't cut and paste my post; search it in google. I referenced other sources and common arguments, yes, namely this. How about you address my particular points instead of referring me to a bunch of blog posts? If you can't do that, then what does that say about your understanding?

Because in answering their question, he was claiming to be over 1800 years old. That’s why.

He said “I am” in verse 24...they didn’t do anything to him.
Again, explaining it the way you support, does not fit the context!

Then he would have said, "I was," but he doesn't. The grammar is irregular in the Greek. The obvious interpretation is that he is claiming eternity for himself. All of Jesus's other "I am" statements are regular, but in this particular one, he breaks grammatical convention to say "I am" in connection with his claim to predate Abraham. Why? The Jews instantly knew why.

 

[TiggerII]

Scheherazade wrote: This is just silly. If they didn't think he was claiming equality with God, then why did they try to stone him to death? He very clearly claims to be the "I Am" of the Old Testament, that is, "Jehovah," but of course, the NWT translates this incorrectly, too, as "I have been."

Some trinitarians claim that Jesus was declaring himself to be Jehovah God because he said “I AM” (ego eimi [egw eimi] in the original NT Greek) at John 8:58.


Their reasoning goes like this: Exodus 3:14 in some English Bible translations has Jehovah God revealing himself as “I AM WHO I AM” and “I AM.” So, they say, Jesus’ statement at John 8:58 shows him revealing himself by the same exclusive title (name? description?) as Jehovah (“I AM” at Exodus 3:14) and, therefore, he is Jehovah God!

Furthermore, some of these trinitarians say, the Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah when he used those two words because they immediately took up stones to kill him.

But these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.

If the Jews had really understood the phrase “I AM” (ego eimi) to mean the speaker was claiming to be Jehovah and that they should therefore kill him, they would have immediately stoned Jesus at John 8:24 or :28. (The actual Greek in the ancient Bible manuscripts is identical to John 8:58, ego eimi, but many English Bible translations properly add “he” so that it can be understood as “I am he” in English.)

We know that even his disciples didn’t believe Jesus was God simply because he said ego eimi, for he identified himself to them with these very same words at John 6:20 (usually rendered into English as “It is I”), and their reaction was certainly not that of those who had come into the presence of God! - Cf. the parallel Matt. 14:27.

We should also know that the Jews didn't believe it either. Otherwise they would have immediately stoned the ex-blind man who identified himself to the Jews by saying ego eimi: John 9:9.

As for the charge that the Jews were going to stone him because he claimed to be God, we should be aware that the Jews stoned people for many offenses. For example, a person pretending to be a “wizard” was to be stoned to death according to the Law (Lev. 20:27 - KJV, RSV, ASV, LB). Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982 ed., tells us

“Wizard, a pretender to supernatural knowledge and power .... such a one was forbidden on pain of death to practice his deceptions ... Lev. 20:26, 27.” - p. 654.

There are many other capital crimes including false prophecy and Sabbath breaking.

We also know that some of the Jews wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy because he admitted to being the Messiah (Christ) - see Matt 26:59-68 and footnotes for Matt 26:65 and Luke 22:71 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

“But powerful forces in the Jewish congregation, jealous of his popularity, incensed by his denunciation of some of them, and bitterly critical of his disregard for formalism, his willingness to violate some of the minor laws of the Jews, and his heretical claim that he was the Son of God, repudiated him, conspired to kill him, saw him crucified, and after his death, persecuted his followers.” - The Portable World Bible, Viking Press, p. 230.

 

[TiggerII]

I didn't cut and paste my post; search it in google. I referenced other sources and common arguments, yes, namely this. How about you address my particular points instead of referring me to a bunch of blog posts? If you can't do that, then what does that say about your understanding?

Then he would have said, "I was," but he doesn't. The grammar is irregular in the Greek. The obvious interpretation is that he is claiming eternity for himself. All of Jesus's other "I am" statements are regular, but in this particular one, he breaks grammatical convention to say "I am" in connection with his claim to predate Abraham. Why? The Jews instantly knew why.

Those 'blog posts' are MY blog posts, and the studies therein are my personal studies.
I have many times tried to discuss my studies on discussion groups, and they are never carefully examined (nor understood, of course).

IF you can assure me that you will actually carefully read and closely examine it with me, I will try again by posting a new thread and, lesson by lesson, go through it with you.

Otherwise, I don't see any reason to go through it all again with those who aren't interested enough to even read it through my links. If you don't agree, I'll go back to discussing John 8:58.

 

[Deeje]

New World Translation (Revised 2013) Review by Jason Wright - Cults Investigated

Covers most of it

Well thanks...lets see what this fellow has to say.....who is Jason Wright by the way?......
He says....

"My current ecclesiastical roles include:

• Rev./Pastor of Bourne Evangelical Church Lincolnshire England
• Affiliate Pastor of Federation of Independent Evangelical Churches
• Former Council Member at Christian Ministerial Fellowship International
• Contributor at Cults Investigated

I studied Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics at Kings Evangelical Divinity School earning my Bachelor of Theology degree via Chester University. Currently I am studying for my Master of Divinity degree at KEDS."

So an English expert on cults presumably.....self appointed...taught by some of Christendom's finest....no bias in anything he claims......

He says (via your link)

"There are many definitions of cults, but a working definition for this ministry is that ‘a cult is any group claiming to be Christian that teaches outside of the Historic, Biblical, Orthodox Faith. Such groups, among many others, would be Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Christadelphians."

You do realize that by his definition, Jesus was the leader of a "cult"? Jesus taught "outside of the Historic, Biblical, Orthodox Faith" of his day. Why did he do that? It was because what had become the "orthodox" Jewish faith had been horribly corrupted by the religious leaders of the previous 4 centuries.....and even before that, God had to send his prophets to correct those stiff-necked Jews, multiple times.
Even after their rescue from Egypt, their ungrateful attitude resulted in God wanting to exterminate them. (Exodus 32:9-10)

Jesus warned of the same thing happening to the Christian faith in his parable of the "wheat and the weeds".....and it did, except very few realize that what they now believe and practice is nothing close to what Christ taught. The "weeds" are recognized as the true Christian faith. The rot set in so long ago, that this is the only "Christianity" they know.

Just as Christ called the lost sheep out of Judaism, so Jesus calls the lost sheep out of Christendom and all false religion. (Revelation 18:4)

Mr Wright goes on to say.....

"We might begin by inquiring as to what Greek master “copies” lie behind the revised NWT Christian Greek scriptures? Under the heading “Establishing the Hebrew and Greek Text for Translation” (Appendix 3) the NWT committee admits to using as master copies the 19th century Westcot and Hort text as well as the Nestle and Aland United Bible Societies master text (Novum Testamentum Graece). The Nestle-Aland text is the primary source for most contemporary New Testament translations, and is the standard for academic work in New Testament studies. Please note that Novum Testamentum Graece does not insert the name Jehovah or any other derivation of the divine name into the text. This primary critical apparatus is part of the source material for the NWT Revised 2013 edition."

So it seems as if the insertion of the name "Jehovah" in the Greek text is a sticking point...after all it wasn't there in the oldest Greek manuscripts. So why did we put it in there?

The tetragrammaton was found in the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint. The four Hebrew consonants YHWH were present untranslated in the Greek text.

Here is an explanation....just to be fair and offer the other side of this story....
A5 The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Deeje]

Continued....

Now this next bit made me smile....

"Now I’m not sure if Jehovah’s witnesses really ponder this strange arrangement but the Watchtower is essentially drawing on the scholarship of Christendom to produce it’s Bible! Admittedly not all of NT academics are Christians but many are and the vast majority would confirm key text such as John 1:1 as refering to Jesus as deity. How ironic that the Watchtower would employ textual criticism, lexicons, and commentaries from their arch nemesis “Christendom”. Such revelation should come as a great shock to JW’s who think the society has the best scholars on earth and are in no need of outside help!"

Does this mean that if we go to another country and hear people speak in a foreign language that we can just make it up as we go along, and assume to know what people are saying? Would we not consult a language teacher to familiarize ourselves with that language and then continue to educate ourselves in its nuances and unique meanings and phraseology?
Those who study Greek are the best source of expertise on this subject, so why would we avoid them? The fact that they might be trinitarians does not alter what they teach regarding the language itself and its grammar. In fact nothing can alter the truth of God's word.

John 1:1 is a classic example and a favorite with trinitarians.

In the Interlinear it reads...
" In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."

What do we notice straight away in that Greek rendering? The word "the" is used for "the Word" and for "the God", but "the" is left out of the English translation.....why?

"Theos" in Greek is translated "god". Since there are no capital letters in Greek, "theos" was the description of a 'divine mighty one', which fits the definition of their own gods, as well as both the Jewish God and his Christ.
The Greeks had no word for a specific God unless it was called by its name...collectively, they were just called "the gods". But now there was a dilemma. The one God of the Jews had no name, because the Jews had stopped using it a long time before Jesus came on the scene. So to distinguish this God from any other "theos", the Greeks had to use the definite article "the" (ho) to speak of him. Not just "a god" but "THE God".

So in John 1:1 we see that "in the beginning" ("the beginning" of what, we might ask) was the Word and the Word was "with" "ho theos" (the God) and the Word was god. The definite article is used in the first instance but not seen in the English translation....it is not used in the second instance, indicating that when the distinction had to be made between "a god" and "the God" the definite article was used. There is only one true God in that verse and it isn't Jesus. (John 17:3)

In verse 14 it 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" that "became flesh" not "the God". Then in verse 18 it clearly states...."No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." No man has ever seen God. Can it be any plainer?

Now, because we claim no individual scholarly individuals on the translation committee (Frederick Franz was a Rhodes scholar BTW) we can certainly use the scholars of Christendom to back up our translation. In every case where a discrepancy was supposedly found.....it was Christendom's own scholars who inadvertently confirmed the validity of our translation.

Let me give you an example in the KJV. In John 1:1 the word "theos" is rightly translated "God"....but in verse 18, the same word is translated "son"......bias much? A quick check of the Greek will reveal the very biased mistranslation....If "theos is translated as "son" in verse 18, the it should also be translated "son" in verse 1, making John 1:1 read "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was the son".

Christendom's own scholars agree with the rendering of the NWT in its favorite trinity proof text.

 

[Deeje]

Continued...

Now here is another point of contention...

"The NWT revised 2013 edition moves away from its previous literal word-for-word model (formal equivalence) into the realm of dynamic equivalence – that is “the reproduction in a receptor language of the closest natural equivalent of the source language and message, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style”[4] The Watchtower admits this change:

“Bible translation involves more than simply rendering an original-language word with the same term each time it occurs. A translator must use good judgment in order to select words in the target language that best represent the ideas of the original-language text. In addition, there is a need to structure the sentences in a way that conforms to the rules of grammar of the target language, making the text easy to read.”

The NWT committee states: “Our goal has been to produce a translation that is not only faithful to the original texts but also clear and easy to read”

So what is best to do? Stick to old renderings that have become obscure with the changes in language as time goes on...or allow the text itself to explain what it means by using other scripture to reinforce the translation?
Languages do not have the same phraseology so it is up to the translator to render it in an acceptable way...the trouble is, what is "acceptable" to one may not be acceptable to another. We should allow the Bible to interpret itself.

Our renderings hold up to scrutiny because they are true to the original manuscripts. There have been no deviations except to correct bias when it was clearly demonstrated like it is with the KJV example above. How many people think that the KJV is the only true and correct translation? How many people even know how many times it has been revised? Or how many errors it contains?

Now concerning the divine name in the Greek text....
"Evidence 1 – Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and his apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text.

Yes this may well be true, but just because the Hebrew Scriptures contained the Tetragrammaton and Jesus and the Apostles recognized the name does not warrant insertion of that name into translations of the Greek NT text that omit the name."

Do you see that there is an admission there? The Hebrew scriptures quoted by Jesus and his apostles contained the divine name...so when we see those scriptures quoted, just because the Jews had stopped using God's name who said we have to leave it out. Since Jesus told his disciples...

John 17:6..."I have revealed Your name to the men You gave Me from the world.
They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word." (HCSB)

V26..."I made Your name known to them and will make it known,
so the love You have loved Me with may be in them and I may be in them."

You think Jesus left it out?

God's name according to the KJV is found in Psalm 83:18...
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth." and yet when we read Exodus 3:15..."And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." what is "the name" by which God was to be known for all generations to come? "The Lord God"? No! YHWH.....Jehovah in English.
The tetragrammaton is in the original Hebrew text, so if we want to talk about inconsistencies, perhaps we should go no further than one of the most popular Bibles in Christendom......

I can't be bothered addressing the rest...but it would be more of the same.....

The information in your link is nothing but nonsense.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I didn't cut and paste my post; search it in google. I referenced other sources and common arguments, yes, namely this. How about you address my particular points instead of referring me to a bunch of blog posts? If you can't do that, then what does that say about your understanding?

Then he would have said, "I was," but he doesn't. The grammar is irregular in the Greek. The obvious interpretation is that he is claiming eternity for himself. All of Jesus's other "I am" statements are regular, but in this particular one, he breaks grammatical convention to say "I am" in connection with his claim to predate Abraham. Why? The Jews instantly knew why.

No, they never accused him of being God. They would have, if they could. Sorry.
Saying he was the Son of God, was blasphemy enough, in their eyes. But saying son of God is not saying God the son. Never does the Bible use that term!
Adam was called son of God (Luke 3:38), so were the angels (Job 1:6; Genesis 6 2,4; Job 38:7). Please do not attribute to the text, what isn't there.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Those 'blog posts' are MY blog posts, and the studies therein are my personal studies.
I have many times tried to discuss my studies on discussion groups, and they are never carefully examined (nor understood, of course).

IF you can assure me that you will actually carefully read and closely examine it with me, I will try again by posting a new thread and, lesson by lesson, go through it with you.

Otherwise, I don't see any reason to go through it all again with those who aren't interested enough to even read it through my links. If you don't agree, I'll go back to discussing John 8:58.

I hope I didn't offend you by my using the info from your blog in discussing John 8:58 , re: Jesus not being accused of being God during the Sanhedrin trial? I'm sorry, didn't mean to...I just love that fact to reason with!

I give you the credit, my brother. Excellent reasoning.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Here is a link to a site where there are multiple instances showing where the NWT differs from other Bible translations. Generally, the differences are made to bolster the JWs' beliefs. I would think that the goal should be to base one's beliefs on what is written rather than modifying what is written to correspond with what the leaders decide to teach. But, that's just my opinion...JWs don't see any problem with changing the scriptures to back up what they believe.

We shouldn't forget that JWs have a visceral need to be different from all other Christian denominations. These differences, bolstered by their own NWT, "prove" that they are the "only true Christians." Accuracy is not the main goal.

Bad Translations of the Jehovah's Witness' Bible, the New World Translation (NWT). | CARM.org

 

[TiggerII]

I hope I didn't offend you by my using the info from your blog in discussing John 8:58 , re: Jesus not being accused of being God during the Sanhedrin trial? I'm sorry, didn't mean to...I just love that fact to reason with!

I give you the credit, my brother. Excellent reasoning.

Please use anything in my blogs that you wish to. I don't want credit, I just enjoy seeing someone using it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Please use anything in my blogs that you wish to. I don't want credit, I just enjoy seeing someone using it.

Well, thank you.
I don't ever recall seeing that line of reasoning in our publications! I could have missed it.... We have so much to thank and praise Jehovah for, as did Jesus! Luke 10:21.

 

[TiggerII]

John 8:58

This instance of Jesus saying ego eimi convinced some of the Jews that he was claiming to be the Messiah (so they attempted to stone him to death on the spot). Later, Jesus was taken before the high priest and all the chief priests and questioned by them (Matt. 26:59-66; Mk 14:53-64; Luke 22:66-71).


Now if Jesus had really previously claimed to be God by saying ego eimi (or if the Jews had even thought he might have been making such a claim by saying those words), what questions would they have asked him now that they had him up before the highest Jewish court? Would they have asked “Are you the Christ?”? (Remember the Christ was not believed by the Jews to actually be God himself. - NIVSB f.n. for Mark 14:61.) Wouldn’t they have concentrated on “Do you claim to be God?”?

But what did they actually ask Jesus at this most important Jewish trial where the Jews were actually seeking to find a reason, no matter how false, to kill him? Even though they searched for any and all accusers, even false accusers (Matt. 26 59-60), to give them a reason to kill Jesus, no one accused him of claiming to be God!

“Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus in order that they might put him to death; .... And the high priest said to him, ‘I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.’” - Matt. 26:59, 63, NASB.

C’mon, be honest now! Could any honest person reasonably conclude that Jesus had claimed to be God at John 8:58 and that the deciding question at the Jews’ trial of Jesus would then be “are you the Christ?”

There is absolutely no suggestion that the Jews thought Jesus was calling himself God here! They asked no questions concerning such a thing. This is absolutely impossible if there could have been even a possibility that ego eimi at John 8:58 could mean the speaker was claiming to be God! Remember, this high court was looking for any reason to have Jesus killed!

But if his statement at John 8:58 could mean “I am the Christ,” what would these priests and chief priests have asked him? Just exactly what they did ask him: “Are you the Christ, the Son of God?”

Furthermore notice the reaction when Jesus admitted to being the Messiah: Matt. 26:65, 66!

 

[TiggerII]

"I Have Been" as Translation for Present Tense ego eimi

Yes, the NWT (and a few others) renders John 8:58 as "before Abraham came into existence, I have been (perfect tense)." Here's why:

Trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace wrote:

A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)

1. Definition

The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. ....


.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as ‘before Abraham came into existence’], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.

2. Key to Identification

The key to this usage is normally to translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a ‘temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.’] Some examples might not fit such a gloss, however. [Wallace’s examples include Luke 13:7; Luke 15:29; John 5:6; 1 Jn 3:8.] - pp. 519-520, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996. [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]

Another NT scholar who verifies this is Kenneth L. McKay.

[["Kenneth L. McKay graduated with honours in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge. He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England. Mr. McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987, after teaching there for 26 years. His articles on ancient Greek syntax in various journals and his book on classical Greek Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, have helped draw attention to the aspectual functions of the verb in Greek from the time of Homer to well beyond that of the New Testament."-back cover of the book A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach.]]

McKay said in his book, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:

"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton khronon meth muoon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."

Noted trinitarian NT grammarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it “The Progressive Present” and tells us that such a present tense verb often

“has to be translated into English by a sort of ‘progressive perfect’ (‘have been’)...” - p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

G. B. Winer (“the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century” - Wallace) also tells us:

“Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58].” - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.


Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn [8:58] (eimi); 15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.


Even A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:

“b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of existing results [D&M’s emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, ‘I learn that you have moved’ (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....


“To say that this use is ‘present for perfect’ (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of the perfect [tense - 'I have been'], but stresses the continuance [D&M’s emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. [The ‘perfect indefinite tense’ in English, however, as we have seen, does allow for such an understanding of continuance - RDB.] To say [manthano auton elthein], ‘I learn that he has gone,’ has a force which is approximated only by ... ‘I have learned that he has gone’.

“c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as ‘from the beginning’ in Jn 15:27 and ‘before Abraham came into existence’ in John 8:58 which both act as ‘adverbs of time’ - RDB], and may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: ‘from beginning with me you are’ and usually rendered into English as: ‘you have been with me from the beginning’ - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - RDB].” - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets and most emphasis has been added by me]

So how do you say that the NWT has falsified the translation of ego eimi in John 8:58 when so many respected trinitarian scholars have shown otherwise?

 

[Deeje]

@tigger2....when push comes to shove, the trinity does not have a leg to stand on. On all counts the NWT stands up to all scrutiny as we would expect it to.

People will believe what they want to believe....not checking for themselves whether these accusations are true, but believing what others tell them. Their loss. Nothing in a world ruled by the deceiver is as it seems.